{"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 1", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 1\n\nPublished by\n\nthe New Jersey Department of Agriculture—\n\nState Soil Conservation Committee\n\n\n TheStandards\n\n forSoil Erosionand\n SedimentControl\n\n In NewJersey\n 7th Edition, January 2014\n Revised July 2017\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=1)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 2", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 2\n\nCover: Restoration of 800 feet of the Ramapo River bank after damage by Hurricane\nIrene in August 2011. Restoration by the Boro of Oakland, Bergen County NJ Spring\n2013 (completed). Technical and funding assistance from the USDA Natural Re-\nsources Conservation Service. Erosion Control oversight by the Bergen County Soil\nConservation District.\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=2)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 3", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 3\n\nSTANDARDS\n\n FOR\n\n SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JERSEY\n\n Adopted\n December 2013\n\nVegetative and Engineering Standards, chapters 1 - 32 inclusive are promulgated as “Standards”\npursuant to the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975 as amended (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.)\nand New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.1 et seq.).\n\n By the\n\n\n NEW JERSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE\n\n\nDouglas H. Fisher, Chairman, Secretary, New Jersey Department of Agriculture\nRobert Martin, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection\nDr. Robert M. Goodman, Exec. Dean, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers\nUniversity\nDr. Larry Katz, Director, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, Cook College\nCarrie Mosley, State Conservationist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service\nRaymond Cywinski, Supervisor, Bergen County Soil Conservation District\nPriscilla Hayes, Supervisor, Mercer County Soil Conservation District\nBarbara Rosko, Supervisor, Sussex County Soil Conservation District\nAnthony DiLodovico, Supervisor, Ocean County Soil Conservation District\nCharles Buscaglia, Supervisor, Freehold Soil Conservation District\nJoseph Lomax, Supervisor, Cape-Atlantic Conservation District\n\nJohn Kocubinski, Governor’s Appointee\n\n\n\nFrank Minch, Executive Secretary, State Soil Conservation Committee\n\n\n\n\n\n i\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=3)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 4", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 4\n\nFOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n\n\n\n2014 marks the 38th year of service to New Jersey by the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program administered by the\nDepartment of Agriculture and the New Jersey Soil Conservation Districts. Since the inception of the idea to apply\nconservation practices to urban development in 1976, New Jersey has significantly evolved in its approach to erosion\ncontrol. From simple hay bales for filtering runoff, to advanced computer simulations which model watershed runoff, New\nJersey’s erosion control practices have taken advantage of developing technologies. Periodically the Department, and Soil\nConservation Districts update the “Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control ” to reflect the ongoing emergence of\nscience and technology.\n\nThe Standards are a blend of agronomic science and state of the art engineering practices, embodied in 32 individual design\nchapters and detailed appendices that enable developers to successfully design erosion control practices for construction\nsites. Soil loss prevention is addressed both during as well as after construction to safeguard New Jersey’s natural resources.\n\nSince 1976, more than 920,000 acres of land have been protected from erosion by the application of construction site best\nmanagement practices to control erosion. This equates to more than 28 million tons of soil that have been prevented from\nentering the state’s waterways. Erosion protection allows for the continuation of recreational opportunities, aids in flood\nprevention efforts and minimizes the need for water treatment.\n\nThe seventh edition of the Standards has been revised to include additional guidance for assessing downstream stability, rip\nrap design, the use of infiltration and additional options for vegetation used in the Pinelands National Reserve. Future\nrevisions are planned to enhance the quality of soil used in establishing vegetation for stabilization of development sites.\n\nThe New Jersey Department of Agriculture acknowledges its long-time partners - the United States Department of\nAgriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service, the state’s 15 Soil Conservation Districts, Rutgers University and the\nNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for their assistance in developing these Standards. Additionally, the\nDepartment appreciates the valued expertise of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, the New Jersey Department of\nTransportation and the many representatives of the New Jersey Builders Association and Professional Consulting Engineers\nwho assisted in this project. These partnerships have achieved great success in the minimization of damage due to excessive\nstormwater runoff and related soil loss from construction sites while at the same time promoting concepts of good\nstewardship of the state’s resources to all of New Jersey’s residents.\n\n\n\n Douglas H. Fisher\n Secretary, New Jersey Department of Agriculture\n January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=4)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 5", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 5\n\nCOMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF\n\n STANDARDS FOR SOIL EROSION\n AND\n SEDIMENT CONTROL\n January 2014\n\nMr. William Brash Mr. Anthony DiLodivico Mr. Steven Jacobus\nDistrict Director President Watershed Team Leader\nMercer County Soil Conservation District Tony D Environmental Permitting, Division of Watershed Management N.J.\n LLC Department of Environmental Protection\n\nMr. David Lamm, P.E. Mr. John Showler, P.E., Mr. Angelo Caruso\nState Conservation Engineer State Erosion Control Engineer District Manager\nNatural Resources Conservation Service State Soil Conservation Committee Bergen County Soil Conservation District\nU.S. Department of Agriculture N.J. Department of Agriculture\n\nMr. David Earl, ASLA Mr. Paul Schiariti, P.E. Mr. Anthony Castillo, P.E.\nSection Chief NPS Coordinator Principal\nOffice of Landscape Architecture Mercer County Soil Conservation SESI Consulting Engineers, Inc.\nNJ Department of Transportation District\n\nMr. Wayne Birchler, P.E. Mr. Ken Marsh, P.E. Mr. David Kreck, P.E.\nFormer District Engineer Supervisor (retired) Senior Managing Engineer\nGloucester County Soil Conservation Somerset-Union Soil Conservation Rodriguez Consulting, LLC\nDistrict District\n\nMr. Richard Eigenbrood Ms. Stephanie Murphy, PhD. Mr. Ernest Thurlow, PhD.\nNatural Resource Conservationist Soil Scientist Manager (retired)\n(retired) Rutgers University Somerset-Union Soil Conservation\nGloucester County Soil Conservation District\nDistrict\nMr. Don Kinesik Mr. David Friedman Ms. Amy Karpati, PhD\nPresident Manager (retired) Director for Conservation Science\nPinelands Nursery Ocean County Soil Conservation Pinelands Preservation Alliance\n District\n\nMs. Valarie Hrable, P.E. Mr. Robert McCarthy, P.E. Mr. Brian McClendon\nManager, Hydrology & Hydraulics Principle Section Chief\nGreenman &Pedesen, Inc. DW Smith, Inc. Stormwater Permitting NJDEP\n\n\nMr. Ron Bannister Mr. Fred Bowers, PhD Mr. Barry Chalofsky\nEnvironmental Specialist Section Chief (retired) Bureau Chief (retired)\nGroundwater NJDEP Groundwater NJDEP Stormwater Permitting, NJDEP\n\n\nMs. Robyn Jeney\nRegulatory Programs Specialist\nNew Jersey Pinelands Commission\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=5)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 6", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 6\n\nDeveloping a Successful Plan to Control Soil Erosion on Construction Sites\n\n“He who fails to plan, plans to fail….” is an oft-quoted proverb. Its original author is unknown, but it is frequently attributed\nto such famous individuals as Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. Regardless of who coined the\nphrase, failure to plan (properly) is never more evident than in a poorly thought out erosion and sediment control plan. Once\na slope has eroded, or an infiltration basin has failed, it is too late to ‘plan’. It is only time to react and correct. And usually,\nit costs more to do something twice, than to do it right the first time.\n\nThough not an exhaustive list, the following represent many of the primary design considerations and constraints in preparing\nan effective erosion control plan. Effective erosion control should be integrated into planning for stormwater management,\nand not done as an after-thought. A properly developed plan should address the following aspects of site construction when\ndesigning for erosion control:\n\nGeneral Considerations-\n\n 1. Design report included and submitted to the district\n 2. Table of Contents for the design report denoting location of erosion control designs\n 3. Plan drawn at proper scale (usually not less than 1:50)\n 4. Erosion Control Plan sheets labeled, signed and sealed by a NJ Licensed Engineer or Architect\n 5. Pre and post construction contours clearly labeled and depicted\n 6. Limits of disturbance clearly delineated and corresponding to area of disturbance on the application form\n 7. Temporary controls such as sediment barriers, inlet filters graphically depicted on plan sheets\n 8. Details for erosion control applications clearly shown on a ‘detail sheet’; dimensions correspond to deign report\n 9. District notes, vegetative stabilization specifications and other notes shown on the detail page\n 10. Soil delineations shown on the erosion control plan sheets\n 11. Other natural features, such as streams, wetlands and buffers delineated on plan sheets\n 12. Permanent structures graphically depicted on plan sheets (piping, basins, rip rap outlets, swales, basins etc)\n 13. Offsite improvements (sewer, water, storm drainage, electrical utilities) shown and included in area calculations\n 14. Proposed staging and stockpile areas depicted (on and off site).\n\nConstruction Disturbance Considerations-\n\n 1. Phasing of disturbed areas (minimizing open soil areas)\n 2. Sequence of construction specific to the site (avoid generic sequencing)\n 3. Stormwater management on a construction site\n a. Temporary sediment basins with design support and appropriate details\n b. Diversions & swales\n c. Grading\n d. Filtering via pumped discharge\n e. Dewatering excavations and points of discharge\n 4. Temporary stabilization with vegetation, mulch, man-made materials etc.\n 5. Location of temporary controls such as inlet filters, sediment barriers, construction entrances\n 6. Soil movement – cuts, fills, removal, stockpiles and importation shown on plans\n 7. Minimization of soil compaction – restrict vehicle travel, avoid working wet soils, restore if needed\n\nHydrologic Design Considerations-\n\n 1. Correct application of hydrologic analysis both onsite and within the local drainage area\n a. Correct unit hydrograph (i.e., Delmarva for coastal plain areas)\n b. Pre and post drainage area maps with Tc flow paths and POI’s identified\n c. Realistic sheet flow length in time of concentration (in all cases, not to exceed 100’)\n d. Correct pre and post development runoff coefficients\n e. Influence of geology (esp. limestone prone areas)\n f. Submission of electronic modeling files to the district\n g. Submission of Hydrologic Summary forms for each basin\n 2. Assessment of pre and post development flows for the 2, 10 and 25 (rip rap) year storm events\n iv\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=6)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 7", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 7\n\n3. Determination of soil types and their associated limitations (i.e., depth to ground water, slope stability) using the\n Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm)\n 4. Final points of discharge from the site and stability at those locations\n 5. Discharging to agricultural fields (generally not permitted due to stability concerns)\n 6. Infiltration and failure analysis for stability\n 7. Impact of discharge beyond the limits of the project (off site stability)\n 8. Stability of slopes – both from overland flow as well as impacts due to infiltration saturation\n 9. Proper use of permanent vegetative cover – species selection, irrigation, soil quality, maintenance\n 10. Use of turf reinforcement matting on steep slopes or channel lining\n 11. Rock rip rap sizing, gradation and availability; alternate use of gabions or reinforced concrete\n 12. Grass water way designs using vegetative retardance (D & E) factors, soil conditions, velocity, proper vegetation\n and reinforcement mating\n\nRequirements of Other Agencies-\n\n 1. NJ Department of Environmental Protection-\n a. Stormwater Rules\n b. Wetlands\n c. Highlands\n d. Stream Encroachment\n 2. Residential Site Improvement Standards\n 3. NJ Department of Transportation\n 4. NJ Pinelands Commission\n 5. County and municipal construction codes\n\n\nWhen preparing an erosion control plan, one resource which should not be overlooked is New Jersey’s 15 Soil Conservation\nDistricts. With a broad spectrum of expertise in the areas of erosion and sediment control, agronomy, horticulture and\nstormwater management, District staff are available to assist designers with development of reliable and effective strategies\nfor controlling erosion from construction sites. A list of New Jersey Soil Conservation District contact information is found\nin Appendix E of the Standards.\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=7)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 8", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 8\n\nProcedure for the evaluation of new erosion control technologies, products and services for compliance\n with the Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey\n\nIn order to address opportunities to utilize new and innovative technologies, products and services (TPS) for sediment and\nerosion control, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC) has adopted the\nfollowing evaluation process which is intended to provide compliance with the Standards.\n\nThe Standards include, where appropriate and necessary, design and performance specifications so that any TPS which\nmeets these specifications would be acceptable for use on construction sites in New Jersey for compliance with the Act\nwithout the need for extensive (and expensive) laboratory testing. A new TPS which differs from design or performance\nstandards, or which attempts to define a non-standardized practice must be field tested in New Jersey prior to acceptance.1\n\nField performance will be monitored by Soil Conservation District personnel as well as the NJDA State Erosion Control\nEngineer (as needed). The process for TPS field evaluation is as follows:\n\n 1. The vendor will provide a written request for evaluation to the State Engineer and the local Soil Conservation\n District where the product is to be evaluated. The request must include a physical/chemical description of the\n product, design limitations (if any), what function the product is intended to perform, and which Standard it is to be\n used in compliance for. Laboratory or other supplier-derived test data may also be submitted if desired.\n\n 2. The State Engineer will review the request and consult with the respective district or districts to verify that the TPS\n being proposed is appropriate for the intended application and site location. Alternative locations may be suggested\n if the proposed location is not deemed adequate for a complete evaluation. Written permission and agreement for\n allowing the evaluation must be secured from the site owner and is the responsibility of the vendor, with a copy\n provided to the district and State Engineer.2 The State Engineer can provide written confirmation to the site owner\n that for testing and evaluation purposes, the owner is assisting the State in its evaluation of a new product and will\n not be liable for a lack of erosion control compliance with their certified plan due to product failure as long as the\n product is properly installed and is provided with the appropriate routine maintenance, as would be the case for the\n use of any erosion control product.\n\n 3. The State Engineer will advise the SSCC and other districts of the request for testing at the next SSCC meeting.\n\n 4. Once a proper location is secured, the vendor will oversee and provide training (if necessary) for proper installation\n of the product to ensure an adequate evaluation is performed. During the evaluation, District staff and/or the State\n Engineer will monitor and observe the performance of the TPS and maintain observations in project record notes as\n part of routine inspections. The TPS must be properly installed and in good working order during a test event to be\n considered as a viable test. Unintentional damage or improper installation and subsequent failure will not count as a\n viable test. The State Engineer may consult with other experts, as needed, to ensure comprehensive evaluation. The\n vendor will be notified if any product failure or damage occurs so that corrective action may be taken, if appropriate,\n to restore proper functioning of the TPS.\n\n 5. TPS’s which are intended to secure against erosion by resisting the forces of water and/or wind will be evaluated for\n 3 discrete events, each of which must meet the minimum event criteria (such as minimum precipitation depth, flow\n rate, velocity, etc.) prescribed by the vendor or as stipulated in the applicable Standard. For TPS’s intending to\n promote or enhance vegetative stabilization an evaluation period of two consecutive growing seasons will be\n observed to determine product performance.\n\n 6. The State Engineer will review notes, photos, etc. and present findings and conclusions to the SSCC with\n recommendations. These recommendations may be:\n\n (1) the TPS is acceptable for use anywhere in NJ;\n\n (2) the TPS is acceptable for use only in particular locations in NJ\n\n\n\n1 Not every Standard is based on design and/or performance criteria. Certain Standards require computation or specific materials in their application for\ncompliance.\n\n2 Neither the Soil Conservation District nor the State Engineer may compel a project owner to allow the use of a new product for testing on his or her site.\nAssistance is strictly voluntary on the part of the owner.\n v\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=8)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 9", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 9\n\n(3) the TPS is acceptable for use only for particular site and/or weather conditions\n\n (4) the TPS is not acceptable for use in NJ.\n\n The SSCC may, at is pleasure and discretion, accept, accept with modifications or reject the recommendations.\n\n 7. A TPS that is found to be acceptable for use in NJ (with or without conditions) will be identified in a TPS Bulletin\n (PSB) to be maintained and published by NJDA-SSCC. Conditions or limitations of the TPS will be identified in\n the bulletin, which will be published on the Department’s website and will be available for public download. The\n vendor will be provided a copy of the findings and conclusions along with a copy of a TPS Bulletin, if one is issued.\n\n 8. Once a TPS Bulletin is issued, no further written approval or requests for use will be required for inclusion on soil\n erosion and sediment control plans or as an equivalent substitute to controls that are already shown on a plan. All\n manufacturer installation details, maintenance requirements and limitations must be included on the plan adjacent to\n the installation details.\n\nCompliance with the Standards is required by N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq. for all construction sites in New Jersey which meet the\ndefinition of a soil disturbance ‘project’ as defined in the Act. As a result, the specific inclusion of proprietary, manufactured\nproducts, product names, technologies or services is prohibited in that this may constitute the endorsement of one product\nover another by the State. Generic products which have historically been used for controlling erosion and are considered to\nbe in the public domain may be generically referenced in the Standards without the use of trade-marked ™ names.\n\n\n\n\n\n Adopted by NJDA-SSCC December 2013\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=9)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 10", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 10\n\nState Soil Conservation Committee\n\n Standards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey\n\n\nTable of Contents\n\n2014 State Soil Conservation Committee Members………………………………………………………………..i\n\nForward and Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... ii\n\nCommittee for Review and Development of Standards ........................................................................................ iii\n\nDeveloping a Successful Erosion Control Plan..................................................................................................... iv\n\nAccommodation of New Erosion Control Products ................................................................................................ v\n\nTable of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. vi\n\n Vegetative Standards\n\nAcid Soils Management ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1\n\nDune Stabilization ............................................................................................................................................... 2-1\n\nMaintaining Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1\n\nPermanent Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization ............................................................................................ 4-1\n\nStabilization with Mulch Only ............................................................................................................................ 5-1\n\nStabilization with Sod ........................................................................................................................................ 6-1\n\nTemporary Vegetative cover for Soil Stabilization ............................................................................................. 7-1\n\nTopsoiling (revised July 2017)............................................................................................................................ 8-1\n\nTree Protection During Construction .................................................................................................................. 9-1\n\nTrees, Shrubs and Vines ................................................................................................................................... 10-1\n\n Engineering Standards\n\nChannel Stabilization ........................................................................................................................................ 11-1\n\nConduit Outlet Protection ................................................................................................................................. 12-1\n\nDetention Structures .......................................................................................................................................... 13-1\n\nDewatering ........................................................................................................................................................ 14-1\n\nDiversions ......................................................................................................................................................... 15-1\n\nDust Control ...................................................................................................................................................... 16-1\n\nGrade Stabilization Structure ............................................................................................................................ 17-1\n\nGrassed Waterway ............................................................................................................................................ 18-1\n\nLand Grading (revised July 2017) ...................................................................................................................... 19-1\n vi\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=10)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 11", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 11\n\nLined Waterway ................................................................................................................................................ 20-1\n\nOff-Site Stability analysis ................................................................................................................................. 21-1\n\nRiprap ............................................................................................................................................................... 22-1\n\nSediment Barrier ............................................................................................................................................... 23-1\n\nSediment Basin ................................................................................................................................................. 24-1\n\nSlope Protection Structures ............................................................................................................................... 25-1\n\nSoil Bioengineering .......................................................................................................................................... 26-1\n\nStabilized Construction Access ......................................................................................................................... 27-1\n\nStorm Sewer Inlet Protection ............................................................................................................................ 28-1\n\nStream Crossing ................................................................................................................................................ 29-1\n\nSubsurface Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 30-1\n\nTraffic Control .................................................................................................................................................. 31-1\n\nTurbidity Barrier ............................................................................................................................................... 32-1\n\n Appendices\n\nThe Universal Soil Loss Equation.................................................................................................................... A1-1\n\nApplication Requirements, Forms & Addendum for Reporting Corporate Ownership ................................... A2-1\n\nGuide for Construction Specifications ............................................................................................................. A3-1\n\nMaintenance of Structural Measures ................................................................................................................ A4-1\n\nGuide for Installing Soil Stabilization Matting ................................................................................................ A5-1\n\nDiversion and Grass Waterway Design Procedure .......................................................................................... A6-1\n\nSediment Basin Design Procedure ................................................................................................................... A7-1\n\nChannel Stability Analysis Procedure .............................................................................................................. A8-1\n\nModified Rational Method ............................................................................................................................... A9-1\n\nStructural Guidelines for Detention Basins ................................................................................................... A10-1\n\nReferences ...................................................................................................................................................... A11-1\n\nGuidelines for Plan Review (reserved)...…………………………………………………………………...…A12-1\n\nAnderson Land Use Code for Detention Basin Summary Form………………………………………………A13-1\n\nExample Seed Specifications and Grass - Legume - Shrub Planting Guide ....................................................... B-1\n\nSoil Erosion and Sediment Control Act ............................................................................................................ C1-1\n\nNew Jersey Administrative Code 2:90-1.1 et seq. ........................................................................................... C2-1\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=11)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 12", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 12\n\nChronology of the “Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey” ................................... C3-1\n\nGlossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................................... D1-1\n\nDirectory of Soil Conservation Districts in New Jersey ……………………………………………………….E1-1\n\nTreatment of Limestone Areas…………………………………………………………………………………K-1\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=12)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 13", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 13\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n MANAGEMENT OF HIGH ACID-PRODUCING SOILS\n\n Definition\n\nHigh acid-producing soils are soils with a pH of 4.0 or less or contain iron sulfide.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo prevent or limit exposure area, time, and spreading by equipment or rainfall on- and off-site and to minimize\nerosion, sedimentation and acid leachate-related damages. High acid-producing soil may be exposed during\nexcavation and land grading activities, or may be introduced in dredged sediment, Soils and sediment containing\niron sulfide, characterized by pyrite or marcasite nuggets or greensands, are chemically oxidized when exposed to\nair, producing sulfuric acid and result in soil pH levels falling to pH 4.0 and lower. Most vegetation is incapable of\ngrowth at this pH level. Adjacent land and receiving waters will be negatively impacted by the acid leachate.\nCalcium-containing materials such as sidewalks, culverts and other structures and some metallic materials are also\nsusceptible to degradation. Agricultural limestone materials applied at rates of 8 tons per acre have resulted in only\na temporary buffering effect, and “liming-only” is therefore not considered an acceptable mitigation practice.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nProtects onsite soils and offsite streams and lakes from sulfuric acid leachate that creates soil pH conditions\nunsuitable for growth of vegetation.\n\n\n Where Applicable\n\nThis practice is applicable to any high acid-producing soil materials. Such materials have been found in the Coastal\nPlain areas of Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Salem and\nSomerset Counties.\n\n Planning Criteria\n\nEarly recognition and burial, removal or disposal of high acid-producing soils is essential for limiting the amount of\nacidic material produced.\nReview a surface geology map for the proposed site to investigate the presence of geologic formations which\ncommonly contain high acid-producing deposits. The geologic formations are as follows:\n\n Cheesequake Manasquan Red Bank, Sandy Hook Member\n Englishtown Sand Marshalltown Shark River\n Hornerstown Merchantville Tinton\n Kirkwood Navesink Wenonah\n Magothy Raritan Woodbury Clay\n\nFigure 1-1 shows areas where these deposits may be present.\n\nContact the local Soil Conservation District to determine the historical presence of high acid-producing soils in the\nvicinity of the proposed development site.\n\nHigh acid-producing soils may be present in undisturbed soils at varying depths, including near the soil surface to\nexcavations or deep disturbances. Its presence on a site may be significant or limited in the soil profile. High acid-\n\n 1-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=13)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 14", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 14\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\nproducing soils are commonly black, dark brown, gray or greenish with silvery pyrite or marcasite nuggets or flakes.\nAlternatively, sandy soils or reddish, yellowish or light to medium brown soil materials are usually free of high acid-\nproducing deposits.\n\n\n\n Methods and Materials\n\n1. Limit the excavation area and exposure time when high acid-producing soils are encountered.\n\n2. Topsoil stripped from the site shall be stored separately from temporarily stockpiled high acid-producing soils.\n\n3. Stockpiles of high acid-producing soil should be located on level land to minimize its movement, especially\nwhen this material has a high clay content.\n\n4. Temporarily stockpiled high acid-producing soil material to be stored more than 48 hours should be covered with\nproperly anchored, heavy grade sheets of polyethylene where possible. If not possible, stockpiles shall be covered\nwith a minimum of 3 to 6 inches of wood chips to minimize erosion of the stockpile. Silt fence shall be installed at\nthe toe of the slope to contain movement of the stockpiled material. Topsoil shall not be applied to the stockpiles to\nprevent topsoil contamination with high acid-producing soil.\n\n5. High acid-producing soils with a pH of 4.0 or less or containing iron sulfide (including borrow from cuts or\ndredged sediment) shall be ultimately placed or buried with limestone applied at the rate of 10 tons per acre (or 450\npounds per 1,000 square feet of surface area) and covered with a minimum of 12 inches of settled soil with a pH of\n5.0 or more except as follows:\n a. Areas where trees or shrubs are to be planted shall be covered with a minimum of 24 inches of soil with a pH\n or 5 or more.\n b. Disposal areas shall not be located within 24 inches of any surface of a slope or bank, such as berms, stream\n banks, ditches, and others, to prevent potential lateral leaching damages.\n\n6. Equipment used for movement of high acid-producing soils should be cleaned at the end of each day to prevent\nspreading of high acid-producing soil materials to other parts of the site, into streams or stormwater conveyances,\nand to protect machinery from accelerated rusting.\n\n7. Non-vegetative erosion control practices (stone tracking pads, strategically placed limestone check dam,\nsediment barrier, wood chips) should be installed to limit the movement of high acid-producing soils from, around,\nor off the site.\n\n8. Following burial or removal of high acid-producing soil, topsoiling and seeding of the site (see Temporary\nVegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization, Permanent Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization, and Topsoiling),\nmonitoring must continue for a minimum of 6 months to ensure there is adequate stabilization and that no high\nacid-producing soil problems emerge. If problems still exist, the affected area must be treated as indicated above to\ncorrect the problem.\n\n\n\n\n\n 1-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=14)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 15", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 15\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nFigure 1-1. NJ sedimentary units with potential to produce acid:\n\n\n\n\n\nTkl=Kirkwood, Tsr=Shark River, Tmq=Manasquan, Tht=Hornerstown, Kt=Tinton, Krbsh=Sandy Hook\nMember of the Red Bank, Kns=Navesink, K2=Wenonah, Kmt=Marshalltown, Ket=Englishtown,\nKwb=Woodbury, Kmv=Merchantville, Kcq=Cheesequake, Kmg=Magothy, and Kr=Raritan Formations.\nCredit: NJ Geological Survey, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs09-2.htm\n\n\n 1-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=15)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 16", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 16\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n DUNE STABILIZATION\n\n\n Definition\n\nControlling surface movement of sand dunes or shifting sand by vegetative or mechanical means.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo reduce wind erosion and the encroachment of shifting sands, to provide a barrier against tide water, and to make the\nareas useful for other purposes.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nReduces wind erosion, sand movement by storms and tides and facilitates dune building at ocean, bay frontal and back\nbay areas.\n\n Where Applicable\n\nAlong ocean and bay shorelines where blowing sands and storm waters may cause erosion damage. Stay at least one\nhundred feet (horizontal distance) from mean high tide water line (MHT).\n\n\n Methods and Materials\n\nSand dunes naturally form on barrier islands, shorelines exposed directly to the ocean, and inland sand deposits. The\nsource of this wind born sand is the ocean or its bays. These parallel ridges of sand form perpendicular to prevailing\nwinds and grow toward its source of sand. Periodic storm events and human activity continually alter their\ndevelopment and original configuration. Once developed the sand dunes provide protection from moderate storms and\ntides. The existence and maintenance of vegetation on dunes provides a network of root and foliage which holds\nunconsolidated sand in place. American beachgrass is the dominant, naturally occurring, vegetation of the frontal dunes\nof New Jersey. When beachgrass is established with structural resources and other dune species, a formidable well\nanchored storm barrier is established.\n\n 1. VEGETATION\n\n A. Materials: The foliage of most sand dune species filters sand from the wind. The reduction of\n wind velocity near the dune’s surface by vegetation allows sand to be deposited. The root mass\n of these plant species of the sand dunes are typically deep and extensive, anchoring the dunes to\n their foundation. When possible certified cultivars, which have been tested on similar sites,\n should be utilized.\n B.\n 1. To promote biodiversity species planting is preferred however, cultivar releases\n recommended for NJ sand dunes; all listed were released by the USDA, Natural Resources\n Conservation Service Cape May Plant Material Center, located in Swainton, NJ. a.\n ‘Cape` American Beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata)\n b. ‘Atlantic` Coastal Panicgrass (Panicum amarum var. amarulum)\n c. ‘Avalon` Saltmeadow Cordgrass (Spartina patens)\n d. ‘Wildwood` Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica)\n e. ‘Ocean View` Beach Plum (Prunus maritima)\n\n\n 2-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=16)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 17", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 17\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n 2. Non-Cultivar releases suitable for NJ sand dunes\n a. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)\n b. Bitter Panicgrass (Panicum amarum)\n c. Seashore Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium var. litoris)\n d. Seaside Goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens)\n e. Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana)\n\n C. Establishment: Online information concerning dune stabilization may be found at the uSDA-\n NRCS Plant Materials Center (PMC) website: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/njpmc/\n\n 1. American Beachgrass - Beachgrass is successionally classified as a pioneering type species;\n it is the hardiest species capable of surviving the harsh environmental conditions of the\n frontal dunes. For initially stabilizing a dune system, this species is the most reliable and\n commercially available option. Once established it rapidly spreads by a rhizomatous root\n system, developing a soil binding network of inter-woven roots.\n\n Planting Dates: October 15 to April 1; under non frozen soil conditions\n\n Planting Unit: a minimum of two stems (culms) per hole\n\n Method: hand placement, or use of a vegetable or tree planter\n\n Size : 16 to 18 inch long stems, > ¼ inch in diameter\n\n Depth: approximately 8 inches deep (> 7” but < 9” is acceptable)\n\n Spacing : severe sites = 12” X 12”\n normal sites = 18” X 18”\n stable sites = 24” X 24”\n Notes:\n $ Plant > 100 feet of horizontal distance from the mean high tide water line to ensure\n success\n $ Plant a minimum of 10 parallel rows; stagger (off-set) rows to maximize protection\n $ Firm soil around plants to eliminate air pockets\n $ If utilizing dredged fill allow salts to leach out before planting and allow rains to\n compact sands.\n\n 2. Coastal Panicgrass - This warm season bunch-like grass is a post stabilization species\n thriving from the crest of the frontal dune to inland sites. It is the only dune stabilization\n species which has been directly seeded on to the sand dunes successfully. Potted plants and\n stem divisions can also be successfully established on these severe sites. The annual foliage\n emerges from a deep fibrous perennial root system with short lateral rhizomes. This species\n can be successfully planted with or over seeded into stands of American beachgrass. The\n same plant and seed establishment techniques outlined below, also pertain to Switchgrass,\n Seashore Little Bluestem, and Seaside Goldenrod.\n\n Seeding Dates: over seeding: April 1 to May 1\n dormant seeding: November 1 to April 15\n planting plugs or transplants: April 1 to May 15\n\n Planting Unit: single bare-root or containerized seedling or division; 12 - 18 inches tall\n\n Seeding rate: 8 to 12 Lbs. of Pure Live Seed (PLS) per acre\n\n Depth: plants: 2 inches deeper than the nursery depth\n\n 2-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=17)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 18", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 18\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n seed: drilled 1½ to 2½ inches deep\n\n Method plants: hand placed, or use a vegetable or tree planter\n seed: hand or mechanically operated drill or seeder\n\n Spacing: plants: 4’ X 4’\n seed: 3’ to 10’ row spacing\n\n 3) Saltmeadow Cordgrass - Although typically associated with tidal salt marshes, this cordgrass\n also naturally occurs in the secondary and back dune areas, predominantly inhabiting\n inter-dune troughs and low blow-out areas. It is dominate in these micro-sites since most\n other sand dune species can not tolerate wet to saturated soil conditions. The trailing\n rhizomes of saltmeadow cordgrass are slender, but form dense mats near the surface. It is\n vegetatively established on normal sites using freshly harvested stems (culms) or\n containerized plants on severe locations.\n\n Planting Date: May 1 to June 15\n\n Planting Unit: 3 to 5 live stems placed bare-root or containerized\n\n Depth: 2 inches below the nursery grown depth\n\n Method: hand placed, or vegetable planter\n\n Size: > 12 inches\n\n Spacing: 18 to 36 inches depending on the severity of the planting site\n\n Note: Utilize this species in low elevation sites of sand dunes which are\n frequently inundated.\n\n 4. Shrubs and Trees - Medium sized shrubs and small trees naturally dominate the back dune\n zone of New Jersey’s barrier islands. The shrubs begin to co-inhabit the mid secondary\n dunes. Once extensive stands of bayberry, beach plum, pitch pine and other woody species\n covered these islands where houses now stand. The shrub species which are well adapted to\n the dune ecosystem are capable of either layering or root suckering.\n\n The trees and shrubs of the sand dunes have deep tap root systems for supplying adequate\n moisture and nutrients. Each species utilized for back dune stabilization has its own unique\n attributes. Beach plum has a colorful bloom in spring which yields a tasty succulent cherry\n like fruit. Bayberry roots have nodules which enable it to fix atmospheric nitrogen similar\n to legumes; it also produces aromatic fruit and leaves. The junipers which are adapted to\n sand dunes provide the visual appeal of evergreens in the back dunes.\n\n The major function of tree and shrub vegetation on sand dunes is still the permanent solid\n structural stabilization. All of trees and shrubs of the sand dunes produce viable seed, but\n intentional establishment occurs using bare-rooted or potted seedlings.\n\n Planting Date: March 15 to April 15; unless soil is frozen\n\n Planting Unit: 1/0 or 2/0 bare-root seedlings or containerized transplants\n\n Depth: 2 inches below the nursery grown depth\n\n Method: hand placement or using a tree planter\n\n 2-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=18)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 19", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 19\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Size : > 12 inches tall\n\n Spacing: 4 to 6 feet apart; off-set (stagger) rows for maximum protection\n\n Note: to ensure establishment (first 2 years) all competing vegetation must be\n removed from within 2 feet of each plant; it is important not fertilize the\n surrounding vegetation which will potentially out-compete the tree or shrub\n\n C. Maintenance\n\n 1. Fertilizer\n\n Date: May through July; no sooner than 30 days after planting\n\n Rate: < 50 lbs. of nitrogen (N) per acre < 25 lbs. of phosphorus (P) and 25 lbs.\n potassium (K) per acre\n Frequency:\n\n • Apply N for the first two years after planting, then as needed to maintain\n stem density and plant health.\n • Single or split applications are acceptable if not applied before May 1 or\n after July 30. Split applications must be at least 30 days apart.\n • It is only necessary to apply (P) and (K) in alternate years.\n\n Recommended Formulations:\n\n • 10-10-10, 20-10-10, 15-10-10, etc. are acceptable as long as the\n maximum rates per nutrient are not exceeded.\n • Time release fertilizers are encouraged that will provide the target amounts\n of the primary nutrients per acre.\n\n\n Notes: Fertilize dune grass planting by mechanical or broadcast application, except where\n woody species are planted. Only apply fertilizer within the drip line of shrubs and\n trees. Not following this procedure will result in excessive herbaceous growth,\n which will out compete newly established trees and shrubs. Where woody plants\n are established, fertilizer may be broadcast applied.\n\n 2. Replanting\n\n • Like a chain, a dune system is no stronger than its weakest link. Uniform,\n unbroken dune lines are essential to the protection a system can provide.\n\n • Uncontrollable events (i.e. Storms, construction, etc.) may damage sand\n dunes. If such damage occurs between October and April replant within a\n month. If the damage is experienced from May to September, utilize the\n outlined sand fencing or excavation procedures listed below, then plant\n during the recommended establishment period.\n\n D. Dune Crossing Areas\n\n Where foot or vehicular traffic is expected over dunes, it is recommended a curvilinear path\n be constructed to direct traffic. These paths can be constructed with boards or be of a gravel\n\n 2-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=19)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 20", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 20\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n base and should be bordered by sand fence to funnel the traffic to and from the beach.\n\n 2. SANDFENCING:\n\n A quick and effective way to build temporary sand dunes is with the use of sand fencing (standard snow\n fence). Utilizing lines of fencing and wooden posts, orientated parallel to the beach approximately 140\n feet (horizontal distance) from mean high tide. A source of sand is necessary for this technique to be\n effective, but it is not limited by time of establishment.\n\n\n A. Materials\n\n 1. Fencing\n • Standard 4 ft. slatted wood snow fencing; wood must be decay free.\n • Polyvinyl fencing material with 50% porosity may be used as an\n alternative.\n • Four wire ties (> 12 ga.) must be used to secure fencing to each post.\n\n 2. Posts\n • Wooden posts must be > 6½ ft. long, with a minimum diameter of 3\n inches; typical length ranges from 7 to 8 ft.\n • The posts should be made from black locust, eastern red cedar, Atlantic\n white cedar, or other species of similar durability and strength.\n • Space posts 10 ft. apart, and set them > 3 feet deep.\n B. Technique\n\n 1. Position - orientation of fence line is parallel to waterline of the beach, at least 140 feet\n (horizontal distance) from mean high tide (see figure 2).\n\n 2. Height - with adequate sand sources, dune elevations can be increased annually by at\n least four foot increments (approximately the maximum height of the fencing, this can\n be increased with vegetation). The maximum dune height which is attainable will range\n from 12 to 15 feet, but is greatly influenced by prevailing wind velocities and sand grain\n size.\n\n 3. Installation - weave fencing in front of and behind alternating posts to attain maximum\n strength.\n\n 4. Number of Rows - When the distance to the MHT water line is 100 feet or more, 2\n parallel rows spaced 30 to 40 feet apart are ideal; but single rows with 30 foot\n perpendicular spurs, spaced 40 feet apart are also acceptable if there is less than 100 feet\n from the MHT and a protective dune is desired. A zigzag pattern may also be\n considered. Where there is less than _50__ feet from the MHT it may not be feasible to\n build dunes.\n\n 5. Replacement - sand will typically fill fencing to ¾ of its total height at a maximum;\n upon reaching maximum fence capacity, additional lines of fence can be added until\n maximum planned dune height is reached; replace damaged fencing and posts within\n one month of storm damage to maintain a contiguous dune line.\n\n\n C. Comments\n\n 1. This method is more expensive per lineal foot than building dunes with vegetation\n\n 2-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=20)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 21", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 21\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n alone, but less expensive than using earth moving machinery to construct dunes.\n\n 2. Although dune height can be increased faster, it is limited by the fence height and ability\n to continually add more lines of fencing.\n\n 3. Planting parallel rows of vegetation on either side of fences is usually more effective\n than either vegetation or fencing techniques alone.\n\n 4. When complementing fencing with vegetation, do not plant closer than ten feet and no\n further than 15 feet from the fence lines. Vegetative strips should be about 20 feet wide\n (see figure 2-2 & 2-3).\n\n 3. MECHANICAL EXCAVATION\n\n A With the use of various earth moving machines temporary, excavated sand dunes are\n quickly created.\n\n B. Since time is required for settling and cohesion to occur, such dunes are often short\n lived and only provide minimal protection to the public and private resources behind\n them.\n\n C. This method is often useful in the repair of storm damaged sand dunes during the fall\n and winter months. Any blow-out areas can be quickly filled.\n\n D. Front-end loaders of all sizes can be used. Various grading machines are also useful.\n\n E. Pumped sand from off shore dredging can be shaped and positioned with machinery.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=21)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 22", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 22\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n 2-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=22)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 23", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 23\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n Source: USDA\n\n\n\n\n 2-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=23)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 24", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 24\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n MAINTAINING VEGETATION\n\n Definition\n\nThe perpetuation of vegetative cover.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo ensure the continuing vigor and function of vegetative cover and enhance the environment. It is usually less costly to\ncarry on a maintenance program than it is to make repairs after an extended period of neglect.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nEnsures adequate permanent cover and prevents exposure of soils to erosion and off site sedimentation from stormwater\nrunoff impacts.\n\n\n Where Applicable\n\nOn areas where existing vegetation protects or enhances the environment.\n\n Methods and Materials\n\nA preventive maintenance program anticipates requirements and accomplishes work when it can be done with least\neffort and expense to insure adequate vegetative cover.\n\nMaintenance should occur on a regular basis, consistent with favorable plant growth, soil, and climatic conditions.\nThis involves regular seasonal work for mowing, fertilizing, liming, watering, pruning, fire control, weed and pest\ncontrol, reseeding, and timely repairs.\n\nThe degree of preventive maintenance needed depends upon the type of vegetation and its proposed function or use.\n\n1. Mowing is a recurring practice and its intensity depends upon the function of the ground cover. On high to\n moderate (A to B) maintenance areas, such as lawns, certain recreation fields, and picnic areas, mowing will be\n frequent (2 to 7 day intervals) and typically at a height of 2.5 to 3 inches. Return clippings from mowing\n (mulching mower) to the turf to reduce the amount of fertilizer needed to maintain the turf by as much as 50%.\n Some turf mixtures can be managed as naturalized stands requiring only one (cool season mixtures) or two\n (warm season mixtures) mowings per year. Mowing of naturalized areas is typically done at heights no less than\n 4 inches and should not be done between April 1st and July 15th to avoid disturbing ground nesting birds. The\n large amount of clipping debris generated by mowing naturalized areas will need to be removed and/or\n dispersed so the vegetation is not smothered. Burning of naturalized areas is another procedure used to manage\n naturalized turfs. Low maintenance (D) areas may be left unmowed to permit natural succession. See pg. 4-13\n footnote #4, Maintenance Levels A, B, C and D in the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Cover, Table 4-3.\n\n2. Incorporation of organic matter (for example, mature compost) into the soil will substantially reduce the need\n for fertilizer and irrigation inputs.\n\n3. Fertilizer and lime should be applied as needed to maintain a dense stand of desirable species. Frequently\n mowed areas and those on sandy soils will require more frequent fertilization but at lower nutrient rates per\n application.\n\n 3-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=24)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 25", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 25\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n4. Lime requirement should be determined by soil testing every 2 or 3 years. Fertilization may increase the need\n for liming. Contact the local county extension office for details on soil testing and fertilization and pest control\n recommendations online at http://njaes.rutgers.edu/county/.\n\n5 Fertilization and additions of other soil amendments are not recommended for managing native vegetation such\n as in the Pinelands National Reserve. See the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Stabilization for specific\n requirements in the PNR.\n\n6. Weed invasion may result from abusive mowing and from inadequate fertilizing and liming. Many newly\n established grasses will not survive if mowed at heights below 2.5 inches and at intervals greater than 7 days.\n Brush invasion is a common consequence of lack of mowing. The amount of weeds or brush that can be\n tolerated in any vegetated area depends upon the intended use of the land. Drainage ways are subject to rapid\n infestation by weed and woody plants. These should be controlled, since they often reduce drainage way\n efficiency. Control of weeds or brush is accomplished by using herbicides or mechanical methods.\n\n7. Fire hazard is greater where dry vegetation has accumulated. The taller the vegetation, the greater the hazard.\n\n8. Prune trees and shrubs to remove dead or damaged branches. Remove undesirable or invasive plants to\n maintain integrity of the landscape and enhance quality of permanent vegetative cover.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=25)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 26", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 26\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n STANDARD\n FOR\n PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER FOR SOIL STABILIZATION\n\n Definition\n\nEstablishment of permanent vegetative cover on exposed soils where perennial vegetation is needed for long-term\nprotection.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo permanently stabilize the soil, ensuring conservation of soil and water, and to enhance the environment.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nSlows the over-land movement of stormwater runoff, increases infiltration and retains soil and nutrients on site,\nprotecting streams or other stormwater conveyances.\n\n Where Applicable\n\nOn exposed soils that have a potential for causing off-site environmental damage.\n\n Methods and Materials\n\n1. Site Preparation\n\n A. Grade as needed and feasible to permit the use of conventional equipment for seedbed\n preparation, seeding, mulch application, and mulch anchoring. All grading should be done in\n accordance with Standard for Land Grading.\n\n B. Immediately prior to seeding and topsoil application, the subsoil shall be evaluated for\n compaction in accordance with the Standard for Land Grading .\n\n C. Topsoil should be handled only when it is dry enough to work without damaging the soil\n structure. A uniform application to a depth of 5 inches (unsettled) is required on all sites. Topsoil\n shall be amended with organic matter, as needed, in accordance with the Standard for Topsoiling.\n\n D. Install needed erosion control practices or facilities such as diversions, grade-stabilization\n structures, channel stabilization measures, sediment basins, and waterways.\n\n2. Seedbed Preparation\n\n A. Uniformly apply ground limestone and fertilizer to topsoil which has been spread and\n firmed, according to soil test recommendations such as offered by Rutgers Co-operative Extension\n Soil sample mailers are available from the local Rutgers Cooperative Extension offices\n (http://njaes.rutgers.edu/county/). Fertilizer shall be applied at the rate of 500 pounds per acre or\n 11 pounds per 1,000 square feet of 10-10-10 or equivalent with 50% water insoluble nitrogen\n unless a soil test indicates otherwise and incorporated into the surface 4 inches. If fertilizer is not\n incorporated, apply one-half the rate described above during seedbed preparation and repeat\n another one-half rate application of the same fertilizer within 3 to 5 weeks after seeding.\n\n\n\n B. Work lime and fertilizer into the topsoil as nearly as practical to a depth of 4 inches with\n\n 4-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=26)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 27", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 27\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n a disc, spring-tooth harrow, or other suitable equipment. The final harrowing or disking operation\n should be on the general contour. Continue tillage until a reasonable uniform seedbed is prepared.\n\n C. High acid producing soil. Soils having a pH of 4 or less or containing iron sulfide shall be\n covered with a minimum of 12 inches of soil having a pH of 5 or more before initiating\n seedbed reparation. See Standard for Management of High Acid-Producing Soils for\n specific requirements.\n\n3. Seeding\n\n A. Select a mixture from Table 4-3 or use a mixture recommended by Rutgers Cooperative Extension\n or Natural Resources Conservation Service which is approved by the Soil Conservation District.\n Seed germination shall have been tested within 12 months of the planting date. No seed shall be\n accepted with a germination test date more than 12 months old unless retested.\n\n 1. Seeding rates specified are required when a report of compliance is requested prior\n to actual establishment of permanent vegetation. Up to 50% reduction in rates may\n be used when permanent vegetation is established prior to a report of compliance\n inspection. These rates apply to all methods of seeding. Establishing permanent\n vegetation means 80% vegetative coverage with the specified seed mixture for the\n seeded area and mowed once.\n\n 2. Warm-season mixtures are grasses and legumes which maximize growth at high\n temperatures, generally 85o F and above. See Table 4-3 mixtures 1 to 7. Planting\n rates for warm-season grasses shall be the amount of Pure Live Seed (PLS) as\n determined by germination testing results.\n\n 3. Cool-season mixtures are grasses and legumes which maximize growth at\n temperatures below 85oF. Many grasses become active at 65oF. See Table 4-3,\n mixtures 8-20. Adjustment of planting rates to compensate for the amount of PLS\n is not required for cool season grasses.\n\n B. Conventional Seeding is performed by applying seed uniformly by hand, cyclone (centrifugal)\n seeder, drop seeder, drill or cultipacker seeder. Except for drilled, hydroseeded or cultipacked\n seedings, seed shall be incorporated into the soil within 24 hours of seedbed preparation to a depth\n of 1/4 to 1/2 inch, by raking or dragging. Depth of seed placement may be 1/4 inch deeper on\n coarse-textured soil.\n\n C. After seeding, firming the soil with a corrugated roller will assure good seed-to-soil contact,\n restore capillarity, and improve seedling emergence. This is the preferred method. When\n performed on the contour, sheet erosion will be minimized and water conservation on site will be\n maximized.\n\n D. Hydroseeding is a broadcast seeding method usually involving a truck, or trailer-mounted tank,\n with an agitation system and hydraulic pump for mixing seed, water and fertilizer and spraying the\n mix onto the prepared seedbed. Mulch shall not be included in the tank with seed. Short-\n fibered mulch may be applied with a hydroseeder following seeding. (also see Section 4-Mulching\n below). Hydroseeding is not a preferred seeding method because seed and fertilizer are applied to\n the surface and not incorporated into the soil. When poor seed to soil contact occurs, there is a\n reduced seed germination and growth.\n\n4. Mulching\n\n Mulching is required on all seeding. Mulch will protect against erosion before grass is established and will\n promote faster and earlier establishment. The existence of vegetation sufficient to control soil erosion shall\n\n 4-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=27)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 28", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 28\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n be deemed compliance with this mulching requirement.\n\n A. Straw or Hay. Unrotted small grain straw, hay free of seeds, to be applied at the rate of 1-1/2 to 2\n tons per acre (70 to 90 pounds per 1,000 square feet), except that where a crimper is used instead\n of a liquid mulch-binder (tackifying or adhesive agent), the rate of application is 3 tons per acre.\n Mulch chopper-blowers must not grind the mulch. Hay mulch is not recommended for\n establishing fine turf or lawns due to the presence of weed seed.\n\n Application - Spread mulch uniformly by hand or mechanically so that at least 85% of the soil\n surface is covered. For uniform distribution of hand-spread mulch, divide area into approximately\n 1,000 square feet sections and distribute 70 to 90 pounds within each section.\n\n Anchoring shall be accomplished immediately after placement to minimize loss by wind or water.\n This may be done by one of the following methods, depending upon the size of the area, steepness\n of slopes, and costs.\n\n 1. Peg and Twine. Drive 8 to 10 inch wooden pegs to within 2 to 3 inches of the soil surface\n every 4 feet in all directions. Stakes may be driven before or after applying mulch. Secure\n mulch to soil surface by stretching twine between pegs in a criss-cross and a square pattern.\n Secure twine around each peg with two or more round turns.\n\n 2. Mulch Nettings - Staple paper, jute, cotton, or plastic nettings to the soil surface. Use a\n degradable netting in areas to be mowed.\n\n 3. Crimper (mulch anchoring coulter tool) - A tractor-drawn implement, somewhat like a disc\n harrow, especially designed to push or cut some of the broadcast long fiber mulch 3 to 4 inches\n into the soil so as to anchor it and leave part standing upright. This technique is limited to\n areas traversable by a tractor, which must operate on the contour of slopes. Straw mulch rate\n must be 3 tons per acre. No tackifying or adhesive agent is required.\n\n 4. Liquid Mulch-Binders - May be used to anchor salt hay, hay or straw mulch.\n\n a. Applications should be heavier at edges where wind may catch the mulch, in valleys, and\n at crests of banks. The remainder of the area should be uniform in appearance.\n\n b. Use one of the following:\n\n (1) Organic and Vegetable Based Binders - Naturally occurring, powder-based,\n hydrophilic materials when mixed with water formulates a gel and when applied to\n mulch under satisfactory curing conditions will form membraned networks of\n insoluble polymers. The vegetable gel shall be physiologically harmless and not\n result in a phytotoxic effect or impede growth of turf grass. Use at rates and\n weather conditions as recommended by the manufacturer to anchor mulch\n materials. Many new products are available, some of which may need further\n evaluation for use in this state.\n\n (2) Synthetic Binders - High polymer synthetic emulsion, miscible with water when\n diluted and, following application of mulch, drying and curing, shall no longer be\n soluble or dispersible in water. Binder shall be applied at rates recommended by\n the manufacturer and remain tacky until germination of grass.\n\n Note: All names given above are registered trade names. This does not constitute a\n recommendation of these products to the exclusion of other products.\n\n B. Wood-fiber or paper-fiber mulch - shall be made from wood, plant fibers or paper containing no\n\n 4-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=28)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 29", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 29\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n growth or germination inhibiting materials, used at the rate of 1,500 pounds per acre (or as\n recommended by the product manufacturer) and may be applied by a hydroseeder. Mulch shall\n not be mixed in the tank with seed. Use is limited to flatter slopes and during optimum seeding\n periods in spring and fall.\n\n C. Pelletized mulch - compressed and extruded paper and/or wood fiber product, which may contain\n co-polymers, tackifiers, fertilizers, and coloring agents. The dry pellets, when applied to a seeded\n area and watered, form a mulch mat. Pelletized mulch shall be applied in accordance with the\n manufacturer’s recommendations. Mulch may be applied by hand or mechanical spreader at the\n rate of 60-75 lbs/1,000 square feet and activated with 0.2 to 0.4 inches of water. This material has\n been found to be beneficial for use on small lawn or renovation areas, seeded areas where weed-\n seed free mulch is desired, or on sites where straw mulch and tackifier agent are not practical or\n desirable. Applying the full 0.2 to 0.4 inches of water after spreading pelletized mulch on the seed\n bed is extremely important for sufficient activation and expansion of the mulch to provide soil\n coverage.\n\n5. Irrigation (where feasible)\n\n If soil moisture is deficient supply new seeding with adequate water (a minimum of 1/4 inch applied up to\n twice a day until vegetation is well established). This is especially true when seedings are made in\n abnormally dry or hot weather or on droughty sites.\n\n6. Topdressing\n\n Since soil organic matter content and slow release nitrogen fertilizer (water insoluble) are prescribed in\n Section 2A - Seedbed Preparation in this Standard, no follow-up of topdressing is mandatory. An\n exception may be made where gross nitrogen deficiency exists in the soil to the extent that turf failure may\n develop. In that instance, topdress with 10-10-10 or equivalent at 300 pounds per acre or 7 pounds per\n 1,000 square feet every 3 to 5 weeks until the gross nitrogen deficiency in the turf is ameliorated.\n\n7. Establishing Permanent Vegetative Stabilization\n\n The quality of permanent vegetation rests with the contractor. The timing of seeding, preparing the\n seedbed, applying nutrients, mulch and other management are essential. The seed application rates in\n Table 4-3 are required when a Report of Compliance is requested prior to actual establishment of\n permanent vegetation. Up to 50% reduction in application rates may be used when permanent vegetation is\n established prior to requesting a Report of Compliance from the district. These rates apply to all methods\n of seeding. Establishing permanent vegetation means 80% vegetative cover (of the seeded species)\n and mowed once. Note this designation of mowed once does not guarantee the permanency of the turf\n should other maintenance factors be neglected or otherwise mismanaged.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=29)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 30", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 30\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n Table 4-2\n\n Table 4-2\n Permanent Stabilization Mixtures for Various Uses\n PLANTING MIXTURES BY SOIL DRAINAGE CLASS/1 Application (see Table 4-3)\n\n Well to Somewhat Poorly to\n Excessively Drained Moderately Well Poorly\n Drained Drained\n\n Residential/commercial 10, 12, 15 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 16\nlots\n\nPond and channel banks,\ndikes, berms and dams 2, 5, 6, 10 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 2, 8, 16, 17\n\n Drainage ditches, swales, 2, 9, 11 2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17 2, 9, 16, 17\ndetention basins\n\n Filter Strips 12 11, 12 11, 12\n\n Grasses waterway, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 2, 9, 11,12\nspillways\n\n Recreation areas, athletic 5, 12, 15, 18 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 16\nfields\n\nSpecial Problem Sites\n\n Steep slopes and banks, 2, 3, 4 ,6 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18 2, 9, 10, 11, 12\nroadsides, borrow areas\n\n Sand and gravel pits, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 20 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 15, 20 2, 8\nSanitary landfills\n\n Dredged material,\nspoilbanks, Borrow areas 2, 3, 6, 20 2, 3, 6, 11, 2,8\n\n Streambanks & 2, 8, 20, 21a 2, 8, 19b, 20, 21a, 21b 2, 8, 19a, 21a,b,c,d\nshorelines 2\n\n Utility rights-of-way 3,7,180 3, 7 8, 9, 17\n\n\n 1. Refer to Soil Surveys for drainage class descriptions.\n 2. Refer to Soil Bioengineering Standard for additional seed mixtures.\n 3. Spillways only\n 4. See Appendix E for description of turf grasses and cultivars\n\n\n 4-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=30)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 31", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 31\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n PERMANENT VEGETATIVE MIXTURES, PLANTING RATES AND PLANTING DATES1\n\nSEED MIXTURE 2 PLANTING DATES.\n PLANTING REMARKS\n RATE /3\n\n\n /4\n O = Optimal Planting period A = Acceptable Planting period NTENANCE LEVEL\n AI\n PLANT HARDINESS ZONES (see Figure 4-1) M\n\n Zone 5b, 6a Zone 6b Zone 7a, 7b\n\n lbs/1000 3/15- 6/1-7/31 8/1- 3/1-4/30 5/1- 8/15- 2/1- 5/1- 8/15-\n lbs/acre sq. ft. 5/31 10/1 8/14 10/1 4/30 8/14 10/3\n 5 0\n\nWARM SEASON\nSEED MIXTURES\n\n1A. For Pinelands National\n Reserve Seed mixtures see O O O\n Table 4-4 page 4-17\n\n1. Switchgrass and/or 15 .35\n Coastal panicgrass plus 15 .35 C-D\n 20 .45 or Flatpea 20 .45 O O O\n\n\n\n\n\n 4-6\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=31)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 32", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 32\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n2. Deertongue or 15 .35 Use Deertongue if pH\n Switchgrass 20 .45\n Redtop 1 .1 O O O C-D 10)\n\n 3. Fine grained noncohesive soils (PI <10) (tractive stress procedure recommended)\n\nStability checks should be made for each significant soil horizon present. Soil sampling and testing is required to\ndetermine the grain size distribution and plasticity index of each material to be checked.\n\n.\nChannel Linings and Structural Measures\n\nWhere channel velocities exceed allowable velocities, the channel must be stabilized.\n\nChannels may be stabilized by using one or more of the following methods:\n\n1. Rock Riprap Lining shall be designed using the procedures given in Standard for Riprap, p. 23-1.\n\n2. Concrete Lining shall be designed according to currently accepted guides for structural and hydraulic\n adequacy. They must be designed to carry the required discharge and to withstand the loading imposed by site\n conditions. Concrete lining shall be reinforced where required.\n\n3. Grade Stabilization Structures can be used where excessive grades exist. The structures provide for one or\n more drops along the channel profile to reduce the channel slope. See Standard for Grade Stabilization\n\n\n 11-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=71)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 72", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 72\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Structures.\n\n The structures must be designed hydraulically to adequately carry the channel discharge and structurally to\n withstand loadings imposed by the site conditions. They may be constructed of concrete, rock, masonry, steel,\n gabions, aluminum or treated timber. Appendix A11, Chapter 6, Ref. #8, provides procedures for use in the\n design of these structures.\n\n Energy Dissipaters are employed to force a hydraulic jump and its associated turbulence to occur at a location\n where suitable protection can be provided against bank scour and channel erosion. Construction of energy\n dissipaters are normally at the base of chutes or drop structures and are usually an integral part of the design\n of the structure. Sills, baffles, floor blocks or other obstructions to channel flow may serve as energy\n dissipaters. Appendix A11, Chapter 15, Ref. #6, provides design considerations for energy dissipation with\n the hydraulic jump.\n\n4. Consideration may be given to the utilization of Soil Bioengineering techniques for channel stabilization.\n These techniques are not to be used when a structural design is required for safety, etc. See Standard for Soil\n Bioengineering for additional design guidance.\n\n\n Design Criteria – Stream Restoration\n\nDesigns for stream restoration try to mimic natural conditions present in stable reaches proximate to the area to be\ntreated. The extent of structural treatments beyond toe protection will be evaluated on a case by case basis.\nGenerally, vegetative or bioengineering treatments (Soil Bioengineering) shall be used to stabilize low risk areas\n(agricultural, wooded, or other natural settings where there is little threat to adjacent structures or improvements. In\nhigh risk areas where there is significant threat of damage to physical improvements (homes, buildings, utilities,\nroadways, etc.) or to important cultural or environmental features, structural protection will be more appropriate.\nA site assessment shall be performed to determine if the causes of instability are local (e.g. poor soils, high water\ntable in banks, alignment, obstructions deflecting flows into bank, etc.) or systemic in nature (e.g. aggradation due to\nincreased sediment from the watershed, increased runoff due to urban development in the watershed, degradation\ndue to channel modifications, etc.). The assessment need only be of the extent and detail necessary to provide a\nbasis for design of the treatments and reasonable confidence that the treatments will perform adequately for the\ndesign life of the measure.\nIn low risk areas treatments shall be evaluated under bankfull or ten-year return period (10 percent probability) flow\nconditions, whichever is less. High risk areas may require evaluations under less frequent flow events (up to a 100\nyear return period) depending on the value of the protected area. More frequent storm events should also be\nevaluated where these result in higher flow velocities.\nChanges in channel alignment shall not be made without an assessment of both upstream and downstream fluvial\ngeomorphology that evaluates the affects of the proposed alignment. The current and future discharge-sediment\nregime shall be based on an assessment of the watershed above the proposed channel alignment.\nBank protection treatment shall not be installed in channel systems undergoing rapid and extensive changes in\nbottom grade and/or alignment unless the treatments are designed to control or accommodate the changes. Bank\ntreatment shall be constructed to a depth at or below the anticipated lowest depth of streambed scour.\nToe erosion shall be stabilized by treatments that redirect the stream flow away from the toe or by structural\ntreatments that armor the toe. Additional design guidance is found in the National Engineering Handbook Part 654,\nStream Restoration Design. Where toe protection alone is inadequate to stabilize the bank, the upper bank shall be\n\n\n\n 11-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=72)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 73", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 73\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nshaped to a stable slope and vegetated, or shall be stabilized with structural or soil-bioengineering treatments.\nMeasures to redirect flow shall not reduce the flood carrying capacity of the stream nor cause adverse erosion or\nsedimentation elsewhere in the stream system. All treatments shall be stable under design flow conditions.\n\n\nWhere flooding is a concern, the effects of protective treatments shall not increase flow levels above those that\nexisted prior to installation. When vegetative treatments are planned, flow levels shall be evaluated under mature\ngrowth conditions.\n\n\n\nInstallation Requirements\n\n1. All trees, brush, stumps, and other objectionable materials that would interfere with the construction or proper\n functioning of the channel shall be removed.\n\n2. Where possible, trees will be left standing, brush and stumps will not be removed and channels will be\n excavated from one side, leaving vegetation on the opposite side.\n\n3. Construction plans will specifically detail the location and handling of spoils.\n\n4. Seeding, fertilizing and mulching shall conform to the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Cover for Soil\n Stabilization.\n\n5. Vegetation shall be established on all disturbed areas immediately after construction, weather permitting. If\n weather conditions are such as to cause a delay in the establishment of vegetation the area shall be mulched in\n accordance with the Standard for Stabilization with Mulch Only.\n\n\n\n\n\n 11-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=73)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 74", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 74\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n CONDUIT OUTLET PROTECTION\n\n\n Definition\n\nConduit Outlet Protection consists of an erosion resistant section between a conduit outlet and a stable downstream\nchannel.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo provide a stable area at the outlet of a conduit in which the exit velocity from the conduit is reduced to a velocity\nconsistent with a stable condition in the downstream channel.\n\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice applies to all conduit outlets. Conduit outlet protection is not needed if the design flow is not\nconstricted by the conduit in the waterway or stream (top width in culvert equals normal flow top width in stream).\nUnder this condition, transition areas such as at bridge or culvert abutments shall be armored up and downstream in\naccordance with the riprap standard. This includes areas in the immediate vicinity of the culvert which may be\ndisturbed in order to facilitate the culvert installation.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThe use of this standard will protect the area immediately downstream of a conduit outlet from localized erosion in\nthe form of scour, which is a common source of sediment in lakes and streams.\n\n Design Criteria\n\nDetermination of Needs\n\nThe need for conduit outlet protection shall be determined by comparing the allowable velocity for the soil onto\nwhich the conduit is discharging to the velocity in the conduit. The allowable velocity for the soil shall be that given\nin Table 12-1, pg. 12-2. The velocity in the conduit shall be that which occurs during passage of the conduit design\nstorm or the 25-year frequency storm, whichever is greater. When the velocity in the conduit exceeds the allowable\nvelocity for the soil, conduit outlet protection will be used.\n\n\n\n\n\n 12-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=74)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 75", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 75\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE 12-1 ALLOWABLE VELOCITIES FOR VARIOUS SOILS\n\n SOIL TEXTURE ALLOWABLE VELOCITY\n (ft./sec.)\n\n Sand 1.8\n Sandy loam 2.5\n Silt loam (also high lime clay), loam 3.0\n Sandy clay loam 3.5\n Clay loam 4.0\n Clay, fine gravel, graded loam to gravel 5.0\n Cobbles 5.5\n Shale (non-weathered) 6.0\n\n\nA. Horizontal Riprap Apron (fig. 12-1, 12-2)\n\n Apron Dimensions – unconfined outlet\n\n 1. The length and width of the apron shall be determined from the formulas:\n\n- For `TW < 0.5 * Do`: `La = 1.8 * (q / Do^0.5) + 7 * Do`; `Wa = 3 * Wo + La`.\n- For `TW ≥ 0.5 * Do`: `La = 3 * (q / Do^0.5)`; `Wa = 3 * Wo + 0.4 * La`.\n- In both branches, `q = Q / Wo`.\n\nWhere Do is the maximum inside culvert height in feet, Wo is the maximum inside culvert width in feet, q is\n the unit discharge, = Q/Wo in cfs per foot for the conduit design storm or the 25 year storm, whichever is\n greater and La is the length of the apron determined from the formula and Wo is the culvert width.\n\n The width of the apron at the culvert outlet shall be at least 3 times the culvert width.\n\n 2. Where there is a well-defined channel downstream of the apron, the bottom width of the apron shall be\n at least equal to the bottom width of the channel; and the structural lining shall extend at least one foot\n above the tailwater elevation but no lower than two-thirds of the vertical conduit dimension above the\n conduit invert.\n\n 3. The side slopes shall be 2:1 or flatter.\n\n 4. The bottom grade shall be 0.0% (level).\n\n 5. There shall be no over fall at the end of the apron or at the end of the culvert.\n\n\n\n 12-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=75)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 76", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 76\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nB. Riprap\n\n 1. The median stone diameter, D50, in feet, shall be determined from the formula:\n\n\n .0 02 .133 Q For Horizontal Apron: d 50 = q where q = Tw Wo\n\n\n For areas where Tw cannot be computed, use Tw = 0.2 Do\n\n Where q and Do are as defined under apron dimensions and TW is tailwater depth above the invert of culvert\n in feet.\n\n\nPreformed Scour Hole\n\nPerformed scour holes may be utilized, as depicted in Figure 12-3 where conditions dictate the impractical use of\nflat aprons. The median stone diameter, D50, in feet, shall be determined from the following formulas:\n\n .0 0125 .1 33 where Y = ½ Do d 50 = q Tw\n\n .00082 .133 where Y = Do d 50 = q Tw\n Q Y = depth of scour hole below culvert invert and q =\n Wo\n\n\nThe use of scour holes shall comply with county or local ordinances which would restrict the use of such devices\ndue to possible problems with mosquito breeding.\n\n\nConduit Outlet Protection Design for Discharge into Detention Basins\n\nDesign of the median stone size for pipes discharging into a basin shall be based on one of the following methods:\n\n1. Q shall be the 25 year storm discharge and Tw shall equal the 2 year storm elevation in the basin.\n\n2. Analyze the hydraulic characteristics of the basin for the design storm to determine the combination of conduit\n discharge and tailwater that results in the largest required D50 stone size.\n\n\nDownstream Protection\n\nThe conduit discharge shall not cause erosion in the downstream channel or aggravate conditions in the downstream\nchannel. The designer shall furnish calculations to show that the conditions downstream will not be degraded as a\nresult of the proposed construction ( See Standard for Off-Site Stability, pg. 21-1)\n\n\n 12-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=76)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 77", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 77\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nRiprap Requirements\n\n1. Fifty percent by weight of the riprap mixture shall be smaller than the median size stone designated as D50.\n The largest stone size in the mixture shall be 1.5 times the D50 size. The riprap shall be reasonably well\n graded.\n\n\n2. The thickness of riprap lining, filter and quality shall meet the requirements in the Riprap Standard pg. 22-2 &\n 22-3.\n\n3. Properly designed concrete paving may be substituted for riprap.\n\n4. Plastic-coated wire mesh stone-filled baskets or mattresses or concrete revetment blocks may be substituted\n for riprap if the D50 size calculated above is less than or equal to the thickness of the wire mesh structures or\n concrete revetment blocks. Design life of the wire mesh structures is estimated to be ten (10) years\n (minimum). Wire mesh baskets shall be filled with 4\" to 7\" angular shaped rock. For wire mesh “mattress”\n structures 3\" to 4\" stone may be used provided the mesh opening is small enough to contain the stone.\n Smaller stone will provide more stone “layers” in the mattress where larger stone would not sufficiently fill\n the structure’s void space.\n\n\n Figure 12-1 Configuration of Conduit Outlet Protection\n\n\n\n\n\nInstallation Requirements\n\n1. No bends or curves at the intersection of the conduit and apron or scour hole will be permitted.\n2. There shall be no over fall from the end of the apron to the receiving channel.\n\n\n\n 12-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=77)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 78", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 78\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Figure 12-2 Guidance for Multiple Culvert Outlets\n\n All Culverts Same Diameter\n Discharging Same Q\n\n\n\n\n\n S S Wo Do\n\n\n\n\n\nFor S < ¼ Wo Size Riprap & Length for 1 pipe.\n Width shall accommodate all culverts\n\nFor S ≥ ¼ Wo Size Riprap & Length for 1 pipe and\n increase values by 25 %\n\n\nFor culverts of varying diameters or discharge check riprap size and apron length for each. Use the largest values.\nIncrease length and riprap values by 25% if spacing is greater than ¼ Wo. Width shall accommodate all culverts.\n\n\n\n\n\nReferences\n\nFletcher, B. P. and Grace, J. S. Jr., Practical Guidance For Estimating And Controlling Erosion at Culvert Outlets, 1972, Corps of Engineers\nResearch Report H-72-5, Waterways Experimentation Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi\n\n\n\n\n\n 12-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=78)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 79", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 79\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nFigure 12-3 Configuration of Preformed Scour Hole\n\n Preformed Scour Hole\n\n\n\n 1 on 3\n A A\n 1 on 3 Wo 1 on 3\n Wo\n 2\n 3 Do\n\n\n 1 on 3\n\n PLAN\n\n\n\n\n Depth varies, = Do or 0.5 Do\n Do\n 3\n\n 1\n\n\n\n Section A - A\n\n\n\n 12-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=79)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 80", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 80\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n DETENTION STRUCTURES\n FOR CONTROL OF DOWNSTREAM EROSION\n\n\n Definition\n\nA structure providing for temporary storage of stormwater runoff and its controlled release.\n\nStructures created by construction of dams or barriers are referred to as \"Embankment Structures\" and those\nconstructed by excavation as \"Excavated Structures.\" Structures resulting from both excavation and embankment\nconstruction are classified as \"Embankment Structures\" where the depth of water impounded against the\nembankment at the emergency spillway elevation is 3 feet or more. Other forms of detention are also addressed in\nthis standard such as rooftop and parking lot storage and underground detention systems.\n\n Scope\n\nThis standard covers the installation of all detention, and infiltration / retention structures (those which retain a\npermanent pool of water below the design storm storage volume elevation).\n\n Purpose\n\nDetention structures are an available option to reduce erosion damages downstream by controlling the release from\nflows of predetermined frequencies. They may also permit the use of more economical channel improvements or\nstabilizing structures in the channel downstream and reduce environmental hazards and pollution.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice applies if there is a potential for increased downstream erosion due to construction at development\nsites or from other land use changes or if local ordinances require storm detention structures. In general the practice\napplies to reducing the post development peak flows to 50% and 75% of predevelopment peak flows for the 2 and\n10 year storms, respectively. The increased downstream erosion may be caused by increased runoff volume and/or\nincreased peak discharge. If the detention structure is also intended to comply with the provisions of the Stormwater\nManagement Act of 1981 or any revisions thereto, regulations promulgated by DEP pursuant to that Act shall apply.\nAdditional design criteria required by the NJ Pinelands Commission may also apply.\n\n.\n\nSpecial consideration shall be given to the use of infiltration for peak flow modifications as follows:\n\nPoint of Discharge Stability Analysis\n\nWhen infiltration practices are proposed, an alternate analysis (failure analysis) must be provided which ignores\ninfiltration (no dead storage volume available, no static or dynamic infiltration loss rates in the routing calculations,\netc) and demonstrates that no erosion will occur at the point of discharge if infiltration fails to function. Flow rates\nbased solely upon basin inlet and outlet hydraulics must be used in comparison to Table 21-1 to document a stable\noutlet.\n\n\n\n\n 13-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=80)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 81", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 81\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nDownstream (off-site) Stability Analysis.\n\nInfiltration may be used to meet peak flow reduction requirements (outlined above) for the purposes of\n\ndocumenting stability of the downstream receiving channel, provided that the complete loss of infiltration function\n\n\ndoes not result in an increase in peak flow values above the predevelopment levels.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThe use of a detention structure to control stormwater runoff may have several beneficial effects on water quality.\nFirst and foremost, control of small event storms will help prevent downstream erosion. Larger storms are managed\nto mitigate against flooding. By virtue of their ability to store runoff for a prolonged period, other effects such as\ndeposition of suspended solids (including floatable trash and loose vegetation) and biochemical degradation of\n\nfertilizers, pesticides and biosolids is also possible. Detention structure design and application should be predicated\nupon a watershed analysis (model) whenever possible to achieve the maximum benefit to stormwater management.\n\nDesign Criteria\n\nStructural aspects of detention structures shall be as stipulated by applicable State requirements and are not\nregulated in this or other Standards. In the absence of such criteria Appendix A-10, Structural Guidelines for\nDetention Structures may be used. In Karst regions of the State, sufficient surface and subsurface investigations\nshall be conducted in order to identify the presence or absence of limestone within the reservoir and embankment\narea. Locations where sinkholes or solution channels are present or locations which have the potential for formation\nof these features, should be avoided. If alternate locations are not available, sealing or lining of the reservoir area\nmay be required to prevent excessive seepage. See requirements under Investigation, Design and Remedial\nMeasures for Areas Underlain by Cavernous Limestone, Appendix A10-19.\n\nIn addition it must be shown for the peak outflow as determined by the Modified Rational Method, USDA-NRCS\nTechnical Release 55, Technical Release 20 , USACOE - HEC HMS or other methods which produce similar\nresults to these models, that there will be no soil erosion and sedimentation problems offsite. A detailed hydraulic\nanalysis of the detention structure shall be submitted which will include an off site stability analysis pursuant to the\nStandard for Off-Site Stability, pg. 21-1. A completed Hydrologic Summary Form (Appendix A-2) shall be\nsubmitted to the district for each detention structure proposed.\n\nDesign Storms\n\nThe peak discharge from the 2-year and 10-year frequency storm shall be analyzed. Frequency, duration and\ndistribution shall be as defined in the USDA-NRCS Technical Release 55.\n\nDesign storm and volume may be determined by the Modified Rational Method on drainage structures up to 20\nacres as described in Special Report 43 by the American Public Works Association, Practices in Detention of Urban\nStormwater. This method is not recommended for analysis of sites with sensitive off-site areas. If there is an\noverall storm water management plan for the watershed that considers erosion, downstream peak flow increases that\nare compatible with the overall plan may be allowed. Note - more restrictive stormwater management regulations\nmay be required by other state or local agencies.\n\nOutlets for Conduits\n\nProtection against scour at the discharge end of the spillway shall be provided in accordance with the Standard for\nConduit Outlet Protection or by suitable hydraulic structures proven effective by properly documented research.\n\n 13-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=81)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 82", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 82\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nOutlets discharging into structures shall also be designed in accordance with the Standard for Conduit Outlet\nProtection.\n\n\nVegetation\n\nThe dam, emergency spillway, spoil, borrow areas and other disturbed areas above the crest of the principal spillway\n\nshall be vegetated in accordance with the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization. All cut or\n\nfill slopes should be flat enough to accommodate the proposed operation and maintenance equipment.\n\n\nSafety\n\nDetention structures attract children and can be very dangerous. Local, county or state regulations regarding health\nand safety must be adhered to.\n\nThis portion of the Standard is for guidance only.\n\nOwnership\n\nOwnership and responsibility for operation and maintenance of the detention structure must be determined during\ndesign and shown on the plans and on the completed “Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data Base Summary Form”\n(Appendix A2). To be effective over a long period of time the structure must be properly maintained.\n\n\nThis portion of the Standard is for guidance only.\n\nOperation and Maintenance - General\n\nA detailed schedule of operation and maintenance should be prepared for use by the owner or others responsible for\nthe structure to insure that the structure functions properly. This schedule should provide requirements for at least\nannual inspection, operation, and maintenance of individual components, including outlets. It should be prepared\nduring design and should specify who is responsible for maintenance. Additional requirements of other state and\nlocal agencies may apply.\n\nUnderground Facilities\n\nUnderground detention facilities shall be designed to prevent failure due to internal or external pressures including\nhydrostatic uplift pressure and imposed surface loads such as vehicles operated on or adjacent to the detention\nfacility. Criteria for structural design are outside the scope of this standard. Structural design criteria must be based\non sound and accepted engineering practices.\n\nIn acid or sulfidic soils, materials shall be non-reactive with the soil or measures shall be taken to protect the facility\nfrom the soil. Provisions shall be made to prevent debris from entering the facility. Debris collectors shall be placed\nso that the need for maintenance can be readily detected and cleaning operations easily performed. The bottom of\nthe facility shall be on a slight grade to insure complete drainage. Access must be provided to the facility to permit\nremoval of sediment and other debris.\n\nSoil Conservation Districts are responsible for the enforcement of operation and maintenance of stormwater\nmanagement facilities during construction for the control of erosion and sedimentation only. Once a Final\nCertificate of Compliance has been issued by the district proper operation and maintenance becomes the\nresponsibility of the entity designated on the plans and schedule.\n\n 13-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=82)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 83", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 83\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n DEWATERING\n\n\n Definition\n\nThe removal and discharge of sediment-laden water from an excavated area, construction site or sediment basin.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo properly remove suspended sediments and water from excavated areas through filtration and/or settlement prior to\ndischarging water to a receiving water course or body.\n\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nDuring construction excavated facilities need to be dewatered to facilitate or complete the construction process. The\nwater pumped out of the excavated areas contain sediments that must be removed prior to discharging to receiving bodies\nof water. This standard does not address the removal of ground water through well points etc.\nThis standard describes the following practices for the removal of sediment laden waters from excavation areas:\nremovable pumping stations, sump pits, portable sedimentation tanks and silt control bags.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nWater discharged from excavated areas on construction sites may be a significant contributor of sediment to surface\nwaters during construction. Water must be removed and disposed of in order for construction to move forward.\nTypically, water is pumped or containment berms are breached and sediment laden waters are permitted to flow\nuncontrolled into surface waters such as streams or lakes. By employing practices described in this standard, the majority\nof sediment suspended in waters may easily be removed prior to leaving the site. Filters and materials described herein\nare readily available and are easy to install and maintain.\n\n Design Criteria\n\n1. Removable Pumping Stations are used when long durations of pumping are required. The number of removable\n stations and their locations shall be shown on the plans and shall conform to detail 14-1. Water pumped from\n the station shall be discharged into a sediment basin or suitable filter area.\n\n Construction Specifications\n\n A. The suction hose from the pump shall be placed inside the inner pipe to begin dewatering. The\n discharge hose shall be placed in a stabilized area downslope of unstabilized areas to prevent erosion.\n\n B. Maintenance- The inner pipe can easily be removed to facilitate changing the geotextile when it clogs.\n Maintenance must be performed when the pump runs dry and backed up water remains.\n\n C. See Detail 14-1 for additional specifications.\n\n\n\n\n\n 14-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=83)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 84", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 84\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Detail 14-1 Removable Pumping Station\n\n\n\n\n\n Return to TOC\n 14-2\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=84)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 85", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 85\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n2. Sump Pits are temporary pits which are used to remove excess water while minimizing sedimentation. The\n number of sump pits and their locations shall be included on the plans. Pits may be relocated to optimize use\n but discharge location changes must be coordinated with the local conservation district. The design must\n conform to the general criteria outlined on detail 14-2.\n\n A perforated vertical standpipe is wrapped with 2\" hardware cloth and geotextile fabric then placed in the center\n of an excavated pit which is then backfilled with filter material consisting of anything from clean gravel\n (minimal fines) to ASTM C 33 stone (1 2\" maximum diameter). Water is then pumped from the center of the\n standpipe to a suitable discharge area such as into a sediment basin or suitable filter.\n\n Detail 14-2: Sump Pit\n\n\n\n\n\n 14-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=85)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 86", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 86\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Detail 14-3 Portable Sediment Tank\n\n\n\n\n\n 14-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=86)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 87", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 87\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n3. Sediment Tank / Silt Control Bags are containers through which sediment laden water is pumped to trap and\n retain the sediment. A sediment tank or a silt control bag is to be used on sites were excavations are deep, and\n space is limited and where direct discharge of sediment laden water to stream and storm drainage systems is to\n be avoided.\n\n Construction Specifications\n\n A. Location. Containers (tanks or bags) shall be located for ease of clean-out and disposal of the trapped\n sediment and to minimize interference with construction activities and pedestrian traffic. Bags shall\n not be place directly into receiving waters.\n\n B. Tank size. The following formula should be used in determining the storage volume of the tank: 1\n cubic foot of storage for each gallon per minute of pump discharge capacity. Typical tank\n configuration is shown on Detail 14-3. Tanks may be connected in series to increase effectiveness.\n\n C. Tanks consist of two concentric circular pipes (CMP), attached to a watertight baseplate. The inner\n CMP is perforated with 1\" holes on 6\" centers and is wrapped with geotextile and hardware cloth.\n Pumped water is discharged into the inner CMP where it flows through the geotextile into the space\n between the two CMP=s. A discharge line is attached to the outer CMP and draws filtered water\n from the annulus between the two concentric CMP=s. The discharge line may be connected to another\n tank where it drains to the inner CMP of the second tank. This series connection may be continued\n indefinitely.\n\n D. Sediment Control Bags must be located away from receiving waters and disposed of according to\n manufacturer’s instructions. See Detail 14-4. Bags may be combined with temporary filters (item 4,\n following) for enhanced filtration.\n\n\n4. Temporary filters for small impoundments For small quantities of ponded water such as may be found in\n shallow excavations (small trenches, manhole installations etc.) a sediment filter may be constructed using\n combinations of hay bales, small clean stone and filter fabric. This method is limited to small quantities of\n trapped surface water (pumping of well points is excluded from this standard) and where sediments are not\n highly colloidal in nature.\n\n\n\n\n\n 14-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=87)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 88", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 88\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Detail 14-4 Sediment Control Bag for Dewatering\n\n\n\n\n\n Bag may be surrounded by\n staked hay bales and filter\n filtered fabric to enhance sediment\n water flow capture\n\n\n Pump Discharge\n\n\n Sediment Control Bag\n Pump\n\n\n\n\n\n Note: Bag must be located away\n from receiving waters and/or\n construction activities Excavation Area\n\n\n\n\n\n Bags must be disposed of according to\n manufacturer's instructions. Bags may not be\n reused.\n\n\n\n\n\n 14-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=88)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 89", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 89\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n DIVERSIONS\n\n\n Definition\n\nA channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across the slope.\n\n Scope\n\nThis standard covers the installation of diversions with drainage areas up to 100 acres.\n\nTemporary\n\nDiversions installed as an interim measure to protect or facilitate some phase of construction. They usually have a\nlife expectancy of one year or less. The failure hazard is low.\n\nPermanent\n\nDiversions installed as an integral part of an overall water management and disposal system and to remain for\nprotection of property.\n\n Purpose\n\nThe purpose of this practice is to divert water from areas where it is in excess to sites where it can be used or\ndisposed of safely.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice applies to sites where runoff is damaging: (1) low lying areas, (2) cut or fill slopes or steeply sloping\nland, (3) critical sediment source areas in construction sites, (4) buildings, residences, streets and (5) active gullies or\nother erodible areas.\n\nPermanent diversions are not applicable below high sediment producing areas unless land treatment practices or\nstructural measures, designed to prevent damaging accumulations of sediment in the channels are installed with or\nbefore the diversions.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThe primary benefit to water quality is through the prevention of erosion of lands with large drainage areas or steep\nslopes. Diversions control and direct stormwater runoff to stable locations, thus preventing the development of\nerosive forces which result not only in soil loss, but the transportation of associated soil nutrients, fertilizers,\npesticides etc. into surface and possibly ground water resources.\n\n\n Design Criteria\n\nCapacity and Freeboard\n\nPeak discharge values shall be determined by the following:\n\n1. Rational Method - for peak discharge of uniform drainage areas as outlined in Technical Manual for Land Use\n Regulation Program, Bureau of Inland and Coastal Regulations Stream Encroachment Permits, Trenton, N.J.\n\n 15-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=89)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 90", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 90\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n September 1997 or subsequent editions.\n\n2. USDA-NRCS Win TR-55 or Win TR-20.\n\n3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC HMS\n\n4. Other methods which produce similar results to the models listed above.\n\n\nThe minimum size shall be that required to confine the peak runoff from the design storm plus required freeboard.\nThe design storm and freeboard shall comply with the following table:\n\n Table 15-1 Temporary and Permanent Diversion Sizing\n\n Diversion Typical Area of protection Design Storm Freeboard\n Type Frequency Required\n (ft)\n\n Temporary Construction Areas (structures, roads, pipelines, etc.) 2 years 0.0\n\n Building Sites 5 years 0.0\n\n Permanent Agricultural Land 25 years 0.3 ft.\n\n Urban Land Areas,\n Play Fields, Recreation Areas, Agricultural Buildings, 25 years 0.3 ft\n etc.\n\n Homes, schools, industrial buildings, etc. 50 years 0.5 ft\n\n\n\nGeneral Notes\n\n1. Diverted runoff shall outlet onto an undisturbed stable area or onto an area that has been stabilized.\n2. Periodic inspection and required maintenance must be provided.\n\n\n\nVelocity\n\nThe maximum permissible velocity for design flow will be determined by the most erodible soil texture exposed and\nthe type of vegetation expected and maintained in the channel. As a stable design, the diversion shall meet the\nfollowing permissible velocity criteria and shall not be designed above 90% of critical flow ( Froude number =\n0.90). The following table will be used in selecting maximum permissible velocities:\n\n\n\n\n\n 15-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=90)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 91", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 91\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Table 15-2 Maximum Permissible Velocity by Soil Type\n\n Maximum Permissible\n SOIL TEXTURE Velocity (ft./sec.)\n (velocities based on flow of clear water.)\n\n Channel Vegetation\n\n Non-Veg.* Veg.** Sod***\n\n Sand 1.8 2.0 3.0\n Silt loam, sandy loam, loamy sand, loam, and muck 2.0 2.0 3.0\n Silty clay loam, sandy clay loam 2.0 2.5 4.0\n Clay, clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay 2.5 3.0 5.0\n\n\n * Temporary Diversions\n\n ** Vegetated Channels - The minimum capacity and maximum velocity shall be determined by using the appropriate\n retardance factors listed below. See Appendix A6 for example and charts for use in design. Maximum allowable velocities\n for channels stabilized by seeding may be increased according to the type of Flexible Channel Liner used as shown in the\n Standard for Grassed Waterways . These velocities may be added to the allowable velocities shown above, except for\n sands.\n\n Agricultural Handbook No. 667, Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels, may also be used to design grass lined\n diversions based on tractive stress.\n\n *** On well to excessively drained soils, the use of most cool season sod types will not survive without continued\n irrigation. Placement of sod in such areas must be approved by the District.\n\nPermanent Cover and Erosion Protection\n\nA permanent vegetative cover shall be established on all diversions in accordance with the Standard for Permanent\nVegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization, or Standard for Permanent Stabilization with Sod. Where the season and\nother conditions may not be suitable for growing permanent erosion resistant cover, erosion protection will be\nprovided in accordance with the Standard for Temporary Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization, or Standard for\nStabilization with Mulch Only.\n\nDiversions that are not designed to have a permanent vegetative cover shall be designed for bare channel velocities\nand with flat side slopes to prevent channel and side slope erosion. Diversions that are designed to have a\npermanent vegetative cover shall be seeded from the toe of the back slope to the upstream side of the designed\nchannel width plus any required filter strip. Other areas disturbed by diversion construction shall also be seeded.\n\n\nVegetative Retardance Factors\n\n Minimum Capacity - “D”\n\n Maximum Allowable Velocity - “E”\n\nTables to select channel dimensions are available in Chapters 7 and 9, Ref. #1, appendix A-11\n\nBare Channels - The minimum capacity and maximum velocity shall be determined by using Manning's formula\nwith an \"n\" value of 0.025.\n\n\n 15-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=91)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 92", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 92\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nCross Section\n\nThe shape of the channel cross section shall be such that the diversion can be properly maintained with modern\nequipment. The channel may be parabolic, vee-shaped or trapezoidal.\n\nThe side slopes for permanent diversions shall not be steeper than 3:1 for maintenance purposes and preferably 4:1.\nWhere frequent crossings are expected, slopes should be flatter. The back slope of the ridge is not to be steeper than\n3:1 and preferably 4:1. The ridge shall include a settlement factor equal to 5 percent of the height. The minimum\ntop width of the diversion ridge after settlement is to be 4.0 feet at the design water elevation.\n\nIn determining the cross section for temporary diversions, consideration should be given to soil type, frequency of\noperation and type of equipment that is anticipated to be crossing the diversion. In no case shall slopes be steeper\nthan 1.5:1.\n\nThe top of the constructed ridge shall not be lower at any point than the design elevation plus the specified overfill\nfor settlement.\n\nProfile(s) and cross-section(s) of all channel diversions shall be submitted on the Soil Erosion and\nSedimentation Control Plan.\n\n\nLocation\n\nDiversion location shall be determined by outlet conditions, topography, land use, soil type and length of slope.\nConsideration must be given to the effects caused by changing natural water courses and putting additional flow into\na water course.\n\n\nSpacing on Slopes\n\nTo prevent surface runoff on slopes from exceeding the maximum sheet flow threshold distance (100 feet as defined\nby USDA-NRCS TR-55), spacing between multiple diversions on slopes will be no greater than 33 vertical feet or\n100 horizontal feet. Diversions utilized on landfill slopes shall incorporate a drainage network of diversions\nrunning parallel to the slope to control runoff from very large or steep landfill caps. All diversions shall outlet into\na properly designed chute which shall safely convey runoff to a stable location or other stormwater control structure.\nCare must be taken to prevent subsurface percolation and flow beneath the chute.\n\n\nGrade\n\nDiversion channel grade may be uniform or variable. Uniform grades are normally better. The allowable velocity\nfor soil type and vegetative cover will determine maximum grade. Diversions with blocked ends may be used\nprovided adequate pipe outlets are installed. If grade is to vary then each section must be individually designed.\n\n\nProtection Against Sedimentation\n\nWhen the movement of sediment into the diversion channel is a significant problem:\n\n1. Land treatment or structural measures shall be installed to stabilize the source of sediment or trap the\n sediment.\n\n2. If it is not possible to stabilize or trap the sediment, a filter strip of close growing grass shall be maintained\n above the diversion channel. The filter strip width measured from the center of the channel shall be at least\n\n 15-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=92)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 93", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 93\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n one-half the channel top width plus 15 feet.\n\n\nOutlet\n\nEach diversion must have an adequate, stable outlet. The outlet may be: a grassed, stone centered or lined\nwaterway; a vegetated or paved area; a grade stabilization structure; a storm sewer; a stable watercourse; a tile\noutlet; or open channel.\n\nThe outlet in all cases, must be stable and convey water to a disposal point where damage will not result.\nConstructed vegetative outlets must be established prior to diversion construction.\n\n\nTemporary Stone Outlet Structure\n\nA temporary stone outlet structure (Fig. 15-1 & 2) for a diversion may be used only where the contributing\nwatershed is less than five acres. The minimum length, in feet, of the crest of the stone outlet structure shall be\nequal to six times the number of acres of the contributing drainage area. The crest of the stone outlet structure\nshall be level and at least six inches lower than the lowest elevation of the top of the diversion. The stone shall be\ncrushed stone and be 4\" to 8\" in diameter except for a one-foot thick blanket of 2\" diameter stone on the upstream\nface.\n\nThe temporary stone outlet structure shall be located so as to discharge onto an already stabilized area or into a\nstable watercourse. The stone structure shall be embedded into the soil a minimum of four inches.\n\n\nInstallation Requirements\n\nAll trees, brush, stumps or other objectionable material shall be removed so they will not interfere with construction\nor proper functioning of the diversion. All ditches or gullies which must be crossed, will be filled and compacted\nprior to, or as part of the construction. Fence rows and other obstructions that will interfere with construction or the\nsuccessful operation of the diversion are to be removed.\n\nVegetation is to be removed and the base for the ridge thoroughly disked before placement of fill.\n\nThe minimum constructed cross-section is to meet the design requirements.\n\nThe top of the constructed ridge is not to be lower than the design elevation plus the specified amount for settlement.\nFertilizing, seeding and mulching shall conform to the requirements in the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Cover\nfor Soil Stabilization.\n\nIf there is no sediment protection provided on temporary diversions it should be anticipated that periodic cleanout\nmay be required.\n\nConstruction operations shall be carried out in such a manner that erosion and air and water pollution will be\nminimized. State and local laws shall be complied with.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=93)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 94", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 94\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Figures 15-1 & 15-2: Outlet Structure Cross Section and Profile\n\n\n\n\n\n 15-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=94)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 95", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 95\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nRoadbed Diversions.\n\nWhere the diversion will be temporarily used to direct water off a graded right of way onto stable areas (Figure 15-\n3), and the only area draining toward the diversion is the roadbed itself, the following spacing and size may be used\ninstead of preparing individual designs for each diversion.\n\n\n Table 15-3 Roadbed Diversion Spacing by Slope\n\n Road Grade Approximate Distance Road Grade Approximate Distance\n (percent) Between Diversions (ft) (percent) Between Diversions (ft)\n 1 400 15 60\n 2 245 20 50\n 5 125 25 40\n 10 80 30 35\n\n\n\nDesign Criteria:\n • parabolic section\n • 2 cfs or less flow rate\n • 1% slope (grade) on diversion\n • Top width: 12 feet\n • Depth: 0.6 feet (0.5’ depth + 0.1’ settlement), no freeboard\n\n\n\n\n\n 15-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=95)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 96", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 96\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion an d Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n Figure 15-3: General layout of roadbed diversions\n\n\n\n\n\n 15-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=96)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 97", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 97\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n DUST CONTROL\n\n\n Definition\n\nThe control of dust on construction sites and roads.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo prevent blowing and movement of dust from exposed soil surfaces, reduced on-site and off-site damage and\nhealth hazards and improve traffic safety.\n\n Condition Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice is applicable to areas subject to dust blowing and movement where on-site and off-site damage is\nlikely without treatment. Consult with local municipal ordinances on any restrictions.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nSediments deposited as “dust” are often fine colloidal material which is extremely difficult to remove from water\nonce it becomes suspended Use of this standard will help to control the generation of dust from construction sites\nand subsequent blowing and deposition into local surface water resources.\n\n Planning Criteria\n\nThe following methods should be considered for controlling dust:\n\n Mulches - See Standard of Stabilization with Mulches Only, pg. 5-1\n\n Vegetative Cover - See Standard for: Temporary Vegetative Cover, pg. 7-1, Permanent Vegetative Cover for\n Soil Stabilization pg. 4-1 and Permanent Stabilization with Sod, pg. 6-1\n\n Spray-On Adhesives - On mineral soils (not effective on muck soils). Keep traffic off these areas.\n\n\n\n\n\n 16-1\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=97)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 98", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 98\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n Table 16-1 Dust Control Materials\n\n MATERIAL WATER TYPE OF APPLY\n DILUTION NOZZLE GALLONS/ACR\n E\n\n Anionic asphalt emulsion 7:1 Coarse Spray 1200\n\n Latex emulsion 12.5:1 Fine Spray 235\n\n Resin in water 4:1 Fine Spray 300\n\n Polyacrylamide (PAM) - spray on Apply according to manufacturer’s instructions. May also be used as\n Polyacrylamide (PAM) - dry spread an additive to sediment basins to flocculate and precipitate suspended\n colloids. See Sediment Basin standard, p. 26-1\n\n Acidulated Soy Bean Soap Stick None Coarse Spray 1200\n\n\n\n Tillage - To roughen surface and bring clods to the surface. This is a temporary emergency measure which\n should be used before soil blowing starts. Begin plowing on windward side of site. Chisel-type plows spaced\n about 12 inches apart and spring-toothed harrows are examples of equipment which may produce the desired\n effect.\n\n Sprinkling - Site is sprinkled until the surface is wet.\n\n Barriers - Solid board fences, snow fences, burlap fences, crate walls, bales of hay and similar material can be\n used to control air currents and soil blowing.\n\n Calcium Chloride - Shall be in the form of loose, dry granules or flakes fine enough to feed through commonly\n used spreaders at a rate that will keep surface moist but not cause pollution or plant damage. If used on steeper\n slopes, then use other practices to prevent washing into streams or accumulation around plants.\n\n Stone - Cover surface with crushed stone or coarse gravel.\n\n\n\n\n\n 16-2\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=98)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 99", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 99\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n GRADE STABILIZATION STRUCTURES\n\n\n\n Definition\n\nA structure (drop, chute, etc) to control the grade and head cutting in natural or artificial channels.\n\n Scope\n\nThis standard applies to all types of grade stabilization structures. It also applies to structures installed to lower the\nwater from a surface drain or a waterway to a deeper channel to control erosion, head cutting or channel grade. It\ndoes not apply to structures designed to control the rate of flow or to regulate the water level in channels.\n\n Purpose\n\n\nTo stabilize the grade and control erosion in natural or artificial channels, to prevent the formation or advance of\ngullies and to reduce environmental and pollution hazards.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis standard applies to areas where the concentration and flow velocity of water requires structures to stabilize the\ngrade or to control gully erosion in channels. Special attention shall be given to maintaining or improving habitat\nfor fish and wildlife and to maintaining or improving the natural stream flow characteristics, where applicable.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nUse of this standard will help prevent and control degradation of the interior surfaces of waterways both in man-\nmade and natural channels which in turn will reduce the amount of sediment carried by the channel to receiving\nwaterways.\n\n Design Criteria\n\nStructures\n\nThe structure must be designed so that it is stable after installation. The crest of the inlet must be set at an elevation\nthat stabilizes the upstream channel. The outlet must be set at an elevation level that results in a stable structure.\nStructures must not create unstable conditions upstream or downstream.\n\nStructure Embankments\n\nEmbankments used with structures must meet the following requirements:\n\nFoundation - The area on which an embankment is to be placed shall consist of material that has sufficient bearing\nstrength to support the embankment without excessive consolidation.\n\n\n\n\n\n 17-1\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=99)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 100", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 100\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nTop width - The minimum top width shall be as follows:\n\n Embankment Height and Top Widths\n\n TOTAL HEIGHT OF EMBANKMENT TOP WIDTH\n (feet) (feet)\n\n up to 20 10\n\n 20 - 24 12\n\n\nSide slopes - The combined upstream and downstream side slopes of the settled embankment shall not be less than\nfive horizontal to one vertical, with neither slope steeper than 2:1. Slopes must be designed to be stable in all cases,\neven if flatter side slopes are required.\n\nFreeboard - The minimum elevation of the top of the settled embankment shall be 1.0 feet above the maximum\nwater surface upstream during the total capacity design storm.\n\nSettlement - The design height of the embankment shall be increased by the amount needed to insure that after all\nsettlement has taken place, the height of the embankment will equal or exceed the design height. This increase shall\nnot be less than 5%, except where detailed soil testing and laboratory analysis shows a lesser amount is adequate.\n\nLength - If natural ground elevation is used for an emergency spillway, the constructed top elevation of the\nembankment shall extend at least 40 feet in both sides of the structure.\n\nStructure Spillways\n\nChute and drop spillways shall be designed according to the principles set forth in the Engineering Field handbook\nfor Conservation Practices, The National Engineering Handbook and other applicable USDA-NRCS publications\nand reports.\n\nEntrances to chutes and drop spillways will be protected against the force of flowing water at the interface between\nthe structure’s entrance walls and the earthen embankment. Acceptable methods include rip rap and keying of the\nentrance walls into the embankment. Channels must not enter these structures at an angle where energy will be\ndissipated in a bend.\n\nThe minimum capacity shall be that required to pass the peak flow expected from a design storm of the frequency\nand duration shown in Table 17-1 or 17-2, as applicable, less any reduction because of detention storage.\n\nFull flow structures are structures where the structure spillway plus an emergency spillway, if used, carry all the\nflow from the watershed. Typical full flow structures are drop spillways and rock chutes.\n\nIsland structures are structures where flows larger than the structure spillway design flow spread out, and the larger\nflows are not significantly carried by the structure spillway. Typical island structures are pipe drop and hooded\ninlets.\n\n\n\n\n\n 17-2\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=100)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 101", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 101\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n TABLE 17-1 MINIMUM CAPACITY OF FULL-FLOW STRUCTURES\n\n\n MINIMUM DESIGN STORM\n\n DRAINAGE VERTICAL STRUCTURE SPILLWAY TOTAL MINIMUM\n AREA DROP CAPACITY FREQUENCY CAPACITY DURATION\n (acre) (feet) (year) FREQUENCY (hour)\n (year)\n\n 250 or less 5 or less 5 10 24\n\n 500 or less 10 or less 10 25 24\n\n all other all other 25 100 24\n\n\n\n TABLE 17-2 MINIMUM CAPACITY OF ISLAND STRUCTURES\n\n MINIMUM DESIGN STORM\n\n DRAINAGE VERTICAL STRUCTURE SPILLWAY TOTAL MINIMUM\n AREA DROP CAPACITY FREQUENCY CAPACITY DURATION\n (acre) (feet) (year) FREQUENCY (hour)\n (year)\n\n 250 or less 5 or less 1 10 24\n\n 500 or less 10 or less 1 25 24\n\n all other 1 year or channel 50 24\n design capacity,\n whichever is higher\n\n\nTotal Capacity Design Storm\n\nAll structures shall have the capacity to pass the peak flow expected from the minimum design storm for total\ncapacity in Tables 17-1 and 17-2, as applicable, less any reduction because of detention storage. This may be\naccomplished by using a structure spillway or a combination of structure spillway and emergency spillway. There\nshall not be damage to or erosion of the structure spillway or emergency spillway during passage of the total\ncapacity design storm. Water flowing through an emergency spillway during the total capacity design storm must\nre-enter the channel without erosion.\n\nEmergency spillways may use natural ground or be constructed. Minimum design flow depth for natural ground\nemergency spillways is 0.3 feet.\n\n\n\n\n\n 17-3\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=101)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 102", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 102\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nToe Wall Drop Structures\n\nToe wall drop structures may be used if the vertical drop is 4 feet or less, flows are intermittent and downstream\ngrades are stable.\n\nRoad Culvert Box Inlets\n\nThe minimum capacity of drop boxes to culverts shall be as specified in Tables 17-1 or 17-2, as applicable or as\nrequired by the responsible road authority, whichever is greater.\n\n Figure 17-1 : Schematic of Drop Grade Structure\n (Source: USDA- NRCS)\n\n\n\n\n\n 17-4\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=102)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 103", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 103\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January\n2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n GRASSED WATERWAYS\n\n\n Definition\n\n\nA natural or constructed watercourse shaped or graded in earth materials and stabilized with suitable vegetation for\nthe safe conveyance of runoff water.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo provide for the conveyance of excess surface water without damage by erosion or flooding.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice applies to sites with drainage areas less than 200 acres where concentrated runoff requires vegetative\nprotection or stone center lining to control erosion. Slope of waterway must be less than 10%. Some of the other\npractices that may be required with this practice are: (1) grade control structures, (2) subsurface drainage to permit\nthe growth of suitable vegetation and to eliminate wet spots, (3) a section stabilized with stone or other material\nwithin the waterway or (4) buried storm drain to handle frequently occurring storm runoff, base flow or snowmelt.\nThis practice is not appropriate when maintenance of the grass lining cannot or will not be performed.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nUse of this standard will provide protection of the waterway lining from the erosive forces of flowing water.\nAdditionally, stormwater runoff quality may be enhanced through adsorption and infiltration (absorption) of minor\nsuspended solids and associated pollutants, such as excess fertilizers and pesticides, hydrocarbons and through\nbacterial degradation of biosolids. Minor groundwater recharge may also be provided. The total effect on water\nquality is limited by higher flow velocities and concentrated flows in the waterway. Swales should not be depended\nupon to provide the sole means of improving runoff water quality. They should be used in conjunction with other\nerosion control practices listed in these standards, whenever possible.\n\n\n Design Criteria\n\nCapacity\n\nPeak discharge values shall be determined by the following:\n\n1. Rational Method - for peak discharge of uniform drainage areas as outlined in Technical Manual for Land Use\n Regulation Program, Bureau of Inland and Coastal Regulations Stream Encroachment Permits, Trenton, N.J.\n September 1997 or subsequent editions.\n\n2. USDA-NRCS Win TR- 55 or Win TR-20.\n\n3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC HMS\n\n4. Other methods which produce similar results to the models listed above.\n\n\n\n 18-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=103)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 104", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 104\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nMinimum capacity and maximum velocity shall be based on the 10 year frequency storm, unless a larger storm event is\nto be conveyed for reasons of safety, compatibility with other stormwater management measures etc.\n\nVelocity\n\nThe maximum allowable velocity for design flow will be determined by the most erodible soil texture exposed and the\ntype of vegetation expected and maintained in the channel. As a stable design the waterway shall meet the following\nallowable velocity criteria and shall not be designed within 10% of critical flow (Froude number = 0.90). .\n\n Table 18-1 Maximum Allowable Velocities by Soil Texture\n\n Maximum Allowable\n SOIL TEXTURE Velocity (fps)\n\n Seeded Sod***\n Vegetation**\n\n Sand 2.0 3.0\n Silt loam, sandy loam, loamy sand, loam, muck 2.0 3.0\n Silty clay loam, sandy clay loam 2.5 4.0\n 3.0 5.0 Clay, clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay\n\n\n\n\n Maximum Allowable Velocities are based on flow of clear water.\n\n ** Maximum allowable velocities for channels stabilized by seeding may be increased according to the type of\n Flexible Channel Liner used as shown in the following table. These velocities may be added to the allowable\n velocities shown above, except for sands.\n\n ***On well to excessively drained soils, most cool season sod types will not survive without continued irrigation.\n Placement of sod in such areas must be approved by the District.\n\n Table 18-2 Classification of Flexible Channel Liners by Texas DOT\n\n “Class 2\" Allowable Shear Incremental increase\n Flexible Channel Liner Stress2 in velocity\n Designation 1 (psf) (fps)\n\n Type \"E\" 0 to 2 1.0\n Type \"F\" 0 to 4 1.5\n Type \"G\" 0 to 6 2.0\n Type \"H\" 0 to 8 3.0\n Type “I” 0 to 10 4.0\n Type “J” 0 to 12 5.0\n\n\n 1 Designations defined by Texas Department of Transportation Hydraulics and Erosion Control Laboratory Field Performance Testing\n of Selected Erosion Control Products (as amended or most current) Evaluation Cycle\n\n 2 Typically refers to maximum stress with a fully vegetated matting\n\n 18-2\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=104)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 105", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 105\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January\n2014\n\nThere shall be no increase in allowable velocity beyond that indicated for sod if the design life of the flexible\nchannel liner is less than the planned service life of the grassed waterway.\n\n\nVegetative Retardance Factors and Manning's \"n\" Value\n\nThe minimum capacity and maximum velocity shall be determined by using the appropriate vegetative retardance\nfactors listed below. Appendix A2 contains examples and charts for use in design. Agricultural Handbook No.\n667, Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels, may also be used to design grass waterways based on tractive\nstress.\n\n\nVegetative Retardance Factors\n\n Minimum for Capacity - “D”\n\n Maximum for Allowable Velocity - “E”\n\nTables to select channel dimensions are available in Appendix A11, Ref. #1, Chapter 7.\n\n\nDimensions\n\nThe dimensions of the waterway will be based on: (1) the minimum required for capacity, the channel slope, the\nmaximum permissible velocity, the vegetation, the soil; (2) ease of crossing and maintenance; and (3) site conditions\nsuch as water table, depth to rock or possible sinkholes.\n\nThe minimum top width of a waterway will be 10 feet. The maximum design top width shall not exceed 50 feet.\n\nThe minimum design flow depth shall be sufficient to completely submerge the vegetative lining during the design\nflow (consideration may be given to expected mature height undergoing deflection during flow or an artificially\nmaintained height) such that uniform flow characteristics are achieved. Design flow depths which are less than the\nlining height may tend to produce meandering and erosion in the waterway bottom and will not be accepted.\n\nThe cross section may be parabolic, vee-shaped, or trapezoidal. Cross-section(s) and profile(s) of all grassed\nwaterways shall be submitted on the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.\n\nDrainage\n\nIn areas with low flow, high water table or seepage problems, underdrains, stone centers or other subsurface\ndrainage methods are to be provided. A minimum drainage coefficient of ½ inch in 24 hours is to be used for\nunderdrain design. An open joint storm drain may be used to serve the same purpose and also handle frequently\noccurring storm runoff, base flow or snowmelt. The storm drain shall be designed to handle base flow, snowmelt or\nthe runoff from at least a one-year frequency storm, whichever is greater.\n\n\nDesign of Stone Center lining for wet or low flow conditions:\n\nWhere a stone lining is needed due to seepage, low flow, high water table, etc.,stone size shall be based on the\nmaximum design flow ( 10 year storm event minimum) to be conveyed and shall be installed to a depth equal to the\ndesign flow depth for a 1 year, 24 hour storm. The stone shall be EMBEDDED FLUSH with the waterway surface.\n\n\n\n 18-3\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=105)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 106", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 106\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January\n2014\nThe following nomograph may be used to determine the D75 stone size for the center lining:\n\n\n\n Nomograph to Compute Stone Size for Grass Waterway Center Lining\n\n\n\n\n\n 18-4\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=106)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 107", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 107\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January\n2014\n\n\nOutlet\n\nThe outlet must handle the design flow without flood damage. The outlet must be stable for the 10-year storm.\n\n\nVegetation - Permanent Cover\n\nA permanent vegetative cover shall be established on all grassed waterways in accordance with the Standard for\nPermanent Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization or Standard for Permanent Stabilization with Sod. Where the\nseason and other conditions may not be suitable for growing permanent erosion resistant cover, erosion protection\nwill be provided in accordance with the Standard for Temporary Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization or by the\nuse of a Class 2 Flexible Channel Liner as described above. The seeding will extend to at least the design top width.\n\n\nInstallation Requirements\n\nConstruction\n\nTrees, brush, stumps and other material in objectionable amounts are to be cleared and disposed of so as not to\ninterfere with construction or proper functioning of the waterway.\n\nFills are to be compacted as needed to prevent unequal settlement that will cause damage in the completed\nwaterway. Where deep cuts are made into the subsoil, consideration shall be given to adding organic soil\namendments or topsoil.\n\nVegetative Lining\n\nWaterways or outlets shall be protected against erosion by vegetative means as soon after construction as practical\nand before diversions or other channels are discharged into them. Consideration should be given to the use of a\nflexible channel liner or sodding channels to provide erosion protection as soon after construction as possible.\n\nSeeding, fertilizing, mulching and sodding shall be in accordance with the applicable Standards.\n\n\nMaintenance\n\nRoutine maintenance of the vegetative lining, including mowing, liming and fertilizing must be performed to ensure\nthat the waterway continues to perform as designed (see the Standard for Maintaining Vegetation). If maintenance\ncannot be or is not planned to be performed an alternate means of waterway stabilization or means of runoff\nconveyance should be considered.\n\n\n\n\n\n 18-5\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=107)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 108", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 108\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2017\n\n\n\n STANDARD FOR LAND GRADING\n\n\n Definition\n\nReshaping the ground surface by grading to planned elevations which are determined by topographic survey and\nlayout.\n\n Purpose\n\nThe practice is for one or more of the following: Provide more suitable sites for land development; improve surface\ndrainage and control erosion.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice is applicable where grading to planned elevations is practical and it is determined that grading is needed.\nGrading that involves the disturbance of vegetation over large areas shall be avoided. It may be necessary to provide for\ntemporary stabilization of large areas.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nProper grading of disturbed sites will protect against soil loss from erosion, enhance establishment of permanent\nvegetative cover and help to properly manage stormwater runoff all of which will reduce off site discharge of pollutants.\n\n Planning Criteria\n\nThe grading plan and installation shall be based upon adequate topographic surveys and investigations. The plan is\nto show the location, slope, cut, fill and finish elevation of the surfaces to be graded. The plan should also include\nauxiliary practices for safe disposal of runoff water, slope stabilization, erosion control and drainage. Facilities such\nas waterways, ditches, diversions, grade stabilization structures, retaining walls and subsurface drains should be\nincluded where necessary.\n\nErosion control measures shall be designed and installed in accordance with the applicable standard contained\nherein.\n\nThe development and establishment of the plan shall include the following:\n\n1. The cut face of earth excavations and fills shall be no steeper than the safe angle of repose for the materials\n encountered and flat enough for proper maintenance.\n\n2. The permanently exposed faces of earth cuts and fills shall be vegetated or otherwise protected from erosion.\n\n3. Provisions shall be made to safely conduct surface water to storm drains or suitable water courses and to\n prevent surface runoff from damaging cut faces and fill slopes.\n\n4. Subsurface drainage is to be provided in areas having a high water table, to intercept seepage that would\n adversely affect slope stability, building foundations or create undesirable wetness. See Standard for\n Subsurface Drainage, pg. 32-1.\n\n5. Adjoining property shall be protected from excavation and filling operations.\n\n6. Fill shall not be placed adjacent to the bank of a stream or channel, unless provisions are made to protect the\n 19-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=108)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 109", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 109\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2017\n\n hydraulic, biological, aesthetic and other environmental functions of the stream.\n\n\nSoil Management and Preparation\n\nSubgrade soils prior to the application of topsoil shall be free of excessive compaction to a depth of 6.0 inches to\nenhance the establishment of permanent vegetative cover.\n\nThis section of this Standard addresses the potential for excessive soil compaction in light of the intended land use,\ntesting for excessive soil compaction where permanent vegetation is to be established and mitigation of excessive soil\ncompaction when appropriate.\n\nDue to use or setting, certain disturbed areas will not require compaction remediation including, but not limited to the\nfollowing:\n\n 1. Within 20 feet of building foundations with basements, 12 feet from slab or crawl space construction.\n 2. Where soils or gravel surfaces will be required to support post-construction vehicular traffic loads such as\n roads, parking lots and driveways (including gravel surfaces), bicycle paths or pedestrian walkways\n (sidewalks etc)\n 3. Airports, railways or other transportation facilities\n 4. Areas requiring industry or government specified soil designs, including golf courses, landfills, wetland\n restoration, septic disposal fields, wet/lined ponds, etc.\n 5. Areas governed or regulated by other local, state or federal regulations which dictate soil conditions\n 6. Brownfields (capped uses), urban redevelopment areas, , in-fill areas, , recycling yards, junk yards,\n quarries and\n 7. Slopes determined to be inappropriate for safe operation of equipment\n 8. Portions of a site where no heavy equipment travel or other disturbance has taken place\n 9. Areas receiving temporary vegetative stabilization in accordance with the Standard.\n 10. Where the area available for remediation practices is 500 square feet or less in size.\n 11. Locations containing shallow (close to the surface) bedrock conditions.\n\nAreas of the site which are subject to compaction testing and/or mitigation shall be graphically denoted on the\ncertified soil erosion control plan.\n\nSoil compaction remediation or testing to prove remediation is not necessary will be required in areas where\npermanent vegetation is to be established that are not otherwise exempted above. Testing method shall be selected,\nand soil compaction testing shall be performed by, the contractor or other project owner’s representative (e.g.\nengineer). A minimum of two (2) tests shall be performed for projects with an overall limit of disturbance of up to\none (1) acre and at a rate of two (2) tests per acre of the overall limit of disturbance for larger areas which shall be\nevenly distributed over the area of disturbance subject to testing. Tests shall be performed in areas representative of\nthe construction activity prevailing in the area. In the event this testing indicates compaction in excess of the\nmaximum thresholds indicated for the testing method, the contractor/owner shall have the option to perform\ncompaction mitigation over the entire disturbed area (excluding exempt areas) or to perform additional testing to\nestablish the limits of excessive compaction whereupon only the excessively compacted areas would require\ncompaction mitigation.\n\nSoil compaction testing is not required if/when subsoil compaction remediation (scarification/tillage (6\" minimum\ndepth) or similar) is proposed as part of the sequence of construction.\n\n\n\n\n 19-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=109)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 110", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 110\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2017\n\nSoil Test Method Options\n\n 1. Probing Wire Test Method\n\n This test shall be conducted with a firm wire (15-1/2 gauge steel wire - e.g. survey marker flag, straight\n wire stock, etc.), 18 to 21 inches in length, with 6” inches from one end visibly marked on the wire.\n Conduct wire flag test by holding the wire flag near the flag end and push it vertically into the soil at\n several different locations in the field to the lesser of a 6 inch depth or the depth at which it bends due to\n resistance in the soil. Record the depth at which it bends due to resistance in the soil. The wire should\n penetrate without bending or deforming at least 6” into the ground by hand, without the use of tools. If\n penetration fails and an obstruction is suspected (rocks, root, debris, etc.) the test can be repeated in the\n same general area. If the test is successful the soil is not excessively compacted. If the wire is difficult to\n insert (wire bends or deforms prior to reaching 6 inches in depth) the soil may be excessively compacted\n and compaction mitigation or further testing via method 3 or 4 below is required, the choice of which is at\n the contractor/owner’s discretion.\n\n 2. Handheld Soil Penetrometer Test Method\n\n This test shall be conducted based on the Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) #RCE2010-001, prepared\n by the Rutgers Cooperative Extension, Implemented June 1, 2010, last revised February 28, 2011. A\n result of less than or equal to 300 psi shall be considered passing. If the result is greater than 300 psi the\n soil may be excessively compacted and compaction mitigation or further testing via method 3 or 4 below is\n required, the choice of which is at the contractor/owner’s discretion.\n\n 3. Tube Bulk Density Test Method\n\n This test shall be certified by a New Jersey Licensed Professional Engineer utilizing only undisturbed\n samples (reconstitution of the sample not permitted) collected utilizing the procedure for Soil Bulk Density\n Tests as described in the USDA NRCS Soil Quality Test Kit Guide, Section 1-4, July 2001. When the\n texture of the soil to be tested is a sand or loamy sand and lack of soil cohesion or the presence of large\n amounts of coarse fragments, roots or worm channels prevent the taking of undisturbed samples, this test\n shall not be used.\n\n Where the results of replicate tests differ by more than ten percent (10%), the samples shall be examined\n for the following defects:\n\n i. Cracks, worm channels, large root channels or poor soil tube contact within the samples;\n ii. Large pieces of gravel, roots or other foreign objects\n iii. Smearing or compaction of the upper or lower surface of the samples\n\n If any of the defects described in 3 (i-iii) above are found, the defective core(s) shall be discarded\n and the test repeated using a new replicate sample for each defective replicate sample. The bulk density\n (defined as the weight of dry soil per volume) results shall be compared with the Maximum Dry Bulk\n Densities in Table 19-1. A result of less than or equal to the applicable maximum bulk density shall be\n considered passing. If the result is greater than the maximum bulk density the soil shall be considered\n excessively compacted and compaction mitigation is required.\n\n 4. Nuclear Density Test Method\n\n This test shall be certified by a New Jersey Licensed Professional Engineer and conducted by a nuclear\n gauge certified inspector pursuant to ASTM D6938 . The bulk density measurement results shall be\n compared with the Maximum Dry Bulk Densities in Table 19-1. A result of less than or equal to the\n applicable maximum bulk density shall be considered passing. If the result is greater than the maximum\n bulk density the soil shall be considered excessively compacted and compaction mitigation is required.\n 19-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=110)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 111", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 111\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2017\n\n\n Table 19-1 – Maximum Dry Bulk Densities (grams/cubic centimeter) by soil type\n\n Soil Type/Texture Bulk Density\n (g/cc)\n Coarse, Medium and Fine 1.80\n Sands and Loamy Sands\n Very Fine Sand and Loamy 1.77\n Very Fine Sand\n Sandy Loam 1.75\n Loam, Sandy Clay Loam 1.70\n Clay Loam 1.65\n Sandy Clay 1.60\n Silt, Silt Loam 1.55\n Silty Clay Loam 1.50\n Silty Clay 1.45\n Clay 1.40\n\n Source: USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Quality\n Information Sheet, Soil Quality Resource Concerns: Compaction, April 1996\n\n 5. Additional testing methods which comform to ASTM standards and specificaitons,\n and which produce a dry weight, soil bulk density measurement may be allowed\n subject to District approval.\n\n\nProcedures for Soil Compaction Mitigation\n\nIf subgrade soils are determined to be excessively compacted by testing, as identified above, procedures shall be used\nto mitigate excessive soil compaction prior to placement of topsoil and establishment of permanent vegetative cover.\n Restoration of compacted soils shall be through deep scarification/tillage (6\" minimum depth) where there is no\ndanger to underground utilities (cables, irrigation systems, etc.) or in the alternative, another method as specified by\na New Jersey Licensed Professional Engineer.\n\n\nInstallation Requirements\n\nTimber, logs, brush, rubbish, rocks, stumps and vegetative matter which will interfere with the grading operation or\naffect the planned stability or fill areas shall be removed and disposed of according to the plan.\n\nTopsoil is to be stripped and stockpiled in amounts necessary to complete finish grading of all exposed areas\nrequiring topsoil. See Standard for Topsoiling, pg. 8-1.\n\nFill material is to be free of brush, rubbish, timber, logs, vegetative matter and stumps in amounts that will be\ndetrimental to constructing stable fills.\n\nAll structural fills shall be compacted as determined by structural engineering requirements for their intended\npurpose and as required to reduce slipping, erosion or excessive saturation.\n\nAll disturbed areas shall be left with a neat and finished appearance and shall be protected from erosion. See\nStandards for Permanent Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization, pg. 4-1.\n\nTrees to be retained shall be protected if necessary in accordance with the Standard for Tree Protection During\nConstruction, pg. 9-1.\n 19-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=111)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 112", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 112\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n LINED WATERWAY\n\n\n Definition\n\n\nA watercourse with an erosion resistant lining of concrete, stone or other permanent material. The lined section\nextends up the side slopes to design flow depth. The earth above the permanent lining shall be vegetated or\notherwise protected.\n\n Scope\n\nThis standard applies to waterways with linings of non-reinforced, cast-in place concrete; flagstone mortared in\nplace; rock riprap or similar permanent linings. This standard does not apply to grassed waterways with stone\ncenters. The maximum capacity of the lined waterway flowing at design flow depth shall not exceed 100 cfs.\n\n Purpose\n\nWaterways are lined to provide for safe disposal or runoff without damage by erosion or flooding in situations\nwhere grassed waterways would be inadequate.\n\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice applies where the following conditions exist:\n\n1. The water velocity is such that lining is required to control erosion in the waterway.\n\n2. Wetness, prolonged base flow or seepage would prohibit establishment of erosion-resistant vegetation.\n\n3. The location is such that damage from use by people, vehicles or animals precludes use of vegetated\n waterways.\n\n4. High value property or adjacent facilities warrant the extra cost to contain design runoff in a limited space.\n\n5. Soils are highly erodible, highly acidic or other soil or climatic conditions precludes using vegetation.\n\n6. On slopes greater than 10% the Standard for Slope Protection Structures shall apply.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThis standard is intended to protect larger capacity waterways from the extreme forces of erosion resulting from\nconcentrated, high volume - high velocity flows. The primary benefit will be the prevention of soil loss from the\nchannel lining surface. Subsequently, areas downstream will be protected from the deleterious effects of sediment\ndeposition and conveyance of soil nutrients into local surface and groundwater systems.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=112)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 113", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 113\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Design Criteria\n\nCapacity\n\nCapacity shall be computed using Manning's formula or water surface profile models such as HEC RAS with a\ncoefficient of roughness \"n\" as follows:\n\n\n Table 20-1 Manning’s “n” Values for Various Channel Lining Materials\n\n LINING \"n\" VALUE\n\n Concrete\n Trowel finish 0.012 - 0.014\n Float finish 0.013 - 0.017\n Gunite 0.016 - 0.022\n Cable or articulated block Specified by manufacturer\n\n Flagstone 0.020 - 0.025\n\n Wire Mesh Stone filled baskets 0.025\n\n Riprap see the Standard for Riprap\n\n\n\nPeak discharge values shall be determined by the following:\n\n1. Rational Method - for peak discharge of uniform drainage areas as outlined in Technical Manual for Land Use\n Regulation Program, Bureau of Inland and Coastal Regulations Stream Encroachment Permits, Trenton, N.J.\n September 1997 or subsequent editions.\n\n2. USDA-NRCS Win TR-55 or Win TR-20.\n\n3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC HMS.\n\n4. Other methods which produce similar results to the models listed above.\n\n\nMinimum capacity and velocity shall be based on the 10 year frequency storm unless a larger storm event is to be\nconveyed for reasons of safety, compatibility with other stormwater management measures, etc.\n\n\nVelocity\n\nMaximum design velocity shall be as shown below. Except for short transition sections, slopes in the range of 0.9 to\n1.10 of the critical slope must be avoided.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=113)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 114", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 114\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Table 20-2 Flow Depths and Velocities for Lined Waterway Design\n\n DESIGN FLOW DEPTH MAXIMUM VELOCITY\n\n 0.0 - 0.5' 25 FPS\n 0.5 - 1.0' 15 FPS\n > 1.0' 10 FPS\n\n\nLined waterways with velocities exceeding critical shall discharge into an energy dissipater to reduce velocity to less\nthan critical.\n\nCross-Section\n\nThe cross-section shall be triangular, parabolic or trapezoidal. Monolithic concrete may be rectangular.\n\nFreeboard\n\nThe minimum freeboard for lined waterways shall be 0.25 feet above design flow depth in areas where erosion\nresistant vegetation cannot be grown adjacent to the lined side slopes. No freeboard is required where good\nvegetation can be grown and is maintained.\n\nSide slope\n\nSteepest permissible side slopes, horizontal to vertical will be as follows:\n\n Table 20-3 Side Slopes for Corresponding Lining Materials\n\n LINING STEEPEST PERMISSIBLE\n SIDE SLOPE\n\n Non-Reinforced Concrete-\n Hand-placed, formed concrete vertical Height of lining 1.5 feet or less\n\n\n Hand-placed, screeded concrete\n or mortared in-place flagstone-\n Height of lining less than 2 feet 1 to 1\n Height of lining more than 2 feet 2 to 1\n\n Reinforced slip form concrete-\n Height of lining less than 3 feet 1 to 1\n\n Rock riprap 2 to 1\n\n\n\n\n\n 20-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=114)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 115", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 115\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nLining Thickness\n\nMinimum lining thickness shall be as follows:\n\nConcrete\n\n Poured in place, reinforced - 4.0 inches\n Interlocking concrete blocks - per manufacturer’s instructions\n Cabled concrete - per manufacturer’s instructions (non-corroding cable shall be used)\n\nRock riprap - as per Standard for Riprap\n\nFlagstone - 4 inches including mortar bed\n\nRelated Structures\n\nSide inlets, drop structures and energy dissipaters shall meet the hydraulic and structural requirements for the site.\n\nFilters or bedding\n\nFor non-reinforced concrete flagstone linings, installation shall be made only on low shrink-swell soils that are well\ndrained or where subgrade drainage facilities are installed.\n\nFilters or bedding to prevent piping, prevent erosion, reduce uplift pressure and collect water will be used and will\nbe designed in accordance with \"National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 108 - Tentative Design\nProcedures for Riprap-Lined Channels,\" USDA-NRCS procedures or other generally accepted methods. Weep\nholes and drains will be provided as needed.\n\nConcrete or Mortar\n\nConcrete or mortar shall meet New Jersey Department of Transportation Standard Specifications, Ref. #10,\nAppendix A11.\n\nRock Riprap or Flagstone\n\nStone used for riprap or flagstone shall be dense and hard enough to withstand exposure to air, water, freezing and\nthawing. Flagstone shall be flat for ease of placement.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=115)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 116", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 116\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n OFF-SITE STABILITY\n\n\n\n Definition\n\nA condition below and beyond the immediate limits of the site or property where the soil and related natural\nresources are subject to damage directly or indirectly by the discharge of stormwater runoff.\n\n\n Purpose\n\n\nTo protect and maintain the stability and integrity of natural resources on downstream or off-site property due to\nchanges in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff associated with construction activity and of land development.\n\n\n Conditions Where Practices Applies\n\nFor purposes of analysis two areas of concern shall be addressed: (1) at the point of discharge and (2) downstream of\nthe discharge point (which may require a watershed-based analysis).\n\nTechnical criteria for demonstrating off-site stability include consideration of proximity to a defined waterway,\nsite topography (slope), soil texture, vegetative cover and other factors. Where the potential for erosive forces from\nstormwater runoff exceeds the threshold of acceptability as defined below, the plan shall provide for the construction\nof a stabilized channel, installation of a conduit to a stable condition or other types of hydraulic improvements to the\nchannel. Additional design criteria or restrictions from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection or\nthe New Jersey Pinelands Commission may also apply.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\n\nStormwater runoff is that portion of precipitation that returns to water bodies over the surface of the ground. The\namount of stormwater runoff in a given area is a function of several factors including but not limited to: the amount\nand intensity of precipitation, soil texture, vegetative cover and slope. Unless properly managed stormwater runoff\ncan adversely affect the environment through increased flood damages, increased erosion and sedimentation,\nincreased waterway surges, destruction of vegetation, impaired water quality and increased turbidity. By addressing\nthese factors in combination with one another this standard provides guidance for the design of off-site stormwater\ndischarge which will result in minimized environmental impact and the long term protection of downstream water\nquality.\n\n Design Criteria\n\n\nThis Standard involves two areas of analysis: (1) at the point(s) of stormsewer discharge and (2) beyond the site\nboundaries, typically a receiving channel or waterway. Stability documentation for each area is outlined in detail\nbelow. Generally the analyses involve the manipulation of peak rates of discharge for the 2 and 10 year, 24 hour\nstorm events such that peak flow rate values and velocities are below established thresholds. Discharges shall be\nlocated in areas with low gradient topography and covered in perennial erosion resistant vegetation as noted in table\n21-1 below.\n\nSpecial consideration shall be given to the use of infiltration for peak flow modifications as follows:\n\n\n 21-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=116)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 117", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 117\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nPoint of Discharge Stability Analysis\n\nWhen infiltration practices are proposed, an alternate analysis (failure analysis) must be provided which ignores\ninfiltration (no dead storage volume available, no static or dynamic infiltration loss rates in the routing calculations,\netc) and demonstrates that no erosion will occur at the point of discharge if infiltration fails to function. Flow rates\nbased solely upon basin inlet and outlet hydraulics must be used in comparison to Table 21-1 (below) to document a\nstable outlet.\n\nDownstream (off-site) Stability Analysis.\n\nInfiltration may be used to meet peak flow reduction requirements (outlined below) for the purposes of\ndocumenting stability of the downstream receiving channel, provided that the complete loss of infiltration function\ndoes not result in an increase in peak flow values above the predevelopment levels.\n\nA generalized procedure for assessing point and offsite stability is depicted in figure 21-1:\n\n\n\n\n\n 21-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=117)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 118", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 118\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n Figure 21–1\n Point Discharge and Downstream Stability Analysis Procedure\n\n (1)\n Point Discharge\n Stability\n (no infiltration)\n\n\n\n\n\n Yes Defined Waterway? No\n\n\n\n Yes Retain No No Retain Yes\n Predeveloped Predeveloped\n Peak flow Rate? Peak flow Rate?\n\n\n Yes\n Is channel stable Table 21-1 Apply? Yes\n under design (No Ag discharge)\n discharge?\n No No\n\n Modify channel to Construct\n stable condition conveyance\n structure\n\n\n\n\n\n (2)\n Downstream Stability\n Analysis\n\n\n\n\n Use new or existing Reduce peak flows to\n watershed model to 50% and 75% of\n assess downstream predeveloped peak\n channel stability rates for 2 and 10 yr\n storms. Infiltration OK\n\n\n END\n\n\n\n 21-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=118)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 119", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 119\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nPoint of Discharge - Methods for Achieving Stability\n\n 1. No well-defined waterway below the point of discharge:\n\n Stability cannot be achieved by the allowable velocity method since there can be no determination\n where the runoff will concentrate. A land-form not previously subjected to concentrated water\n flow will become unstable.\n\n Stability can be achieved by one of the following alternatives:\n\n a. Retain pre-existing runoff characteristics. Do not increase the amount and rate of runoff for\n the development and do not concentrate flows.\n\n b. Where there is no well defined channel, no sandy condition, no trees or brush to substantially\n concentrate the flows and it can be reasonably assumed that the flow will disperse over a\n broad area. The combinations of slopes and soils in table 21-1 and the following criteria are\n considered stable for flows of 10cfs or less for a 25 year, 24hr design storm.\n\n\n\n Table 21-1 Non-Erosive Velocities for Point Discharges\n\n Maximum Stable Slope for Point Discharges\n for Various Soils\n\n Soil Type Perennial, Natural Vegetation\n\n Maximum Slope (%)\n\n Sands 1.8\n Sandy loam 2.0\n Silt loam, loam 2.5\n Sandy clay loam 3.5\n Clay loam 5.0\n Graded loam to gravel 8.0\n\n\n Stability Criteria (in conjunction with table 21-1)\n\n i. The maximum discharge rate shall be 10 cfs or less for the twenty-five (25) year storm.\n\n ii. Multiple outlets may be utilized to reduce individual outlet flow rates to levels below the\n thresholds noted above. Outlets should be spaced no closer than 50 ft horizontally to\n avoid re-mixing of flows\n\n iii. Flow over the outlet area shall be less than 0.5 cfs/ft. Designers shall not design\n excessive widths which will cause flows to concentrate.\n\n iv. Conduit outlet protection shall be provided in accordance with that Standard and may\n include: flat aprons, preformed scour holes, impact basins, stilling wells, plunge pools, etc.\n Level spreaders are not an acceptable design.\n\n v. Topography shows broad uniform outlet area where flows will not concentrate.\n\n 21-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=119)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 120", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 120\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n vi. Discharge locations shall contain perennial, erosion resistant vegetation\n\n vii. Peak discharge velocities (in the last pipe section) do not exceed 2 fps.\n\n viii. The maximum length of slope below the outlet(s) is 100 feet\n\n\n c. Construct conveyance structure (pipe or channel)\n\n i. Pipe to a stable condition. When constructing a pipe through wetlands, an impervious\n trench shall be required. The pipe trench shall be compacted and filled with impervious\n material instead of the classic stone filled trench. The Conduit Outlet Protection Standard\n shall be adhered to.\n\n ii. Construct a channel pursuant to the Standards for:\n • Channel Stabilization\n • Grassed Waterways\n • Lined Waterways\n • Rip Rap\n • Soil Bioengineering\n\n\n Discharge to Agricultural Lands\n\n Conditions represented in table 21-1 (and following) presume the presence of perennial, natural vegetation\n and in-situ, undisturbed soil conditions. Agricultural lands which are routinely disturbed due to cultivation\n and harvesting practices do not conform to the presumptions of this model and are therefore not suitable\n locations for point discharge. Generally, discharges to actively cultivated agricultural lands will require the\n construction of a conveyance structure across fields and land owner permission to discharge stormwater.\n Verification of landowner permission along with all appropriate engineering designs must be submitted to\n the soil conservation district to be considered for plan certification\n\n Note: Some form of detention may be required in conjunction with the use of a constructed pipe or channel\n depending on the final discharge location. Consideration shall be given to the effects of an extended time of\n peak discharge duration as compared to the instantaneous peak discharge when detention is not used.\n Extended peak runoff may saturate the soil, destroy existing vegetation and loosen the soil to an eroding\n condition. If detention is required, the Standard for Detention Structures shall be addressed.\n\n 2. Well-defined waterway1 below the point of discharge:\n\n a. Retain pre-developed runoff characteristics. Do not increase the rate of runoff from\n development.\n\n b. Analyze the waterway or channel for stability under the planned rate of discharge using the\n Standard for Grassed Waterways or Standard for Channel Stabilization, as appropriate. Peak\n flows from the 2 and 10 year storms shall be analyzed.\n\n\n1 “Waterway” shall be construed to mean an actual channel, gulley or topographic landform which has a discernable cross section.\n 21-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=120)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 121", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 121\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n c. Modify the waterway or channel to a stable design condition.\n\n\nDownstream of the Point of Discharge (Off-Site Stability Analysis)\n\n In addition to ensuring erosion does not occur at the point of discharge, areas downstream and beyond the\n immediate area of site development may be damaged due to erosive forces resulting from extended duration\n of hydrograph peak flows. An unintended consequence of the practice of detaining and slowly releasing\n stormwater is the ability for peak flows to be sustained for longer periods of time, offering an opportunity\n for upstream discharges to coincide with project site discharges. The resulting combined discharge may be\n equal to or even exceed that of the pre-development condition.\n\n To limit the potential for such an occurrence the designer may choose either of two approaches for\n downstream stability protection:\n\n 1. Examine hydraulic characteristics of the receiving stream channel considering upstream discharge in\n combination with site discharge to assess channel stability. The scope and scale of the analysis shall\n be appropriate to the scale of the project and the post development peak discharge rate and volume.\n Of particular concern are hydraulic control points, (culverts , bridges, etc.), bends in streams and\n sudden changes in channel cross sections downstream of the discharge point. The following may be\n utilized to assess stability:\n\n a. Utilize an existing watershed or regional stormwater management plan to verify the proposed\n discharge will not cause erosion downstream of the discharge point. The model should reflect\n the current conditions in the watershed.\n\n b Perform a new watershed analysis. Modeling multiple watersheds, routing stormwater\n structures and modeling water surface profiles shall be done, as necessary, to determine pre\n and post development velocities in channels and through structures.\n\n Analysis of the receiving channel shall include a comparison of pre and post condition velocities in\n the channel and overbank (if applicable) areas for the 2 and 10 year storm events. Cross sections\n and a scaled map of the section stations shall be included in the hydraulic analysis of the channel.\n\n In the event the analysis determines that the post development runoff must be controlled prior to\n discharge, some form of detention will be required. Refer to the Standard for Detention Structures\n for design requirements.\n\n 2. In lieu of performing a comprehensive watershed analysis, design a detention facility that reduces\n peak flows to the following levels. Infiltration may be used to meet these criteria:\n\n 2 year storm – 50% of the predevelopment peak\n 10 year storm – 75% of the predevelopment peak\n\n Reductions in peak flows are to be compared to predeveloped drainage area points of discharge in\n the event that drainage is re-directed in the post developed condition. Reductions are only\n required of the developed or modified portions of the project site.\n\nPlan Requirements for Documenting Stability\n\nIn addition to a complete hydraulic and hydrologic analysis described above, drawings must be submitted with the\nerosion control plan which show the predeveloped drainage condition for the proposed point of discharge along with\nthe time of concentration flow path.\n\n 21-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=121)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 122", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 122\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD FOR RIPRAP\n\n\nDefinition\n\nA layer of loose rock, aggregate, bagged concrete, gabions, or concrete revetment blocks placed over an erodible soil\nsurface.\n Purpose\n\nThe purpose of riprap is to protect the soil surface from the erosive forces of water.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice applies to soil-water interfaces where the soil conditions, water turbulence and velocity, expected\nvegetative cover, and groundwater conditions are such that the soil may erode under the design flow conditions. Riprap\nmay be used, as appropriate, at such places as channel banks and/or bottoms, roadside ditches, drop structures and\nshorelines of open freshwater bodies. Riprap may also be used in conjunction with Soil Bioengineering Techniques\nwhich are found in that standard (pg. 26-1). This Standard applies to slopes less than ten percent.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nBoth stream channel and shoreline environments will benefit from the protection against erosion caused by flowing\nwater and wave action. Protection of banks and shores not only prevents soil loss directly into surface waters, but also\nprotects vegetation in these areas which contribute other water quality and wildlife benefits. .\n\n\n Design Criteria - Open Channel Flow Conditions\n\nDesign Storm\n\nThe riprap shall be designed to be stable when the channel is flowing at the design discharge or the 25-year frequency\nstorm discharge, whichever is greater.\n\n\nCapacity shall be determined by the following methods:\n\n1. Rational Method - for peak discharge of uniform drainage areas as outlined in Technical Manual for Land Use\n Regulation Program, Bureau of Inland and Coastal Regulations Stream Encroachment Permits, Trenton, N.J.\n September 1997 or subsequent editions\n\n2. USDA-NRCS hydrologic procedures such as WinTR55 or WinTR20.\n\n3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC HMS\n\n4. Other methods which produce similar results to the models listed above.\n\n\nRiprap Design\n\nStorm water conveyance or flood control channels\n\nRiprap shall be sized using the design procedures in this Standard or the \"National Cooperative Highway Research\nProgram Report No. 108, Tentative Design Procedure for Riprap-Lined Channels.\" These procedures are for\n\n 22-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=122)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 123", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 123\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\ndetermining a design stone size, such that the stone is stable under the design flow conditions. The design stone size is\nthe d50 stone diameter.\n\nErosive forces of flowing water are greater in bends than in straight channels. If the riprap size (d50) computed for\nbends is less than 10% greater than the riprap size (d50) for straight channels, then the riprap size for straight channels\nshall be considered adequate for bends. Otherwise, the larger riprap size shall be used in the bend. The riprap size to be\nused in a bend shall extend upstream from the point of curvature and downstream from the point of tangency a distance\nequal to five times the channel bottom width, and shall extend across the bottom and up both sides of the channel.\n\nRiprap for banks shall extend up the banks to the level of the design storm or the top of bank, whichever is lower.\n\nIn channels where no riprap or paving is required in the bottom, but is required on the banks, the toe of the bank riprap\nshall extend below the channel bottom a distance at least 8 times the maximum stone size, but in no case more than 3\nfeet unless analysis of scour potential demonstrates the need for deeper installation. The only exemption to this would\nbe if there is a non-erodible hard, rock bottom.\n\nStream stabilization- Soil Bioengineering\n\nFor determining d50, riprap may be sized using the procedures in this Standard or procedures contained in Chapter 16 of\nthe NRCS Engineering Field Handbook including the Isbash Curve or Lane’s Method. For stream stabilization, the use\nof riprap is generally limited to critically erosive locations such as the base of the channel side slopes up to the elevation\nof the one year flow event. Riprap is designed to be used in combination with vegetation as a part of a bioengineering\nsolution (see Standard for Soil Bioengineering). Riprap may be placed on slopes steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical\nfollowing the procedures in this Standard (Curve 22-6). Large, over-sized stone having a minimum d50 of 18 inches, or\ntwo times the required d50, whichever is greater, may be stacked to a slope no steeper than 0.5 horizontal to 1 vertical\nwhere site conditions are acceptable. Stability of the stream bank and bed material along with the flow conditions in the\nstream shall be evaluated in determining site acceptability.\n\nRiprap Gradation\n\nThe riprap shall be composed of a well-graded mixture such that 50% of the mixture by weight shall be larger than the\nd50 size as determined from the design procedure. A well-graded mixture as used herein is defined as a mixture\ncomposed primarily of the larger stone sizes, but with a sufficient mixture of other sizes to fill the progressively-smaller\nvoids between the stones. The diameter of the largest stone size in such a mixture shall be 1.5 times the d50 size. The\nd75 should be 1.25 times the d50 and the d15 should be 0.5 times the d50 size.\n\nThe designer, after determining the riprap size that will be stable under the flow condition, shall consider that size to be\na minimum size and then, based on riprap gradations actually available in the area, select the size or sizes that equal or\nexceed the minimum size. The possibility of vandalism shall be considered by the designer in selecting a riprap size.\n\nThickness of Riprap Lining\n\nConstruction techniques, discharge, size of channel, sizes and graduation of riprap, etc., should be taken into\nconsideration when determining the thickness of riprap lining. The thickness of riprap lining shall meet at least one of\nthe following two criteria:\n\n1. A thickness of at least three times the d50 size if a filter layer is not used.\n\n2. A thickness of at least two times the d50 size if a filter layer is used.\n\nThe minimum thickness shall be 6 inches.\n\nFilter\n\n\n 22-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=123)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 124", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 124\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nLeaching is the process by which the finer base materials beneath the riprap are picked up and carried away by the\nturbulence that penetrates the interstices of the riprap. Leaching is reduced to a negligible rate by using a properly\ndesigned filter under the riprap, or by making the riprap layer thick enough and with fine enough interstices to keep\nerosion currents away from underlying soil.\n\nA filter is required unless the riprap lining has a thickness of at least 3 times the d50 size of the riprap. On steep slopes,\nhighly erodible soils, loose sand, or with high water velocities, a filter should be used or riprap thickness increased\nbeyond the minimums.\n\nA filter can be of two general forms. One is a geotextile manufactured for that express purpose. Another is a properly\ngraded layer of sand, gravel, or stone.\n\n\nA sand, gravel, or stone filter shall meet the following criteria:\n\n d15 Riprap d15 Riprap\n < 5 < <40\n d85 Filter d15 Filter\n\n\n d50 Riprap\n <40\n d50 Filter\n\nWhere d15, d50, and d85 are the diameters of riprap and filter material of which 15, 50, and 85% are finer by weight.\nThe base material may be used as the filter if it meets the above criteria. The minimum sand gravel or stone filter\nthickness shall be 6 inches or 3 times the d50 size of the filter, whichever is greater.\n\n Geotextile fabric1 shall meet the following criteria:\n\nA. For filter fabric adjacent to granular materials containing 50% or less by weight of fines (Minus No. 200\n material):\n\n For Woven Fabric:\n\n 1. 85% size of material (mm) >1\n AOS2 (mm)\n\n and AOS no smaller than the opening in the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 100\n\n\n 2. For non-woven fabric: AOS no larger than the opening in the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 40.\n\n\n 1Geotextile fabric shall meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guide Specifications, CW02215-86, for strength. Riprap that is 12\"\n and larger shall not be dumped directly onto synthetic filter cloth unless the manufacturer recommends such use for the cloth.\n Otherwise, a 4-inch minimum thickness blanket of gravel shall be placed over the filter cloth. Where seepage forces exist or where\n hydrostatic pressures may be developed in the base soil, the permeability of the geotextile shall be 10 times the permeability of the\n base soil.\n 2Apparent Opening Size is defined as the number of the U.S. Standard sieve having openings closest in size to the geotextile\n openings.\n\n 22-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=124)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 125", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 125\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nB. For geotextile fabric adjacent to all other soils:\n\n For woven fabric:\n\n 1. AOS no larger than the opening in the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 70, and AOS no smaller than the opening\n in the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 100.\n\n 2. For non-woven fabric: AOS no larger than the opening in the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 40.\n\n\nQuality\n\nStone for riprap shall consist of field stone or quarry stone of approximately rectangular shape. The stone shall be hard\nand angular and of such quality that it will not disintegrate on exposure to water or weathering. The specific gravity of\nthe individual stones shall be at least 2.5.\n\nRubble concrete may be used provided it has a density of at least 150 pounds per cubic foot, and otherwise meets the\nrequirements of this Standard.\n\nBagged Concrete\n\nBagged concrete is made up of bags filled with concrete and placed next to each other. The consistency of the concrete\nshall be as stiff as satisfactory discharge from the mixer and the process of bagging will permit. The bags shall be filled\nthree-quarters full with concrete and shall be laid in close contact, with staggered joints and tied ends turned in.\n\nBagged concrete may be used when all the following conditions are met:\n\n1. The design storm, riprap size and location, and filter criteria for riprap are met.\n\n2. The weight of the filled bags is at least equal to the weight of the maximum stone size required for rock riprap.\n\n3. Settlement or lateral movement of foundation soils is not anticipated.\n\n4. Ice conditions are not severe.\n\n5. A filter is used.\n\n6. Slopes somewhat steeper than 2 to 1 may be permitted under special circumstances.\n\nWire-mesh stone filled structures\n\nBaskets formed of plastic-coated wire mesh and filled with cobbles or coarse gravel (a thinner version of gabions is\nknown as a “mattress”) may be used when all the following conditions are met:\n\n1. The design storm shall be the same as that required for riprap. Riprap size and location, filter, and quality\n criteria shall be as outlined below.\n\n2. The design water velocity does not exceed that given in table 22-1:\n\n\n\n Table 22-1 Gabion Dimensions\n\n\n 22-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=125)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 126", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 126\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n GABION THICKNESS MAXIMUM VELOCITY\n (ft.) (ft./sec.)\n\n 1/2 6\n 3/4 11\n 1 14\n\n\n\n3. The Manning's \"n\" value used for gabions shall be 0.025.\n\n4. The wire mesh structures are not exposed to abrasion from sand or gravel transported by moving water.\n\n5. Plastic coated wire shall be used.\n\n6. All wire mesh structures placed against the bottom of a channel shall be underlain by geotextile or a gravel\n filter designed according to the limits outlined in Table 22-1.\n\n7. The rock used to fill basket structures shall be 4\" to 7\" angular, block-shaped rock. For wire mesh “mattress”\n structures, 3\" to 4\" stone may be used provided the mesh opening is small enough to contain the stone. Smaller\n stone will provide more stone “layers” in the mattress where larger stone would not sufficiently fill the\n structure’s void space\n\n\n Table 22-2 Maximum Gabion Slope by Soil Texture\n\n\n Soil Texture Erosive Velocity, VE Maximum Allowable Bottom\n (fps) Slope (ft./ft.) using geotextile\n Fabrics*\n\n Sandy Loam 2.5 0.029\n Silt Loam 3.0 0.041\n Sandy Clay Loam 3.5 0.056\n Clay Loam 4.0 0.074\n Clay, fine gravel, graded loam to gravel 5.0 0.115\n Cobbles 5.5 0.139\n *For bottom slopes steeper than those shown, a properly designed gravel filter shall be placed under the\n gabions.\n\n Sand, gravel, or stone filters placed under wire mesh basket structures shall meet the filter requirements shown\n on page 22-3.\n\n\nConcrete Revetment Blocks\n\nConcrete revetment blocks are precast interlocking or cabled concrete grids designed for soil stabilization.\n\nConcrete revetment blocks may be used when all the following conditions are met:\n\n1. The design storm shall be the same as that required for riprap.\n\n 22-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=126)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 127", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 127\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n2. The water velocity does not exceed 9 feet per second.\n\n3. The Manning's \"n\" value used for concrete revetment blocks shall be 0.026, unless otherwise recommended by\n manufacturer's literature.\n\n4. A filter is used in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.\n\n5. Cabled-concrete shall use non-degrading, non-corroding cable.\n\n\n Recommended Design Procedure for Riprap-Lined Channels\n\nThis design of riprap-lined channels is from the \"National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 108,\nTentative Design Procedure for Riprap-Lined Channels.\" It is based on the tractive stress method, and covers the\ndesign of riprap in two basic channel shapes: trapezoidal and triangular.\n\nNOTE: This procedure is for uniform flow at normal depth in channels and is not to be used for design of riprap\nenergy dissipation devices immediately downstream from such high velocity devices as pipes and culverts. See the\nStandard for Conduit Outlet Protection, p. 12-1.\n\nThe method in Report No. 108 (design procedure beginning on p. 18) gives a simple and direct solution to the design\nof trapezoidal channels, including channel carrying capacity, channel geometry, and the riprap lining.\n\nThis procedure is based on the assumption that the channel is already designed and the remaining problem is to\ndetermine the riprap size that would be stable in the channel. The designer would first determine the channel\ndimensions by the use of Manning's equation. The \"n\" value for use in Manning's equation is obtained by estimating\na riprap size and then determining the corresponding \"n\" value for the rip rapped channel from:\n\n n = .00395(d 50 ).0 167\n\nwhere d50 is in feet, or by using Curve 22-1 where d50 is in inches.\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=127)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 128", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 128\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Curve 22-1\n\n\n\n Manning's \"n\" for Riprap-Lined Channels\n\n\n\n 0.048\n 0.046\n 0.044\n n 0.042\n 0.040\n 0.038\n 0.036 Coefficient, 0.034\n 0.032 Manning's\n 0.030\n 0.028 Roughness 0.026\n 0.024\n 0.022\n 0.020\n 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30\n\n Median Riprap size, d50, inches\n\n\nWhen the channel dimensions are known, the riprap can be designed (or an already completed design may be\nchecked) as follows:\n\nTrapezoidal Channels\n\n1. Calculate the b/d ratio and enter Curve 22-2 to find the P/R ratio.\n\n2. Enter Curve 22-3A with Sb, Q, and P/R to find median riprap diameter, d50, for straight channels.\n\n3. Enter Curve 22-1 to find the actual \"n\" value corresponding to the d50 from step 2. If the estimated and actual\n \"n\" values do not reasonably agree, another trail must be made.\n\n4. For channels with bends, calculate the ratio Bs/Ro, where Bs is the channel surface width and Ro is the radius\n of the bend. Enter Curve 22-4 and find the bend factor, FB. Multiply the d50 for straight channels by the bend\n factor to determine riprap size to be used in bends. If the d50 for the bend is less than 1.1 times the d50 for the\n straight channel, then the size for straight channel may be used in the bend; otherwise, the larger stone size\n calculated for the bend shall be used. The riprap shall extend across the full channel section and shall extend\n upstream and downstream from the ends of the curve a distance equal to five times the bottom width.\n\n5. Enter Curve 22-5 to determine maximum stable side slope of riprap surface. In Curve 22-5, the side slope is\n established so that the riprap on the side slope is as stable as that on the bottom. If for any reason it is\n\n\n 22-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=128)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 129", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 129\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n desirable to make the side slopes steeper than what is given by Curve 22-5, the size of the riprap can be\n increased and the side slopes made steeper by using the following procedures:\n\n\n a. Compute d50 and maximum stable side slope as above.\n\n b. Enter Curve 22-6 with the computed side slope to determine K for that side slope.\n\n c. Enter Curve 22-6 with the desired side slope to determine K'.\n\n d. Compute riprap size for desired slope by the formula:\n\n\n d50' = d50 K/K'\n\n6. Maximum side slopes, 2:1.\n\n Triangular Channels\n\n1. Enter Curve 22-3B with Sb, Q, and Z and find the median riprap diameter, d50, for straight channels.\n\n2. Enter Curve 22-1 to find the actual \"n\" value. If the estimated and actual \"n\" values are not in reasonable\n agreement, another trial must be made.\n\n3. For channels with bends, see step 4 under Trapezoidal channels.\n\nExample:\n Given:\n Trapezoidal channel\n\n Q = 100 cfs.\n S = 0.01 ft./ft.\n Side slopes = 2.5:1.\n Mean bend radius, Ro = 25'.\n\n n = 0.033 (estimated, and used to design the channel to find that b = 6' and d = 1.8').\n Type of rock available is crushed stone.\n\nSolution:\n Straight channel reach\n b/d = 6/1.8 = 3.33.\n\n\n 22-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=129)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 130", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 130\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n from Curve 22-2, P/R = 13.0.\n from Curve 22-3A, d50 = 3.4\"\n from Curve 22-1, n (actual) = 0.032, which is reasonably close to the estimated n of 0.033\n Use 5\" as maximum riprap size and 8\" as riprap layer thickness with a filter.\n\n Channel bend\n Bs = b + 2zd = 6 + (2)(2.5)(1.8) = 15'\n\n Bs/Ro = 15/25 - 0.60.\n\n from Curve 22-4, FB = 1.33\n\n FB = 1.33 > 1.1, therefore, the bend factor must be used.\n\n Riprap size in bend, d50 = 3.4 x 1.33 = 4.52\"\n\n The heavier riprap for the bend shall extend upstream and downstream from the ends of the\n bend a distance of (5)(6) = 30 feet.\n\n From Curve 22-5, it can be found that the riprap for d50 = 3.4\" and 4.52\" will both be stable on\n a 2.5:1 side slope.\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-9 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=130)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 131", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 131\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Curve 22-2\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-10 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=131)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 132", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 132\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Curve 22-3A\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-11 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=132)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 133", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 133\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Curve 22-3B\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-12 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=133)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 134", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 134\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n Curve 22-4\n\n\n\n\n\n CURVECurve22-521-5\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-13 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=134)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 135", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 135\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n Curve 22-6\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-14 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=135)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 136", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 136\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Riprap Shoreline Protection\n\n\n\n\n Conditions where practice applies\n\nThis design procedure applies to riprap protection of shorelines surrounding open bodies of water, such as lakes,\nbays, estuaries etc. against the erosive action of surface waves. It is not intended as a design procedure for the\nprotection of embankments of open channels. Refer to the beginning of this standard for open channel riprap\ndesign.\n\n Design Procedure\n\n1. Find wind speed from Figures 22-1 or 22-2 (figures are based on the 10 or 25 year return period). In general,\n use a 25 year return period unless a higher risk of failure is acceptable.\n\n2. Find wave height from Table 22-3, 22-4, 22-5 or 22-6. Fetch length is the distance across open water in the\n prevailing wind direction.\n\n3. Find rock weight (in lbs) from Tables 22-7, 22-8 and 22-9.\n\n4. Find rock size (d50) from Curve 22-7 Note: curve is calibrated for rock with a specific gravity of 2.6, or a\n unit weight of 165 lbs/ ft3. Table 22-9, Correction for unit weight, will correct for rock with a different unit\n weight.\n\nRiprap is to be installed according to limits established for depth, filter material and slope as outlined earlier in this\nstandard.\n\nExample:\n\nGiven:\n\n25 year storm event, fetch length of 1 mile, depth of 5 feet, installation slope of 1:3, and stone unit weight = 160\nlbs/ft3, find:\n\n\n1. From figure 22-2, wind speed for Central New Jersey for the 25 year design storm is 75 mph.\n\n2. From Table 22-3, wave height is 2.0 feet for a fetch length of 1.0 mile and average depth of 5.0 feet.\n\n\n 22-15 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=136)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 137", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 137\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n3. From Table 22-7, the estimated required weight of stone based on wave height is 50 lbs. (per piece).\n\n4. From Table 22-8, the correction factor for a slope of 1:3 is 0.7.\n\n5. From Table 22-9, the correction factor for stone unit weight of 160 lbs/ft3 is 1.1.\n\n6. The required stone weight is: 50 x 0.7 x 1.1 = 38.5 lbs. (per piece).\n\n7. From Curve 22-7, the d50 stone size for 38.5 lbs is 9.3 inches, say 9 inches.\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-16 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=137)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 138", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 138\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-1\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-2\n\n\n\n 22-17 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=138)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 139", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 139\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Table 22-3\n\n\n\n\n\n Table 22-4\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-18 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=139)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 140", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 140\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n Table 22-5\n\n\n\n\n\n Table 22-6\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-19 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=140)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 141", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 141\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n 22-7 22-8 22-9\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-20 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=141)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 142", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 142\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n Curve 22-7\n\n\n d50 Stone Size by Stone Weight, lbs\n (for stone weighing 165lbs/ft3)\n\n\n 30.0\n\n 25.0\n\n 20.0\n in\n 15.0 50,\n d\n 10.0\n\n 5.0 D50 = 2.9459(lbs)0.3221\n\n 0.0\n 1 10 100 1000\n\n Weight, lbs\n\n\n\n\n\n 22-21 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=142)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 143", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 143\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n SEDIMENT BARRIERS\n\n\n Definition\n\nA temporary barrier installed across or at the toe of a slope.\n\n Purpose\n\nThe purpose of a sediment barrier is to intercept and detain small amounts of sediment from unprotected areas of\nlimited extent.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThe sediment barrier is used where:\n\n1. No other practice is feasible,\n\n2. There is no concentration of water in a channel or other drainage way above the barrier, and\n\n3. Erosion would occur in the form of sheet and rill erosion.\n\n Design Criteria\n\nA. All types of sediment barriers:\n\n 1. Contributing drainage area is less than 1 acre and the length of slope above the barrier is less than 150\n feet.\n\n 2. The slope of the contributing drainage area for at least 30 feet adjacent to the barrier shall not exceed\n 5%.\n\n 3. The barrier shall be constructed so water cannot bypass the barrier around the ends.\n\n 4. Inspection shall be frequent and repair or replacement shall be made promptly as needed.\n\n 5. The barrier shall be removed when the contributing drainage area has been stabilized so as not to block\n or impede storm flow or drainage.\n\nB. Requirements for bale barrier (e.g., straw, hay, or other acceptable vegetative material):\n\n 1. All bales shall be securely tied and staked on the contour (Fig. 23-1).\n\n 2. Bales shall be placed in a row with ends tightly abutting the adjacent bales.\n\n 3. Each bale shall be embedded in the soil a minimum of 4 inches.\n\n 4. Bales shall be securely anchored in place by two stakes or re-bars driven through each bale. The first\n stake in each bale shall be driven toward previously laid bale to force bales together.\n\n\n 23-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=143)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 144", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 144\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nC. Requirements for silt fence:\n\n 1. Fence posts shall be spaced 8 feet center-to-center or closer. They shall extend at least 2 feet into the\n ground and extend at least 2 feet above ground (Fig. 23-2). Posts shall be constructed of hardwood\n with a minimum diameter thickness of 1 ½ inches.\n\n 2. “Super” silt fence - A metal fence with 6 inch or smaller mesh openings and at least 2 feet high may\n be utilized, fastened to the fence posts, to provide reinforcement and support to the geotextile fabric.\n Posts may be spaced less than 8 feet on center and may be constructed of heavier wood or metal as\n needed to withstand heavier sediment loading. This practice is appropriate where space for other\n practices is limited and heavy sediment loading is expected. “Super” silt fence is not to be used in\n place of properly designed diversions (pg. 15-1) which may be needed to control surface runoff rates\n and velocities.\n\n 3. A geotextile fabric, recommended for such use by the manufacturer, shall be buried at least 6 inches\n deep in the ground. The fabric shall extend at least 2 feet above the ground. The fabric must be\n securely fastened to the posts using a system consisting of metal fasteners (nails or staples) and a high\n strength reinforcement material (nylon webbing, grommets, washers etc.) placed between the fastener\n and the geotextile fabric. The fastening system shall resist tearing away from the post. The fabric\n shall incorporate a drawstring in the top portion of the fence for added strength.\n\nD. Requirements for stone barrier:\n\n 1. The stone shall be piled to a natural angle of repose with a height of at least 2 feet.\n\n 2. The stone shall meet ASTM C-33 size No. 2 (2.5 to 1.5) or 3 (2 to 1 inch).\n\n\n Maintenance\n\n1. Sediment shall be removed from the upstream face of the barrier when it has reached a depth of ½ the\n barrier height.\n\n2. Repair or replace barrier (fabric, posts, bales etc.) when damaged.\n\n3. Barriers shall be inspected daily for signs of deterioration and sediment removal.\n\n\n\n\n\n 23-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=144)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 145", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 145\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 23-1: Placement and Anchoring Detail Bale Sediment Barriers\n\n\n\n\n 23-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=145)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 146", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 146\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nFigure 23-2: Silt Fence construction and installation detail\n\n\n\n\n Drawstring running through\n fabric along top of fence\n\n\n\n\n\n Fence Post - 8 ft on centers\n\n\n\n Fabric secured to post with metal Optional wire fence fasteners and reinforcement behind fabric for “Super” between fastener and fabric\n 2.0 ft min. silt fence\n\n Silt Accumulation\n\n\n\n\n 6.0 in\n\n\n 2.0 ft min.\nDig 6 in deep trench, bury\nbottom flap, tamp in place\n 6.0 in\n\n\n\n\n\n 23-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=146)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 147", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 147\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n SEDIMENT BASIN\n\n\n Definition\n\n\nA barrier, dam, excavated pit, or dugout constructed across a waterway or at other suitable locations to intercept and\nretain sediment.\n\nBasins created by construction of dams or barriers are referred to as \"Embankment Sediment Basins\" and those\nconstructed by excavation as \"Excavated Sediment Basins.\" Basins resulting from both excavation and embankment\nconstruction are classified as \"Embankment Sediment Basins\" where the depth of water impounded against the\nembankment at the emergency spillway elevation is 3 feet or more.\n\n Scope\n\nThe standard covers the installation of sediment basins on sites where:\n\n1. Failure of the sediment basin should not, within reasonable expectations, result in loss of life.\n\n2. Failure of the sediment basin would not result in damage to homes, commercial or industrial buildings, main\n highways, or railroads; or interrupt the use or service of public utilities.\n\n3. The drainage area is 320 acres or less.\n\n4. The effective height of the dam is 20 feet or less. The effective height of the dam is defined as the difference\n in elevation in feet between the emergency spillway crest and the lowest point in the cross section taken along\n the centerline of the dam. If there is no emergency spillway, the top of the dam becomes the upper limit.\n\nSediment basins that are not within the above scope shall be designed to meet the criteria in \"Earth Dams and\nReservoirs, Technical Release 60\" (TR60) by the USDA-NRCS.\n\nFor dams which raise the water elevation five (5) feet or greater in height as defined in NJAC 7:20, the rules and\nregulations established by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Engineering and\nConstruction, Dam Safety, shall apply for all structural criteria. Flood Hazard Area Regulations NJAC 7:13-1.1 et.\nseq. may also apply.\n\n\n Purpose\n\nTo preserve the capacity of reservoirs, ditches, canals, diversions, storm sewers, waterways, and streams; to prevent\nundesirable deposition on bottom-lands and developed areas; to trap sediment originating from critically eroding\nareas and construction sites; and to reduce or abate pollution by providing basins for deposition and storage of silt,\nsand, gravel, and stone.\n\n\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nThis practice applies where physical conditions, land ownership, or construction operations preclude the treatment\n\n 24-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=147)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 148", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 148\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nof the sediment source by the installation or erosion control measures to keep soil and other material in place, or a\nsediment basin offers the most practical solution to the problem. The effectiveness of sediment removal is greatly\nreduced when soils are highly colloidal in nature. Additional source controls (stabilization) or flocculants must be\nutilized to reduce the delivery of fines to the sediment basin.\n\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nDuring the construction process, large areas of bare soil are frequently exposed to erosion due to stormwater runoff.\nSuspended soils can contribute significantly to degraded water quality, both from downstream deposition as well as\nacting as a carrier for other pollutants which may adsorb onto soil particles. The use of a properly designed\nsediment basin, in combination with other erosion control standards can significantly reduce both volumetric and\npollution transport problems associated with soil erosion from construction sites.\n\n\n Design Criteria\n\nStructural aspects of detention basins shall be as stipulated by applicable state, county or municipal requirements. In\nthe absence of such criteria, Appendix A-10, \"Structural Guidelines for Detention Basins\", may be used. In\naddition, it must be shown for the peak outflow of a 10 year, 24 hour storm event (over and above basin design\nstorage) as determined by Win TR-55, Win TR-20 , USACOE HEC HMS or other comparable methods, that there\nwill be no soil erosion and sedimentation problems offsite. A detailed hydraulic analysis of the basin shall be\nsubmitted.\n\n1. Sediment Basin Location:\n\nThe basin shall be designed to accommodate the individual storm runoff and sediment accumulation from the basin's\ntotal drainage area.\n\nThe basin should be located as much as possible:\n\na. To intercept only runoff from disturbed areas.\nb. To minimize disturbance from its own construction.\nc. To obtain maximum storage benefit from the terrain.\nd. For ease of cleanout of the trapped sediment.\ne. To minimize interference with other construction activities and construction of utilities.\n\n2. Shape and Depth:\n\nThe length, width, and depth are measured at the principal spillway crest elevation. The basin configuration shall be\nsuch that the effective flow length is equal to at least two times the effective flow width. This basin shape may be\nattained by selecting the basin site, by excavating the basin to the required shape or by the installation of one or\nmore baffles.\n\n\n\n\n\n 24-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=148)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 149", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 149\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nThe minimum width shall be:\n\n W = 10 x (Q5)1/2\n\n\n where: W = the width in ft.\n Q5 = peak discharge from a 5 year frequency storm in cfs.\n\n The average depth shall be at least 4 feet.\n\nWhen downstream damage may be severe, the minimum width should be:\n\n W = 10 x (Q25)1/2\n\n where: W = width in feet\n Q25 = peak discharge from a 25 year frequency storm in cfs.\n\n The average depth shall be at least 4 feet.\n\nSee Appendix A-10 for Structural Guidelines for basins.\n\n3. Outlet for Conduits\n\nProtection against scour at the discharge end of the spillway shall be provided in accordance with the Standard for\nConduit Outlet Protection, pg. 12-1, or by suitable hydraulic structures proven effective by properly documented\nresearch.\n\n4. Vegetation\n\nThe dam, emergency spillway, spill and borrow areas, and other disturbed areas above crest of the principal spillway\nshall be stabilized in accordance with the standards for temporary (pg. 7-1) or permanent ( pg. 4-1) vegetative cover,\nwhichever is applicable.\n\n Sediment Basin Sizing\n\nA. Sediment Basin Volume\n\nThe volume in the sediment basin below the crest elevation of the emergency spillway shall be the larger of:\n\n1. The volume necessary to obtain 70% trap efficiency at the start of the basin's useful life, or\n\n2. The volume necessary to provide sediment storage capacity and provide for temporary stormwater runoff\n storage from a 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration, Type III storm.\n\nFlood routing to determine the required temporary floodwater storage for a 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration,\nType III storm shall be done using the approximate methods in the USDA-NRCS \"Engineering Field Manual,\" the\napproximate methods in the USDA-NRCS \"Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds\" (Win TR55), Win TR-20, or\nother generally accepted methods of flood routing.\n\nThe Modified Rational Method on a drainage basin up to 20 acres, as described in Special Report 43 by the\nAmerican Public Works Association, Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater, is also applicable.\n\n\n\n 24-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=149)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 150", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 150\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n1. Trap Efficiency\n\nTrap efficiency is the amount, in percent, of the sediment delivered to the sediment basin that will remain in the\nbasin. The sediment basin shall have adequate volume below the crest of the emergency spillway to have an actual\ntrap efficiency of at least 70% at the start of its useful life using Curve 26-1 and with:\n\n C = total capacity of the sediment basin up to the crest elevation of the emergency spillway in acre feet.\n\n I = average annual surface runoff from Figure 26-1 converted to units of acre feet.\n\nFor a normally dry sediment basin, the actual trap efficiency is reduced 10% where the incoming sediment is\npredominately silt, clay, or fine grained. Therefore, enter Curve 26-1 with 80% trap efficiency to achieve 70%\nactual trap efficiency. For a normally dry sediment basin, the actual trap efficiency is reduced 5% where the\nincoming sediment is sand or coarse grained. Therefore, enter Curve 26-1 with 75% trap efficiency to achieve 70%\nactual trap efficiency.\n\n2. Sediment Storage Capacity plus 2 Year Storm Runoff Volume\n\nThe sediment storage capacity of a sediment basin shall equal the volume of sediment expected to be trapped at the\nsite during the planned useful life of the sediment basin. Where it is determined that periodic removal of sediment is\npracticable, the sediment storage capacity may be proportionately reduced. Planned periodic removal of sediment\nshall not be more frequent than once a year. The capacity shall be determined by one of the following methods:\n\n Provide sediment storage based on the following formula and figures:\n\n V = (DA)(A)(DR)(TE)(1/γs) (2,000 lbs./tons)(1/43560 sq. ft./Ac.)\n\n where:\n\n V = the volume of sediment trapped in Ac. ft./yr.\n DA = the total drainage area in acres.\n A = the average annual erosion in tons per acre per year using the values below for the listed\n land use\n\n\n Average Annual Erosion by Land Use Type\n\n LAND USE AVERAGE ANNUAL EROSION\n\n Wooded areas 0.2 ton/ac/yr\n Developed urban areas, grassed areas, pastures, hay 1.0 ton/ac/yr\n fields, abandoned fields with good cover\n Clean tilled cropland (corn, soybeans, etc.) 10 ton/ac/yr\n Construction areas 50 ton/ac/yr\n\n DR = the delivery ratio determined from Curve 26-2\n TE = the trap efficiency as determined above.\n γ = the estimated sediment density in the sediment basin in lbs/cu. ft. (See Table 26-1).\n γs = the submerged density in a wet sediment pool.\n γa = the aerated density in a normally dry sediment pool.\n\n\n\n 24-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=150)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 151", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 151\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n TABLE 24-1 Soil Densities by Soil Type\n\n SOIL TEXTURE γs γs\n Submerged Aerated\n (lbs./cu.ft.) (lbs./cu.ft.)\n\n Clay 40-60 60-80\n Silt 55-75 75-85\n Clay-silt mixtures (equal parts) 40-65 65-85\n Sand-silt mixtures (equal parts) 75-95 95-100\n Clay-silt-sand mixtures (equal parts) 50-80 80-100\n Sand 85-100 85-100\n Gravel 85-125 85-125\n Poorly sorted sand and gravel 95-130 95-130\n\nThe NRCS Type III 2 year Storm Runoff Volume draining to the Sediment Basin shall be added to the Sediment\nStorage Capacity to arrive at the total storage volume for the Sediment Basin under this criteria.\n\n B. Sediment Basin Outlets:\n\n 1. Dewatering Hole:\n\n If the sediment basin is de-watered by using a hole in the riser:\n\n a. The elevation of the hole shall be the elevation that results in 50% actual trap efficiency\n in the basin. The value for C used to determine the 50% actual trap efficiency is the\n capacity of the basin between the bottom of the basin and the invert of the dewatering\n hole. The riser shall be completely watertight except for the inlet at the top and one\n hole 4 inches or less in diameter to de-water the basin.\n\n b. The sediment shall be removed from the basin when the sediment reaches the elevation\n of the bottom of the hole.\n\n c. A ‘skimmer” or “floating riser” may be utilized to draw down cleaner water from the\n water surface. The flexible connection to the outlet control structure must be water\n tight. Provision must be made to prevent the skimmer from resting on the basin floor\n when the pool has been completely drained. See Appendix A-7 for general details.\n\n If the Sediment Basin has a permanent pool:\n\n a. De-watering the Sediment Basin - Sediment basins with a permanent pool of water trap\n sediment more effectively than basins that are normally dry and usually create less of a\n mosquito problem and safety hazard. Therefore, a sediment basin with a permanent pool\n is usually a better design than a normal dry sediment basin.\n\n If a normally dry or partially dry sediment basin is planned, the basin shall be de-watered by\n methods depicted above and in appendix A7.\n\n If the sediment basin is de-watered by using a subsurface drain, it shall be in accordance with\n the Subsurface Drain Standard, pg. 32-1 and appendix A-7.\n\n A flocculent such as “PAM” (Polyacrylamide) may be added to the basin in accordance with\n manufacturer’s instructions to remove fine suspended colloidal material prior to dewatering. All\n\n 24-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=151)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 152", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 152\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n dewatering discharges must be to a stabilized location. A source of free cationic ions (such as Ca 2+)\n may be required at a rate of 50- 60 gm Ca2+ /kg PAM to encourage bonding between colloids and\n PAM. Materials such as lime, CaCl, gypsum or flyash may be used to provide the cation component.\n The flocculent shall not cause adverse environmental conditions to develop in the area receiving the\n basin discharge.\n\n Flocculent may be added through the use of ‘logs’ or similar devices impregnated with PAM to dose\n inflow water prior to entrance to the sediment basin. Such devices shall be placed to allow complete\n passage of the design storm and shall not obstruct flow through storm sewer systems.\n\n 2. Principal Spillway Crest Elevation – Top of Temporary Sediment Riser:\n\n The principal spillway crest elevation shall be the lower of:\n\n a. one (1) foot below the emergency spillway crest elevation or,\n\n b. the elevation that provides (between the crest of the principal spillway and the crest of\n the emergency spillway), the required temporary floodwater storage for a 2-year\n frequency, 24-hour duration, Type III storm.\n\n 3. Emergency Spillways for Excavated and Embankment Sediment Basins:\n\n Emergency spillways are provided to convey large floods safely past sediment basins.\n\n An emergency spillway must be provided for each sediment basin, unless the principal spillway\n is large enough to pass the routed emergency spillway design storm and the trash that comes to\n it without overtopping the dam. A closed conduit principal spillway having a conduit with a\n cross-sectional area of 3 square feet or more, an inlet which will not clog, and an elbow\n designed to facilitate the passage of trash is the minimum size and design that may be utilized\n without an emergency spillway.\n\n a. Excavated Sediment Basins - Excavated sediment basins may utilize the natural ground\n or the fill for the emergency spillway if the downstream slope is 5 to 1 or flatter, has\n existing vegetation, or is immediately protected by sodding, rock riprap, asphalt lining,\n concrete lining, or other equally effective protection. The spillway shall meet the\n capacity requirement for embankment sediment basins.\n\n b. Embankment Sediment Basins - Embankment sediment basins shall meet the\n following requirements: wrong table\n reference Capacity - The minimum capacity of the emergency spillway shall be that required to pass the\n peak flow expected from a design storm of the frequency and duration shown in Table 26-2 less\n any reduction creditable to conduit discharge and detention storage.\n\n When discharge of the principal spillway is considered in calculating outflow through the\n emergency spillway, the crest elevation of the inlet shall be such that full flow will be\n generated in the conduit before there is discharge through the emergency spillway. The\n emergency spillway shall safely pass the peak flow or the storm runoff shall be routed through\n the reservoir. If routed, the routing shall start with the water surface at the elevation of the crest\n of the principal spillway. The flood routing may be done using the approximate methods in the\n USDA-NRCS Engineering Field Manual; the USDA-NRCS TR-55 or TR-20; the modified\n rational method up to 20 acres, as described in Special Report 43 by the American Public\n Works Association, Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater; or other accepted methods of\n emergency spillway flood routing.\n\n 24-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=152)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 153", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 153\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Table 24-2 Minimum Design Storm\n\n\n DRAINAGE AREA FREQUENCY MINIMUM DURATION*\n (acres) (years) (hours)\n\n less than 20 10 24\n 21 - 49 25 24\n over 49 100 24\n\n *For use by USDA-NRCS methods only.\n\n\nDisposal\n\nThe sediment basin plans shall indicate the method(s) of disposing of the sediment removed from the basin. The\nsediment shall be placed in such a manner that it will not erode from the site. The sediment shall not be deposited\ndownstream from the basin, in or adjacent to a stream or floodplain or in wetlands.\n\nThe plans shall also show the method of removal of the sediment basin after the drainage area is stabilized, and shall\ninclude the stabilizing of the sediment basin site. Water lying over the trapped sediment shall be removed from the\nbasin by pumping, cutting the top of the riser, or other appropriate method prior to removing or breaching the\nembankment. Sediment shall not be allowed to flush into the stream or drainage way.\n\nSediment shall be removed from the basin for maintenance purposes when the sediment level reaches the 50 % Trap\nEfficiency elevation. The elevation shall be identified either by the invert elevation of the 50 % Trap Efficiency\ndewatering hole (if one is used) or by a marker which shall be visible from the basin edge.\n\nSafety - This portion of the Standard is for guidance only.\n\nSediment basins attract children and can be very dangerous. Local County or State ordinances and regulations\nregarding health and safety must be adhered to.\n\nMaintenance\n\nThe plans shall indicate who is responsible for operation and maintenance during the life of the sediment basin.\n\n\n\n\n\n 24-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=153)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 154", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 154\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n CURVE 24-1\n\n\n\n\n\n 24-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=154)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 155", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 155\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n FIGURE 24-1\n\n\n\n\n\n 24-9 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=155)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 156", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 156\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n Curve 24-2\n\n\n\n\n\n 24-10 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=156)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 157", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 157\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n SLOPE PROTECTION STRUCTURES\n\n\n\n Definition\n\nStructures to safely conduct surface runoff from the top of a slope to the bottom of the slope.\n\n Purpose\n\nThe purpose of this practice is to convey storm runoff safely down existing slopes and cut and fill slopes to\nminimize erosion.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nSlope protection structures are to be used where concentrated water will cause excessive erosion on existing and/or\nrecent cut and fill slopes. Temporary structures shall be left in place until adequate vegetation and the permanent\ndrainage system have been installed. Permanent structures are part of the drainage system.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThe primary benefit to water quality is through the prevention of steep slope erosion, by providing a means to safely\nconvey stormwater runoff down to a stable area or condition. Total suspended solids discharged from the site, both\nduring and after construction will be reduced.\n\n\n Design Criteria\n\nOpen Flumes\n\nFlumes shall be adequately designed to convey runoff water concentrations safely down steep slopes based on a 10\nyear frequency storm, the rational method for uniform drainage area up to one-half of a square mile, or sized in\naccordance with the requirements of Tables 25-1 and 25-2.\n\nProtection against scour at the discharge end of the open flume shall be provided in the form of an energy dissipater\nor other measures such as an SAF, rock riprap revetment, or plunge pool.\n\nRecommended dimensions for flumes are defined as follows:\n\n1. b - is the bottom width of the paved down slope section of a trapezoidal or rectangular flume. The\n minimum bottom widths and associated maximum drainage areas shall conform to Table 25-1.\n\n2. T - is the top width of parabolic flumes. The minimum top widths and maximum drainage areas shall\n conform to Table 25-2.\n\n3. H - is the height of the dike at the entrance to the structure and shall be a minimum of 2.5 feet.\n4. d - is the depth of the paved down slope section and shall be a minimum of 10 inches for trapezoidal or\n rectangular flumes. The depths of parabolic flumes shall be as shown in Table 25-2.\n5. L - is the length of the inlet and outlet paved sections and each shall be a minimum of 6 feet.\n\nThe above dimensions are illustrated in Figure 25-1.\n\n 25-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=157)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 158", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 158\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nIf a minimum of 75% of the drainage area will have a good grass or woodland cover throughout the life of the\nstructure, the drainage areas listed in Tables 25-1 and 25-2 may be increased by 50%. If a minimum of 75% of the\ndrainage area will have a good mulch cover throughout the life of the structure, the drainage area listed in Tables 25-\n1 and 25-2 may be increased by 25%.\n\nFlumes with dimensions and associated drainage areas other than those shown in this standard shall be designed on\nan individual job basis. Capacities shall be determined by acceptable hydrologic and hydraulic computations, as\nnoted under Pipe Drops of this Standard.\n\n TABLE 25-1\n\n FLUMES WITH TRAPEZOIDAL AND RECTANGULAR SECTIONS\n\n Bottom Widths And Drainage Area For Bottom Widths And Drainage Area For\n Trapezoidal Flumes With Flow Depths Equal Rectangular Flumes With Flow Depths Equal\n to 10 Inches to 10 Inches\n\n Bottom Width Drainage Area Bottom Width Drainage Area\n (feet) (acres) (feet) (acres)\n\n 2 7 2 3\n 4 10 4 5\n 6 13 6 10\n 8 16 8 13\n 10 19 10 16\n 12 24 12 20\n\n\nDikes to be 2.5 feet in height above flume entrance.\n\n\n TABLE 25-2\n FLUMES WITH PARABOLIC SECTIONS\n\n Depths Equal to 1 Foot Depths Equal to 1.5 Feet\n\n Top Width Drainage Area Top Width Drainage Area\n (feet) (acres) (feet) (acres)\n\n 4 3 4 4\n 6 4 6 5\n 8 5 8 5\n 10 6 10 7\n 12 7 12 8\n 14 8 14 10\n 16 11\n\nDikes to be 2.5 feet in height above flume entrance\n\n\n\n\n 25-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=158)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 159", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 159\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nRiprap Lined Chutes\n\nStable rock sizes and flow depths for riprap-lined channels having gradients between 2 percent and 40 percent may\nbe determined using the following detailed design process from Design of Rock Chutes by Robinson, Rice, and\nKadavy.\n\n\nFor channel slopes between 2% and 10%: For channel slopes between 10% and 40%:\n\n D50 = [q (S)1.5/4.75(10)-3]1/1.89 D50 = [q (S)0.58/3.93(10)-2]1/1.89\n z = [n(q )/1.486(S)0.50]3/5\n where n = 0.047(D50S)0.147\n\n\n D50 = Particle (stone) size for which 50% of the sample is finer, in.\n S = Bed slope, ft./ft.\n z = Flow depth, ft.\n q = Unit discharge, ft3/s/ft\n (Total discharge÷Bottom width)\n\n\nExcept for short transition sections, flow in the range of 0.7 to 1.3 of the critical slope must be avoided unless the\nchannel is straight. Velocities exceeding critical velocity shall be restricted to straight reaches. Maximum channel\nside slope shall not exceed 2:1 for this method.\n\nPipe Drops\n\nThe design capacity shall be as required to pass peak runoff from a 10-year frequency storm.\n\nPeak discharge values shall be determined by the following:\n\n1. Rational Method - for peak discharge of uniform drainage areas as outlined in Technical Manual for Land Use\n Regulation Program, Bureau of Inland and Coastal Regulations Stream Encroachment Permits, Trenton, N.J.\n September 1997 or subsequent editions\n\n2. USDA-NRCS Win TR-55 or Win TR-20\n\n3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC HMS\n\n4. Other methods which produce similar results to the models listed above.\n\nPipe capacities may be determined from charts in Appendix 11, Chapter 6, Ref. (1), or other accepted sources.\n\n\nA hood inlet type entrance should be used as shown in Figure 25-2. The pipe drop inlet shall be protected by riprap\nor concrete.\n\nOutlet protection shall be provided by riprap or other means. Diversion dikes or deep curb cuts shall be used in\nconjunction with pipe drops. The dike height above the pipe inlet invert shall be adequate to contain a water\n\n 25-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=159)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 160", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 160\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nelevation sufficient to cause full pipe flow plus an allowance of at least 0.5 feet for freeboard. A minimum water\ndepth of 1.8 times the pipe diameter above pipe inlet invert is required to assure full pipe flow.\n\n Installation Requirements\n\n1. The structure shall be placed on undisturbed soil or well-compacted fill.\n\n2. The cut or fill slope shall not be steeper than 1 vertical to 1.5 horizontal (1.5:1) and should not be flatter than\n 20:1.\n\n3. Adequate vegetative protection per vegetation standards and drainage works shall be installed.\n\n4. Open Flume\n\n a. The top of the earth dikes shall not be lower at any point than the top of the lining at the entrance of the\n structure.\n\n b. The lining should be placed beginning at the lower end and proceeding up the slope to the upper end. The\n lining shall be well compacted and free of voids.\n\n c. The entrance floor at the upper end of the structure shall have a slope toward the outlet of ¼ to ½ inch per\n foot.\n\n5. Hood Inlet Pipe Drops\n\n a. The pipe shall be imbedded in the embankment to a depth that will insure stability.\n\n b. Protection measures of concrete or riprap shall be installed at the inlet and outlet as needed to protect\n against erosion.\n\n c. The pipe may be smooth or corrugated and shall be of the required strength and durability.\n\n d. Backfill shall be carefully placed in layers and tamped to insure adequate compaction.\n\n6. Outlet Protection in accordance with the Conduit Outlet Protection Standard, pg. 12-1.\n\n\nUnconcentrated surface runoff from paved surfaces\n\n A permanent vegetative cover shall be established through seeding or pegged (anchored) sod on all slopes\n receiving unconcentrated runoff from paved surfaces. Seeded slopes shall utilize a non-biodegradeable turf\n reinforcement matting, installed in accordance with manufacturers instructions.\n\n Slopes receiving unconcentrated surface flows shall not exceed those shown in the NJDEP Best Management\n Practices Manual, Chapter 9.10, Table 9.10-2 (reproduced below). An optional stone trench installed along\n the edge of pavement may be added to aid in the prevention of flow concentration. Maximum contributing\n drainage areas shall be as defined in Chapter 9.10 of the Manual.\n\n For receiving slopes that exceed the thresholds designated in Table 9.10-2 of the BMP Manual, a properly\n designed slope protection structure must be provided in accordance with this Standard.\n\n\n\n 25-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=160)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 161", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 161\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n For receiving slopes with contributing drainage areas that exceed the thresholds defined in Chapter 9.10 of\n the BMP Manual, a properly designed slope protection structure must be provided in accordance with this\n Standard\n\n If flows are to be directed and controlled via curb cuts, scuppers or other methods which will result in the\n concentration of flows., then a properly designed slope protection structure must be provided in accordance\n with this Standard.\n\n\n Maximum slopes for unconcentrated flows from paved surfaces\n (reproduced from NJDEP BMP Manual Table 9.10-2)\n\n\n Soil type Maximum Slope (percent)\n Sand 7\n Sandy Loam 8\n Loam, Silt Loam 8\n Sandy Clay Loam 8\n Clay Loam, Silty Clay, Clay 8\n\n\n\n\n\n 25-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=161)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 162", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 162\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Figure 25-1\n\n\n\n\n\n 25-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=162)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 163", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 163\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n FIGURE 25-2\n\n\n\n\n\n 25-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=163)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 164", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 164\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Figure 25-3: Pipe Slope Drain\n\n\n\n\n\n 25-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=164)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 165", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 165\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n SOIL BIOENGINEERING\n\n\n Definition\n\nThe use of live, woody and herbaceous plants to repair slope failures and to increase slope stability. Living plant\nmaterial may be used alone or in combination with structural components such as rock, wood, concrete, or\ngeotextiles.\n\n\n Purpose\n\nTo integrate structural and vegetative techniques to stabilize or protect banks of streams, lakes, shorelines, excavated\nchannels and upland slopes; to prevent the loss of land or damage to facilities adjacent to the banks; to maintain the\ncapacity of the channel; to reduce sediment loads causing downstream damages and/or pollution; and to protect and\nenhance water quality.\n\n\n Conditions Where Practices Applies\n\nSoil bioengineering techniques are generally appropriate for treatment of slopes, eroded stream banks, surface\nerosion, shallow mass wasting, cut and fill slope stabilization, earth embankment protection (other than dams), and\nsmall gully repair. They are not to be considered when public safety is at risk such as when substantial\nmechanical and or structural designs are required.\n\nDescriptions of methods for installing individual Soil Bioengineering systems may be found in USDA Natural\nResources Conservation Service Engineering Field Handbook (EFH), Chapter 16 (Streambank and Shoreline\nProtection) and Chapter 18 (Upland slope Protection).\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThe use of vegetative techniques to stabilize stream banks, upland slopes and open shorelines provides long term\nerosion control as well as contributing to water quality through uptake of nutrients, moderation of water temperature\nand protection of dissolved oxygen content (in surface waters).\n\n DESIGN CRITERIA\n\n1. PLANNING\n\n Flow Chart No. 26-1 (Soil Bioengineering Application Decision Chart) shall be used to determine if Soil\n Bioengineering Techniques alone are appropriate for correcting existing erosion problems or for preventing\n future erosion of shorelines, upland slopes or stream channels. Bioengineering techniques may be used\n singularly or in combination with one another or in combination with other erosion control techniques, such\n as rip rap bank protection.\n\n\nThe following conditions must be evaluated to help ensure a proper soil bioengineering design:\n\n - Soil type and moisture availability\n - Stream bed stability\n - Slope stability\n - Surface runoff (diversion may be necessary to ensure success - see Standard for Diversions, pg. 15-1)\n\n 26-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=165)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 166", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 166\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n - Availability of bioengineering materials\n - Effects of mature vegetation on stream hydraulics, including up and downstream of the treatment area\n - Time of year for installation (installation of all woody vegetation shall be performed during the dormant\n season only)\n - Cause of the loss of existing vegetation (ice damage, livestock damage, fire invasive species etc.)\n\n\n\n Chart 26-1\n Soil Bioengineering Applicability\nThe channel evolution model (fig. 26-1) shall be used as a minimum to classify the current condition of a stream.\nChannels that are degrading and/or widening (Type II and Type III) may be difficult to stabilize solely with\nbioengineering measures and may require more extensive site assessment and restoration measures.\n\n\n\n\n\n Table 26-2\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=166)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 167", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 167\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Figure 26-1 – Simplified Channel Evolution Model\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=167)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 168", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 168\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n2. ENGINEERING\n\nGrading\n\nSteep, unstable slopes and deep undercuts in banks may require extensive grading to achieve a stable slope or will\nrequire structural measures, (such as crib walls, riprap, or wire-mesh baskets), or redirective measures within the\nchannel (such as weirs or vanes) . For planting purposes only, the steepest acceptable slope is 1.5 horizontal to 1.0\nvertical. Slope stability analysis or design shall be subject to municipal, county and state regulations. All newly\ngraded banks shall be protected from overbank flow in accordance with the Standard for Diversions, pg. 15-1.,\nGrade Stabilization, pg. 17-1 or Slope Protection, pg. 27-1 as appropriate.\n\n\nChannel Realignment\n\nThe realignment of channels (change in location or cross-sectional geometry) shall be kept to an absolute minimum\nunless realignment is part of an overall stream restoration plan and is the subject of the soil erosion and sediment\ncontrol plan.\n\nChannel Capacity\n\nPeak discharge and/or hydrographs for capacity shall be determined by the following methods:\n\n1. Rational Method - for peak discharge of uniform drainage areas as outlined in Technical Manual for Land Use\n Regulation Program, Bureau of Inland and Coastal Regulations Stream Encroachment Permits, Trenton, N.J.\n September 1997 or subsequent editions\n\n2. NRCS Win TR-55 or Win TR-20\n\n3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC HMS\n\n4. Other methods which produce similar results to the models listed above.\n.\nHydraulic Requirements\n\nManning’s formula (where appropriate) or a water surface profile analysis shall be used to determine the velocities\nin the channels. Resistance (Manning’s \"n\") values shall be estimated using Table 26-1. Site specific n values may\nbe used if verified by USGS stream gage data or by a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis approved by the local\ndistrict.\n\nDesign storm requirements for stability analysis shall be in accordance with the Standard for Channel Stabilization,\npg. 11-1. Aged condition shall analyze capacity at vegetative maturity.\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=168)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 169", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 169\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Table 26-1 - Estimating Manning’s \"n\" for Soil Bioengineering practices\n\n\n Manning’s \"n\" values*\n Bioengineering System\n Installation Mature\n condition condition\n (stability) (capacity)\n\n Conventional vegetation (use of the retardance method is required 0.025 0.055\n for designing grass lining)\n\n Live Staking 0.025 0.1\n Live Facines (wattling bundles)\n Branchpacking\n Brushmattress\n Live Cribwall (similar to wire-mesh baskets in hydraulic effects)\n\n Joint Planting see riprap see riprap\n standard standard\n\n* Does not consider channel alignment, obstructions etc. Based on non-gravel soils. See Appendix 8, supplement “A” for additional guidance\nfor selecting “n” values\n\n\nMaximum allowable velocities for bankfull and out of bank discharges (fig. 26-2) shall be based on allowable soil\nvelocities found in Table 26-2. These velocities are based on the use of an acceptable erosion control matting in\nconjunction with the bioengineering system. Every reach shall be individually designed unless all reaches are\ndesigned for the worst cases for velocity and capacity (lowest allowable velocity, steepest slope). Bioengineering\ndesigns must begin and end in a stable channel section. Design procedures may be evaluated according to\nchannel conditions represented in Table 26-3, below.\n\n Table 26-2 - Maximum Allowable Velocities for Bioengineering\n\n Soil Texture Velocity (fps) with matting 1\n\n Sand 2\n Silt loam, sandy loam, loamy sand, loam and muck 5\n Silty clay loam, sandy clay loam 5.5\n Clay, clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay 6\n\n1. All Soil Bioengineering Application designs shall incorporate a an erosion control blanket or flexible channel liner over seeded areas\n and shall be integrated into the measure in accordance with USDA EFH Chapters 16 and/or 18. The flexible channel liner shall be\n selected based on the design requirements for the planned bioengineering application.\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=169)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 170", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 170\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Figure 26-2: Terminology in Channel Flow Descriptions\n\n\n\n\n\n Table 26-3 – Design Approach based on Channel Boundary Conditions\n\n Channel Boundary Condition Design Consideration Approach\n\n Significant sediment load and moveable channel Alluvial channel design techniques\n boundaries\n Boundary material smaller than sand size Allowable Velocity\n\n Boundary material larger than sand size Allowable shear stress\n\n Boundary material does not act as discrete Tractive Power\n particles\n No base flow in channel. Climate can support Grass lined (retardance) / tractive stress\n permanent vegetation\n\nToe Protection at Base Flow Elevation - Toe protection is to be provided on all streambank stabilization projects.\nMethods of providing toe protection may consist of a fiber roll revetment (coir log) adequately anchored or a\nstructural revetment such as rock rip rap. Fiber roll revetments have a design life of 5 years and are suitable for sites\nwhere there is a high probability that vegetation, once established, will be adequate for stabilizing the toe zone. In\ngeneral, this will be in lower velocity channels where adjacent reaches indicate vegetation alone will be\nadequate. Riprap for toe protection shall be designed using the bankfull or design discharge velocity using\nprocedures in the Standard for Riprap, pg. 22-1\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=170)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 171", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 171\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n 26-2\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-3\n\n\n\n\n\nFlow Chart No. 26-2 (Soil Bioengineering In-Stream Design Chart) shall be followed for stream channel designs.\n\n\n\n\n 26-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=171)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 172", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 172\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Table 26-3 - Summary of Streambank /Upland Slope Bioengineering Protection Measures\n\n System Zone of Types of erosion Comments and\n Type Application 1 problems for which the Restrictions\n - Base Flow system is suitable\n - Base to Top\n - Out of Bank\n\n Live stake Base to Top bank scour, suitable for small, simple erosion\n Out of Bank overbank runoff problems when used in\n conjunction with other systems.\n\n Live fascine Base to Top, Out general bank scour-, useful for moderate to severe\n of Bank overbank runoff erosion-, should not be used on\n bank faces longer than 15 ft, after\n sloping.\n\n Branchpacking Base to Top, Out local bank scour, gullies restricted to repair of small\n of Bank eroded by overbank sites(maximum depth = 4.0 ft.)\n runoff\n\n Vegetated All Zones toe erosion, local bank\n Geogrid scour useful on steep slopes (up to\n 0.5H: IV) where space is\n Live cribwall All Zones local bank scour, limited/generally restricted to\n toe erosion heights not exceeding 6 ft. overall\n (requires structural\n toe protection)\n\n Joint planting Base to Top, Out see riprap standard see riprap standard\n of Bank\n\n Brushmattress Base to Top, Out local and general bank generally used on 3H: 1V graded\n of Bank scour; debris gouging slopes restricted to sites of 50\n linear feet or less\n\n Conventional Base to Top, Out general & local See Table 26-2 for velocity\n vegetation of Bank bank scour restrictions\n\n Tree revetment Base to Top general bank Provides temporary protection,\n scour susceptible to damage by flooding\n debris and beavers\n\n Riprap All Zones local & general All headcutting and general bed\n (incl. wire-mesh bank scour, toe erosion degradation by erosion must have\n baskets) armored protection\n\n\n Coir (coconut Base, Base to Top toe erosion Must be 2/3 submerged in water\n fiber) Logs to be an effective rooting medium.\n\n 1. See Figure 26-1 for description of zones.\n\n\n\n 26-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=172)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 173", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 173\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n3. VEGETATION\n\n Plant materials will be live, viable woody or herbaceous vegetation. The plant materials will be obtained\n from commercial sources or in the case of woody cuttings, may be harvested from native stands during the\n dormant period. (November-April).\n\n Plant Adaptation Zones\n\n Base Flow Zone (Toe Zone) - Too wet to grow vegetation or where side slopes meet channel bottom\n (intermittent streams). Select vegetation which develops an extensive root system and tolerates extended\n saturation. This includes Obligate and Facultative Wet herbaceous and woody plants.\n\n Above Base flow to top of bank or 2 year storm elevation ( Bank Zone) - Area between level of base flow\n and top of bank or 2 year storm elevation. Select vegetation which tolerates wetting and drying soils. This\n includes Facultative and some Facultative Wet grasses, forbs and shrubs.\n\n Out of bank. (Terrace Zone) - Select vegetation which tolerates droughty conditions. This may include\n some Facultative and most Facultative Upland plants.\n\n\n A. Plant Material Specifications\n\n * Rooted seedlings - Plants shall be at least 12\" long. The root system shall have approximately the mass\n equal to the top portion.\n\n * Unrooted cuttings - Cuttings shall be 8\"-12\" in length and 1/4\" - ½\" in diameter.\n\n * Live Stake - cuttings shall be 2.0' to 3.0' in length and ½\" to 2.0\" in diameter\n\n * Live brush - Live brush will consist of the whole above ground portion of willow, redosier dogwood, or\n other hardwood species which root easily from cuttings. Plants shall be 4 to 8 feet in height and free of\n disease. When there is a shortage of live, dormant brush, up to 30% of nonrooting species may be\n mixed randomly with the rooting species. Brush will be cut by shears or saw, not by ax.\n\n * Herbaceous plants - Grasses, sedges, and rushes shall be provided in multiple-culmed pots having a\n minimum of two stems per pot. Stems shall have a minimum length of 6\".\n\n\n\n B. Plant Selection - See Table 26-5 for specific species adaptations.\n\n 1. Herbaceous plant materials to be used in the coir fiber rolls shall consist of a mixture of the\n following:\n\n Asclepias incarnate - Swamp milkweed Juncus spp. - Rushes\n Acorns calamus/americanus - Sweet Flag Lobelia cardinalis - Cardinal flower\n Calamagrostis spp. - Bluejoint reedgrass Pontederia cordata - Pickerel Weed\n Carex spp. - Sedges Sagittaria latifolia - Duckpotato\n Cinna arundinacea - Wood reedgrass Scirpus spp. - Bulrushes\n Distichlis spicata - Seashore saltqrass Sparganium spp. - BurreedSpartina spp. -\n Eupatorium purpureum - Joe-Pye weed CordgrassesTypha spp. - cattails\n Glyceria spp. - Mannagrasses\n Iris versicolor - Blueflag iris\n\n 26-9 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=173)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 174", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 174\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n 2. Woody plants shall consist of bareroot plants or unrooted cuttings and stems (whips) of hardwood shrub\n species which root easily. The plant materials may come from nursery sources or existing local stands,\n or a combination of the two. Plant Materials suitable for use as rooted or unrooted cuttings include:\n\n Cephalanthus accidentalis - buttonbush Salix exigua - sandbar willow\n Baccharis halimifolia - groundselbus Salix discolor - pussy willow\n Cornus amomum - silky dogwood Sambucus canadensis - elderberry\n Cornus serecia - redosier dogwood Viburnum dentatum - southern arrowwood\n Salix purpurea - \"Streamcol purpleosier Viburnum lentago - nannyberry\n willow\" Viburnum prunifolium - blackhaw viburnum\n Salix cottetii -\"Bankers\" dwarf willow\n\nc. Plant Materials suitable for use only as bareroot or containerized plants include:\n\n Alnus rugosa - speckled alder Physocarpus opulifolius - ninebark\n Alnus serrulata - smooth alder spp. Prunus pumila var. depressa - dwarf sand cherry\n Amorpha fruitcosa - indigobush Rhododendron viscosum - swamp azalea\n Aronia arbutifolia - red chokecherry Rosa palustris - swamp rose\n Clethra alnifolia - sweet pepperbush Spirea tomantosa - steeplebush\n Cornus racemosa - gray dogwood\n Ilex verticulata - winterberry holly\n Lindera benzoin - spicebush\n\nd. Supplemental Grass Mixtures\n\n Grass species suitable for stabilizing disturbed areas that are somewhat poorly to poorly drained are:\n\n SPECIES COMMON NAME REMARKS1\n\n Agrostis alba Redtop SP,I,CG\n Agrostis palustris Creeping bentgrass P,I,CG\n Andropogon glomeratus Lowland broom sedge P,N,WG\n Dicanthelium clandestinum Deertongue P,N,WG\n Echinochloa cruagaiii Japanese millet A,T,WG\n Elymus virginicus Wild rye P,N,CG\n Lolium perenne2 Perennial ryegrass SP,I,CG\n Lotus corniculatus 3,4 Birdsfoot trefoil P,I,CL\n Pani virgatum Switchgrass P,N,WG\n Poa trivialis Rough bluegrass P,I,CG\n Trifolum repens 4 White/Ladino clover SP,I,CL\n\n 1. P - perennial CG - Cool-season grass\n A - annual WG - warm season grass\n I - introduced CL - Cool-season legume\n N - native SP - Short-lived perennial\n\n 2. Perennial ryegrass may be substituted for redtop in all mixes except Mix # 7.\n\n 3. Birdsfoot trefoil is not well adapted to the coastal plain. Use only in northern and central Jersey.\n\n 4. Need specific legume inoculant.\n Note: Warm-season grass seeding rates are based on Pure Live Seed (PLS)\n\n\n 26-10 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=174)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 175", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 175\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nSuitable seeding mixtures and recommended seeding rates for various site conditions:\n\nSeed Mix 1:\nCool-season mix suitable for shady sites.\n\n* Redtop 1/lbs./ac.\n* Hard fescue 40 lbs./ac.\n* Rough bluegrass 15 lbs./ac.\n\n\nSeed Mix 2:\nWarm-season mixture suitable for highly acid soils. Provides excellent wildlife value.\n\n* Blackwell switchgrass 15 lbs./ac. PLS\n* Tioga deertongue 10 lbs./ac. PLS\n* Japanese millet (nurse) 8 lbs./ac. PLS\n\nSeed Mix 3:\nAll native mixture suitable for somewhat acid soils. Provides good to excellent wildlife value.\n\n* Blackwell switchgrass and/or 10 lbs./ac.PLS\n* Broomsedge 12 lb&./ac. PLS\n* Tioga deertonque 5 lbs./ac. PLS\n* Wild rye 5 lbs./ac.PLS\nUse a nurse crop such as oats or rye.\n\nSeed Mix 4:\nTurfgrass mixture suitable for moist, shady areas.\n\n* Rough bluegrass 25 lbs./ac.\n* Perennial ryegrass 15 lbs./ac.\n* Creeping bentgrass 10 lbs./ac.\n\nOptional:\n\n*White clover or 5 lbs./ac.\n*Birdsfoot trefoil 8 lbs./ac.\n\nSeed Mix 5:\nMixture for providing quick, semi-permanent cover in areas where natural succession is encouraged.\nExcellent wildlife value.\n\n* Redtop 2 lbs./ac.\n* Japanese millet 8 lbs./ac.\n* White/Ladino clover 5 lbs./ac.\n\nSeed Mix 6:\nShotgun mix (for those extremely complex sites)\n\n*Tioga deertongue 15lbs./ac. PLS\n*Redtop or 3lbs./ac.PLS\n*Perennial ryegrass 5lb/./ac.PLS\n*Wild rye 10lbs./ac.PLS\n*Switchgrass 8lbs./ac. PLS\n*Broomsedge 12lbs./ac. PLS\n\n 26-11 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=175)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 176", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 176\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nWildflowers tolerant of wet conditions:\n\n* Aqailega canadensis - Eastern Columbine\n* Chrysanthemum leucanthemum - Ox-eye Daisy\n* Hesperis 'matronalis - Dame's Rocket\n* Lupinus perennis - Perennial Lupine\n* Myostis sylvatica - Forget-Me-Not\n* Rudbeckia hirta - (Golden Jubilee) Black-eyed Susan\n\n\n Table 26-4: Types of Erosion And Causes of Erosion\n\n\n Type of Erosion Causes\n\n\n Toe erosion and upper Removal of unconsolidated or noncohesive lower materials, especially bank\n bank failure failure along outside bends. Widespread toe erosion may be associated with\n bed lowering.\n\n General bed Changes in stream gradient due to factors such as lowering of stream base\n degradation (Bed scour level due to lake or tailwater fluctuations, stream or stream relocation.\n over extended Increased stream discharge due to flow diversion or watershed changes such as\n channelization, urbanization.\n reaches)\n\n Headcutting In streams undergoing bed degradation, headcuts often develop at locations\n where more resistant materials outcrop in the stream channel. Headcuts may\n develop at a stream mouth when base level is lowered suddenly due to\n dredging, erosion or draining of a lake.\n\n Middle and upper Increased discharge resulting from watershed changes; increased flow\n general bank scour velocities caused by reduction in channel roughness or increased gradients;\n removal or loss of bank vegetation.\n\n Local streambank scour Scour of local lenses or deposits of unconsolidated material, erosion by\n secondary currents caused by flow obstructions and channel irregularities,\n loss of bank vegetation.\n\n Local bed scour Local bed scour may be caused by channel constrictions, flow obstructions\n such as debris dams or flow deflectors, or trapping of sediment in reservoirs or\n sediment traps. Some scour generally occurs below culverts.\n\n Piping Piping develops when fines are removed by water flowing laterally under the\n surface. Extensive pipe development requires 1) rapid infiltration, 2) steep\n hydraulic gradients, and 3) zones of concentrated flow. Piping may occur in\n stratified soils where vertical movement is restricted by sudden reduction in\n hydraulic conductivity between strata or where poorly compacted soil around\n buried pipes provides conduits for water movement.\n\n Overbank runoff Failure to provide adequate means of directing concentrated flows from\n overbank areas into the channel.\n\n\n 26-12 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=176)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 177", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 177\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Table 26-5: Shrubs suitable for Soil Bioengineering Systems\n\n\n Species Habitat 1 Bank Zone Root Shade 4 Flood 5 pH Comments\n 2 Form 3 Tolerance Tolerance range 6\n\n Alnus serrulata nontidal toe rooted medium regular 5.5-7.5 Nitrogen\n Smooth alder fixer\n weak\n wooded\n\n Amorpha fruitcosa tidal fresh lower-mid rooted low seasonal 6.0-8.5 Req. full sun\n False indigo moist woods Drought\n tolerant\n\n Aronia arbutifolia nontidal lower-mid rooted medium irregular 5.1-6.5 Drought\n Red chokeberry seasonal tolerant\n\n Aronia melanocarpa nontidal mid-upper rooted low irregular 5.1-6.5 Drought\n Black chokeberry seasonal tolerant\n\n Baccharis halimifolia tidal mid-upper rooted, high seasonal 7.0-8.5 M/F separate\n Groundsel bush tidal fresh unrooted plants\n\n Cephalanthus nontidal toe rooted high permanent 6.1-8.5 Tolerates\n occidentalis tidal fresh unrooted brief drought\n Buttonbush\n\n Celthra alnifolia tidal mid-upper rooted high seasonal 4.5-6.5\n Sweet pepperbush nontidal\n\n Cornus amomum streambankspond lower-mid rooted medium seasonal 5.5-8.5 Drought\n Silky dogwood edges unrooted tolerant\n\n Cornus racemosa streambanks lower-mid rooted high seasonal 5.5-8.5 Drought\n Gray dogwood pond edges unrooted tolerant\n\n Cornus serecia streambanks toe-mid rooted medium seasonal 5.5-8.5 Drought\n Redosier dogwood pond edges unrooted tolerant\n\n Ilex decidua forested lower-mid rooted high irregular 4.0-6.0 M/F separate\n Possumhaw wetlands unrooted plants\n pond edges\n\n Ilex glabra forested mid-upper rooted high irregular 4.5-6.0 M/F separate\n Inkberry wetlands inundation plants.\n sandy woods Resists salt\n spray\n\n Ilex verticulata tidal fresh lower-mid rooted high seasonal 4.5-8.0 Drought\n Winterberry holly forested wetland tolerant\n\n Itea virginica forested wetland toe rooted high regular 5.0-7.0 Tolerates\n Virginia sweetspire streambanks some salt\n\n Iva frutescens tidal brackish lower rooted low regular 6.0-7.5 Tolerates\n Hightide bush 15ppt salt\n\n Leucothe racemosa forested wetland lower mid rooted high regular 5.0-6.0 Tolerates\n Leucothe moist woods some dry-\n down\n\n Lindera benzoin seasonal lower-mid rooted high seasonal 4.5-6.5 Tolerates\n Spicebush wetlands some\n floodplain drought\n\n 26-13 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=177)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 178", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 178\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Table 26-5: Shrubs suitable for Soil Bioengineering Systems\n\n\n Species Habitat 1 Bank Zone Root Shade 4 Flood 5 pH Comments\n 2 Form 3 Tolerance Tolerance range 6\n\n Lyonia ligustrina open woods lower-mid rooted low seasonal 4.0-6.0 Acid tolerant\n Maleberry\n\n Magnolia virginiana stream borders lower-mid rooted high irregular/ 4.0-6.5 Tolerates\n Sweetbay magnolia forested seasonal infreq.\n wetlands flooding by\n salt\n\n Myrica cerifera tidal fresh mid-upper rooted high regular 4.0-6.0 tolerates 10\n Wax myrtle brackish swales ppt salt. N-\n fixing\n\n Myrica pennsylvanica tidal fresh mid-upper rooted high irregular- 5.0-6.5 Tolerates\n Bayberry brackish seasonal drought. N-\n nontidal fixer\n\n Physocarpus opulifolius streamsides low-mid rooted medium seasonal\n Ninebark wood edges\n\n Prunus pumila var. streamsides mid-upper rooted low irregular 6.5-8.5 Native to\n depressa sandbars Del. River.\n Dwarf sand cherry Groundcover\n\n Rhododendron viscosum forested toe-low rooted medium seasonal- 4.0-6.0 susceptible\n Swamp azalea wetlands regular to disease\n\n Rosa palustris tidal fresh toe-low rooted low seasonal-\n Swamp rose forested wetland regular\n streambank\n\n Rhus typhina/glabra disturbed upper rooted low irregular 6.1-7.0 tolerates\n Staghorn/Smooth banks/dry sites some\n sumac drought\n\n Salix X cottetii streambank toe-mid unrooted medium regular- introduced\n 'Bankers' Dwarf willow rooted permanent male hybrid.\n noninvasive\n\n Salix discolor streambank toe-mid unrooted medium regular- 6.6-7.5\n Pussy willow forested wetland rooted permanent\n\n Salix exigua streambank toe unrooted low regular-\n Sandbar willow sandbars rooted permanent\n\n Salix purpurea streambank toe-upper unrooted medium regular- 6.0-7.0 introduced\n 'Streamco' purpleosier rooted permanent noninvasive\n willow shrub\n\n Sambucus canadensis tidal fresh low-mid rooted- high irregular- 6.0-8.0 some salt\n Elderberry nontidal unrooted seasonal tolerance\n wet meadow tolerates\n drought\n\n Spirea alba/tomentosa forested wetland mid-upper rooted low irregular 5.1-6.0\n Meadowsweet\n\n Viburnum dentatum tidal fresh mid-upper rooted medium seasonal 5.1-7.0 tolerates\n Southern arrowwood nontidal unrooted drought\n forested wetland\n\n 26-14 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=178)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 179", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 179\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Table 26-5: Shrubs suitable for Soil Bioengineering Systems\n\n\n Species Habitat 1 Bank Zone Root Shade 4 Flood 5 pH Comments\n 2 Form 3 Tolerance Tolerance range 6\n\n Viburnum lentago forested wetland mid-upper rooted medium seasonal\n Nannyberry unrooted\n\n Viburnum prunifolium forested wetland upper rooted medium irregular 6.5-7.0\n Blackhaw viburnum unrooted\n\n Viburnum trilobum forested wetlands lower-mid rooted low irregular- 6.0-7.5 tolerates\n Am. cranberrybush unrooted seasonal drought\n\n Footnotes:\n\n 1. Habitat:\n Native habitat of the plant.\n 2. Bank zone:\n toe - elevation of baseflow\n lower to mid - from base to two year flood elevation\n upper - above two year elevation to flood plain\n 3. Root form:\n rooted - use bare-root plants\n unrooted - use dormant cuttings/brush\n\n 4. Shade Tolerance:\n low -requires full sun\n medium - tolerates partial shade and full sun\n high - tolerates full shade and full sun\n 5. Flood tolerance:\n permanent - tolerates inundation or saturation 76-100% of the growing season.\n regular - tolerates inundation or saturation 26-75% of growing season.\n seasonal - tolerates inundation or saturation 13-25% of the growing season.\n irregular - tolerates inundation or saturation 5-12% of the growing season.\n\n 6. pH range:\n Preferred range for successful plant establishment.\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-15 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=179)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 180", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 180\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014January 2014\n\n\n\nTable 26-6: Soil Bioengineering Vegetative Treatment Potential (VTP) for Ponds and Lake Shores\n\n Shoreline Variables Directions For Use: Enter the applicable VTP rating (bold number) in VTP\n the last column. Add the total of the VTP ratings and compare with the\n Treatment Potential (TP) scale below\n\n1. Fetch: Average distance Less than 0.5 to 1.4 1.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.9 over 5.0\n in miles of open water 0.5 miles miles miles miles miles\n measured perpendicular\n to the shore and 45 8 7 4 2\n degrees either side of 0\n perpendicular to shore.\n\n2. General shape of Coves Irregular shoreline Headland or straight\n shoreline for distance of shoreline\n 200 yards on each side 8 3\n of planting site. 0\n\n3. Shoreline orientation: Any less West to South to South to North to\n General geographic than ½ mile North West East East\n direction the shoreline fetch\n faces. 5 3 2 1 0\n\n4. Boat traffic: Proximity None 1-10 per More than 1-10 per More than\n of site to recreational week 10 per week 10 per\n and commercial boat withing ½ week within 100 week\n traffic. mile of within ½ yards of within 100\n 5 shore mile of shore. yards of\n shore 1 shore.\n 3 2 0\n\n\n________________________ Cumulation of VTP for variables 1,2,3, and 4\n\nTreatment Potential (TP) Scale : if TP is:\n\nBetween And Potential of site to be successfully stabilized with soil bioengineering\n\n23 26 Excellent\n20 22 Very Good\n16 19 Good\n13 15 Fair\nbelow 13 Poor\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-16 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=180)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 181", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 181\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014January 2014\n\n\n\nShoreline Stabilization\n\nThe Vegetative Treatment Potential (VTP) as shown in Table 26-6 shall be evaluated for all shoreline protection\nmeasures. Bioengineering treatments involving vegetation may only be considered where the Treatment Potential\nScale indicates excellent to very good site conditions. Vegetative measures alone are not suited to sites where wave\nheights are greater than 1.5 feet and beach slopes are steeper than 12H to 1V. Fiber roll revetments or structural\nstabilization measures such as rock riprap, and off-shore wave dissipater berms shall be considered for use in\ncombination with vegetation where site conditions are not suited to vegetation alone. Fiber roll revetments have a\ndesign life of 5 years and are suitable for sites where there is a high probability that vegetation, once established,\nwill be adequate for stabilizing the shoreline. In general, this will be in lower energy situations where adjacent\nreaches indicate vegetation alone will be adequate. Riprap for shoreline stabilization shall be designed using\nprocedures in the Standard for Riprap, pg. 22-1.\n\n\n\n\n\n 26-17 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=181)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 182", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 182\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS\n\n Definition\n\nA stabilized pad of clean crushed stone located at points where traffic will be accessing a construction site.\n\n\n Purpose\n\nThe purpose of a stabilized construction access is to reduce the tracking or flowing of sediment onto paved\nroadways (or other impervious surfaces).\n\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nA stabilized construction exit applies to points of construction ingress and egress where sediment may be tracked, or\nflow off, the construction site.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nIn addition to minimizing sediments which can be tracked directly onto pavement during construction, oils, greases\nand diesel fuels which become mixed with sediment during construction may also migrate into the offsite drainage\nsystem where they may enter directly into a waterway. By preventing or minimizing the tracking of sediments onto\npaved areas, a significant reduction in construction related hydrocarbon pollution will also be controlled.\n\n Design Criteria\n\nStone Size - Use ASTM C-33, size No. 2 ( 2 ½ to 1 ½ in) or 3 ( 2 to 1 in). Use clean crushed angular stone.\nCrushed concrete of similar size may be substituted but will require more frequent upgrading and maintenance.\n\nThickness - not less than six (6) inches.\n\nWidth - not less than full width of points of ingress or egress.\n\nLength - 50 feet minimum where the soils are course grained (sands or gravels) or 100 feet minimum where soils\nare fine grained (clays or silts), except where the traveled length is less than 50 or 100 feet respectively. These\nlengths may be increased where field conditions dictate. Stormwater from up-slope areas shall be diverted away\nfrom the stabilized pad (see Standard for Diversions, pg. 15-1). Where diversion is not possible, the length of the\nstabilized pad shall be as shown in Table 27-1. Where the slope of the access road exceeds 5%, a stabilized base of\nHot Mix Asphalt Base Course, Mix I-2 shall be installed. The type and thickness of the base course and use of a\ndense graded aggregate sub-base shall be as prescribed by local municipal ordinance or other governing authority.\n\nAt poorly drained locations, subsurface drainage gravel filter or geotextile shall be installed before installing the\nstabilized construction entrance.\n\n\n\n\n 27-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=182)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 183", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 183\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n Table 27-1: Lengths of Construction Exits on Sloping Roadbeds\n\n Percent Slope of Roadway Length of Stone Required\n\n Coarse Grained Soils Fine Grained Soils\n\n 0 to 2% 50 ft 100 ft\n\n 2 to 5% 100 ft 200 ft\n\n >5% Entire surface stabilized with Hot Mix Asphalt Base\n Course, Mix I-21\n\n1. As prescribed by local ordinance or other governing authority.\n\nWhere a stabilized construction exit traverses between two buildings, it shall be stoned the entire length of the right-\nof-way. Mountable stone berms placed across the width of the exit may also be required at the transition point\nbetween paved and non-paved areas to trap sediments which are carried by stormwater flowing along the curbline.\n\nIndividual lot entrance and egress- After interior roadways are paved, individual lot ingress/egress points may\nrequire a stabilized construction entrance consisting of no. 3 stone ( 1\" to 2\") to prevent or minimize tracking of\nsediments. Width of the stone ingress/egress shall be equal to lot entrance width and shall be a minimum of ten feet\nin length.\n\nTire washing - If space is limited, vehicle tires may be washed with clean water before entering a paved area. A\nwash station must be located such that wash water will not flow onto paved roadways or into unprotected storm\ndrainage systems.\n\nWhen the construction access exits onto a major roadway, a paved transition area may be installed between the\nmajor roadway and the stoned entrance to prevent loose stones from being transported out onto the roadway by\nheavy equipment entering or leaving the site.\n\n Maintenance\n\nThe entrance shall be maintained in a condition which will prevent tracking or flowing of sediment onto roadways.\nThis may require periodic top dressing with additional stone or additional length as conditions demand and repair\nand/or cleanout of any measures used to trap sediment. All sediment spilled, dropped, washed, or tracked onto\nroadways (public or private) or other impervious surfaces must be removed immediately.\n\nWhere accumulation of dust/sediment is inadequately cleaned or removed by conventional methods, a power broom\nor street sweeper will be required to clean paved or impervious surfaces. All other access points which are not\nstabilized shall be blocked off.\n\n\n\n\n\n 27-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=183)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 184", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 184\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\nFigure 27-1: Stabilized Construction Access\n\n\n\n\n\n 27-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=184)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 185", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 185\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n STORM SEWER INLET PROTECTION\n\n\n Definition\n\nA temporary barrier and settling facility installed at a storm sewer inlet.\n\n Purpose\n\nThe purpose of storm sewer inlet protection is to intercept and retain sediment, thus preventing the entrance of\nsediment into the storm sewer system.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\n1. Contributing drainage area is 3 acres or less.\n\n2. A storm sewer or the outlet channel of a storm sewer needs protection from sediment.\n\n3. Traffic will not destroy or cause constant maintenance of the storm sewer inlet protection.\n\n4. A traffic hazard will not be created.\n\n5. A flooding problem will not be created.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThe primary benefit to water quality is the removal of sediment from stormwater runoff prior to entering the stormsewer\nsystem. As an added benefit, other floatable debris, such as vegetative matter and litter may also be filtered out of the\nrunoff.\n\n Design Criteria\n\nThe following applies to all methods of storm sewer inlet protection:\n\n 1. Must slow the storm water, provide the coarse sediment particles a chance to settle, and provide an area to\n retain the particles that have settled.\n\n 2. In all cases, inlet protection should not completely close off the inlet. Provision must be made to allow\n stormwater to overflow or bypass filter\n\n 3. The protection device will be designed to capture or filter runoff from the 1 year, 24 hour storm event and\n shall safely convey higher flows directly into the storm sewer system.\n\n Other methods that accomplish the purpose of storm sewer inlet protection may be used if approved by the\n Soil Conservation District.\n\n Inspections shall be frequent. Maintenance, repair, and replacement shall be made promptly, as needed.\n The barrier shall be removed when the area draining toward the inlet has been stabilized.\n\n 28-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=185)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 186", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 186\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n STREAM CROSSING\n\n\n Definition\n\nA structural span installed across a watercourse to provide a travel way for vehicles or pedestrians. Temporary\nstructures will be in place for no more than one year and shall be removed prior to completion of construction.\n\n Purpose\n\nA stream crossing is designed to provide access across a watercourse while reducing sediment delivery into the\nstream, minimizing damages to the streambed or channel, and avoiding flood damages.\n\n Condition Where Practice Applies\n\nThis standard applies to temporary and permanent stream crossings. The temporary stream crossing shall be used to\ncross streams with drainage areas less than one square mile. Structures which must handle flow from larger\ndrainage areas should be designed as permanent structures using generally accepted engineering practice. Complex\nsites requiring bridge scour studies are beyond the scope of this standard.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nFlow restrictions caused by stream crossings can increase velocity through the structure causing stream bed erosion\nand scour. Reducing flow velocity or protecting the stream bed can minimize erosion and sediment production.\nCrossings can minimize or prevent oils, greases and diesel fuels which become mixed with sediment during\nconstruction and after or which could wash off vehicles, from entering the watercourse. In addition, temporary\ncrossings help to minimizing sediments which can be tracked into the stream during construction.\n\n\nI. Temporary Crossings\n\n Planning\n\n\nTemporary stream crossings are necessary to prevent construction vehicles from damaging streambanks and tracking\nsediment and other pollutants into the watercourse. These structures are, however, undesirable in that they represent\na channel restriction which can increase flooding upstream or washout during periods of high flow. Therefore, the\ntemporary nature of the structure is stressed. The structure should be planned to be in service for the shortest\npractical period of time and to be removed as soon as their function has been completed.\n\nThis standard pertains primarily to flow capacity and resistance to washout of the structure. From a safety and\nutility standpoint, the designer must also be sure that the span is capable of withstanding the expected loadings from\nheavy construction equipment.\n\nThe preferred method for temporarily crossing a stream is a bridge made of wood, metal or other material which can\nprovide access across the stream. A bridge causes the least amount of disturbance to the stream bed and banks.\nThey can also be quickly removed and reused. In addition, temporary bridges pose the least chance for interference\nwith fish passage and migration. The other method of temporarily crossing a stream is a culvert crossing consisting\nof stone and a section(s) of pipe. Temporary culverts are used where the channel is too wide for normal bridge\nconstruction or the anticipated loading of construction vehicles may prove unsafe for single span bridges. There is\nsome disturbance to the stream bed and banks during construction and removal of the temporary culvert crossing.\nThe stone, along with the temporary culverts, can be salvaged and reused.\n\n 29-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=186)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 187", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 187\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Design Criteria\n\n1. Temporary Bridge\n a. Structures may be designed in various configurations and out of various materials. However, the bridge must\n be able to withstand the anticipated loading of the construction traffic. An example of a typical bridge crossing\n is shown in figure 29-1.\n\n b. Crossing Alignment - The temporary stream crossing shall be at right angles to the stream. Where approach\n conditions dictate, the crossing may vary 15 degrees from a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of the\n stream at the intended crossing location.\n\n c. The centerline of the roadway approaches on both sides of the crossing shall coincide with the crossing\n alignment centerline for a minimum of 50 feet from each bank of the stream crossed. If physical right-of-way\n restraints preclude the 50 feet minimum, a shorter distance may be provided.\n\n d. A water diversion such as a dike or swale shall be constructed (across the roadway on both roadway\n approaches) 50 feet (maximum) on either side of the stream crossing. This will prevent roadway surface runoff\n from directly entering the stream. The 50 feet is measured from the top of the stream bank. If the roadway\n approach is constructed with a reverse grade away from the stream, a diverting structure is not required. See the\n Standard for Diversions, pg. 15-1, for roadbed diversions.\n\n e. Perimeter soil erosion controls, such as a silt fence, must be employed, when necessary, along and parallel to\n the banks of stream.\n\n f. All crossings shall have one traffic lane. The minimum width shall be 12 feet.\n\n\n2. Temporary Culvert\n\n a. Where culverts are installed, Use ASTM C-33, size No. 2 ( 2 ½ to 1 ½ in) Coarse Aggregate or larger will be\n used to form the crossing. The depth of stone cover over the culvert shall be a minimum of 12 inches or as\n recommended by the pipe manufacturer for the design loading. Rip-rap shall be used to protect the sides of the\n stone from erosion. Typical culvert details are presented in figure 31-2.\n\n b. As a minimum, the culvert shall be designed to pass the flow from a 2-year frequency, 24 hour duration storm\n without overtopping. In addition the culvert shall be designed to ensure that no erosion will result from the 10-\n year peak storm.\n\n c. Multiple culverts may be used in place of one large culvert if they have the equivalent capacity of the larger\n one. The minimum-sized culvert that may be used is 18 inches.\n\n d. All culverts shall be strong enough to support their cross-sectioned area under maximum expected loads.\n e. The length of the culvert shall be adequate to extend the full width of the crossing, including side slopes.\n\n f. The slope of the culvert shall be at least 0.25 inch per foot.\n\n g. Crossing Alignment - The temporary culvert crossing shall be at right angles to the stream. Where approach\n conditions dictate, the crossing may vary 15∘ from a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of the stream\n at the intended crossing location.\n\n\n 29-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=187)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 188", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 188\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n h. The centerline of the roadway approaches on both sides of the crossing shall coincide with the crossing\n alignment centerline for a minimum of 50 feet from each bank of the stream crossed. If physical right-of-way\n restraints preclude the 50 feet minimum, a shorter distance may be provided.\n\n i. The approaches to the structure shall consist of stone pads meeting the following specifications:\n\n • Stone: ASTM C-33, size No. 2 ( 2 ½ to 1 ½ in)\n\n • Minimum thickness: 6 inches\n\n • Minimum Width: equal to the width of the structure\n\n j. A water diverting structure such as a dike or swale shall be constructed (across the roadway on both roadway\n approaches) 50 feet (maximum) on either side of the stream crossing. This will prevent roadway surface\n runoff from directly entering the stream. The 50 feet is measured from the top of the stream bank. If the\n roadway approach is constructed with a reverse grade away from the stream, a diverting structure is not\n required. See the Standard for Diversions, pg. 5-1 for roadbed diversions.\n\n Construction Specifications\n\n 1. Temporary Bridge\n\n a. Clearing and excavation of the stream bed and banks shall be kept to a minimum.\n\n b. The temporary bridge structure shall be constructed at or above bank elevation to prevent the entrapment of\n floating materials and debris.\n\n Abutments shall be placed parallel to and on stable banks.\n\n c. Bridges shall be constructed to span the entire channel. If the channel width exceeds 8 feet (as measured from\n top-of-bank to top-of-bank), then a footing, pier or bridge support may be constructed within the waterway.\n One additional footing, pier or bridge support will be permitted for each additional 8-foot width of the\n channel. No footing, pier or bridge support, however, will be permitted within the channel for waterways\n which are less than 8 feet wide.\n\n d. Stringers shall either be logs, sawn timber, prestressed concrete beams, metal beams, or other approved\n materials.\n\n e. Decking materials shall be of sufficient strength to support the anticipated load. All decking members shall be\n placed perpendicular to the stringers, butted tightly. and securely fastened to the stringers. Decking materials\n must be butted tightly to prevent any soil material tracked onto the bridge from falling into the waterway\n below.\n\n\n\n 29-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=188)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 189", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 189\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n f. Run planking (optional) shall be securely fastened to the length of the span. One run plank shall be provided\n for each track of the equipment wheels. Although run planks are optional, they may be necessary to properly\n distribute loads.\n\n g. Curbs or fenders may be installed along the outer sides of the deck. Curbs or fenders are an option which will\n provide additional safety.\n\n h. Bridges shall be securely anchored at only one end using steel cable or chain. Anchoring at only one end will\n prevent channel obstruction in the event that floodwaters float the bridge. Acceptable anchors are large trees,\n large boulders, or driven steel anchors. Anchoring shall be sufficient to prevent the bridge from floating\n downstream and possibly causing an obstruction to the flow.\n\n i. All areas disturbed during installation shall be stabilized within 7 calendar days of that disturbance.\n\n j. When the temporary bridge is no longer needed, all structures including abutments and other bridging\n materials should be removed immediately.\n\n k. Final clean-up shall consist of removal of the temporary bridge from the waterway, protection of banks from\n erosion, and removal of all construction materials. All removed materials shall be stored outside flood plain\n of the stream. Removal of the bridge and clean-up of the area shall be accomplished without construction\n equipment working in the waterway channel.\n\n2. Temporary Culvert\n\na. Clearing and excavation of the stream bed and banks shall be kept to a minimum.\n\nb. The invert elevation of the culvert shall be installed on the natural streambed grade to minimize interference\n with fish migration. In addition, no construction or removal of a temporary access culvert will be permitted\n during the following periods critical to spawning along such waters as identified in the Department of\n Environmental Protection’s report entitled “Classification of New Jersey Waters as related to Their Suitability\n for Trout”:\n\n check updated trout production dates.\n\n i. Brook Trout/Brown Trout Production Watercourses: September 15 through March 15 inclusive\n\n ii. Rainbow Trout Production Watercourses: February 1 through April 30, inclusive\n\n iii. Trout Production Watercourses: September 15 through March 15 inclusive\n\n iv. Trout Stocked Watercourses, or within one mile upstream of Trout Stocked Watercourses and Trout\n\n Maintenance Watecourses: March 15 through June 15 inclusive.\n\n 29-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=189)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 190", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 190\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Waivers of the timing restrictions may be granted if approved, in writing, by the Department of Environmental\n Protection’s Division of Fish Game and Wildlife.\n\nc. Filter cloth shall be placed on the streambed and streambanks prior to placement of the pipe culvert(s) and\n aggregate. The filter cloth shall cover the streambed and extend a minimum of six inches and a maximum of\n one foot beyond the end of the culvert and bedding material. Filter cloth reduces settlement and improves\n crossing stability. This requirement should not be confused with the installation of conduit outlet protection\n (item f. below).\n\nd. The culvert(s) shall extend a minimum of one foot beyond the upstream and downstream toe of the aggregate\n placed around the culvert. In no case shall the culvert exceed 40 feet in length.\n\ne. The culvert(s) shall be covered with a minimum of one foot of aggregate. If multiple culverts are used, they\n shall be separated by at least 12 inches of compacted aggregate fill. At a minimum, the bedding and fill material\n used in the construction of the temporary access culvert crossings shall conform with the aggregate\n requirements cited in part \"i\" under \"Temporary Culvert Crossing.\"\n\nf. The Standard for Conduit Outlet Protection (pg. 12-1) shall be addressed for the temporary culvert. The 10 year\n design storm peak flow shall be used for apron and stone sizing.\n\ng. When the crossing has served its purpose, all structures including culverts, bedding and filter cloth materials\n shall be removed. Removal of the structure and clean-up of the area shall be accomplished without construction\n equipment working in the waterway channel.\n\nh. Upon removal of the structure, the stream shall immediately be shaped to its original cross-section and properly\n stabilized. Restoration may include the application of Soil Bioengineering techniques where applicable. See\n the standard for Soil Bioengineering, pg. 26-1.\n\n\n\nII. Permanent Crossings\n\n Planning\n\n\nThis standard pertains primarily to flow capacity and resistance to washout of the structure. Planning, alignment,\nstructural design and other considerations shall be in conformance with the appropriate municipal, county, state or\nfederal requirements and regulations.\n\nWhere a natural stream bed is to be provided through the structure to benefit aquatic species, consideration shall be\ngiven to flow velocity and potential for bed erosion and scour. Where velocity exceeds the threshold for a stable\ncondition, the need for lining of the stream bed, or use of conduits or box culverts, shall be evaluated.\n\n\n\n\n\n 29-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=190)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 191", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 191\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Design\n\n1. Permanent Culvert\n\na. Design criteria shall be as prescribed by the appropriate authority.\n\nb. For natural stream bed designs:\n\nThree (3) areas of concern should be must be considered for natural stream bed or three (3) sided “bottomless\nculvert” designs:\n 1. The corners and abutments of the Inlet section of the culvert\n 2. The barrel section of the culvert\n 3. The outlet or discharge section of the culvert\n\nThe Corners and Abutments of the Inlet Section of the Culvert:\n Designs should avoid significant reductions in flow width transition from the approach channel to the inlet\n of the structure, which could cause abutment or contraction scour at the inlet. When it is determined that\n the potential for abutment or contraction scour exists at the inlet, the areas of concern shall be provided\n with a structural lining, such as riprap. See the Standard for Riprap and the Standard for Channel\n Stabilization.\nThe Barrel Section of the Culvert:\n The potential for erosion through the structure shall be evaluated by comparing expected flow velocity\n against the allowable velocity for the soil texture found in the stream bed, see Standard for Channel\n Stabilization.\n\n When the allowable velocity is exceeded, use of a channel lining, designed to withstand the expected\n velocity shall be incorporated, or the use of a conduit or box culvert, shall be considered.\n\n Designs shall avoid abrupt changes in the flow profile through the barrel section of the culvert, which\n would cause a transition in the water surface profile from Super-Critical Flow to Sub-Critical Flow,\n creating a Hydraulic Jump.\n\nThe Outlet Section or the Discharge end of the Culvert:\n\n If the structure causes a reduction in the design flow top width within the channel, and the outlet velocity\n exceeds the allowable velocity for the soil the culvert is discharging onto, as referenced in Table 12-1, the\n discharge end of the structure shall meet the Standard for Conduit Outlet Protection.\n\nThe upmost consideration shall be give to the protection of the structure.\n\nTransition area riprap for areas disturbed adjacent to the culvert may be required as referenced within the Standard\nfor Conduit Outlet Protection.\nMeasures to protect intrusion into the areas of the natural stream bed that are proposed to remain undisturbed, during\nconstruction shall be provided.\n\n\n\n\n\n 29-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=191)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 192", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 192\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Construction Specifications\n\nPermanent Crossings\n\nConstruction specifications for permanent crossings shall be as prescribed by the appropriate authority and shall be\nin compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations. All applicable standards, such as permanent vegetation,\nsediment barriers, land grading etc. shall be addressed when designing permanent crossings.\n\n\n Maintenance\n\nTemporary and permanent installations shall be inspected after every rainfall and at least once a week, whether it has\nrained or not, and all damages repaired immediately.\n\n\n\n\n\n 29-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=192)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 193", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 193\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n 1Figure 29-1: Stream Crossing - Temporary Bridge\n\n\n\n\n\n 29-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=193)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 194", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 194\n\nStandard for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n 2Figure 29-2: Stream Crossing - Culvert Installation\n\n\n\n\n\n 29-9 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=194)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 195", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 195\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE\n\n\n\n Definition\n\nRemoval of water through the soil by conduit, such as tile, pipe, or tubing, installed beneath the ground surface to\ncollect and convey drainage water.\n\n Purpose\n\nA drain may serve one or more of the following purposes:\n\n1. Improve vegetation by lowering the water table.\n\n2. Intercept and prevent water movement into a potentially wet area.\n\n3. Relieve artesian pressures.\n\n4. Reduce surface runoff.\n\n5. Serve as an outlet for other drains.\n\n6. Replace natural subsurface drainage patterns which are interrupted by construction operations.\n\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nDrains are used in areas having a high water table where benefits of lowering groundwater or controlling surface\nrunoff justify the installation of such a system.\n\nThe soil shall have enough depth and permeability to permit installation of an effective system. On-site\ninvestigations are required.\n\nAn outlet for the drainage system shall be available, either by gravity flow or by pumping. The outlet shall be\nadequate for the quantity and quality of effluent to be disposed of with consideration of possible damages above or\nbelow the point of discharge.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThe use of subsurface drainage will prevent surface ponding of runoff, which can kill stabilizing vegetation. Loss\nof this vegetation can result in increased erosion and an increase in discharge of nutrients and fertilizers without the\naid of filtration and adsorption from vegetative cover.\n\n Design Criteria\n\nThe design and installation shall be based on adequate surveys and investigations.\n\n\n\n 30-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=195)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 196", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 196\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nDesign Inflow\n\nThe design inflow can be determined by the use of the method described in reference (9), the use of Table 30-1, or\nby other accepted methods.\n\n TABLE 30-1\n\n INFLOW RATES FROM DIFFERENT SOIL TEXTURES 1/ 2/\n\n\n SOIL TEXTURE UNIFIED SOIL INFLOW RATE PER 1000 FT.\n CLASSIFICATION OF LINE IN CFS\n\n Coarse sand and gravel GP, GW, SP, SW 0.15 to 1.00\n\n Sandy or gravelly loam SM, SC, GM, GC 0.07 to 0.25\n\n Silt loam CL, ML 0.04 to 0.10\n\n Clay and clay loam CL, CH, MH 0.02 to 0.20\n\n\n 1/ Required inflow rates for interceptor lines on sloping land should be increased by 10% for slopes 2%\n to 5%; 20% for slopes 5% to 12%; and 30% for slopes over 12%.\n\n 2/ For complete drainage systems, use the lower value in the above table for the given soil texture.\n\nSize of Drain\n\nThe size of drains shall be computed by applying Manning's formula, or by the method contained in Chapter 14,\nRef. (1).\n\nThe minimum drain shall be equivalent to a 4-inch diameter pipe.\n\nDepth, Spacing, and Location\n\nThe depth, spacing, and location of the drain shall be based on site conditions including soils, groundwater\nconditions, topography, and outlets.\n\nMinimum Velocity and Grade\n\nIn areas with no siltation hazard, the minimum grades shall be 0.1%. Where it is determined that a siltation hazard\nexists, velocity of not less than 1.4 feet per second shall be used to establish the minimum grades if site conditions\npermit. Otherwise, provisions shall be made for prevention of siltation by filters or collection and removal of silt by\nuse of silt traps.\n\nMaximum Grade and Protection\n\nOn sites where topographic conditions require the use of drain lines on grades steeper than 2% or where design\nvelocities will be greater than indicated in Table 30-2 special measures shall be used. These measures shall be\nspecified for each job based on the particular conditions of the job site. Possible protective measures include the\nfollowing:\n\n\n 30-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=196)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 197", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 197\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n1. Lay the drains so as to secure a tight fit with the inside of one section matching that of the adjoining section.\n\n2. Wrap open joints with geotextile filter.\n\n3. Select the least erodible soil available for hand placing on sides and top of conduit, which must be tamped\n before backfilling. Tamped thickness of this material over conduit shall be a minimum of two inches.\n\n4. For continuous pipe or tubing with perforations, completely enclose the pipe with geotextile filter material, or\n properly graded sand and gravel as specified under filters and filter materials on page 30-4.\n\n5. Install relief vents where changes in grade exceed 5 percent.\n\n\n TABLE 30-2\n\n MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE VELOCITIES IN DRAINS WITHOUT PROTECTIVE MEASURES\n\n SOIL TEXTURE VELOCITY -\n FEET PER SECOND\n\n Sandy loam 2.5\n Silt and silt loam 4.0\n Silty clay loam 5.0\n Clay and clay loam 6.0\n Coarse sand and gravel 8.0\n\n\n\nMaterials for Drains\n\n\"Drains\" include conduits of clay, concrete, metal, plastic, or other materials of acceptable quality.\n\nThe conduit shall meet strength and durability requirements of the site.\n\nLoading\n\nThe allowable loads on drain conduits shall be based on the trench and bedding conditions specified for the job. A\nfactor of safety of not less than 1.5 shall be used in computing the maximum allowable depth of cover for a\nparticular type of conduit.\n\nFilters and Filter Material\nSuitable filters shall be used, where required by site conditions, to prevent sediment accumulation in the conduit.\nThe need for a filter shall be determined by the characteristics of the soil materials at drain depth and the velocity of\nflow in the conduit.\n\n\n\n\n\n 30-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=197)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 198", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 198\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nNot less than three inches of filter material shall be used for sand-gravel filters.1\n\nEnvelopes shall be used around drains where necessary to improve flow characteristics of groundwater into the\nconduit.\n\n Installation Requirements\n\nAll drains shall be laid to line and grade, and covered with not less than three inches of approved hand placed\nbackfill and/or filter material. The upper end of all drain lines shall be closed with concrete or other durable\nmaterial unless connected to a structure.\n\nEarth backfill material shall be placed in the trench in such a manner that displacement of the drain will not occur,\nand so that the filter material, after backfilling, will meet the requirements of the design.\n\nThe gap between drain pipe joints shall not exceed one-fourth inch for mineral soils or one-half inch for organic\nsoils. Openings wider than these shall be covered with geotextile filter or other suitable material.\n\nIf the conduit is to be placed in a rock-trench, or where rock is exposed in the bottom of the trench, the rock shall be\nremoved below grade deep enough so that the trench may be backfilled, compacted, and bedded so that the conduit\nis not less than two inches from rock.\n\n\nWhen iron sulfide chemical reaction causes sealing of joints or perforations, the drain shall be enclosed in a clean\nsand-gravel filter. Riser pipes for flushing the line shall be provided at intervals not to exceed 500 feet.\n\n\n\n\n\n1\n A recommended method of installation is to place filter material to a depth of three inches under the drain, and cover the drain and filter with a\nsheet of plastic. The filter shall be designed to prevent the material in which the installation is made from entering the drain. Not more than\n10% of the filter shall pass the No. 60 sieve.\n\n\n\n\n\n 30-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=198)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 199", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 199\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n TRAFFIC CONTROL\n\n\n\n Definition\n\nThe control of on-site construction traffic (construction equipment, service vehicles, autos, etc.) during development\nof a parcel of land.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo minimize land disturbance.\n\n Where Applicable\n\nAny area where vehicular traffic disturbs the land to the extent of\nreducing protective vegetation, compacting soil, or otherwise deteriorating the environment.\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nManaging construction traffic to minimize the damage or loss of protective vegetative cover and minimize the\ncompaction of soils will help to minimize off-site erosion and transportation of associated pollutants.\n\n\n Planning Criteria\n\nRestrict construction traffic to predetermined routes according to types and numbers of vehicles anticipated.\nMarkers or temporary fencing may be helpful.\n\nAvoid damage to waterways by construction of suitable crossing facilities and avoid traffic in or along streams.\n\nPredetermine steep banks and vegetative areas to be avoided by traffic.\n\nTraffic during wet weather should be minimized.\n\nSediment from tire washing operations shall be retained on site. Water shall be conveyed to a stable outlet.\n\nSoil compaction resulting from construction traffic can impact the infiltration rate of the soil. Restoration of\ncompacted soils through deep tillage (6\" to 12\") and the addition of organic matter may be required, in accordance\nwith the Standards for Topsoiling and Land Grading, in planned pervious areas to enhance the infiltration rate of the\ndisturbed soil.\n\n\n\n\n\n 31-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=199)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 200", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 200\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n STANDARD\n FOR\n FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER\n\n\n Definition\n\nA temporary floating barrier at streams or waterways within the construction site.\n\n Purpose\n\nTo prevent the siltation of streams or waterways that pass through or about the construction site.\n\n Conditions Where Practice Applies\n\nFloating turbidity barriers shall be used whenever construction operations are directly located in a stream or water\ncourse, or where a drainage pipe that may carry silt discharges into a stream or waterway.\n\n\n Water Quality Enhancement\n\nThis practice will limit the dispersion of runoff-borne sediment (and floatable material) to the immediate area of\nconstruction, thereby facilitating maintenance and cleanup. Sediment trapped behind the barrier will be permitted to\ndrop out of suspension before being carried further downstream.\n\n Design Criteria\n\n1. Barrier material will be a Polyethylene Plastic sheet, 10 mil., or suitable alternate to fit existing conditions.\n\n2. Weights will be at 10' intervals along the entire length. They shall be 5 pounds and extend 12\" below the\n bottom of the material.\n\n3. Floats will be at 5' intervals; there will be two floats at each location, one on either side of the material.\n\n4. Rope will be 1/4\" nylon or manila.\n\n Placement\n\n\n1. Barrier will be set on a 50' radius from the point of discharge when discharging through a conduit. If the\n radius cannot be accommodated, barrier shall be placed in accordance with no. 3 below.\n\n2 Barrier will extend parallel to the channel bank(s) for the full length of the work area for shoreline\n disturbances.\n\n3. Barrier will extend across the entire channel when work is performed within the channel.\n\n\n\n\n\n 32-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=200)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 201", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 201\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Figure 32-1: Placement of Floating Turbidity Barrier\n\n\n\n Conduit discharge into body of water\n\n\n\n\n\n Barrier installed at a 50 foot radius\n from discharge\n\n\n\n\n\n Containment of shoreline disturbance\n\n\n\n\n\n Flow Barrier installed parallel\n to shoreline\n\n\n\n\n\n Containment from in-channel disturbance\n (disturbance is up-stream of barrier)\n\n\n\n Flow\n Barrier installed across\n channel\n\n\n\n\n\n 32-2\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=201)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 202", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 202\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Appendix A1\n\n THE UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION *\n\n Determining Sediment Yield from Construction Sites and Development\n\n\nIntroduction\n\nSediment, a common term for eroded soil, is the most massive pollutant of surface water. Our growing population and\nhigh standards of living require construction of more houses, shopping centers, highways, waterways, and other\nfacilities that involve clearing of vegetation and massive movement of soil. These activities expose the soil directly to\nthe erosive actions of rain and flowing water. As a result, an enormous amount of soil is lost from these sites causing\nhigh turbidity to the water that carries it and damaging the site where it is finally deposited.\n\nThe Universal Soil Loss Equation, commonly known as the USLE, is a valuable technique for estimating erosion rates\nand evaluating various conservation practices for controlling erosion and sedimentation (deposition).\n\nThe Soil Erosion - Sedimentation Process\n\nSince soil erosion and sedimentation by water are complex processes, a better understanding of them provides a sound\nbasis for developing improved predictions and control methods. Soil erosion and sedimentation by water include\ndetachment from the soil mass, transport downslope, and subsequent deposition. Soil is detached by raindrop impact\nand runoff shear forces, but man's activities that loosen and pulverize soil often promote accelerated erosion.\nDownslope transportation of eroding soil particles is primarily by channelized runoff. Generally, three distinct forms\nof erosion are seen in the upland areas. These are sheet erosion, rill erosion and gully erosion. Sheet erosion, also\nknown as interrill erosion, takes place uniformly between rills or gullies. Sheet erosion results primarily from raindrop\nimpact. The erosive potential of rain depends on its raindrop size, fall velocity and total mass at impact. Unless the soil\nsurface is protected against raindrop impact by vegetation, mulches, or other cover, these raindrops can detach great\nquantities of soil and cause serious unnoticed interrill erosion.\n\nRill erosion is much more noticeable than interrill erosion. It is primarily the result of soil detachment by concentrated\nrunoff, it causes intensive soil movement from a limited part of the land surface. Rills, which are small channels that\ncan be easily smoothed, may first develop due to topographic variations, tillage marks, or random irregularities on the\nland surface. Rills carry both runoff from interrill areas and the rain that falls directly on them. Rill erosion increases\nrapidly as the slope steepens or lengthens and runoff rate increases.\n\nGully erosion is massive removal of soil by large concentrations of runoff. Gullies often start as rills and enlarge until\nthey cannot be crossed by vehicles such as trucks and tractors. If permitted to form, gullies may yield tremendous\nvolumes of sediment.\n\n*Pages A1.1-A1.20 written by Dr. Devah Borah and presented at Cook College, Rutgers University, Sediment and\nErosion Control Short Course, Spring 1986.\n\nThe quantity and size of material transported is a function of runoff velocity and turbulence, and these increase as the\nslope steepens and the flow increases. The larger the eroding material, the greater must be the flow velocity and\nturbulence to transport it. When the velocity or turbulence decreases, some of the eroded sediment may deposit. The\nlargest and densest particles settle first while the finer particles are carried farther downslope or downstream.\nEstimating Sediment Yield\n\nThe rate of sheet erosion depends on several factors as follows: (1) rainfall energy and intensity, (2) soil erodibility,\n\n\n A1-1\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=202)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 203", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 203\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nand (3) land slope and length of slope or topography, (4) condition of the soil surface and land management practices\nin use and (5) surface cover involved such as grass, woodland, crops, pavement or no cover at all. These factors may\nbe assigned quantitative values to be used for computing soil loss by the Universal Soil Loss Equation, E = RK (LS)\nCP, where E is the estimated soil loss from sheet erosion in tons per acre per year. See ref. (3).\n\n R, the rainfall factor, is the number of erosion index in a normal year`s rain. The erosion index is a\n measure of the erosive force of specific rainfall. See figure A1-I for values of R.\n\n K, the soil-erodibility factor, is the erosion rate per unit of erosion index for a specific soil in\n cultivated continuous fallow on a 9 percent slope 72.6 feet long. See Table A1-2a, A1-2b or A1-2c\n for values of K and (KR), the product of K and R, for New Jersey soils.\n\n L, the slope length factor, is the ratio of soil loss from the field gradient to that from a 9 percent slope.\n See Table A1-3 for values of (LS) for various slope gradient and length combinations.\n\n C, the cropping management factor, is the ratio of soil loss from a field with specified cropping\n management to that from the fallow condition on which the factor K is evaluated. This factor is\n also called the cover index and can be used to represent the effect of land cover or treatment that\n may be used to protect the construction site. See table A1-4 for values of the soil cover index Cc\n for treatment that may be used to protect construction sites.\n\n P, the erosion control practice factor, is the ratio of soil loss with the contour strip cropping or\n terracing to that with straight row farming up and down the slopes. The condition of the soil\n surface, particularly at construction sites, can also be reflected in the practice factor. See Table\n A1-5 for soil surface condition factors Pc for construction sites.\n\nThe value E may also be modified by a factor M shown on Table A1-6. M may be used to estimate the soil loss for a\nportion of a year and a portion of another year or more. The use of this factor provides a means of estimating the\naverage soil loss on a critical sediment source area that will remain as such for a portion of a year or during the\nperformance time of a construction contract.\n\nThe factor R is equal to the average annual value of the erosion index EI when the equation is being used to estimate\naverage annual soil loss. This value of the equation may be modified to reflect soil loss probability and individual\nstorm losses. Estimates of average soil loss, based on probability and single storm losses, can be made by multiplying\nthe equation by the factors shown in Table A1-8. These factors reflect an alteration in the value of R and, therefore, the\nerosive effect of rainfall. They do not account for such things as snow melt, freezing, thawing and snow cover.\n\nDetailed definitions and explanations for each of these factors are contained in Reference (3).\n\nThe soil information contained in Tables A1-2a, A1-2b and A1-2c are of general nature, useful for planning purposes.\nIt should be used, without verification, for evaluation of construction sites for erosion control. Where erosion may be\nexpected during construction involving earth moving, on-site investigations should include information on soils to be\nexposed as follows: (1) field identification and classification for both agriculture textures and the unified system, (2)\nsampling for grain size distribution, Atterburg limits and laboratory classification, and (3) in-place density as\ndetermined by a volumeter and the speedy moisture tester or other means.\n\nThe soil grain size is useful in determining the value of practices for the control of erosion and particularly sediment.\nFor example, sediment basins will not be very effective for trapping very fine sediment. Soils made up of a high\npercentage of material with the grain size of 0.05 mm or less have a slow settling velocity in water. Material with a\n0.05 mm grain size has a settling velocity close to 0.006 feet per second. This means that, theoretically, a detention\ntime of about 15 minutes is required to settle out 0.05 mm material in 5 feet of still water.\n\n\n\n A1-2\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=203)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 204", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 204\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nSoil loss computed by the universal loss equation represents gross sheet erosion. This value plus erosion from the\nrilling, gullies and other sources is the gross erosion. To obtain sediment yield at the point downstream, the gross\nerosion must be adjusted downward by a delivery rate factor in percent equal to the ratio of sediment yield at the\ndamage area to gross erosion. Delivery rates vary somewhere between 10 percent and 90 percent depending on\nconditions that tend to trap sediment between the source and the damage area.\n\nWater pollution in the form of turbidity or discoloration may be as damaging to water supplies or swimming areas as\nthe accumulation of sediment. Turbid water may be the result of algae or other organisms but generally it is caused by\nthe fine silt or clay particles held in suspension. The very fine, divided clay particles found in some soils are difficult to\ncontrol and may take months to settle out in still water.\n\n Downstream damage from sediment depends on the following conditions:\n\n 1. Distance from the construction site to the nearest stream, pond or reservoir along with the condition of the\n vegetation and the slope of the area between the site and the stream of the reservoir. Areas with flat slopes\n and dense vegetation will tend to filter out sediment.\n\n 2. Once the sediment gets into a stream, the distance downstream to the damage point, such as a pond or\n water supply intake, is important. Also to be considered is the stream channel gradient and the flood\n plain width. Wide flat flood plains with dense vegetation will trap more sediment than steep narrow valleys.\n\n 3. The use of the stream or reservoir must be considered. It is very important to keep sediment out of streams\n used for fishing, recreation or water supply.\n\n 4. Another factor that should be considered is the size of the construction area and the length of time it will be\n bare of vegetative cover and subject to erosion. The total sediment expected should be compared with the\n capacity of the damage area to sustain sediment. If the total sediment to be expected from the site during\n the entire construction period is greater than can be tolerated in the damage area, considerable effort should\n be made to reduce it. If this cannot be done, arrangements to alleviate the damage should be made. These\n arrangements may include cleanout of ponds and reservoirs or restoration of stream channels.\n\nA look at the Soil Loss Equation will show the factors over which man can exercise some control. These are lengths of\nslope, exposure time, and the total area exposed. Slope length is contained in the equation as part of the (LS) factor and\nits effect on soil loss can be evaluated. The length of time and time of year of soil loss from different size areas, can\nalso be estimated.\n\n\"LS\" Factor for Composite Slopes\n\nLS values given in Table A1-3 predict the average soil loss for the entire length of a slope. Such a slope length is\nmeasured from the point where surface flow originates (usually the top of the ridge) to the outlet channel or a point\ndown slope where deposition begins. When a slope steepens or flattens significantly toward the lower end, or is\ncomposed of a series of convex and concave segments, its overall average gradient and length do not correctly indicate\nthe topographic effect on soil loss. Neither can successive slope segments be evaluated as independent slopes when\nrunoff flows from one segment to the next. For irregular slopes values read from the aforementioned table must be\nadjusted to account for effects of the gradient changes.\n\nThe irregular slope is divided into a small number of equal-length segments in such a manner that, for practical\npurposes, the gradient within each segment can be considered uniform. The LS values corresponding to the steepness\nof each of the slope segments are read from table A1-3. While reading these values, the entire length of the irregular\nslope is taken. These LS values are multiplied by the corresponding factors given in the following table (Wischmeier,\n1974). Each individual product is an estimate of LS value for the corresponding slope segment and the average of the\nproducts is an estimate of the effective LS value for the entire irregular slope. The procedure is valid only for situations\n\n\n A1-3\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=204)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 205", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 205\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nwhere upslope deposition is not possible.\n\n FACTORS TO ADJUST \"LS\" VALUES FOR COMPOSITE SLOPES\n\n\n Segment No. Adjustment Factors for Given Number\n (Top to Bottom) of Equal-length Segments\n\n─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n─\n 2 3 4 5\n 1 0.71 0.58 0.50 0.45\n\n 2 1.29 1.06 0.91 0.82\n\n 3 1.37 1.18 1.06\n\n 4 1.40 1.25\n\n 5 1.42\n\n\n\n\"C\" Values for Various Mulches Table A1-4 gives C values and slope-length limits or various nonseeded and\nseeded mulches used in controlling soil erosion. This table is taken from Meyer and Ports (1976). By using these\nvalues in the USLE, the effectiveness of various mulches can be determined in controlling soil erosion.\n\nSediment Delivery Ratio\n\nSince the USLE predicts only the soil loss by rill and interrill erosion from the field-size areas, sediment yields from\nlarger areas of watersheds must be estimated by adding additional erosion from gullies and streambanks along the flow\npath and subtracting eroded soil that is deposited at the base of a slope and elsewhere within the watershed. If\nadditional gully or channel-type erosion is significant, it should be estimated and added to the predicted upland erosion\nto give the gross erosion occurring in the watershed above the location of interest. Deposition of eroded soil is\naccounted by simply using a sediment delivery ratio which is defined as the ratio of the sediment leaving the watershed\nto the estimated gross erosion on the watershed. Delivery ratios are generally much less than 1, because most natural\nslopes tend to flatten along their lower portions, which encourages deposition, and heavy vegetation often traps\nsediment below the upland slopes. However, urban erosion sources often lack locations where deposition is likely to\noccur and, in such cases, the delivery ratio will approach 1. Figure 2-4-2 gives delivery ratios for different soil texture\nand drainage areas. A general guide to sediment delivery ratios from construction sites is given as follows:\n\n\nGuide To Delivery Ratio For Sediment From Construction Sites\n\nDamage Area Condition (Reservoir,\nstream reach or other area that could be damaged by sediment) Estimated Delivery Rates \\1\n\nLess than 300 feet from the down\nslope boundary of the construction\nsite. .90\n\n\n A1-4\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=205)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 206", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 206\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nMore than 300 feet down slope from\nthe construction site but not downstream\nany appreciable distance .70\n\nLess than 1 mile downstream from the\nconstruction site (stream flows through\nor less than 300 feet from the slope\nboundary of site) .60\n\nDamage area more than 1 mile downstream\nor less. .50\n\n\\1 New Jersey State Soil Conservation, \"Sediment Pollution and Erosion Control Guide for Resource Conservation\",\nTechnical Guide, 1971. The values are based on judgement only. They should be considered as a general guide.\n\n The Universal Soil Loss Equation has been widely adapted for use in estimating erosion rates and selecting sediment\ncontrol practices for urban areas. It is a valuable design tool when properly applied, but its misuse can cause serious\nproblems.\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-5\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=206)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 207", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 207\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-6\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=207)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 208", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 208\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-7\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=208)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 209", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 209\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\nSample Problem\n\nConsider the following sample construction site. The site is located in the land resource area 148 of New Jersey. The\nland will be prepared for construction and will be exposed during an eighteen-month construction period starting from\nApril 1 and ending on September 30 of next year. Assume that the upper edge of the site is a ridge so that there will be\nno overland flow contributing from the outside areas.\n\n\n1. Required: For this site find the weighted soil erodibility factor.\n\nSolution: Estimate the soil erodibility factor \"K\" as follows\n\nSub Soil Soil1 Area K Area in Weighted1\nArea Series Profile \"a\" (t/ac) Subarea K in\n (inches) (ac) \"A\" subarea AK\n (ac) ak tons\n A\n (t/ac)\n I WaB 0-9 10.4 0.28\n 9-52 4.1 0.32 14.5 0.29 4.2\n\n II HaB 0-6 1.7 0.17\n 6-56 5.1 0.15 6.8 0.16 1.1\n\n III CdB 0-10 6.9 0.17\n 10-50 5.7 0.302 12.6 0.23 2.9\n\n IV HaB 0-6 4.7 0.17 4.7 0.17 0.8\n\n Total: 38.6 9.0\n ∑AK\nWeighted K = ∑A = 9/38.6 = 0.23 t/ac (answer)\n\nNote:\nThe soil interpretation record of each soil series is used. In absence of these records, Table A1-2 can be used. Since the\nconstruction site has several soil series with different surface areas (Figure A1.2) and different K values, the composite\nK value must be weighted. Also, the soil profile which will be exposed for construction will be different at different\nlocations (Figure A1.3). These differences must also be accounted for by further weighing.\n\n\n\n\n 1Assumed that the building and parking area is leveled around 95-ft contour\n\n 2 (0.32 + 0.28)/2 = 0.30\n\n\n\n A1-8\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=209)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 210", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 210\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-9\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=210)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 211", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 211\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-10\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=211)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 212", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 212\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-11\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=212)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 213", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 213\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-12\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=213)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 214", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 214\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-13\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=214)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 215", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 215\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n2. Required: For this site, estimate the Topographic Factor \"LS\"\n\n\nSolution:\n \"LS\" for Subarea \"A\" (11.6 acres)\n\n Segment Slope \"LS\" form Adjustment Segment\n No. % Table A1-3 Factor \"LS\"\n\n 1 1 0.21 0.71 0.15\n\n 2 2 0.33 1.29 0.43\n\n\n Average LS: 0.29\n\nSubarea A will have original slope\n\n \"LS\" for Subarea \"B\" (27.0 acres)\n\n Segment Slope \"LS\" form Adjustment Segment\n No. % Table A1-3 Factor \"LS\"\n\n 1 1 0.27 0.45 0.12\n\n 2 2 0.41 0.82 0.34\n\n 3 0.2 * 0.17 1.06 0.18\n\n 4 0.2 ** 0.17 1.25 0.21\n\n 5 5 1.70 1.42 2.41\n\n\n Average LS: 0.65\n\n\nWeighted LS = [(0.29)(11.6) + (0.65)(27.0)]/38.6 = 0.54 (answer)\n\n\nNote:\n Subarea B will be reshaped for construction. Assume that the building area is almost horizontal around 96-ft.\nelevation.\n\n3. Required: Estimate the annual soil erosion rate from the construction site without any control measure. At what\nrate will this sediment be arriving at the Winding Creek?\n\nSolution:\n1. Using the Universal Soil Loss Equation E = R K LS C P\n\n R: from Figure A1-1, R value in Hunterdon County is 175\n\n\n\n A1-14\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=215)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 216", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 216\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n K: weighted K value previously calculated is 0.23 t/ac\n\n 1. (cont'd)\n\n LS: weighted LS factor previously calculated is 0.54\n\n C: no cover, therefore C is 1.0\n\n P: no control practices, P = 1.0\n\n2. The estimated average soil loss from sheet erosion (E) in tons per acre per year is:\n\n E = (175) (0.23) (0.54) (1.0) (1.0)\n 22 tons/acre/year\n\n3. The erosion from the entire site (sediment yield)\n\n 22 tons/acre/year X 38.6 acres = 849 tons/year\n\n4. Delivery Ratio (DR): The Winding Creek is about 600 feet downstream of the construction site. Based on the\nvalues\n given previously assume DR = 0.7\n\n5. Sediment reaching the Winding Creek is:\n\n 0.7 X 849 tons/year = 594 tons/year (answer)\n\n4. Required: What would the soil erosion be for an extreme year of one in 20 years and for a major single storm of\n one in 20 years?\n\nSolution:\n\n1. Soil erosion for an extreme year of one in 20 years can be determined as follows:\n\n a. Probability factor of one in 20 years (Table A1-8) is 1.7\n\n b. Soil erosion for this year is 1.7 X 849 tons/year or 1443 tons/year (answer)\n\n2. Soil Erosion for a major storm of one in 20 years can be determined as follows:\n\n a. The factor in table A1-8 is 0.7, therefore the soil erosion for the storm is 0.7 X 849 tons/year or 594\n tons/year (answer).\n\n5. Required: What would the reduction of annual soil erosion be (in percent) if the slope length is divided into five\n equal slope lengths by using diversions? What would the reduction be if straw or hay mulch at a rate of 1.5 T/ac\n is properly used in each of the above slope length segments?\n\nSolution:\n\n1. Divide the slopes into five equal slope lengths (Figure A1-2) and determine the effect of the slope length change:\n\n Each slope-length will be 210 feet. \"LS\" factor, as well as the erosion rate, for each slope-length is computed\n\n\n A1-15\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=216)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 217", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 217\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nindividually.\n\n Erosion from Subarea A\n\n Segment Slope \"LS\" from Area A Annual Soil Loss\n No. (%) Table A1-3 (acres) ARKLS (tons/year)\n\n 1 1 0.16 2.32 14.9\n 2 1 0.16 2.32 14.9\n 3 2 0.25 2.32 23.3\n 4 2 0.25 2.32 23.3\n 5 2 0.25 2.32 23.3\n\n Total from Subarea A is 100 tons/year\n\n\n Erosion from Subarea B\n\n Segment Slope \"LS\" from Area B Annual Soil Loss\n No. (%) Table A1-3 (acres) ARKLS (tons/year)\n\n 1 1 0.16 5.4 34.8\n 2 2 0.25 5.4 54.3\n 3 0.2 0.10 5.4 21.7\n 4 0.2 0.10 5.4 21.7\n 5 5 0.78 5.4 169.5\n\n Total from Subarea B is 302 tons/year\n\nTherefore the total soil loss is 100 + 302 = 402 tons/year. The percent reduction would therefore be (849-409)/849 X\n100 = 53 percent (answer)\n\n2. The soil loss reduction from the slope length change and from adding mulch is as follows:\n\n a. From table A1-4 for slopes that are < 5 percent and lengths less\n than 300 feet, the cropping management factor (C) is 0.12\n\n b. Soil loss with straw or hay mulch (1.5 tons/year) on the five\n equal segments is 402 tons/year X 0.12 = 48 tons/year\n\n c. Reduction of annual soil loss (849-48)/849 X 100 or 94 percent\n (answer)\n\n6. Required: Assume that the only control measure adopted in this site is a sediment basin which will be constructed\nat the downstream edge of the property. For what sediment volume will this basin be designed?\n\nSolution:\n\n1. Since the sediment basin will be built at the downstream edge of the site, DR = 1.0\n\n2. The rate of sediment which will enter the basin is 849 tons/year.\n3. The adjustment factor, M (Table A1-6), for the 18 month construction period (April 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987):\n\n\n A1-16\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=217)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 218", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 218\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n April 1, 1986 to March 1, 1987: M = 0.98\n March 1, 1987 to October 1, 1987 M = 0.82\n\n Total M = 1.80\n\n4. Total sediment which will arrive at the basin during the construction period is Et = 849 tons/year X 1.80 or 1528\ntons.\n\n5. Using Table A1-7, the saturated sediment volume for which the sediment basin will be designed is:\n\n 1528 X .00077 = 1.18 acre-feet\n or\n 1528 X 1.24 = 1895 cu. yd. (answer)\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-17\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=218)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 219", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 219\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-18\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=219)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 220", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 220\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-1\n\n USDA TEXTURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TABLE A1-2a, A1-2b, A1-2c\n\n\n c - clay,clayey\n\n ch - channery\n\n co - coarse\n\n e - extremely\n\n f - fine\n\n g - gravelly\n\n k - cobbly\n\n l - loam, loamy\n\n m - muck\n\n r - rocky\n\n s - sand, sandy\n\n sh - shaly\n\n si - silt, silty\n\n st - stony\n\n v - very\n\n\n SOIL-ERODIBILITY CLASSES\n\n K - class\n\n 0.17 - 0.24 - low\n\n 0.28 - 0.37 - medium\n\n 0.43 - 0.49 - high\n\n\n\n\n\n A1-19\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=220)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 221", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 221\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2a EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 144, R= 175\n Soil Series Locali Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n Adrian 0-42 m Pt -- --\n 42-60 ls SP-SM,SM 0.2 35\n Albia 0-16 gl,estl GM,GC,SC 0.24 42\n 16-40 gl (pan) GM,GC,SC 0.4 70\n 40-60 gl GM,GC,SC 0.3 53\n Asbury 0-30 sil GL,ML ii --\n 30-60 ls,gls,vgls SM,GM -- --\n Atherton 0-30 l SM,SC,ML,CL 0.24 42\n 30-60 scl SM,SC 0.2 35\n Bartley 0-11 l,g ML,CL 0.32 56\n 11-32 cl,l,scl ML,CL 0.3 53\n 32-42 sl,l SM,SC 0.2 35\n 42-60 sl,l,gsl,gl SM,SC 0.2 35\n Bath 0-28 l,sil SM,SC 0.24 42\n gl,vstl GM,GC 0.17 30\n 28-48 l,sil SM,SC 0.2 35\n gl,gsil GM,GC 0.2 35\n 48-60 gsl SM,SC,GM,GC 0.2 35\n Beatty 0-25 l CL,ML 2 --\n 25-60 ls,gls SM,GM -- --\n Biddeford 0-8 ml Pt -- --\n 8-18 sil ML,CL -- --\n 18-44 sicl,c,cl CL,CH -- --\n 44-60 sil,cl,sicl ML,CL -- --\n Boonton 0-6 gl,estl ML 0.20 35\n 6-30 fsl,l,sil,gfsl,gl,gs ML,CL 0.2 35\n 30-45 fsl,sil,gfsl,gsil ML,CL,SM,SC 0.2 35\n 45-60 gsl SM 0.2 35\n Braceville 0-24 gsl SM,GM 0.24 42\n 24-36 g or vg, l,sl SM,SC,GM 0.3 53\n 36-60 stratified scg SM,SP,SP-SM,GP 0.2 35\n Bridgeville 0-30 sl,gl SM 0.24 42\n 30-60 gl,g,s SM 0.2 35\n Burnham 0-12 l,sil ML,CL 0.32 26\n 12-48 gl ML,CL 0.3 53\n 48-60 stone,g SM,SC,GM,GC 0.2 35\n\n\n A1-20\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=221)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 222", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 222\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2a EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 144, R= 175\n Soil Series Locali Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n Carlisle 0-60 m Pt -- --\n Cattaraugus 0-20 fsl SM,ML,CL 0.24 42\n 20-60 gl SM,ML,CL 0.17 30\n Chatfield 0-28 l ML,CL 0.17 30\n 28+ gneiss bedrock\n Chenango 0-20 sl SM 0.24 42\n gfsl,ksl GM 0.17 30\n 20-30 vgsl,gsl SM,GM 0.2 35\n 30-60 g,s,gls GP-GM,GM 0.2 35\n Chippewa 0-13 sil ML,CL 0.32 56\n chsil,estl ML,CL 0.24 42\n 13-50 l,chsil(pan) ML,CL,GM 0.4 70\n Colden 0-8 sil ML,CL 0.43 75\n 8-45 sicl ML 0.4 70\n Colonie 0-16 lfs,ls SM,SP-SM 0.24 42\n 16-60 fs,ls,lfs SM,SP-SM 0.2 35\n Comly 0-11 sil ML,CL 0.37 65\n 11-20 sicl,l,sil ML,CL,CH 0.4 70\n 20-27 sicl(pan) ML,CL,CH 0.5 88\n 27-40 sil,l,sicl ML,CL,CH 0.3 53\n Coplay 0-10 sil ML,CL 0.32 56\n 10-60 sicl,cl ML,CL 0.3 53\n Cossayuna 0-24 l,vfsl SM,ML,CL 0.24 42\n gl SC,GM,GC 0.17 30\n 24-48 g,gl (pan) SC,GM,GC,SM,ML 0.3 53\n 48-60 gsl SM,GM 0.2 35\n Crestmore 0-30 l,sil ML,CL 0.32 56\n 30+ bedrock\n Culvers 0-16 fsl SM,ML,CL 0.28 49\n chsil SM,ML,CL 0.20 35\n 16-45 l ML 0.3 53\n chsil ML,CL,GM 0.3 53\n Dutchess 0-60 sil,l,shl,shsil GM,SM 0.20 35\n Ellington 0-15 l,fsl ML,SM 0.24 42\n gl,gsl ML,SM 0.24 42\n 15-38 l,sl ML,SM 0.3 53\n\n\n A1-21\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=222)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 223", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 223\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2a EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 144, R= 175\n Soil Series Locali Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n gl,gsl ML,SM 0.2 35\n 38-60 s,gs SM,SP-SM,GM 0.2 35\n Fredon 0-7 l ML,CL,SM 0.24 42\n 7-30 sl,fsl SM,ML,CL 0.3 53\n gsl,gfsl SM,ML,CL 0.2 35\n 30-60 s,g GP-GM,SP-SM 0.2 35\n Hackettstown 0-30 sl SM 0.24 42\n gsl SM,GM 0.17 30\n 30-60 gls,gsl SM,GM 0.2 35\n Haledon 0-10 sil,gsil ML,CL 0.32 56\n 10-46 sil,l,fsl ML,CL 0.3 53\n gsil,gl,gfsl\n 46-60 vfsl,sl,gvfsl,gsl SM,SC 0.2 35\n Halsey 0-24 l ML,SM 0.24 42\n 24-30 fsl,l,sl SM 0.3 53\n 30-60 g,gs,s & g GP,GM,SM,SP 0.2 35\n Hazen 0-12 gsl,gl ML,CL 0.17 30\n 12-32 gl ML,CL 0.2 35\n 32-60 g & S SM 0.2 35\n Hero 0-10 l SM,ML,CL 0.24 42\n 10-24 fsl,gsl SM 0.2 35\n 24-60 s,gs SM,GM 0.2 35\n Hibernia 0-25 l ML,CL,SM,SC 0.37 65\n gl,stl,vstl ML,CL,SM,SC 0.32 56\n 25-36 l,scl,sl, ML,CL,SM,SC 0.3 53\n gl,gscl,gsl SM,SC,GM,GC 0.3 53\n 36-72 gls,gsl,kls SM,GM 0.2 35\n Holyoke 0-17 rsil ML,CL 0.24 42\n 17+ Bedrock\n Hoosic 0-15 gl,gsl SM,GM,ML,CL 0.17 30\n 15-26 gsl,vgsl GM,SM,ML,CL 0.2 35\n 26-60 s & g SW,GW,SM,GM, 0,2 35\n SP,GP\n Kendaia 0-8 sil,l,fsl ML 0.28 49\n 8-20 sil,l ML,ML-CL 0.4 70\n ML-CL,ML,SM 0.4 70\n\n\n A1-22\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=223)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 224", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 224\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2a EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 144, R= 175\n Soil Series Locali Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n ML-CL,ML,SM 0.3 53\n GM-GC\n Kistler 0-14 shsil ML,CL 0.24 42\n 14-24 vshsil ML,CL,GM 0.2 35\n 24+ slate bedrock\n Lackawana 0-26 l ML,CL 0.24 42\n chsil ML,CL 0.17 30\n 26-52 chl (pan) ML,CL 0.3 53\n Livingston 0-10 si,sicl ML,CL 0.49 86\n 10-50 sic ML,CL,MH,CH 0.5 88\n Lyons 0-9 vstsil CL,ML,SM,SC 0.28 49\n 9-18 sil,fsl,sicl SM,SC,GM,GC 0.4 70\n ML,CL\n 18-40 fsl,cl SM,SC,ML,CL 0.4 70\n 40-60 gl ML,CL,GM,GC 0.3 53\n Marksboro 0-10 l ML,CL 0.24 42\n gl ML,CL,SM,SC 0.24 42\n 10-40 l,gsl SM,SC 0.4 70\n Menlo 0-22 l ML,CL 0.24 42\n gl ML,CL 0.24 42\n 22-40 gl (pan) SM,SC 0.5 88\n Middlebury 0-10 fsl SM,SC,M 0.24 42\n 10-50 fsl,sil SM,SC,ML 0.4 70\n Minoa 0-30 sil,fsl ML,CL,SC 0.28 49\n 30-60 lfs,sil,lvfs SM 0.2 35\n Nassau 0-7 shsil,chsil,vsil SM,GM 0.20 35\n 7-16 chsil,vchsil SM,SC,GM,GC 0.2 35\n shsil,vshsil\n 16+ shale bedrock\n Netcong 0-60 fsl,sl SM,SC 0.24 42\n Norwich 0-6 sil ML,CL 0.32 56\n vstsil ML,CL 0.28 49\n 6-30 chsicl ML,CL 0.3 53\n 30-60 vchsil ML,CL 0.3 53\n Oquaga 0-16 vstsl,estl SM 0.20 35\n 16-26 stsl SM 0.3 53\n\n\n A1-23\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=224)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 225", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 225\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2a EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 144, R= 175\n Soil Series Locali Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n 26+ Bedrock\n Otisville 0-10 sl,gsl,gls SM,SP-SM,GP-GM 0.17 30\n 10-60 gls,gs SM,SP-SM,GM 0.2 35\n GP-GM\n Palmyra 0-18 sil,gfsl ML,CL 0.24 42\n 18-24 sil ML,CL 0.2 35\n 24-40 g & s SM 0.2 35\n Parsippany 0-7 sil ML,CL 0.43 75\n 7-34 cl,sicl,sic ML,CL,CH 0.4 70\n 34-60 sicl,cl,l ML,CL,CH 0.4 70\n Paulina 0-21 l,shl ML,CL 0.28 49\n 21-38 shl ML,CL 0.2 35\n Phelps 0-21 fsl SM 0.24 42\n 21-45 sl SM 0.3 53\n 45-50 g & s SM 0.2 35\n Pompton 0-28 sl,fsl SM 0.24 42\n 28-60 s & g SM,GM 0.2 35\n Preakness 0-12 sl,l SM 0.28 49\n 12-30 sl SM 0.2 35\n 30-60 ls,sl SM,SP-SM 0.2 35\n gls GM,SP-SM 0.2 35\n Raynham 0-28 sil ML,CL 0.49 86\n 28-60 sil,vfsl ML,CL 0.4 70\n Red Hook 0-10 fsl SM,SC 0.24 42\n 10-35 sil ML,CL 0.4 70\n 35-60 ls SM 0.4 70\n Rhinebeck 0-12 sil,sicl ML,CL,OL 0.49 86\n 12-30 sicl,sic CL,ML 0.4 70\n 30-40 sicl,sil,vfsl CL,ML 0.5 88\n Ridgebury 0-16 sl,fsl,l SM,ML,SC 0.24 42\n 16-40 gl,gsl SM,SC 0.3 53\n 40-60 gs,s SM,GM 0.2 35\n Riverhead 0-9 sl SM,SC 0.28 49\n gsl SM,SC 0.20 35\n 9-34 fsl,slgsl SM,SC 0.3 53\n 34-60 ls,s,gls,gs SP-SM,SM,GP-GM 0.2 35\n\n\n A1-24\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=225)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 226", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 226\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2a EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 144, R= 175\n Soil Series Locali Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n GM\n Rockaway 0-30 l ML,SM,SC 0.24 42\n gsl,gl,vstl, ML,SM,SC 0.17 30\n vstsl,estsl\n 30-60 gsl SM,SC 0.2 35\n Rockport 0-10 shsil ML,CL 0.20 35\n 10-36 sicl,sic ML,CL,MH,CH 0.4 70\n Rock\n Roe 0-10 shsil ML,CL 0.24 42\n 10-36 l,sil ML,CL 0.3 53\n 36-60 fs SM 0.2 35\n Scio 0-40 sil ML,CL 0.49 86\n 40-60 sl SM 0.3 53\n Sloan 0-45 sil,sicl ML,CL\n 45-60 gsl SM\n Stephensburg 0-19 shl ML 0.28 49\n 19-26 vshl GM,SM 0.2 35\n shale bedrock\n Swartswood 0-30 gfsl,gls,vstsl, SM,SC 0.17 30\n 30-60 gfsl (pan) SM,SC 0.3 53\n Townsbury 0-13 l SM,ML 0.24 42\n vstl SM,ML 0.17 30\n 13-36 l SM,ML,SC 0.4 70\n gl SM,ML,SC 0.2 53\n 30-60 gsl SM 0.2 35\n Tunkhannock 0-18 gl,vgl SM,GM,ML 0.17 30\n 18-32 vgsl GM,SM 0.2 35\n 32-60 s,gs SM,GMSP.GP 0.2 35\n Unadilla 0-10 vfsl ML,CL 0.49 86\n 10-60 sil,vfsl ML,CL 0.4 70\n 60-70 g & s SP-SM,GP-GM, 0.3 53\n GW-GM\n Valois 0-60 shl ML,CL 0.17 30\n Wallkill 0-8 sil OL,CL,ML,SM,SC 0.32 56\n 8023 sil CL,ML,SM,SC 0.4 70\n 23-60 much & peak OL,Pt 0.4 70\n\n\n A1-25\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=226)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 227", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 227\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2a EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 144, R= 175\n Soil Series Locali Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n Washington 0-9 l,sil ML,CL 0.32 56\n vstl ML,CL 0.28 49\n 9-60 l,sicl,cl ML,CL 0.3 53\n Wassaic 0-14 sil,l ML,CL 0.32 56\n gl,gsl SM,SC,GM,GC 0.24 42\n 14-23 l,sl SM,SC,ML,CL 0.3 53\n gsil GM,GC 0.2 35\n 23+ Bedrock\n Wayland 0-7 sil OL-ML,CL 0.32 56\n 7-38 sil ML,CL 0.5 88\n 38-50 stratified ML,CL,SC,SM,GM 0.4 70\n sil & fsl GC\n Wellsboro 0-11 sil,fsl,l SM,ML,CL 0.28 49\n chsil SM,ML,CL 0.20 35\n 11-22 l,sil ML,CL 0.3 53\n 22-60 fsl,sil,gl SM,SC,ML,CL 0.3 53\n (pan)\n Whippany 0-9 sil ML,CL 0.43 75\n 9-60 sil,sicl,sic,c ML,CL,CH 0.4 70\n Whitman 0-10 fsl,sl,lvfsl OL,SM,ML 0.24 42\n vstl,estsl 0.24 42\n 10-40 fsl,sl,l SM,ML-CL 0.2 35\n 40-60 gsl SM\n Woodglen 0-10 l ML,CL 0.49 86\n 10-36 sicl,c ML,CL,MH,CH 0.4 70\n 36-60 l,cl ML,CL 0.4 70\n Wooster 0-32 l,sil,cl ML,CL 0.32 56\n gl,chl,gsil ML,CL 0.3 53\n chsil,gcl,chcl\n 32-60 l,sil,chl,chsil ML,CL,SM,SC 0.3 53\n gl,gsil\n Wurtsboro 0-18 fsl SM,SC 0.24 42\n gfsl SM,SC 0.17 30\n 18-60 fsl (pan) SM,SC 0.3 53\n gfsl SM,SC 0.2 35\n\n\n\n A1-26\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=227)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 228", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 228\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n TABLE A1-2b EROSION PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN NEW JERSEY\n LAND RESOURCE AREA 148, R= 175\n Soil Series Local 1/ Typical USDA Texture Unified\n (Alpha Listing) Mapping Profile Range System K KR\n No. (inches)\n Abbottstown 0-20 sil ML,CL 0.43 75\n 20-38 sil (pan) ML,CL 0.4 70\n 38-48 shsil ML,CL 0.4 70\n shl SM,GM 0.3 53\n Amwell 0-10 sil ML,CL,SC 0.32 56\n gsil ML,CL 1/4 inch - Lane's Method\n\nA. Determination of Actual Tractive Stress\n\n 1. Actual tractive stress in an infinitely wide channel.\n\n Generally, Manning's roughness coefficient \"n\" reflects the overall impedance to flow including grain\n roughness, form roughness, vegetation, curved alignment, etc. Lane's a2 work showed that for soils\n with a D75 size between 0.25\" (6.35 mm) and 5.0\" (127mm) the value of Manning's coefficient \"n\"\n resulting from the roughness of the soil particles is determined by:\n (D75)1♠6 with D75 expressed in inches (Eq. A8-2) nt = 39\nThe value of nt determined by the equation above represents the retardance to flow caused by roughness of the soil\ngrains.\n\nThe value of nt can be used to compute st, the friction gradient associated with the particular boundary material\nbeing considered. nt\n st = ( n )Ν?2se (Eq. A8-3)\n\nThe tractive stress acting on the soil grains in an infinitely wide channel is found by:\n τ4 = γwdst (Eq. A8-4)\n\nwhere the terms are as defined in the glossary.\n\n 2. Distribution of the tractive stress along the channel perimeter:\n\n In open channels the tractive stresses are not distributed uniformly along the perimeter. Laboratory\n experiments and field observations have indicated that in trapezoidal channels the stresses are very\n small near the water surface and near the corners of the channel and assume their maximum value near\n the center of the bed. The maximum value on the banks occurs near the lower third point.\n\n Figures A8-2 and A8-3 give the maximum tractive stresses in a trapezoidal channel in relation to the\n tractive stress in an infinitely wide channel having the same depth of flow and value of st.\n\n 3. Tractive stresses on curved reaches:\n\n\n A8-7\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=294)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 295", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 295\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Curves in channels cause the maximum tractive stresses to increase above those in straight channels.\n The maximum tractive stresses in a channel with a single curve occur on the inside bank in the\n upstream portion of the curve and near the outer bank downstream from the curve. Compounding of\n curves in a channel complicates the flow pattern and causes a compounding of the maximum tractive\n stresses.\n\n Figure A8-4 gives values of maximum tractive stresses based on judgment coupled with very limited\n experimental data. It does not show the effect of depth of flow and length of curve and its use is only\n justified until more accurate information is obtained. Figure A8-5, with a similar degree of accuracy,\n gives the maximum tractive stresses at various distances downstream from the curve.\n\nB. Allowable Tractive Stress\n\n The allowable tractive stress for channel beds, Lb, composed of soil particles with discrete, single grain\n behavior with a given D75 is:\n τLb = 0.4D75 When 0.25 in < D75 < 5.0 in. (Eq. A8-5)\n\n The allowable tractive stress for channel sides, Ls is less than that of the same material in the bed of the\nchannel because the gravity force aids the tractive stress in moving the materials. The allowable tractive stress for\nchannel sides composed of soil particles behaving as discrete single grain materials, considering the effect of the side\nslope z and the angle of repose R with the horizontal is\n τLs = 0.4KD75. . . . .0.25. < 5.0. (Eq. A8-6)\n z2-cot2ΦR. . .\n (Eq. A8-7) Where: K = 1+z2\n\n Figure A8-6 gives an evaluation of the angles of repose corresponding to the degree of angularity of the\n material. Figure A8-7 gives values of K from Equation A8-7.\n\n When the unit weight γs of the constituents of the material having a grain size larger than the D75 size is\n significantly different than 160 lb/ft3, the limiting tractive stress τ Lb and τ Ls as given by Equations (A8-5)\n and (A8-6) should be multiplied by the factor.\n γs - γw (Eq. A8-8)\n T = 97.6\nFine Grained Soils - D75 < 1/4 inch\n\nA. Determination of Actual Tractive Stress\n\n 1. Reference tractive stress -\n The expression for reference tractive stress is: τ = γwRtse (Eq. A8-9)\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-8\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=295)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 296", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 296\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-9\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=296)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 297", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 297\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-10\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=297)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 298", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 298\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-11\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=298)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 299", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 299\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-12\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=299)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 300", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 300\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-13\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=300)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 301", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 301\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-14\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=301)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 302", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 302\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n In a given situation y and se are known so that the only unknown is Rt. The value of Rt can\n be determined from the logarithmic frictional formula developed by Keulegan and modified\n by Einstein a4.\n v Rtx\n = 5.75log(12.27 ) (Eq. A8-10) ks gRtse\n\n where: Ks is the D65 size in ft.\n\n The factor x in Equation A8-10 describes the effect on the frictional resistance of the\n ratio of the characteristic roughness length Ks to the thickness of the laminar sublayer\n This thickness is determined from the equation:\n 11.6v\n δ =\n gRtse (Eq. A8-11)\n\n\n A relationship between x and ks/δ has been developed empirically by Einstein a4.,\n and represented by a curve. With the help of this curve and equations A8-10 and\n A8-11, the value of Rt can be determined provided that V, se, Ks and the temperature\n of the water are known. The computational solution for Rt follows an interactive\n procedure which is rather involved. A simpler graphical solution has been developed\n by Vanoni and Brooks a5, and the basic family of curves that constitute it is shown in\n Figure A8-8. Figure A8-9 shows the extension of the curves outside the region\n covered in the original publication.\n\n Figure A8-10 gives curves from which values of density and kinematic viscosity of\n the water can be obtained.\n\n The computation of reference tractive stress (τ) is facilitated by following the\n procedure on page A8.20.\n\n2. Distribution of the tractive stress along the channel perimeter:\n\n In open channels the tractive stresses are not distributed uniformly along the perimeter.\n Laboratory experiments and field observations have indicated that in trapezoidal channels\n the stresses are very small near the water surface and near the corners of the channel and\n assume their maximum value near the center of the bed. The maximum value on the banks\n occurs near the lower third point.\n\n The graphs in Figures A8-11 and A8-12 may be used to evaluate maximum stress values on\n the banks and the bed respectively. These figures are to be used along with τ, the reference\n tractive stress, to obtain values for the maximum tractive stress on the sides and bed of\n\n\n A8-15\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=302)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 303", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 303\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n trapezoidal channels in fine grained soils.\n\n3. Tractive stresses in curved reaches:\n\n Figures A8-4 and A8-5, used to determine the maximum tractive stresses in curved reaches\n for coarse grained soils, may also be used to obtain these values for fine grained soils. The\n values for the maximum tractive stresses on the beds and sides, as determined above, are\n used in conjunction with these charts to obtain values for curved reaches.\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-16\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=303)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 304", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 304\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-17\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=304)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 305", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 305\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-18\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=305)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 306", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 306\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-19\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=306)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 307", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 307\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-20\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=307)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 308", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 308\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nB. Allowable Tractive Stresses - Fine grained soils\n\n The stability of channels in fine grained soils (D75 <0.25\") may be checked using the curves\n in Figure A8-13. These curves were developed by Lane a2. The curves relate the median\n grain size of the soils to the allowable tractive stress. Curve 1 is to be used when the stream\n under consideration carries a load of 20,000 ppm by weight or more of fine suspended\n sediment. Curve 2 is to be used for streams carrying up to 2,000 ppm by weight of fine\n suspended sediment. Curve 3 is for sediment free flows (less than 1,000 ppm).\n\n When the value of D50 for fine grained soils is greater than 5 mm, use the allowable tractive\n stress values shown on the chart for 5mm.\n\n For values of D50 less than those shown on the chart (0.1mm), use the allowable tractive\n stress values for 0.1 mm. However, if this is done, 0.1 mm should be used as the D65 size in\n obtaining the reference tractive stress.\n\n Procedure - Tractive Stress Approach\n\n The use of tractive stress to check the ability of earth channels to resist erosive stresses\n involves the following steps:\n\n 1. Determine the hydraulics of the channel. This includes hydrologic determinations as\n well as the stage-discharge relationships for the channel being considered.\n\n 2. Determine sediment yield to reach and calculate sediment concentration for design\n flow, or assume sediment free water.\n\n 3. Determine the properties of the earth materials in the boundary of the channel.\n\n 4. Check to see if the tractive stress approach is applicable.\n\n 5. Compute the tractive stresses exerted by the flowing water on the boundary of the\n channel being studied. Use the proper procedure as established by the D75 size of the\n materials.\n\n 6. Check the ability of the soil materials forming the channel to resist the computed\n tractive stresses.\n\n The computation for the reference tractive stress for fine grained soils is facilitated by using\n the following procedure:\n\n 1. Determine se and V: Evaluate Manning's \"n\" by the method described in Supplement\n A.\n\n\n\n A8-21\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=308)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 309", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 309\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n 2. Enter the graphs in Figure A8-10 with the value of temperature in ΕF and read the\n density ρ, and the kinematic viscosity of the water υ.\n V3\n 3. Compute gΐ+__\n\n V 4. Compute\n gksse\n\n 5. Enter the graph in Figure A8-8 (or Figure A8-9) with the computed values in steps 2\n and 3 above and read the value of V\n τ♠ρ\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-22\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=309)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 310", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 310\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-23\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=310)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 311", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 311\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n 6. Compute 𝑣 from v and p\n ට𝜏𝜌ൗ\n\n\n\n\n\n 𝑉2\n 𝜏= where the terms are defined in the glossary (𝑉 )2\n ൙ට𝜏𝜌ൗ\n\n\n\n\n\nExamples - Tractive Stress Approach\n\nExample 3\n\nGiven: The bottom width of the trapezoidal channel is 18 feet with side slopes of 1 1/2:1. The design flow is 262 cfs\nat a depth of 3.5 feet and a velocity of 3.23 fps. The slope of the energy grade line is 0.0026. There is one curve in\nthe reach, with a radius of 150 feet. The aged \"n\" value is estimated to be 0.045. The channel will be excavated in\nGM soil that is nonplastic, with D75 = 0.90 inches (22.0 mm). The gravel is very angular.\n\nDetermine: The actual and allowable tractive stress.\n\nSolution: Since D75 > 1/4 inch use the Lane method.\n\n nt = (0.90) 1/6/39 = 0.0252 (Eq. A8-1).\n\n From Equation A8-3: st - (nt/n)2 se = (0.025/0.045)2 0.0026 = 0.00082.\n\n actual τ4 = γwdst = (62.4) (3.5) (0.00082) = 0.179 psf.\n\n b/d (ratio of bottom width to depth) = 18/3.5 = 5.14.\n\n from Figure A4-2 and A4-3 τs /τ4 = 0.76; τb/τ4 = 0.98.\n\n Rc/b = (radius of curve/bottom width) = 150/18 = 8.33.\n\n τbc/τ b = sc/ s = 1.17 (Figure A8-4).\n\n Actual τb = (0.179) (0.98) = 0.175 psf;\n\n actual τs = (0.179) (0.76) = 0.136 psf\n\n Actual τbc = (0.175) (1.17) = 0.205 psf;\n\n actual τsc = (0.136) (1.17) = 0.159 psf\n\n\n A8-24\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=311)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 312", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 312\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nSolving for allowable tractive stress -\n\n φR = 38.4Ε (Figure A8-6). K = 0.45 (Figure A8-7).\n\n allowable: τLb = (0.4) (D75) = (0.4)(0.90) = 0.36\n\n allowable: τLs = 0.4 KD75 = (0.4) (0.45) (0.90) = 0.162\n\n Comparing actual with allowable, the channel will be stable in straight and curved sections.\n\n\nExample 4\n\nGiven: Bottom width of the trapezoidal section is 18 feet, side slopes are 1-1/2:1. Design flow is 262 cfs, with a\ndepth of 3.5 feet at a velocity of 3.23 fps. Slope of the hydraulic grade line is 0.0026. The design temperature is\n50`F. The channel will be cut in nonplastic SM soil, with a D75 size of 0.035 inches, a D65 size of 0.01075 inches\n(0.273 mm) and a D50 of 0.127 mm. The \"n\" value for the channel is 0.045. There are no curves in the reach.\nSediment load is quite light in this locality, in the range of clear water criteria.\nDetermine: The actual tractive stress and the allowable tractive stress.\n\nSolution: Since the D75 size is less than 1/4 inch, use the reference tractive stress method.\n\n v = 1.42 x 10-5 ft2/sec., ρ = 1.940 lb sec2/ft4 (Figure A8-10).\n\n V3 /gv se = 3.233/ (32.2) (1.42 x 10-5) (0.0026) = 2.83 x 107.\n\n V/ gksse = 3.23/ (32.2)(0.01075/12)(0.0026) = 373\n\n V/ τ/ρ = 21.6 (from Figure A8.8)\n\n τ = V2 ρ/(V/ τ/ρ)2 = (3.232) 1.94/ (21.6)2 = 0.0434 psf.\n\n b/d (ratio of bottom width to depth) = 18/3.5 = 5.14\n\n 1.31 (from Figure A8-11 and A8-12). τs/τ ≈ 1.0 τb/τ =\n Actual Tractive Stresses:\n\n τs =(0.0434) (1.0)= 0.0434 psf; τb = (0.0434) (1.31) = 0.0569 psf\n\nAllowable Tractive Stresses:\n\nD50 = 0.127 mm; from Figure A4-13 and assuming clear water flow (curve No.3) the allowable tractive force is 0.025\npsf. Both the bed and the banks of the channel are unstable.\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-25\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=312)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 313", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 313\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS\n\n\nA - alignment factor to adjust the basic velocity because of the effects of curvature of the channel.\n\nA - area of flow. (ft2)\n\nb - bottom width of a channel (feet).\n\nbT - water surface width (feet).\n\nB - bank slope factor to adjust the basic velocity because of the effects of different bank slopes.\n\nC - sediment concentration in parts per million by weight.\n\nC1, C2, C3, C4, C5 - coefficients used to determine channel proportions and slope when using the modified regime\n equations.\n\nCe - Density factor to adjust the basic velocity because of variations in the density of soil materials in the\n channel boundary.\n\ncm - cohesion intercept at natural moisture (psf).\n\nd - depth of flow (feet).\n\ndc - critical depth of flow (feet).\n\ndm - mean depth of flow (feet).\n\nD - depth factor to adjust basic velocity because of the effects of the depth flow.\n\nDs - the particle diameter of which s% of the sample is smaller.\n\nF - frequency factor to adjust the basic velocity because of the\n effect of infrequent flood flows.\n VF - Froude number =\n gdm\n\ng - acceleration due to gravity (fps2).\n\nG - specific gravity.\n\nHc - depth of tension crack (feet).\n\nks - characteristic length of roughness element, for granular material; Ks = D65 size in feet.\n\nK - coefficient modifying tractive force for gravitational forces on coarse, noncohesive materials on channel\n sides.\nn - Manning's coefficient.\n\nnt - Manning's coefficient for roughness of soil grains.\n\n A8-26\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=313)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 314", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 314\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nP - wetted perimeter.\n\nPI - Plasticity index.\n\nqu - unconfined compressive strength.\n\nQ - discharge (cfs).\n\nQs - Sediment transport rate (tons/day)\n\nR - hydraulic radius - feet.\n\nRc - radius of curvature of central section of compound curve.\n\nRt - hydraulic radius associated with grain roughness of the soil.\n\nso - slope of channel bottom.\n\nsc - critical slope.\n\nse - energy gradient\n\nst - rate of friction head loss because of tractive stress acting on bed and side materials.\n\nV - average velocity (fps).\n\nVa - allowable velocity (fps).\n\nvb - basic velocity (fps).\n\nVc - critical velocity (fps).\n\nWT - top width of flow - ft.\n ksx - factor describing effect of ratio on flow resistance.\n δ\nz - cotangent of side slope angle.\n\nT - factor to correct allowable tractive force for materials with D75 > 0.25\" for\n unit weights different than 160 pcf.\n\nγd - unit weight of water (pcf).\n\nγ - dry unit weight (pcf).\n\nγm - moist unit weight (pcf).\n\nγs - unit weight of particles larger than 0.25\" (pcf).\n\nγw - unit weight of water (62.4 pcf).\n\n\n A8-27\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=314)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 315", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 315\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n 11.6vδ - thickness of laminar sublayer =\n gRtse\nφ - angle of shearing resistance.\n\nφ m - angle of shearing resistance at natural moisture content.\n\nφr - angle of repose of coarse noncohesive materials.\n\nv - kinematic viscosity of water (ft2/sec).\n\nρ - water density (lb-sec2/ft4).\n\nΤ - reference tractive stress (psf).\n\nτ4 - tractive stress in an infinitely wide channel (psf).\n\nτb - maximum tractive stress on the channel bed (psf).\n\nτs - maximum tractive stress on the channel sides (psf).\n\nτbc - maximum tractive stress on the bed in a curved reach (psf).\n\nτsc - maximum tractive stress on the sides in a curved reach (psf).\n\nτLb - allowable tractive stress along the bed. (psf)\n\nτLs - allowable tractive stress along the sides (psf).\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-28\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=315)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 316", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 316\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n SUPPLEMENT A\n\n Method for Estimating Manning's \"n\"\n\nThis supplement describes a method for estimating the roughness coefficient \"n\" for use in hydraulic computations\nassociated with natural streams, floodways and similar streams. The procedure proposed applies to the estimation of n\nin Manning's formula. This formula is now widely used, it is simpler to apply than other widely recognized formulas\nand has been shown to be reliable.\n\nManning's formula is empirical. The roughness coefficient \"n\" is used to quantitatively express the degree of\nretardation of flow. The value of \"n\" indicates not only the roughness of the sides and bottom of the channel, but also\nother types of irregularities of the channel and profile. In short, \"n\" is used to indicate the net effect of all factors\ncausing retardation of flow in a reach of channel under consideration.\n\nThere seems to have developed a tendency to regard the selection of \"n\" for natural channels as either an arbitrary or\nan intuitive process. This probably results from the rather cursory treatment of the roughness coefficient in most of\nthe more widely used hydraulic textbooks and handbooks. The fact is that the estimation of \"n\" requires the exercise\nof critical judgment in the evaluation of the surfaces of the channel sides and bottom; variations in shape and size of\ncross sections; obstructions; vegetation; and meandering of the channel.\n\nThe need for realistic estimates of \"n\" justifies the adoption of a systematic procedure for making the estimates.\n\nProcedure for estimating n. The general procedure for estimating \"n\" involves; first, the selection of a basic value of\n\"n\" for a straight, uniform, smooth channel in the natural materials involved; then, through critical consideration of the\nfactors listed above, the selection of a modifying value associated with each factor. The modifying values are added\nto the basic value to obtain \"n\" for the channel under consideration.\n\nIn the selection of the modifying values associated with the 5 primary factors, it is important that each factor be\nexamined and considered independently. In considering each factor, it should be kept in mind that represents a\nquantitative expression of retardation of flow. Turbulence of flow can, in a sense, be visualized as a measure or\nindicator of retardance. Therefore, in each case, more critical judgment may be exercised if it is recognized that as\nconditions associated with any factor change so as to induce greater turbulence, there should be an increase in the\nmodifying value. A discussion and tabulated guide to the selection of modifying values for each factor is given under\nthe following procedural steps.\n\n1st step. Selection of basic \"n\" value. This step requires the selection of a basic \"n\" value for a straight, uniform,\nsmooth channel in the natural materials involved. The selection involves consideration of what may be regarded as a\nhypothetical channel. The conditions of straight alignment, uniform cross section, and smooth side and bottom\nsurfaces without vegetation should be kept in mind. Thus, the basic \"n\" will be visualized as varying only with the\nmaterials forming the sides and bottom of the channel. The minimum values of \"n\" shown by reported test results for\nthe best channels in earth are in the range from 0.016 to 0.018. Practical limitations associated with maintaining\nsmooth and uniform channels in earth for any appreciable period indicated that 0.02 is a realistic basic \"n\". The basic\n\"n\", as it is intended for use in this procedure, for natural or excavated channels, may be selected from the table below.\nWhere the bottom and sides of a channel are of different materials, this fact may be recognized in selecting the basic\n\"n\".\n\n CHARACTER OF CHANNEL BASIC n\n\n Channels in earth 0.02\n Channels cut into rock 0.025\n Channels in fine gravel 0.024\n Channels in coarse gravel 0.028\n\n A8-29\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=316)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 317", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 317\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n2nd step. Selection of modifying value for surface irregularity. The selection is to be based on the degree of\nroughness or irregularity of the surfaces of channel sides and bottom. Consider the actual surface irregularity; first, in\nrelation to the degree of surface smoothness obtainable with the natural materials involved, and second, in relation to\nthe depths of flow under consideration. Actual surface irregularity comparable to the best surface to be expected of\nthe natural materials involved calls for a modifying value of zero. Higher degrees of irregularity induce turbulence\nand call for increased modifying values. The table below may be used as a guide to the selection.\n\nDEGREE OF IRREGULARITY SURFACES COMPARABLE TO MODIFYING VALUE\n\n Smooth The best obtainable for the 0.000\n materials involved.\n\n Minor Good dredge channels; slightly\n eroded or scoured side slopes\n of canals or drainage channels. 0.005\n\n Moderate Fair to poor dredged channels;\n moderately sloughed or eroded side\n slopes of canals or drainage\n channels. 0.010\n\n Severe Badly sloughed banks of natural\n channels; badly eroded or sloughed\n sides of canals or drainage channels;\n unshaped, jagged and irregular sur\n faces of channels excavated in\n rock. 0.020\n\n\n3rd step. Selection of modifying value for variations in shape and size of cross sections. In considering changes in\nsize of cross sections, judge the approximate magnitude of increase and decrease in successive cross sections as\ncompared to the average. Changes of considerable magnitude, if they are gradual and uniform, do not cause\nsignificant turbulence. The greater turbulence is associated with alternating large and small sections where the\nchanges are abrupt. The degree of effect of size changes may be best visualized by considering it as depending\nprimarily on the frequency with which large and small sections alternate, and secondarily on the magnitude of the\nchanges.\n\nIn the case of shape variations, consider the degree to which the changes cause the greatest depth of flow to move\nfrom side to side of the channel. Shape changes causing the greatest turbulence are those for which shifts of the main\nflow from side to side occur in distances short enough to produce eddies and upstream currents in the shallower\nportions of those sections where the maximum depth of flow is near either side. Selection of modifying values may be\nbased on the following guide:\n\n\n CHARACTER OR VARIATIONS IN SIZE AND MODIFYING VALUE\n SHAPE OF CROSS SECTIONS\n\n Changes in size or shape occurring\n gradually 0.000\n Large and small sections alternating\n occasionally or shape changes causing\n\n A8-30\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=317)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 318", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 318\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n occasional shifting of main flow from\n side to side 0.005\n\n Large and small sections alternating\n frequently or shape changes causing\n frequent shifting of main flow from\n side to side 0.010 to 0.015\n\n\n4th step. Selection of modifying value for obstructions. The selection is to be based on the presence and\ncharacteristics of obstructions such as debris deposits, stumps, exposed roots, boulders and fallen and lodged logs.\nCare should be taken that conditions considered in other steps are not re-evaluated or double-counted by this step.\n\nIn judging the relative effect of obstructions, consider: the degree to which the obstructions occupy or reduce the\naverage cross sectional area at various stages; the character of obstructions (sharp-edged or angular objects induce\ngreater turbulence than curved, smooth-surfaced objects); the position and spacing of obstructions transversely and\nlongitudinally in the reach under consideration. The following table may be used as a guide to the selection.\n\n RELATIVE EFFECT OF OBSTRUCTIONS MODIFYING VALUE\n\n Negligible 0.000\n Minor 0.010 to 0.015\n Appreciable 0.020 to 0.030\n Severe 0.040 to 0.060\n\n5th step. Selection of modifying value for vegetation. The retarding effect of vegetation is probably due primarily to\nthe turbulence induced as the water flows around and between the limbs, stems and foliage, and secondarily to\nreduction in cross section. As depth and velocity increase, the force of the flowing water tends to bend the vegetation.\nTherefore, the ability of vegetation to cause turbulence is partly related to its resistance to bending force.\nFurthermore, the amount and character of foliage; that is, the growing season condition versus dormant season\ncondition is important. In judging the retarding effect of vegetation, critical consideration should be given to the\nfollowing: the height in relation to depth of flow; the capacity to resist bending; the degree to which the cross section\nis occupied or blocked out; the transverse and longitudinal distribution of vegetation of different types, densities and\nheights in the reach under consideration. The following table may be used as a guide to the selection:\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-31\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=318)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 319", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 319\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nVEGETATION AND FLOW CONDITIONS DEGREE OF RANGE IN MODIFYING\nCOMPARABLE TO: EFFECT ON n VALUE\n\nDense growths of flexible turfgrasses\nor weeds, of which Bermuda and\nbluegrasses are examples, where the\naverage depth of flow is 2 to 3\ntimes the height of vegetation. Low 0.005 to 0.010\n\n\nSupple seedling tree switches such\nas willow, cottonwood or salt cedar\nwhere the average depth of flow is\n3 to 4 times the height of the vegetation.\n\nTurf grasses where the average depth\nof flow is 1 to 2 times the height\nof vegetation.\n\nStemmy grasses, weeds or tree\nseedlings with moderate cover where\nthe average depth of flow is\n2 to 3 times the height of vegetation Medium 0.010 to 0.025\n\n\nBrushy growths, moderately dense,\nsimilar to willows 1 to 2 years old,\ndormant season, along side slopes of\nchannel with no significant vegetation\nalong the channel bottom, where the\nhydraulic radius is greater than 2\nfeet.\n\nTurf grasses where the average\ndepth of flow is about equal\nto the height of vegetation.\n\nDormant season, willow or cotton\nwood trees 8 to 10 years old, inter\ngrown with some weeds and brush,\nnone of the vegetation in foliage,\nwhere the hydraulic radius is\ngreater than 2 feet. High .025 to 0.050\n\nGrowing season, bushy willows about\n1 year old intergrown with some\nweeds in full foliage along side\nslopes, no significant vegetation\nalong channel bottom, where hydraulic\nradius is greater than 2 feet.\n\n\n\n A8-32\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=319)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 320", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 320\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nTurf grasses where the average depth\nof flow is less than one half the\nheight of vegetation.\n\nGrowing season, bushy willows about\n1 year old, intergrown with weeds in\nfull foliage along side slopes;\ndense growth of cattails along\nchannel bottom; any value of hydraulic\nradius up to 10 to 15 feet. Very High 0.050 to 0.100\n\nGrowing season; trees intergrown with\nweeds and brush, all in full\nfoliage, any value of hydraulic radius up to 10 to 15 feet .\n\n\n6th step. Determination of the modifying value for meandering of channel. The modifying value for meandering may\nbe estimated as follows: Add the basic \"n\" for Step 1 and the modifying values of Steps 2 through 5 to obtain the\nsubtotal of ns.\n\nLet s = the straight length of the reach under consideration.\n\n m = the meander length of the channel in the reach.\n\nCompute modifying value for meandering in accordance with the following Table:\n\n Ratio ( m/ s) Degree of Modifying\n meandering value\n\n 1.0 to 1.2 Minor 0.000\n 1.2 to 1.5 Appreciable 0.15 ns\n 1.5 and greater Severe 0.30 ns\n\nWhere lengths for computing the approximate value of m/ s are not readily obtainable, the degree of meandering can\nusually be judged reasonably well.\n\n7th step. Computation of \"n\" for the reach. The value of \"n\" for the reach is obtained by adding the values\ndetermined in Steps 1 through 6. An illustration of the estimation of \"n\" is given in Example 1.\n\nExample 1. Estimation of n for a reach.\n\nThis example is based on a case where \"n\" has been determined so that comparison between the estimated and actual\n\"n\" can be shown.\n\n Channel: Camp Creek dredged channel near Seymour, Illinois; see USDA Technical Bulletin No 129, Plate\n 29-C for photograph and Table 9, page 86, for data.\n\n Description: Course straight; 661 feet long. Cross section, very little variation in shape; variation in size\n moderate, but changes not abrupt. Side slopes fairly regular, bottom uneven and irregular. Soil, lower part\n yellowish gray clay; upper part, light gray silty clay loam. Condition, side slopes covered with heavy growth of\n poplar trees 2 to 3 inches in diameter, large willows and climbing vines; thick growth of water weed on bottom;\n\n A8-33\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=320)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 321", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 321\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n summer condition with vegetation in full foliage.\n\n Average cross section approximates a trapezoid with side slopes about 1.5 to 1 and bottom width about 10 feet.\n At bankfull stage, average depth and surface width are about 8.5 and 40 feet respectively.\n\n\nSTEP REMARKS MODIFYING VALUES\n\n 1 Soil materials indicate minimum basic n. 0.02\n\n 2 Description indicates moderate irregularity. 0.01\n\n 3 Changes in size and shape judged insignificant. 0.00\n\n 4 No obstructions indicated. 0.00\n\n 5 Description indicates very high effect of\n vegetation. 0.08\n\n 6 Reach described as straight. 0.00\n\n Total estimated n 0.11\n\n\nUSDA Technical Bulletin No. 129, Table 9, page 96, give the following determined values for NJDOT for this\nchannel: for average depth of 4.6 feet \"n\" = 0.095; for average depth of 7.3 feet n = 0.104.\n\n\n\n\n\n A8-34\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=321)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 322", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 322\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Appendix A-9\n\n Modified Rational Method\n\nThe Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55, (TR-55), Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds,\nmethodology can determine peak flows from areas of up to five (5) square miles, provide a hydrograph for times of\nconcentration of up to 2 hours, and estimate the required storage for a specified outflow. However, there is another\nmethod which can estimate peak flows and the required storage. For small drainage areas up to one-half square mile,\nthe Rational Method (Q=CIA, where Q is the runoff in cfs, \"I\" is the intensity of rainfall in inches/hour for the time of\nconcentration of the drainage area, AA@ is the area in acres, and AC@ is a dimensionless runoff coefficient) can\ndetermine the peak flow rate only. The Modified Rational Method (MRM) as discussed in the American Public\nWorks Association's Special Report 43, can give an approximate storage volume and triangular and trapezoidal\nhydrographs. This method is applicable for uniform areas up to twenty (20) acres.\n\n THEORY\n\n The area under a hydrograph equals the volume of runoff. For the Modified Rational Method, this\n area is equal to the peak discharge rate times the duration of the storm. A uniform rainfall intensity\n for the entire rainfall period is assumed here. This is highly unlikely.\n\n The MRM recommends that a coefficient be used in order to account for the antecedent moisture\n conditions of storms greater than those with a twenty-five (25) year recurrence intensity (Q=ca x c x i\n x a). This attempts to predict a more realistic runoff volume which is characteristic of higher\n frequency storms. The maximum product of ca x c cannot be greater than one.\n\n Recommended Antecedent Precipitation\n Factors for the Rational Method\n\n Recurrence\n Interval\n (years) ca\n\n 2 to 10 1.0\n\n 25 1.1\n\n 50 1.2\n\n 100 1.25\n\n\n\n\n\n The time of concentration (tc), which is the time of travel from the most remote point (in time of\n flow), determines the largest peak discharge. Therefore, there are two possible approximate\n hydrographs that can be used for runoff and storage requirements.\n\n FIRST CASE: If the rainfall duration is greater than the tc, then the approximate hydrograph is a\n trapezoid.\n\n\n A9-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=322)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 323", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 323\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n SECOND CASE If the rainfall duration is equal to the time of concentration (assuming the tc is\n the same as in the first case), then the approximate hydrograph is a triangle.\n\n\n\n\n\n A9-2\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=323)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 324", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 324\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nTo find the required volume, the MRM uses a trial method to find the critical storage for a given drainage area. For\ninstance, the peak rate for a 25 year storm is the product of the runoff coefficient times the drainage area in acres times the\nintensity of a 25 year storm for a given time of concentration. However, the critical storage volume may be that of a\ndifferent duration.\n\nThere are three steps in the MRM. The first step is to collect the physical data for the drainage area. This is the drainage\narea, the time of concentration, the runoff coefficient, and the allowable release rate. The second step is to obtain the\nproper recurrence interval for the design storm and the intensity-duration relationship for the design frequency. Then\ncalculate a series of peak flows and runoff volumes beginning with the time of concentration of the drainage area and for\nincreased storm durations. The third step is to compute the release volume and the required storage until the maximum or\ncritical storage is found.\n\nEXAMPLE\n\nFirst Step. A site to be developed has a ground cover of forest with light underbrush. The soil type for the site is Evesboro\nsoil (sand), hydrologic soil group A. The predeveloped site drains into two drainage areas. The southern portion consists\nof 6.39 acres. The northern portion consists of 8.07 acres. In order to minimize the effect of increased storm water runoff\ndownstream, possibly resulting in soil erosion and sedimentation damage, an onsite detention basin is proposed for the\ndeveloped condition. Grading of the site will cause the southern drainage area to increase to 11.88 acres. Since the NJDEP\ncurves do not contain the 2 year frequency, the intensity-duration curves for New York City were used in the analysis. A\nsummary of the times of concentration and drainage areas is as follows:\n\nSouthern Portion\n\nStorm Predeveloped Postdeveloped\n(years) Condition Condition\n\n Acres tc C I Q Acres tc C I Q\n\n2 6.39 0.35 0.22 2.5 4.4 11.88 0.25 0.7 2.9 24\n10 6.39 0.35 0.22 4.0 7.1 11.88 0.25 0.7 4.7 39\n\nwhere tc is hours, i is inch/hour, and Q is cfs .\n\nSecond step. Stability is demonstrated offsite by analyzing the velocity for storm water runoff for the two and ten year\nstorms over a defined waterway. These frequencies are chosen because of their high probability of occurrence. Outflow\nfrom a detention basin must meet the Conduit Outlet Protection (pg. 12-1), Slope Protection (pg. 27-1), and Channel\nStabilization (pg. 11-1) Standards. Stability to the point of discharge to a stream or body of water should be shown in all\ncases. In this example it was assumed that it was not possible to obtain a drainage easement to accomplish this and\ntherefore the discharge from the proposed outlet at the detention basin must match the predevelopment peak flow at that\npoint. The allowable release rate is therefore the predevelopment peak flow for the 2 and 10 year frequency storms at the\nproposed point of discharge.\n\n tc = 10 minutes\n C = 0.18 for the predeveloped drainage area\n at that point of future discharge\n a = 0.93 acres (not 8.07 acres)\n i = 5.5 inches per hour (10 year frequency)\n\n Q = C x i x a\n\n A9-3\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=324)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 325", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 325\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n = 0.18 x 5.5 x 0.93\n = 0.92 cfs predevelopment peak at the point of discharge which is the allowable release rate.\n\nThird step. Construct a series of hydrographs for each selected duration of the storm as shown in figure A9.1, Modified\nRational Method Hydrographs. The estimated critical storage for this site is 88,858 cubic feet. Since the inflow volume\nmust equal the outflow volume of 98,794 cubic feet, the time to the end of the release rate is 30.3. To reach zero outflow\napproximately 0.5 hours must be added so the total dewatering time will be about 30.3 hours. The outflow hydrograph\nreaches maximum flow at the intersection with the falling limb of the hydrograph resulting from a storm with a duration\nequal to the time of concentration.\n\n Table A9.2\n\n Storage-Duration Values\n\nDuration Intensity Peak Volume Release Required\n of I Flow of Flow Storage\nStorm (in/hr) Q Runoff Volume Volume\n (hr) (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft)\n (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)\n 0.25 4.8 39.9 35,925 828 35,097\n 0.50 3.4 28.3 50,894 1,656 49,238\n 0.75 2.7 22.5 60,624 2,484 58,140\n 1.00 2.3 19.1 68,856 3,312 65,544\n 1.50 1.7 14.1 76,341 4,968 71,373\n 2.00 1.4 11.6 83,825 6,624 77,201\n 3.00 1.1 9.1 98,794 9,936 88,858 << Maximum Storage\n Volume Required\n 3.50 0.9 7.5 94,303 11,592 82,711\n\nColumn (3) Peak Flow = Q = c i a\n example : 0.7 X 4.8 X 11.88 = 39.9 cfs\n\nColumn (4) Runoff Volume = Q (col 3) X Duration of Storm\n (col. 1) X 3600\n example : 39.9 cfs X 0.25 hrs X 3600 = 35,925 cuft\n\nColumn (5) Release Volume = 0.92 cfs X Duration of Storm\n (col. 1) X 3600\n example : 0.92 X 0.25 X 3600 = 828 cuft\n\nColumn (6) Required Storage = Runoff Volume (col. 4) - Release\n Volume (col 5)\n example : 35,925 - 828 = 35,097\n\n\n\n\n\n A9-4\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=325)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 326", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 326\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n A9-5\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=326)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 327", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 327\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n APPENDIX A10\n\n Modified Structural Guidelines for Stormwater Management Basins\n Natural Resource Conservation Service\n Pond Standard No. 378\n\nDefinition:\n\nA water impoundment made by constructing a dam or embankment or by excavating a pit or dugout.\n\nIn this standard, ponds constructed by the first method are referred to as embankment ponds, and those constructed by the\nsecond method are referred to as excavated ponds. Ponds constructed by both the excavation and the embankment\nmethods are classified as embankment ponds if the depth of water impounded against the embankment at spillway\nelevation is 3 feet or more.\n\nPurpose\n\nTo provide water for livestock, fish and wildlife, recreation, fire control, crop and orchard spraying, and other related\nuses, and to maintain or improve water quality.\n\nScope\n\nThis standard establishes the minimum acceptable quality for the design and construction of ponds if:\n\n1. Failure of the dam will not result in the loss of life; in damage to homes, commercial or industrial buildings,\n main highways, or railroads; or in interruptions of the use or service of public utilities.\n\n2. The product of the storage times the effective height of the dam is less than 3,000. Storage is the volume, in\n acre-feet, in the reservoir below the elevation of the crest of the emergency spillway. The effective height of the\n dam is the difference in elevation, in feet, between the emergency spillway crest and the lowest point in the\n cross section taken along the centerline of the dam. If there is no emergency spillway, the top of the dam is the\n upper limit.\n\n3. The effective height of the dam is 35 feet or less and the dam is hazard class \"a\" (Low hazard).\n\nConditions Where Practice Applies\n\nSite Conditions. Site conditions shall be such that runoff from the design storm can be safely passed through (1) a\nnatural or constructed emergency spillway, (2) a combination of a principal spillway and the emergency spillway or (3)\n a principal spillway.\n\nDrainage Area. The drainage area above the pond must be protected against erosion to the extent that expected sediment\nwill not shorten the planned effective life of the structure. The drainage area shall be large enough so that surface runoff\nand ground water flow will maintain an adequate supply of water in the pond. The quality shall be suitable for the water's\nintended use.\n\nRatios of drainage area to normal pond area greater than 1000 to 1 will normally have excessive sedimentation, unless the\ndrainage area is flat or has good cover.\n\nIf the surface water is the only source of water the ratio of drainage area to normal pond area shall be at least 10 to 1.\n\nPonds shall be protected from the contamination from the barnyards, septic tanks, storm and sanitary sewers or other\nsources.\n\n A10-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=327)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 328", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 328\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\nReservoir Area. The topography and soils of the site shall permit storage of water at a depth and volume that ensure a\ndependable supply, considering beneficial use, sedimentation, season of use, and evaporation and seepage losses. If\nsurface runoff is the primary source of water for a pond, the soils shall be impervious enough to prevent excessive\nseepage losses or shall be a type that sealing is practicable.\n\n Design Criteria For Embankment Ponds\n\nFoundation cutoff. A cutoff of relatively impervious material shall be provided under the dam if necessary. The cutoff\nshall be located at or upstream from the centerline of the dam. It shall extend up to abutments to the emergency spillway\ncrest elevation and be deep enough to extend into a relatively impervious layer or provide for a stable dam when\ncombined with seepage control. The cutoff trench shall have a minimum bottom width of 4 feet and adequate to\naccommodate the equipment used for excavation, backfill, and compaction operations. Side slopes shall not be steeper\nthan one horizontal to one vertical. Compaction requirements shall be the same as those for embankments. The trench\nshall be kept free from standing water during the back-filling operation.\n\nThe minimum depth shall be at least 3 feet.\n\nSeepage Control. Seepage control is to be included if (1) pervious layers are not intercepted by the cutoff, (2) seepage\ncreates swamping downstream, (3) such control is needed to insure a stable embankment, or (4) special problems\nrequire drainage for a stable dam. Seepage may be controlled by (1) foundation, abutment, or embankment drains; (2)\nreservoir blanketing; or (3) a combination of these measures.\n\nEarth Embankment. The area on which an embankment is to be placed shall consist of material that has sufficient bearing\nstrength to support the embankment without excessive consolidation. The minimum top width for a dam is shown in\ntable A10-1. If the embankment top is to be used as a public road, the minimum width shall be 16 feet for one-way traffic\nand 26 feet for two-way traffic. Guardrails or other safety measures shall meet the requirements of the responsible road\nauthority.\n\n Table A10-1 Minimum Top Width for Dams\n\n\n Total Height of Top Width\n Embankment ( feet)\n (feet)\n\n 10 or less 6\n\n 10-15 8\n\n 15-20 10\n\n 20-25 12\n\n 25-35 14\n\n 35 or more 15\n\nThe combined upstream and downstream side slopes of the settled embankments shall not be less than five horizontal to\none vertical, and neither slope shall be steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. All slopes must be designed to be\nstable, even if flatter sides slopes are required.\n\nIf needed to protect the slopes of the dam, special measures, such as berms, rock riprap, sand-gravel, soil cement, or\n\n A10-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=328)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 329", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 329\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\nspecial vegetation, shall be provided (USDA Soil Conservation Service, Technical Release Nos. 56 and 69).\n\nThe minimum elevation of the top of the settled embankment shall be 1 foot above the water surface in the reservoir with\nthe emergency spillway flowing at the design depth. The minimum difference in elevation between the crest of the\nemergency spillway and the settled top width of the dam shall be 2 feet for all dams having more than a 20 acre drainage\narea or more than 20 feet in effective height.\n\nThe design height of the dam shall be increased by the amount needed to insure that after settlement the height of the\ndams equals or exceeds the design height. This increase shall not be less than 10% when compaction is by hauling\nequipment or 5% if compactors are used, except where detailed soil testing and laboratory analysis shows that a lesser\namount is adequate.\n\nCompaction - The compaction requirements shall be specified.\n\nEmbankments of Other than Earthfill\n\nSediment basins with effective heights of less than 5 feet may use materials other than earth for the embankment. These\nembankments shall be structurally sound, and have hydraulic characteristics that will safely handle the principal and\nemergency spillway design storm.\n\nPrincipal Spillway. A pipe conduit, with needed appurtenances, shall be placed under or through the dam, except where\nrock, concrete, or other types of mechanical spillways are used, or where the rate and duration of flow can be safely\nhandled by a vegetated or earth spillway.\n\nThe crest elevation shall be no less than 0.5 feet below the crest of the emergency spillway for dams having a drainage\narea of 20 acres or less, and no less than 1 foot for those having a drainage area of more than 20 acres.\n\nWhen the design discharge of the principal spillway is considered in calculating peak outflow through the emergency\nspillway, the crest elevation of the inlet shall be such that the full flow will be generated in the conduit before there is\ndischarge through the emergency spillway. The inlets and outlets shall be designed to function satisfactorily for the full\nrange of flow and hydraulic head anticipated.\n\nThe capacity of the pipe conduit shall be adequate to discharge long-duration, continuous, or frequent flows without flow\nthrough the emergency spillways. The pipe diameter shall be no less than 4 inches. If the pipe conduit diameter is larger\nthan 10 inches, its design discharge may be considered when calculating the peak outflow rate through the emergency\nspillway.\n\nFor sediment basins, the minimum principal spillway pipe size shall be 8 inches for corrugated or helical pipe and 6\ninches for smooth wall pipe.\n\nPipe conduits under or through the dam shall meet the following requirements: The pipe shall be capable of withstanding\nexternal loading without yielding, buckling, or cracking. Flexible pipe strength shall not be less than that necessary to\nsupport the design load with the maximum of 5 percent deflection. The inlets and outlets shall be structurally sound and\nmade of materials compatible with those of the pipe. All pipe joints shall be made watertight by the use of couplings,\ngaskets, caulking, or by welding.\n\nFor dams 20 feet or less in effective height, acceptable pipe materials are cast-iron, steel, corrugated steel or aluminum,\nconcrete, plastic, vitrified clay with rubber gaskets, and cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Concrete and vitrified clay\npipe shall be laid in a concrete bedding. Plastic pipe that will be exposed to direct sunlight shall be made of ultraviolet-\nresistant materials and protected by coating or shielding, or provisions for replacement should be made as necessary.\nConnections of plastic pipe to less flexible pipe or structure must be designed to avoid stress concentrations that could\nrupture the plastic.\n\n\n A10-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=329)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 330", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 330\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\nFor dams more than 20 feet in effective height, conduits shall be plastic, reinforced concrete, corrugated steel or\naluminum, or welded steel pipe. The maximum height of fill over any principal spillway steel or aluminum pipe must not\nexceed 25 feet. Pipe shall be watertight. The joints between sections of pipe shall be designed to remain watertight after\njoint elongation caused by foundation consolidation. Concrete pipe shall have concrete bedding or a concrete cradle if\nrequired. Cantilever outlet sections, if used, shall be designed to withstand the cantilever load. Pipe supports shall be\nprovided when needed. Other suitable devices such as a Saint Anthony Falls stilling basin or an impact basin may be\nused to provide a safe outlet. Protective coatings of asphalt coated, or vinyl coating on galvanized corrugated metal pipe,\nor coal tar enamel on welded steel pipe should be provided in areas that have a history of pipe corrosion, or where the\nsaturated soil resistivity is less than 4,000 ohmscm, or where soil pH is lower than 5.\n\nSpecifications in tables A10-2 and A10-3 are to be followed for polyvinyl chloride (PVC), steel, and aluminum pipe.\n\nCathodic protection is to be provided for coated welded steel and galvanized corrugated metal pipe where soil and\nresistivity studies indicate that pipe needs a protective coating, and where the need and importance of the structure\nwarrant additional protection and longevity. If cathodic protection is not provided for in the original design and\ninstallation, electrical continuity in the form of joint-bridging straps should be considered on pipes that have protective\ncoatings. Cathodic protection should be added later if mounting indicates the need.\n\nSeepage control along a pipe conduit spillway shall be provided if any of the following conditions exists:\n\n 1. The effective height of the dam is greater than 15 feet.\n 2. The conduit is of smooth pipe larger than 8 inches in diameter.\n 3. The conduit is of corrugated pipe larger than 12 inches in diameter.\n\n Table A10-2 :Acceptable PVC Pipe For Use in Earth Dams1\n\n Normal Pipe Size Schedule for Standard Maximum depth\n (inches) dimension ratio (SDR) of fill over pipe\n (feet)\n\n 4 or smaller Schedule 40 15\n Schedule 80 20\n SDR 26 10\n\n 6, 8, 10, 12 Schedule 40 10\n Schedule 80 15\n SDR 26 10\n 1. Polyvinyl chloride pipe, PVC 1120 or PVC 1220, conforming to ASTM-1785 or ASTM-D-2241.\n\n\n\n\n\n A10-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=330)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 331", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 331\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\n Table A10-3: Minimum Gauge for Corrugated Metal Pipe\n (2-2/3-in x 1/2-in Corrugations)1\n\n Fill Minimum gauge for steel pipe with Minimum thickness (in) of aluminum\n height diameter (in) of-21 and pipe /2 with diameter (in) of- 21 and\n (ft) less 24 30 36 42 48 less 24 30 36\n\n 1-15 16 16 16 14 12 10 0.06 0.06 0.075 0.075\n\n 15-20 16 16 16 14 12 10 .06 .075 .105 .105\n\n\n 20-25 16 16 14 12 10 10 .06 .105 .135 /3\n\n\n1. Pipe with 6-, 8-, and 10-diameter has 1-1/2-in x 1/4-in corrugations.\n2. Riveted or helical fabrication.\n3. Not permitted\n\nSeepage along pipes extending through the embankment shall be controlled by the use of a filter and drainage diaphragm,\nunless it is determined that antiseep collars will adequately serve the purpose.\n\nThe drain shall be minimum of 2 feet thick and extend vertically upward and horizontally at least three times the pipe\ndiameter, and vertically downward at least 18 inches beneath the conduit invert. The drain diaphragm shall be located\nimmediately downstream of the cutoff trench, approximately parallel to the centerline of the dam.\n\nThe drain shall be outletted at the embankment downstream toe, preferably using a drain backfill envelope continuously\nalong the pipe to where it exists in the embankment. Protecting drain fill from the surface erosion will be necessary.\n\nWhen antiseep collars are used in lieu of a drainage diaphragm, they shall have a watertight connection to the pipe.\nMaximum spacing shall be approximately 14 times the minimum projection of the collar measured perpendicular to the\npipe. Collar material shall be compatible with the pipe materials. The antiseep collar (s) shall increase by 15% the\nseepage path along the pipe.\n\nClosed conduit spillways designed for pressure flow must have adequate antivortex devices.\n\nTo prevent clogging of the conduit, an appropriate trash guard shall be installed at the inlet or riser.\n\nA pipe with a suitable valve shall be provided to drain the pool area if needed for proper pond management or if required\nby state law. The principal spillway conduit may be used as a pond drain if it is located where it can perform this\nfunction.\n\nSupply pipes through the dam to watering troughs and other appurtenances shall have an inside diameter of not less than\n1-1/4 inches.\n\nThe minimum diameter principal spillway pipe for a dam which raises the water height by more than 5 feet measured\nfrom the downstream toe of the dam to the emergency spillway crest is 18 inches. A principal spillway shall be used\nexcept where:\n\n 1. The drainage area is 10 acres or less, there is no spring or seep flow and the emergency spillway exit\n channel is on stable grade all the way back to the existing channel. .\n\n A10-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=331)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 332", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 332\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n 2. The drainage area is 10 acres or less, there is spring or seep flow and the emergency spillway exit channel\n is on a stable grade all the way back to the existing channel. For this condition a trickle tube shall be used\n in accordance with pages 11-13 and 11-16 of USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Field\n Manual.\n\nDesign Storm. Storage and effective height are defined under Scope.\n\n 1. Table A10.4 defines minimum design storm for the principal spillway.\n 2. Table A10.5 defines minimum design storm for the emergency spillway.\n\n Table A10-4 Principal Spillway Minimum Design Storms 4\n\n Type 1 Raised2 Product of the Drainage Principal Design\n Water storage times Area Storm Design\n Height (ft) the effective (acres)\n height of the Dam3\n\n All <5 < 300 < 320 1 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture >5 < 300 < 320 1 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture >5 < 300 < 320 25yr 24 hr\n All >5 301 - 3000 < 320 2 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture >5 301 - 3000 < 320 2 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture >5 301 - 3000 < 320 25yr 24 hr\n All <5 < 300 > 320 1 yr 24 hr\n All >5 > 300 > 320 25yr 24 hr\n All <5 301 - 3000 > 320 2 yr 24 hr\n All >5 301 - 3000 > 320 25yr 24 hr\n\n1. Agriculture is defined as being used in connection with the production of crops or livestock.\n2. Measured from the usual, mean low water height to the water surface during the emergency spillway design storm.\n3. As defined under \"Scope\".\n4. Spillway Storm is Type III.\n\n\n\n\n\n A10-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=332)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 333", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 333\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\n Table A10-5 Emergency Spillway Minimum Design Storms5\n\n Type1 Raised2 Total Drainage Emergency\n Water Storage3 Area Spillway\n Height (Acres) Design\n (feet) Storm4\n\n All < 5 < 50 < 20 10 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture 5.1-20 < 50 < 20 10 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture 5.1-20 < 50 < 20 100 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture > 20 < 50 < 20 25 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture > 20 < 50 < 20 100 yr 24 hr\n All < 5 > 50 < 20 50 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture 5.1-20 > 50 < 20 50 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture 5.1-20 > 50 < 20 100 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture > 20 > 50 <20 50 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture > 20 > 50 > 20 100 yr 24 hr\n All < 5 < 50 21-320 25 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture 5.1-20 < 50 21-320 25 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture 5.1-20 < 50 21-320 100 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture > 20 < 50 21-320 50 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture < 20 < 50 21-320 100 yr 24 hr\n All < 5 > 50 21-320 50 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture 5.1-20 > 50 21-320 50 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture 5.1-20 > 50 21-320 100 yr 24 hr\n Agriculture > 20 > 50 21-320 50 yr 24 hr\n Non-\n Agriculture > 20 > 50 21-320 100 yr 24 hr\n All < 5 all > 320 50 yr 24 hr\n All > 5 all > 320 100 yr 24 hr\n\n\n\n1. Agriculture use is defined as being used in connection with the production of crops or livestock.\n2. Measured from the usual, mean low water height to the water surface during the emergency spillway design storm.\n3. Measured below the crest of the emergency spillway.\n4. Any pond for which a state stream encroachment permit is required must use a minimum design storm of 100 yr 24 hr\ntype III for the emergency spillway.\n5. Design storm is the type III.\n\n\n\n\n A10-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=333)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 334", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 334\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\n\n\nPipe Conduit\n\n 1. Corrugated Steel Pipe - The pipe may be helical or riveted fabrication. Riveted pipe shall be closed\n riveted. Riveted pipe 36 inches or larger shall be doubled riveted. Pipe strength is not to be less than that\n indicated in table A10-7.\n\n If corrugated metal pipes are used on embankments which raise the water height by more than 5 feet, the\n fill height over the pipe may not exceed 15 feet, and cathodic protection must be provided.\n\n 2. Corrugated Aluminum Pipe - The maximum effective fill height, as defined under Scope, shall be 20 feet or\n less. The pipe may be helical or riveted fabrication. Riveted pipe shall be closed riveted. Riveted pipe 36\n inches or larger shall be double riveted. Pipe strength is not to be less than that indicated in table A10-8.\n\nFittings for aluminum pipe materials other than aluminum or aluminized steel must be separated from the aluminum pipe\nat all points by at least 24 mils, or by other permanent insulating material that effectively prevents galvanic corrosion.\n\nBolts used to join aluminum and steel must be galvanized, plastic coated, or otherwise protected to prevent galvanic\ncorrosion.\n\nBolts used to join aluminum, other than aluminum alloy bolts, must be galvanized, plastic coated, or otherwise protected\nto prevent galvanic action.\n\n 3. Plastic Pipe - PVC becomes brittle after years of exposure to sun and is susceptible to damage from impact,\n especially during periods of low temperature. Provisions should be made for protection from impact where\n necessary. Thicker walled pipe has greater resistance to damage from the ultraviolet rays of the sun. PVC\n pipe exposed to the sun should be protected by paint or by shielding to screen the ultraviolet rays. Use a\n good grade of water based paint. Paints with other based material might have an adverse effect on the\n plastic pipe. Repainting should be required as needed to retain the integrity of this ultraviolet protection.\n\n Numerous other plastic materials are available but deterioration from sunlight, damage from impact, or\n susceptibility to fire make these less desirable for applications involving these exposures.\n\n 4. Smooth Steel - The maximum fill over the pipe shall not exceed 25 feet. The minimum wall thickness shall\n be 3/16 inch. The maximum size principal spillway barrel shall be 48 inches. Pipe joints shall be threaded\n or welded.\n\n 5. Vitrified Clay Pipe - The maximum effective fill height as defined under Scope, shall be 20 feet or less.\n The maximum principal spillway barrel size shall be 36 inches.\n\n 6. Concrete and Cast in Place Reinforced Concrete - The principal spillway shall meet the requirements of\n USDA, SCS Technical Release 60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs.\n\nPipe Conduits for Sediment basins shall have pipe conduits with required appurtenances except where a structural\nspillway is used.\n\n 1. The materials and installation for pipe conduits for excavated sediment basins shall meet the local\n municipality requirements for culverts or storm sewers.\n 2. Conduits for embankment sediment basins shall meet the following requirements:\n\n a. The pipe shall be capable of withstanding the external loading without yielding, buckling or cracking.\n\n A10-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=334)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 335", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 335\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\n b. All joints shall be watertight.\n\nInlet for Pipe Conduit\n\nThe inlet shall be structurally sound and made from materials compatible with the pipe. The inlet shall be designed to\nprevent flotation.\n\n 1. Hood Inlet - If the pipe is designed for pressure flow, the stage in the pond below the emergency spillway\n elevation shall be adequate to prime the pipe. For smooth wall pipe this is 1.4D. For corrugated pipe this\n is 1.8D. D is the inside diameter of the pipe.\n\n 2. Drop Inlet - If the pipe is designed for pressure flow:\n\n a. The weir length shall be adequate to prime the emergency spillway elevation. See USDA, Soil\n Conservation Service, Engineering Field Manual for conservation practices page 6-43.\n b. For pipe on less critical slope, the drop inlet shall be at least 2D deep, where D is the conduit diameter.\n c. For pipe on critical slope or steeper, the drop inlet shall be at least 5 D deep, where D is the conduit\n diameter.\n\n 3. Outlet for Pipe Conduit - Conduits larger than 18 inch shall have one of the following types of outlets:\n\n 1. SAF stilling basin\n 2. Impact Basin\n 3. Cantilever outlet with the stilling basin. The invert of the cantilever outlet shall be above the water\n surface of the downstream channel when the principal spillway is flowing at the design capacity.\n\nThe cantilever outlet will be supported on a bent or pier and will extend a minimum of 8 feet beyond the bent or pier.\nThe bent or pier will extend below the lowest elevation anticipated in the scour hole or to unweathered, sound rock.\nGuidance on the design of stilling basins is a USDA's SCS Design Note No. 6. Armored Scour Hole for Cantilever\nOutlet.\n\n 4. Conduit Outlet Protection - In accordance with the \"Standards for Conduit Outlet Protection@, pg. 12-1.\n\n\nAntiseep Collars\n\n When antiseep collars are used in lieu of a drainage diaphragm, the following criteria are to be used to\n determine the size and number of antiseep collars.\n\n Let V = vertical projection and minimum horizontal projection of the antiseep collar feet\n\n Let L = length in feet of the conduit within the zone of saturation, measured from thedownstream side of the\n riser to the tow drain or point where phreatic line intercepts the conduit, whichever is shorter.\n\n Let n = number of antiseep collars.\n\n The ratio of the length of the seepage ( L + 2 n V ) to L is to be at least 1.15. Antiseep collars should be equally\n spaced along the part of the barrel within the saturated zone at distances of not more than 25 feet.\n\n The anti-seep collars and their connections to the pipe shall be watertight. The collar material shall be\n compatible with pipe materials.\n\n\n A10-9 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=335)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 336", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 336\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\nEmergency Spillways.\n\n Emergency spillways convey large flood flows safely past earth embankments.\n\n An emergency spillway must be provided for each dam, unless the principal spillway is large enough to pass the\n peak discharge from the routed hydrograph and the trash that comes to it without overtopping the dam. The\n following are minimum criteria for acceptable use of closed conduit principal spillway without an emergency\n spillway:\n\n A conduit with a cross-sectional area of 3 square feet or more, an inlet that will not clog, and an elbow designed\n to facilitate the passage of trash.\n\n The minimum capacity of a natural or constructed emergency spillway shall be that required to pass the peak\n flow expected from a design storm of the frequency and duration shown in table A10-6, less than reduction\n creditable to conduit discharge and detention storage.\n\n\n\n Table A10-6: Minimum Spillway Capacity\n\n\n Minimum design\n storm2\n Drainage area Effective height Storage Frequency Minimum\n (acre) of dam1 (feet) (acre-ft) (year) duration (hour)\n\n 20 or less 20 or less Less than 50 10 24\n 20 or less More than 20 Less than 50 25 24\n More than 20 20 or less Less than 50 25 24\n All others 50 24\n\n1. As defined under \"Scope\".\n2. Select rain distribution based on climatological region\n\n\nThe emergency spillway shall safely pass the peak flow, or the storm runoff shall be routed through the reservoir. The\nrouting shall either start with water surface at the elevation of the crest of the principal spillway or at the water surface\nafter 10 days drawdown, whichever is higher. The 10 day drawdown shall be computed from the crest of the emergency\nspillway or from the elevation that would be attained if the entire design storm were impounded, whichever is lower.\nEmergency spillway shall provide for passing the design flow at safe velocity to a point downstream where the dam will\nnot be endangered.\n\nConstructed emergency spillways are open channels that usually consist of an inlet channel, a control section, and an exit\nchannel. They shall be trapezoidal and shall be located in undisturbed or compacted earth. The side slopes shall be\nstable for the material in which the spillway is to be constructed. For dams having an effective height exceeding 20 feet,\nthe emergency spillway shall have a bottom width of not less than 10 feet.\n\nUpstream from the control section, the inlet channel shall be level for the distance needed to protect and maintain the\ncrest elevation of the spillway. The inlet channel may be curved to fit existing topography. The grade of the exit channel\nof a constructed emergency spillway shall fall within the range established by discharge requirements and permissible\nvelocities.\n\n A10-10 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=336)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 337", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 337\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\nWhen design discharge of the principal spillway is considered in calculating peak outflow through the emergency\nspillway, the crest elevation through the inlet shall be such that full flow will be generated in the conduit before there is\ndischarge through the emergency spillway.\n\nEmergency spillways shall provide for passage of the design flow at a safe velocity to a point downstream where the dam\nwill not be endangered. The maximum permissible velocity in the exit channel shall be 4 feet per second where only\nsparse vegetative cover can be expected and maintained, and 6 feet per second where excellent vegetative cover, a\nvigorous sod, can be expected and maintained.\n\nCross-section side slopes shall be 2 to 1 or flatter. Component parts of the emergency spillway are as follows;\n\n 1. Inlet Channel - The inlet channel shall be level for at least 20 feet upstream of the control section.\n 2. Exit Channel - The design flow should be contained in the exit channel without the use of dikes. If a dike is\n necessary it shall have at least 2:1 side slopes, 8 feet top width and be high enough to contain the design\n flow. The exit channel shall be straight for at least 50 feet downstream of the control section.\n\n The exit channel shall carry the design flow downstream to a point where the flow will not discharge on the toe\n of the embankment.\n\nStructural Emergency Spillways.\n\nIf chutes or drops are used for the principal spillways or principal emergency or emergency spillways, they shall be\ndesigned according to the principles set forth in USDA, Soils Conservation Service Engineering Field Manual for\nConservation Practices and the National Engineering Handbook - Section 5, Hydraulics; Section 11, Drop Spillways; and\nSection 14, Chute Spillways. The minimum capacity of a structural spillway shall be that required to pass the peak flow\nexpected from a design storm of the frequency and duration shown in table A10.6, less any reduction creditable to\nconduit discharge and detention storage.\n\nVisual Resource Design.\n\nThe visual resource design of ponds shall be carefully considered in areas of high public visibility and those associated\nwith recreation. The underlying criterion for all visual design is appropriateness. The shape and form of ponds,\nexcavated material, and plantings are to relate visually to their surroundings and to their function.\n\nThe embankment may be shaped to blend with the natural topography. The edge of the pond may be shaped so that is\ngenerally curvillinear rather than rectangular. Excavated material can be shaped so that the final form is smooth, flowing,\nand fitting to the adjacent landscape rather than angular geometric mounds. If feasible, islands may be added for visual\ninterest and to attract wildlife.\n\nComponents for Visual Design Ponds are as follows:\n\nDrains - All ponds which raise the water height more than five feet must be provided with a device to permit draining of\nthe reservoir. All pipe conduits used as drains must meet the same requirements as the pipe conduit for the principal\nspillway.\n\nVegetation - The dam, emergency spillway, spoil and borrow areas, and other disturbed areas above normal water level\nshall be planted in accordance with the standard for critical area (see also SSCC Standard for Temporary (3.1) and\nPermanent (3.2) Vegetative Cover. A grass strip or other suitable protection shall be provided around the pond to protect\nagainst sedimentation and erosion.\n\nConstruction Inspection - Embankments which raise the water height (measured at the emergency spillway crest) more\nthan five feet must have constant inspection during construction by a licensed professional engineer. A monthly written\n\n A10-11 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=337)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 338", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 338\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\nreport of construction shall be prepared and submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Dam\nSafety Section.\n\nFencing - The embankment, spillway, and pond shall be fenced where necessary to protect the vegetation or for safety.\n\nDam Inspections - Dams which raise the water height by more than five feet shall have regular inspections performed\nevery two years and a formal inspection performed every six years. An informal inspection shall be performed on the off\nyear from the regular inspections. In the year of the formal inspection, regular and informal inspections need not be\nperformed.\n\n\"Formal Inspection\" means the inspection by a New Jersey licensed professional engineer to re-evaluate the safety and\nintegrity of the dam and appurtenant structures to determine if the structure meets current design criteria, including a field\ninspection and a review of the records on project design, construction, and performance.\n\n\"Regular Inspection\" means the visual inspection of a dam by a New Jersey licensed professional engineer to detect any\nsigns of deterioration in material, developing weaknesses or unsafe hydraulic or structural behavior.\n\n\"Informal Inspection\" means the visual inspection of the dam by the dam owner or operator to detect apparent signs of\ndeterioration or other deficiencies of the dam structure or function.\n\nOperation and Maintenance - An operation and maintenance manual will be developed for each pond which raises the\nwater height by more than five feet.\n\nThe purpose of the manual is to provide guidance and instruction for the proper operation and maintenance of the pond\nand dam. The manual shall be composed of two parts. Part One must include the introduction, project description,\nproject authorizations, project history, and list of project contracts. Part Two must contain the operation and\nmaintenance instructions for major project facilities and equipment.\n\nPonds which raise the water height by five feet or less shall have an operation and maintenance schedule included in the\ndesign and made part of the farm plan. A yearly inspection shall include but not be limited to the following items plus\nany item unique to the particular pond:\n\n a. Plugged and deteriorating trash rack, riser, and water control gates.\n b. Damage to water pipe, valve, and watering facilities.\n c. Damage to pipe outlets and animal guards.\n d. Unstable wet areas below earthfills.\n e. Damaged or deteriorating fences.\n f. Wave damage to shoreline.\n g. Muskrat damage to the embankment or shoreline.\n h. Keep vegetation healthy and trim on the dam and earth spillway by liming, fertilizing, and mowing\n periodically. This also helps control undesirable brush and vegetative growth.\n i. Do not permit trees to grow on the dam.\n\n\n\n\n\n Return to TOC\n A10-12\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=338)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 339", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 339\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n Design Criteria for Excavated Ponds\n\nRunoff.\n\nRunoff flow pattern shall be considered when locating the pond and placing the spoil.\n\nProvisions shall be made where needed for a principal spillway, emergency spillway, and embankment in accordance\nwith the embankment criteria (see table A10-6).\n\nSide Slopes.\n\nSide slopes of the excavated ponds shall be stable and shall not be steeper than two horizontal to one vertical above\nthe normal water level and 1 1/2 horizontal to one vertical below the normal water level. If livestock will water\ndirectly from the pond, a watering ramp of ample width shall be provided. The ramp shall extend to the anticipated\nlow water elevation at a slope no steeper than 5 horizontal to one vertical. The watering ramp shall have a gravel or\npaved surface.\n\nPerimeter Form.\n\nIf the structures are to be used for recreation or are highly visible to the public, the perimeter or edge should be\ncurvilinear.\n\nInlet Protection.\n\nIf surface water enters the pond in a natural or excavated channel, the side slope of the pond shall be protected\nagainst erosion.\n\nExcavated Material.\n\nThe material excavated from the pond shall be placed so that its weight will not endanger the stability of the pond\nside slopes and so that it will not be washed back into the pond by rainfall. It shall be disposed of in one of the\nfollowing ways:\n\n 1. Uniformly spread to height that does not exceed 3 feet with the top grade to a continuous slope away\n from the pond.\n\n 2. Uniformly placed or shaped reasonably well with side slopes assuming a natural angle of repose. The\n excavated material will be placed at a distance equal to the depth of the pond but not less than 12 feet\n from the edge of the pond.\n\n 3. Shaped to a designed form that blends visually with the landscape.\n\n 4. Used for low embankment and leveling.\n\n 5. Hauled away.\n\nThe side slopes, spoiled material, and other disturbed areas above normal water level shall be planted in accordance\nwith the critical area planting standard (see Also Standard for Temporary (pg. 7-1) and Permanent (pg. 5-1)\nVegetative Cover).\n\nPlans and Specifications. Plans and specifications for installing ponds shall be in keeping with this standard and shall\ndescribe the requirements for applying the practice to achieve its intended purpose.\n\n\n Return to TOC\n A10-13\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=339)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 340", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 340\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\n Table A10-7 Minimum Gage for Corrugated Metal Pipe Risers\n 2 2/3 - inch x 1/2 inch Corrugations\n Steel - Minimum Gage\n\n\n Risers Only\n Fill Height Above Pipe\n (feet) 54 60 66\n\n 1 - 15\n 15 - 20 10 8 8\n 20 - 25 8 8 8\n\n\n\n Table A10-8 Aluminum Minimum Gage (inches)\n\n\n Risers Only\n\n 42 48 54\n\n 12(.105) 10(.135) 10(.135)\n\n Risers Only 12(.105) 10(.135) 10(.135)\n\n 10(.135) 10(.135) 10(.135) 10(.135)\n\n\n\nConstruction Specifications For Embankment Ponds\n\n\nFoundation Preparation\n\nThe foundation area shall be cleared of trees, logs, stumps, roots, brush, boulders, sod and rubbish. If needed to\nestablish vegetation, the topsoil and sod shall be stockpiled and spread on the completed dam and spillways.\nFoundation surfaces shall be sloped no steeper than a ratio of one horizontal to one vertical. The foundation area\nshall be thoroughly scarified before placement of the fill material. The surface shall have moisture added, or it shall\nbe compacted if necessary so that the first layer of fill material can be compacted and bonded to the foundation.\n\nThe cutoff trench and any other required excavation shall be dug to the lines and grades shown on the plans or as\nstaked in the field. If they are suitable, excavated materials may be used in the permanent fill. Existing stream\nchannels in the foundation area shall be sloped no steeper than a ratio of one horizontal to one vertical. They shall\nbe deepened and widened as necessary to remove all stones, gravel, sand, stumps, roots, and other objectionable\nmaterial and to accommodate compaction equipment.\n\nFoundation areas shall be kept free of standing water when fill is placed on them.\n\n\n\n Return to TOC\n A10-14\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=340)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 341", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 341\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\nFill Placement\n\nThe material placed in the fill shall be free of detrimental amounts of sod, roots, frozen soil, stones more than 6\ninches in diameter (except rock fills) and other objectionable material.\n\nDrainfill shall be kept from being contaminated by adjacent soil materials during placement by either placing it in a\ncleanly excavated trench or by keeping the drain at least one foot above the adjacent earthfill.\n\nSelected drainfill and backfill material shall be placed around structures, pipe conduits, and antiseep collars at about\nthe same rate on all sides to prevent damage from unequal loading.\n\nFill material shall be placed and spread beginning at the lowest point in the foundation and then bringing it up in\nhorizontal layers thick enough that the required compaction can be obtained. The fill shall be constructed in\ncontinuous horizontal layers. If openings or sectionalized fills are required, the slope of the bonding surfaces\nbetween the embankment in place and the embankment to be placed shall not be steeper than the ratio of three\nhorizontal to one vertical. The bonding surface shall be treated the same as that specified for the foundation to\ninsure a good bond with the new fill.\n\nThe distribution and gradation of materials shall be such that no lenses, pockets, streaks, or layers of material shall\ndiffer substantially in texture or gradation from the surrounding material. If it is necessary to use materials of\nvarying texture and gradation, the more impervious material shall be placed in the center and upstream parts of the\nfill. If zoned fills of substantially differing materials are specified, the zones shall be placed according to lines and\ngrades shown on the drawings. The complete work shall conform to the lines, grades, and elevations shown on the\ndrawings or as staked in the field.\n\n\nMoisture Control\n\nThe moisture content of the fill material shall be adequate for obtaining the required compaction. Material that is too\nwet shall be dried to meet this requirement, and material that is too dry shall be wetted and mixed until the\nrequirement is met.\n\n\nCompaction\n\nConstruction equipment shall be operated over each layer of fill to insure that the required compaction is obtained.\nSpecial equipment shall be used if needed to obtain the required compaction.\n\nIf a minimum required density is specified, each layer of fill shall be compacted as necessary to obtain that density.\n\nFill adjacent to structures, pipe conduits, and drainfill or antiseep collars shall be compacted to a density equivalent\nof that of the surrounding fill by hand tamping or by using manually directed power tampers or plate vibrators. Fill\nadjacent to concrete structures shall not be compacted until the concrete has had time to gain enough strength to\nsupport the load.\n\n\nProtection\n\nA protective cover of vegetation shall be established on all exposed surfaces of the embankment, spillway, and\nborrow area if soil and climatic conditions permit. If soil and climatic conditions preclude the use of vegetation and\nprotection is needed, non-vegetated cover such as mulches or gravel may be used. In some places, temporary\nvegetation may be used until permanent vegetation can be established. The embankment and spillway shall be\nfenced if necessary to protect the vegetation.\n\n Return to TOC\n A10-15\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=341)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 342", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 342\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\nPreparing the seedbed, seeding, fertilizing, and mulching shall comply with instructions in technical guidelines.\n\n\nPrincipal Spillway\n\nCorrugated metal pipe shall conform to the requirements of Federal Specifications WW-P-402 or WW-P-405, as\nappropriate. Other pipe materials shall conform to the appropriate specifications. Antiseep collars shall be made of\nmaterials compatible with that of the pipe and shall be installed so that they are watertight. The pipe shall be\ninstalled according to the manufacturer's instructions. It may be firmly and uniformly bedded throughout its length\nand shall be installed to the line and grade shown on the drawings.\n\nConcrete\n\nThe mix design and testing of concrete shall be consistent with the size requirements of the job. Mix requirements or\nnecessary strength shall be specified. The type of cement, air entrainment, slump, aggregate, or other properties shall\nbe specified as necessary. All concrete is to consist of a workable mix that can be placed and finished in an\nacceptable manner. Necessary curing shall be specified. Reinforcing steel shall be placed as indicated on the plans\nand shall be held securely in place during concrete placement. Subgrades and forms shall be installed to line and\ngrade, and the forms shall be mortar tight and unyielding as the concrete is placed.\n\n\nFoundation and Embankment Drains\n\nFoundation and embankment drains, if required, shall be placed to the line and grade shown on the drawings.\nDetailed requirements for drain material and any required pipe shall be shown in the drawing and specifications for\nthe job.\n\nExcavated Ponds\n\nThe compacted excavation shall conform to the lines, grades, and elevations shown on the drawings or as staked in\nthe field.\n\nEmbankment and Excavated Ponds\n\nConstruction operations shall be carried out so that erosion and air and water pollution are minimized and held\nwithin legal limits. All work shall be conducted in a skillful manner. The completed job shall present a workman\nlike appearance.\n\nMeasures and construction methods that enhance fish and wildlife values shall be incorporated as needed and\npractical. Fencing and cover to control erosion shall be established as needed. Appropriate safety measures, such as\nwarning signs, rescue facilities, and fencing shall be provided as needed.\n\n\n\n\n\n Return to TOC\n A10-16\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=342)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 343", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 343\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n APPENDIX A11\n\n REFERENCES\n\n\nThe following references are cited in the standards:\n\n 1. Engineering Field Manual, Washington, D.C., Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture,\n 1979.\n\n 2. Tentative Design Procedures for Riprap - Lined Channels, National Cooperative Highway Research Program\n Report 108, Washington, D. C., Highway Research Board, National Research Council, 1970.\n\n 3. Predicting Rainfall - Erosion Losses, A Guide to Conservation Planning, Agricultural Handbook No. 537,\n Washington, D. C., Science and Education Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, December 1978.\n\n 4. Section 4, Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook, Washington, D.C., Soil Conservation Service, U. S.\n Department of Agriculture, 1971.\n\n 5. Maccaferri Gabions Technical Handbook, New York, N. Y., Maccaferri Gabions of America, Inc.\n\n 6. Chow, Ven T., Open Channel Hydraulics, New York, N. Y., McGraw-Hill, 1959.\n\n 7. Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels, Water-Supply Paper 1849. Washington, D. C., U. S.\n Geological Survey, 1967.\n\n 8. Design of Open Channels, Technical Release No. 25, Washington, D. C., Soil Conservation Service, U. S.\n Department of Agriculture, October 1977.\n\n 9. Urban Hydrology for Watersheds, Technical Release No. 55, Washington, D. C., Soil Conservation Service,\n U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1986.\n\n10. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Trenton, N.J., New Jersey Department of\n Transportation 1983 with revisions.\n\n11. Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, N.J. Association of Conservation Districts, 1987.\n\n\n\n\n\n A11-1\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=343)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 344", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 344\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n OTHER REFERENCES\n\n\nThe following references provide additional information on subjects covered in the Standards:\n\n Duell, Robert W., Highway Vegetation, Bulletin 822, New Brunswick, N. J., Rutgers College of Agriculture\n and Environmental Science.\n\n Duell, R. W., and R. M. Schmit, Better Grasses for Roadsides, Transportation Research Record No. 551,\n National Academy of Science, 1975, pp. 30-41.\n\n Fletcher, B. P. and Grace, J. S., Jr., Practical Guidance for Estimating and Controlling Erosion at Culvert\n Outlets, 1972, Corps of Engineers Research, Report H-72-5, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,\n Mississippi.\n\n Funk, C. R., R. E. Engel, R. W. Duell, and W. K. Dickson, \"Kentucky Bluegrass for New Jersey\n Turf\", Rutgers Turf Grass Proceedings. New Brunswick, N. J., Soils and Crops Offset Series No. 9, 1978, pp.\n 120-142.\n\n Guideline Specifications to Sodding. Hastings, Nebraska, American Sod Producers Association, Inc.\n\n Lacey, Donald B., Ground Covers - Carpets for Outdoor Living, Extension Service Publication 351-A. New\n Brunswick, N. J., Rutgers College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 1970.\n\n Lane, E.W. 1955. Design of stable alluvial channels. Transactions,American Society of Civil Engineers 120:\n 1234-1279.\n\n Nathan, Kurt, R. B. Alderfer, S. A. Decter, R. N. Hanna, M. E. Singley, K. S. Werkman, and K. T.\n Wilson, Water Control Guide for Suburban and Rural Residential New Jersey, Circular 605, New Brunswick,\n N. J., Rutgers College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 1965.\n\n O'Knefski, R. C., C. R. Funk, R. E. Engel and R. W. Duell, Lawn Grasses for New Jersey, Leaflet 509, New\n Brunswick, N. J., Rutgers College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 1975.\n\n O'Knefski, R. C., C. R. Funk, R. E. Engel and R. W. Duell, \"Lawn Grasses for New\n Jersey,\" Rutgers Turf Grass Proceedings, New Brunswick, N. J., Soils and Crops Offset Series No. 6, 1975, pp.\n 89-94.\n\n Poertner, H.G., Modified Rational Method, Special Report 43, American Public Works Association, Chicago,\n Illinois, 1974\n\n Robinson, K.M., Rice, C.E., and Kadavy, K.C., Design of Rock Chutes, Transactions, American Society of\n Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 41(3):621-626. 1998\n\n Schmit, R. N., C. R. Funk, and R. W. Duell, \"Morphology and Behavior of the Fine\n Fescues,\" Rutgers Turf Grass Proceedings, New Brunswick, N. J., Soils and Crops Offset Series No. 5, 1974,\n pp. 4-8.\n\n Simons, Daryl B., Chen, Ung H., Swenson, Lawrence J., Hydraulic Test to Develop Criteria for\n the Use of Reno Matters, Civil Engineering Department, Engineering and Research Center, Colorado State\n University, Fort Collins, Colorado, March 1984.\n\n\n A11-2\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=344)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 345", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 345\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Tedrow, J. C. F., New Jersey Soils, Circular 601, New Brunswick, N. J., Rutgers College of Agriculture and\n Environmental Science.\n\n\nThe following references are cited in the Appendices:\n\na1. Fortier, S. F. and Scobey, F. C., Permissible Canal Velocities, American Society of Civil Engineering\n Transactions, Vol. 89, pp. 940-956.\na2. Lane, E. W., Progress Report on Results of Studies on Design of Stable Channels, Hydraulic Laboratory\n Report No. Hyd-352, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, June 1952.\n\na3. Standards for Permissible Non-Eroding Velocities, Bureauy of the Methodology of the Hydro-Energo Plan;\n Gidrotekhniches Koye Stroitel'stvo, Obedinennoe Nanchno-Teknicheskoe 12 dated 'stvo., Moscow, USSR,\n May 1936.\n\na4. Einstein, H. A., The Bedload Function for Sediment Transpor- tation in Open Channel Flow, USDA Technical\n Bulletin No. 1026, September 1950.\n\na5. Vanoni, V. A. and Brooks, N. H., Laboratory Studies of the Roughness and Suspended Load of\n Alluvial Streams, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division Sediment Series No. 11, December\n 1957.\n\na6. Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, N.J., Association of Soil Conservation Districts, 1987.\n\n\n\n\n\n A11-3\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=345)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 346", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 346\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n LAND USE LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM\n\n (Derived from: A Land Use and Land Cover Classification\n System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, U. S. Geological\n Survey Professional Paper 964, 1976; edited by NJDEP,\n OIRM, BGIA, 1998, 2000, 20001. Note: Classes used in NJDEP mapping programs shown in bold.\n\n\n1000 URBAN OR BUILT-UP LAND 1212 Other Institutional\n 1213 Mixed Commercial & Services\n1100 RESIDENTIAL\n 1214 Former Military; Indeterminate Use\n1110 Residential (High Density or Multiple dwelling)\n 1300 INDUSTRIAL\n1111 Single Unit, High Density\n 1310 Light Industrial\n1112 Multiple Dwelling, Low Rise (3 stories or less)\n 1320 Heavy Industrial\n1113 Multiple Dwelling, High Rise (4 stories or more)\n 1330 Power Generation\n1120 Residential (Single Unit, Medium Density)\n 1400 TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & UTILITIES\n1130 Residential (Single Unit Low Density)\n 1410 Limited Access Highways\n1140 Residential (Rural, Single Unit)\n 1420 Railroad Facilities\n1150 Mixed Residential\n 1430 Bus and Truck Terminals\n1200 COMMERCIAL & SERVICES\n 1440 Airports\n1201 Central Business District (CBD)\n 1450 Port Facilities\n1202 Commercial Strip Development\n 1460 Power Facilities\n1203 Isolated Commercial Establishments for Goods\n and/or Services 1461 Wetland Rights-of-Way\n\n1204 Isolated Commercial Office Buildings 1470 Water Treatment Facilities\n\n1205 Shopping Centers 1480 Sewage Treatment Facilities\n\n1206 Resorts, Hotels, Motels & Related facilities 1490 Other Transportation, Communication and Utilities\n\n1207 Educational Institutions 1500 INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL COMPLEXES\n\n1208 Health Institutions 1510 Industrial and Commercial Parks\n\n1209 Correctional Institutions 1600 MIXED URBAN OR BUILT-UP\n\n1210 Government Centers 1610 Predominantly Residential - (>50%, but <66% of the\n use can be identified as Residential).\n1211 Military Installations\n A13-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=346)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 347", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 347\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n1620 Predominantly Commercial/Service - (>50%, but 2000 AGRICULTURAL LAND\n <66% of the use can be identified as\n Commercial/Service). 2100 CROPLAND AND PASTURELAND\n\n1630 Predominantly Industrial - (>50%, but <66% of the 2110 Harvested Cropland\n use can be identified as Industrial).\n 2120 Pastureland\n1640 Predominantly\n Transportation/Communication/Utilities - (>50%, 2130 Inactive Cropland\n but <66% of the use can be identified as\n Transportation/Communication/Utilities). 2140 Agricultural Wetlands\n\n1650 Heterogeneous Mixture - (No single use in the 2150 Former Agricultural Wetlands- Becoming Shrubby,\n intermixture comprises more than 50%). not Built-up\n\n1700 OTHER URBAN OR BUILT-UP 2200 ORCHARDS, VINEYARDS, NURSERIES AND\n HORTICULTURAL AREAS\n1710 Cemeteries\n 2210 Orchards\n1720 Undeveloped Land Within Urban Areas\n 2220 Vineyards\n1730 Inactive Land With Street Patterns\n 2230 Nurseries\n1740 Open Areas\n 2240 Floriculture\n1750 Managed Wetland in Maintained Lawn Greenspace\n 2250 Sod and Seed Farms\n1800 RECREATIONAL LAND\n 2260 Cranberry Farms\n1801 Golf Courses\n 2270 Inactive\n1802 Picnic and Camping Parks\n 2280 Blueberry Farms\n1803 Marina and Boat Launches\n 2300 CONFINED FEEDING OPERATIONS\n1804 Community Recreation Areas\n 2310 Cattle and Swine Feedlots\n1805 Parks\n 2320 Poultry Farms\n1806 Swimming Pools\n 2330 Specialty Farms\n1807 Swimming Beaches\n 2400 OTHER AGRICULTURE\n1808 Formal Lawns, Arboretums and Landscaped Areas\n 2410 Experimental Agriculture Fields\n1809 Open Areas in Parks\n 2420 Isolated Structures for Crop or Equipment Storage\n1810 Stadium, Theaters, Cultural Centers, and Zoos\n 2430 Horse Farm\n1811 Other Recreational\n 2440 Agricultural Dikes/Roadways\n1850 Managed Wetland in Built-up Maintained Rec Area\n 3000 RANGELAND\n A13-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=347)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 348", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 348\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n4000 FORESTLAND 5100 STREAMS & CANALS\n\n4100 DECIDUOUS 5110 Streams\n\n4110 Deciduous, 10-50% Crown Closure 5120 Canals\n\n 5200 NATURAL LAKES\n4120 Deciduous > 50% Crown Closure\n 5210 Small Lakes\n4200 CONIFEROUS\n 5220 Medium Lakes\n4210 Coniferous, 10-50% Crown Closure\n 5230 Large Lakes\n4220 Coniferous, > 50% Crown Closure\n 5300 ARTIFICIAL LAKES & RESERVOIRS\n4230 Plantation\n 5310 Artificial Lakes\n4300 MIXED DECIDUOUS/CONIFEROUS\n 5320 Multiple Use Reservoirs\n4310 Mixed with Coniferous Prevalent (> 50%\n Coniferous) 5330 Restrictive Use Reservoirs\n\n4311 Mixed with Coniferous Prevalent (10%-50% Crown 5400 BAYS, ESTUARIES & OTHER TIDAL WATERS\n Closure)\n 5410 Tidal Rivers, Inland Bays and Other Tidal waters\n4312 Mixed with Coniferous Prevalent (> 50% Crown\n Closure) 5411 Open Tidal Bays\n\n4320 Mixed with Deciduous Prevalent (> 50% Deciduous) 5420 Dredged Lagoon, Artificial\n\n4321 Mixed with Deciduous Prevalent (10%-50% Crown 5430 Atlantic Ocean\n Closure)\n 6000 WETLANDS\n4322 Mixed with Deciduous Prevalent (> 50% Crown\n Closure) 6100 COASTAL WETLANDS\n\n4400 BRUSHLAND/SHRUBLAND (Height<20 feet) 6110 Saline Marshes\n\n4410 Old Field (<25% Brush Covered) 6120 Freshwater Tidal Marshes\n\n4420 Deciduous Brush/Shrubland (>25% Brush Covered 6130 Vegetated Dune Communities\n with Deciduous Species Predominant > 75%)\n 6200 INTERIOR WETLANDS\n4430 Coniferous Brush/Shrubland (>25% Brush Covered\n with Coniferous Species Predominant > 75%). 6210 Deciduous Wooded Wetlands\n\n4440 Mixed Deciduous/Coniferous Brush/Shrubland 6220 Coniferous Wooded Wetlands\n (>25% Brush Covered with a Mixture of Deciduous\n Coniferous Species; <75% of One Type) 6221 Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands\n\n4500 SEVERE BURNED UPLAND VEGETATION 6230 Brush-Dominate and Bog Wetlands\n\n5000 WATER 6231 Decidous Brush and Bog Wetlands\n A13-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=348)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 349", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 349\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n6232 Coniferous Brush and Bog Wetlands 7310 Stone Quarries\n\n6233 Mixed Brush and Bog Wetlands with Deciduous 7320 Sand and Gravel Pits (Borrow Pits)\n Dominant\n 7330 Other Mining\n6234 Mixed Brush and Bog Wetlands with Coniferous\n Dominant 7340 Abandoned Mining Sites\n\n6240 Non-Tidal Marshes 7400 ALTERED LANDS\n\n6250 Mixed Wooded Wetlands 7410 Solid Waste Disposal Areas\n\n6251 Mixed Wooded Wetland with Deciduous Prevalent 7420 Dredge Material Disposal Sites\n\n6252 Mixed Wooded Wetlands with Coniferous 7430 Disturbed Wetlands\n Prevalent\n 7500 TRANSITIONAL AREAS\n6500 SEVERE BURNED WETLANDS\n 7510 Single Unit Residential Under Construction\n7000 BARREN LAND\n 7520 Multiple Unit Residential Under Construction\n7100 BEACHES\n 7530 Commercial/Service Under Construction\n7110 Open Beach\n 7540 Industrial Under Construction\n7120 Unvegetated Dune Communities\n 7550 Transportation/Communication/Utilities Under\n7130 Other Sandy Areas Construction\n\n7200 BARE EXPOSED ROCK, ROCK SLIDES, ETC. 7560 Industrial/Commercial Parks Under Construction\n\n7210 Rock Faces, Rock Slides, Cliffs 7570 Unknown Use Under Construction\n\n7220 Exposed Rock 7580 Abandoned Structures (Non-Urban)\n\n7300 EXTRACTIVE MINING 7600 UNDIFFERENTIATED BARREN LAND\n\n 8000 MANAGED WETLANDS\n\n\n\n1/22/01 2:21 PM\n\n\n\n\n\n A13-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=349)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 350", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 350\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n APPENDIX B\n\n EXAMPLES OF SEED SPECIFICATIONS\n\nA. The seed mixtures and specifications shall meet the following minimum requirements.\n\n 1. Furnish the kinds and amounts of seed as indicated below to be seeded in all areas designated by\n the engineer, landscape architect in the certified soil erosion and sediment control plan.\n\n (List mixtures and amounts of each species here)\n\n\n 2. The minimum requirements for grass and legume seed used for temporary and permanent\n vegetative stabilization work are as follows:\n\n a. All seed shall be labeled to show that it meets the requirements of the New Jersey State\n Seed Law N.J.S.A. 4:17-13 et. seq. and rules promulgated thereto.\n\n b. Accumulated bag tags of seed used shall be submitted with the final pay estimate and\n may be requested by the Soil Conservation District for a report of compliance.\n\n c. All seed shall have been tested within the 9 months immediately preceeding the date of\n seeding such material on this job.\n\n d. Inoculant - The innoculant for treating legume seed in the seed mixtures shall be a pure\n culture of nitrogen-fixing bacteria prepared for the species seeded. Inoculant shall not be\n used later than the date indicated on the container. Twice the supplier's recommended\n rate of inoculant will be used when seed is broadcasted; four times the recommended rate\n if hydroseeded.\n\n e. The amount of all warm season grass to be planted for temporary and permanent\n stabilization shall be adjusted to reflect the amount of pure live seed (PLS) by reducing\n the weight of inert matter, non viable and undesirable seed as expressed on the seed tag.\n The adjustment is made by multiplying the weight of the seed bag x % seed purity x %\n germination = amount of PLS. No adjustment is required for cool season grasses.\n\n Example: A 50 lb bag of seed with 95% purity and 60% germination = 28.5 lbs. of PLS.\n\n f. (The Quality of Seed table on the following page may be used to specify the minimum\nseed\n purity and germination of seed to be used on the project.)\n\nB. Grass seed mixtures can be tested by the State Seed Analyst, New Jersey Department of Agriculture,\n Trenton, New Jersey, to verify to the purchaser that the mixture or % germination conforms with the label\n pursuant to the rules of the State Seed Law, NJAC 2:21-1 et. seq.\n\n\n\n\n\n B-1\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=350)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 351", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 351\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n TABLE B -1\n\n QUALITY OF SEED*\n\n\n\n Minimum** Minimum\n Cultivors Seed Purity (%) Germination (%)\n\n PERENNIAL LEGUME\n Clover, White 98 90\n Crownvetch 95 75\n Lespedeza, Sericea 98 85\n\n PERENNIAL GRASSES\n\n Bentgrass, Creeping 98 85\n Bermudagrass 98 85\n Bluegrass, Kentucky 98 85\n Fescue, Hard 98 85\n Fescue, red (chewing and 98 85\n (creeping)\n Fescue Sheep 90 95\n Fescue, tall (KY-31) 98 85\n Redtop 92 85\n Reed Canarygrass 96 80\n Ryegrass, Perennial 98 90\n Weeping lovegrass 95 87\n Zoysiagrass 90 80\n\n Barley 98 90\n Millet 99 80\n Oats 98 80\n Rye 98 85\n\n\n\n *Seed containing prohibited or restricted noxious weed seeds as listed in the rules for the State Seed Law,\n NJAC. 2:21-4.1 et. seq., will not be accepted.\n Prohibited noxious weed - Bindweed, Canada thistle, quackgrass, hedge bindweed, and horse nettle.\n\n Restricted noxious weed seed - Wild garlic, bermudagrass, cheat, wild onion, corn cockle, dodder and wild\n onion, Johnsongrass, perennial sweet sudangrass, sorghum almum and other perennial sorghum hybrids,\n grant required, but cucumber.\n\n **Seed shall not contain in excess of 1.0 percent weed seed.\n\n\n\n\n\n B-2\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=351)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 352", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 352\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n\n Table B-2 Grass, Legume and Shrub Planting Guide\n\n\n COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME GROWT GROWT SOIL pH FLOOD SHADE SALT FOOT MAINTENAN\n H H DRAINAGE RANG TOLERAN TOLERAN TOLERANC TRAFFI CE\n HABIT SEASO TOLERANCE E CE CE E C LEVELS\n 1/. N 2/. 3/. 4/.\n\nGRASSES\n\nBarley Hordeum vulgare Annual cool WD-MWD 5.5-7.8 No No Low No Moderate\nBeachgrass, american Ammophila breveligulata PsR cool WD 5.5-7.5 Yes No High No Low\nBentgrass, creeping Agrostis stolonifera PsR cool MWD-PD 5.5-7.0 Yes No Low No High\nBermudagrass Cynodon dactylon PlS warm EXDR-SWPD 4.5-7.5 Yes No High Yes Moderate\nBluegrass, Canada Poa compressa PlR cool EXDR-SWPD 4.5-9.5 No Yes Low Yes Moderate-low\nBluegrass, Kentucky Poa pratensis PlR cool WD-SWPD 5.5-7.0 Yes No Mod. Yes High-low\nBluegrass, Rough Poa trivialis PsS cool MWD-SWPD 5.5-7.0 Yes Yes Low Yes Moderate-low\nBluestem, big Andropogon gerardii PIB warm EXDR-MWD 5.0-7.5 No No Low No Low\nBluestem, little Schizachyrium scoparium PlB warm EXDR-MWD 5.5-7.5 No No Low No Low\nCanarygrass, reed Phalaris arundinacea PlR cool WD-PD 5.0-7.5 Yes No Low No Moderate-low\nCoastal panicgrass Panicum amarulum PlB warm EXDR-PD 4.5-7.5 Yes No Mod. No Low\nCordgrass, saltmeadow Spartina patens PlR warm WD-PD 5.0-7.5 Yes No High No Low\nCordgrass, smooth Spartina alternifolia PlR warm PD 5.0-7.5 Yes No High No Low\n DichantheliumDeertongue PlR warm EXDR-SWPD 3.8-5.0 Yes No Low No Low clandestinum\nFescue, creeping red Festuca rubra PlR cool WD-SWPD 4.5-9.5 Yes Yes Low Yes Moderate-low\nFescue, hard Festuca longifolia PlB cool EXDR-WD 4.5-7.5 No Yes Low Yes Low\nFescue, tall Festuca arundinacea PlB cool WD-SWPD 5.0-8.0 Yes Yes Mod. Yes Moderate-low\nIndiangrass Sorghastrum nutans PlB warm EXDR-WD 5.0-8.0 No No Low No Low\nLovegrass, sand Eragrostis trichodes PlB warm EXDR-WD 4.5-8.0 No No Low No Low\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=352)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 353", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 353\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME GROWT GROWT SOIL pH FLOOD SHADE SALT FOOT MAINTENAN\n H H DRAINAGE RANG TOLERAN TOLERAN TOLERANC TRAFFI CE\n HABIT SEASO TOLERANCE E CE CE E C LEVELS\n 1/. N 2/. 3/. 4/.\nLovegrass, weeping Eragrostis curvula PsB warm EXDR-WD 4.5-8.0 No No Low No Low\nMillet, pearl Pennisetum americanum Annual warm WD-SWPD 4.5-7.5 No No Low No Low\nMillet, German Low Setaria italica Annual warm WD-SWPD 4.5-7.5 No No No Low(foxtail)\nOats Avena sativa Annual cool WD-SWPD 4.5-7.0 No No Low No Low\nRedtop Agrostis gigantea PsR cool WD-PD 4.5-7.5 Yes No Low Yes Low\nRye, cereal Secale cereale Annual cool WD-MWD 4.5-7.0 No No Low No Low\nRyegrass, perennial Lolium perenne PsB cool WD-SWPD 5.5-7.5 No No Mod No High-Moderate\nSaltgrass, alkali Puccinella distans PsB cool WD-SWPD 5.5-8.0 No No High No Moderate-Low\nSwitchgrass Panicum virgatuin PlB warm EXDR-PD 4.5-7.5 Yes No High No Low\nWildrye Elymus virginicus PlB cool MWD-PD 5.0-7.0 Yes Yes Mod No Low\nZoysiagrass Zoysia japonica PlS warm WD-MWD 5.0-7.0 No No High Yes Low\n\nLEGUMES\n\nBirdsfoot trefoil Lotus corniculatus PlR cool EXDR-SWPD 5.0-7.5 Yes No Low No Low\nClover, white Trifolium repens PlR cool WD-SWPD 5.5-7.5 No No Low Yes Low\nCrownvetch Coronilla varia PlR cool WD-MWD 5.5-7.5 No No Low No Low\nFlatpea Lathyrus sylvestris PlR cool EXDR-MWD 4.0-7.0 No No Mod. No Low\nLespedeza, serecia Lespedeza cuneata PlB warm EXDR-MWD 5.5-7.0 No No Low No Low\nPartridge pea Cassia fasciculata Annual warm EXDR-MWD 5.0-7.0 No No Mod. No Low\n\nSHRUBS\n\nDogwood, redosier Cornus serecia PlR N/A MWD-PD 4.5-7.0 Yes Yes Low N/A Low\nDogwood, silky Cornus amomum PlR N/A WD-PD 4.0-7.0 Yes Yes Low N/A Low\nWillow, purpleosier Salix purpurea PlR N/A WD-PD 4.5-7.5 Yes No Low N/A Low\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=353)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 354", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 354\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey July 2013\n\n COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME GROWT GROWT SOIL pH FLOOD SHADE SALT FOOT MAINTENAN\n H H DRAINAGE RANG TOLERAN TOLERAN TOLERANC TRAFFI CE\n HABIT SEASO TOLERANCE E CE CE E C LEVELS\n 1/. N 2/. 3/. 4/.\nWillow, dwarf Salix cottetii PlR N/A WD-PD 4.5-7.0 Yes No Low N/A Low\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=354)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 355", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 355\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n1/. Growth Habit:\n\n P-perennial\n l-long-lived\n s-short-lived\n R-rhizomatous\n S-stoloniferous\n B- bunch\n\n2/. Growth Season:\n\n Cool - major portion of growth during early spring and early fall\n\n Warm - major portion of growth during summer months\n\n3/. Soil Drainage Tolerance:\n\n EXDR - excessively drained\n\n WD - well-drained\n\n MWD - moderately well-drained\n\n SWPD - somewhat poorly drained\n\n PD - poorly drained\n\n4/.Maintenance Levels:\n\n Low - requiring infrequent mowing and little or no fertilizer or lime for long-term persistence\n\n Moderate - requiring some mowing and medium amounts of fertilizer and lime for long-term persistence\n\n High - requires frequent mowing and high levels of fertilizer and lime for long-term persistence\n\n\n\n\n\n B-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=355)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 356", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 356\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n CHAPTER 24 OF TITLE 4, REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY\n\n\n SOIL CONSERVATION\n\n\n\n ARTICLE 1. DECLARATION OF POLICY\n\n\n4:24-1. Legislative policy declared\n\n\n It is hereby declared to be the policy of the legislature to provide for the conservation of the\nsoil and soil resources of this state, and for the control and prevention of soil erosion.\n\n\n4:24-1.1 Prevention of damage by flood water or sediment; conservation of water for\nagricultural purposes\n\n\n The purposes of soil conservation and the control and prevention of soil erosion to be\nfurthered by the State Soil Conservation Committee and of the soil conservation districts shall\ninclude, wherever applicable, the prevention of damage to soil and soil resources by floodwater\nor by sediment and the furtherance of conservation of water for agricultural purposes.\n L 1959,c. 129, §3, p. 570. eff. July 1, 1959\n\n\n ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS\n\n\n4:24-2. Words and phrases defined\n\n\n Wherever used or referred to in this chapter, unless a different meaning clearly appears\nfrom the context:\n\n\n a. “District” or “soil conservation district” means a governmental subdivision of this state,\n and a public body corporate and politic, organized in accordance with the provisions of\n\n\n\n C1-1\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=356)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 357", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 357\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n this chapter, for the purposes, with the powers, and subject to the restrictions\n hereinafter set forth;\n b. “Supervisor” means one of the members of the governing body of a district, appointed\n in accordance with the provisions of this chapter;\n c. “Committee” or “state soil conservation committee” means the agency created in\n article three of this chapter;\n d. “Petition” means a petition filed under the provisions of article 4 of this chapter (§4:24-\n 7 et seq.) for the creation of a district;\n e. “State” means the state of New Jersey;\n f. “Agency of this state” includes the government of this state and any subdivision,\n agency, or instrumentality, corporate or otherwise, of the government of this state;\n g. “United States” or “agencies of the United States” includes the United States of\n America, the soil conservation service of the United States department of agriculture,\n and any other agency or instrumentality, corporate or otherwise, of the United States\n of America;\n h. “Government” or “governmental” includes the government of this state, the\n government of the United States, and any subdivision, agency or instrumentality,\n corporate or otherwise, of either of them;\n i. “Landowner” includes any person, firm or corporation who shall hold title to any lands\n lying within a district organized under the provisions of this chapter;\n j. “Due notice” means notice published at least twice, with an interval of at least seven\n days between the two publication dates, in a newspaper or other publication of general\n circulation within the appropriate area, or if no such publication of general circulation\n be available, by posting at a reasonable number of conspicuous places, within the\n appropriate area, such posting to include, where possible, posting at public places\n where it may be customary to post notices concerning county or municipal affairs\n generally. At any hearing held pursuant to such notice, at the time and place designated\n in such notice, adjournment may be made from time to time, without the necessity of\n renewing such notice for such adjourned dates.\n L 1959, c. 139, §201, p. 319.\n\n\n\n\n C1-2\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=357)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 358", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 358\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n ARTICLE 3. STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE\n\n\n4:24-2.1 Transfer of functions, powers and duties to Department of Agriculture\n\n\n The State Soil Conservation Committee and all of its functions, powers and duties are\nhereby transferred to the Department of Agriculture.\n L 1959, c. 129, p.570, eff July 1, 1959.\n\n\n4:24-3 Committee established; membership, records; seals; hearings; rules and\nregulations\n\n\n There is hereby established, to serve as an agency of the State and to perform the functions\nconferred upon it in this chapter, the State Soil Conservation Committee. The committee shall\nconsist of 11 members: The Director of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, the\nassociate director of the Cooperative Extension Service in Agriculture and Home Economics, the\nState Secretary of Agriculture, the commissioner of the Department of Conservation and\nEconomic Development or a representative designated by any 1 of these individuals, and 1\nmember appointed by the Governor to serve at his pleasure. Six members shall be soil\nconservation district supervisors, who shall be elected at the annual meetings of soil\nconservation district supervisors, for terms of 3 years and until their successors are appointed\nand qualified. Three supervisors shall be elected from the northern region which is composed of\nthe counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic,\nSomerset, Sussex, Union and Warren and 3 supervisors shall be elected from the southern\nregion which is composed of the counties of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May,\nCumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean and Salem. Of the first 3 members from each region 1\nshall be elected for 1 year, 1 for 2 years, and 1 for 3 years. The committee shall invite the\nsecretary of agriculture of the United States of America to appoint 1 person, a resident of the\nState of New Jersey, to serve with the above-mentioned members. The committee shall keep a\nrecord of its official actions, shall adopt a seal, which seal shall be judicially noted, and may\nperform such acts, hold such public hearings, and promulgate such rules and regulations as may\nbe necessary for the execution of its functions under this chapter.\nL 1937, c. 139, §301, p. 321, amended by L 1959, c. 130. §1., p. 571.\n\n C1-3\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=358)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 359", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 359\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n4:24-3.1 Election of Members\n\n\n The first election for members of the State Soil Conservation Committee, established under\nthis act, shall be held by the State Soil Conservation Committee in office on the effective date of\nthis act. This election shall be held within 10 days after the effective date of this act.\n L 1959, c. 130, §3, p.572, eff. June 18, 1959.\n\n\n4:24-4 Administrative officer and employees; legal services; cooperative agreements\n\n\n The State Soil Conservation Committee my employ, subject to the rules of the State Civil\nService Commission, a qualified administrative officer and such technical experts and such other\nagents and employees, permanent and temporary, as it may require, and shall determine their\nqualifications, duties and compensation of all employees. The committee shall call upon the\nAttorney General for such legal services as it may require for the purpose of carrying out any of\nits functions. The committee may enter into a cooperative agreement with any other State\nagency. The members of the committee who are soil conservation district supervisors shall not\nvote on or participate in the employment or selection of any officers, agents or employees, and\nfor such purpose the membership of the committee shall be deemed to be 5.\n L 1937, c. 139, §302, p. 321, amended by L 1959, c. 130, §2, p. 572, eff June 18, 1959.\n\n\n\n4:24-5 Organization; term of members; quorum; expenses; surety bonds for\nemployees; records; audit\n\n\nThe committee shall designate its chairman, and may, from time to time, change such\ndesignation. A member of the committee shall hold office so long as he shall retain the office by\nvirtue of which he shall be serving on the committee. A majority of the committee shall\nconstitute a quorum, and the concurrence of a majority in any matter within their duties shall\nbe required for its determination. The chairman and members of the committee shall receive no\ncompensation for their services on the committee, but shall be entitled to expenses, necessarily\nincurred in the discharge of their duties on the committee. The committee shall provide for the\n\n C1-4\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=359)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 360", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 360\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nexecution of surety bonds for all employees and officers who shall be instructed with funds or\nproperty; shall provide for the keeping of a full and accurate record of all proceedings and of all\nresolutions, regulations, and orders issued or adopted; and shall provide for an annual audit of\nthe accounts of receipts and disbursements.\n L 1937, c. 139, §303, p. 321.\n\n\n4:24-6. Powers and duties of committee\n\n\n In addition to the duties and powers hereinafter conferred upon the state soil conservation\ncommittee it shall have the following duties and powers:\n\n\n a. To accept from the United States or any of its agencies, contributions in services,\n materials, money or otherwise, and to use or expend such contribution in the\n formulation of comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil resources and the\n prevention of soil erosion within the state and to conduct surveys, investigations,\n demonstrations, and research relating to soil erosion and the preventive measures\n needed in areas subject to erosion by wind and water, to publish results of any such\n surveys, investigations or research and to disseminate information. In order to avoid\n duplication of research, demonstration, and the dissemination of information, no\n program of such activities shall be carried on except in cooperation with the state\n agricultural college and the state agricultural experiment stations, or such other state\n agency as may be dealing with allied problems;\n b. To offer such assistance to the supervisors of soil conservation districts, organized as\n provided hereinafter as may be appropriate in the carrying out of any of their powers\n and programs;\n c. To coordinate the programs of the several soil conservation districts organized\n hereunder;\n d. To secure the cooperation and assistance of the United States and any of its agencies;\n and of agencies of this state, in the work of such districts;\n e. To disseminate information throughout the state concerning the activities and\n programs of the soil conservation districts organized hereunder, and to encourage the\n formation of such districts in areas where their organization is desirable.\n\n C1-5\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=360)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 361", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 361\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n L 1937, c. 139, §4, p. 33.\n\n\n4:24-6.1 Review and approval, modification, or rejection of decision\n\n\n The committee may, on its own motion or at the request of any person aggrieved by any\ndecision by a local district, review and approve, modify or reject any such decision as it deems\nappropriate.\n L 1979, c. 459, § eff. February 27, 1980.\n\n\n\n ARTICLE 4. CREATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS\n\n\n4:24-7 through 4:24-17 Repealed by L 1977, c. 264, §4.\n\n\n\n ARTICLE 4A. SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: DIVISION INTO SEPARATE DISTRICTS AND\n CONSOLIDATION OF DISTRICTS\n\n\n4:24-17.1 Public hearings\n\n\n Whenever the supervisors of a soil conservation district which has been created for more\nthan one year determine it advisable to divide the district into two or more separate districts, or\nwhenever the supervisors of two or more contiguous districts determine it advisable to combine\nsuch districts, the supervisors or the district or districts shall call a public hearing on such\nproposal.\n L 1966, c. 77 §1, eff. June 14, 1966.\n\n\n4:24-17.2 Resolution requesting approval; procedure upon approval\n\n\n Following such public hearing the supervisors of the district or districts may adopt a\nresolution requesting such approval by the State Soil Conservation Committee of a division of\nthe district or the combination of separate districts into a single district, the proposed\n\n C1-6\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=361)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 362", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 362\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nboundaries of the proposed district or districts being annexed to said resolutions. If the State\nSoil Conservation Committee approves the proposal and so notifies the supervisors, the\nsupervisors shall file with the Secretary of State a statement or statements setting forth the\nrevised name of names and boundaries of the district or districts so approved and the date upon\nwhich such changes are to become effective.\n L 1966, c. 77 §2, eff. June 14, 1966.\n\n\n4:24-17.3 New supervisors; appointment; time of taking office\n\n\n Upon the effective date of a division of a district or the combination of two or more districts,\nthe terms of office of the supervisors theretofore in office shall terminate and new supervisors,\nappointed by the State Soil Conservation Committee in accordance with Revised Statutes 4:24-\n12, shall take office as the governing body of the district or districts so created.\n\n\n L 1966, c. 77 §3, eff. June 14, 1966.\n\n\n4:24-17.4 Continuance of contracts, liabilities, regulations and other matters; assumption\nby new district\n\n\n The State Soil Conservation Committee shall make such provisions as are necessary for the\ncontinuance in effect of all contracts, liabilities, regulations and other matters of the district or\ndistricts to be divided or combined and shall designate the manner in which these contracts,\nliabilities, regulations and other matters are to be assumed by the districts simultaneously with\nits granting of approval for divisions or combining of a district.\n L 1966, c. 77 §4, eff. June 14, 1966.\n\n\n\n4:24-17.5 County and multi-county soil conservation districts; creation\n\n\n The whole area of the State shall, at all times, be covered by a soil conservation district.\nEach soil conservation district shall cover the whole area of one or more counties. A tri-county\nsoil conservation district shall serve the counties of Hudson, Essex and Passaic to be known as\n\n C1-7\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=362)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 363", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 363\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nthe Hudson, Essex and Passaic Soil Conservation District. Bi-county soil conservation districts\nshall serve the following pairs of counties: Middlesex-Monmouth, Somerset-Union, and Cape\nMay- Atlantic, to be known as the Freehold, Somerset-Union, and Cape-Atlantic Soil\nConservation Districts respectively. Every other county in the State shall be served by its own\nsoil conservation district to be known as “the .... County Soil Conservation District: with the\nname of each such county inserted. The State Soil Conservation Committee shall work with the\nsupervisors of the multi-county soil conservation districts to encourage the formation of a soil\nconservation district in each county of the State, pursuant to the procedures contained in P.L.\n1966, c. 77 (C. 4:24-17.1 et seq.).\n L 1979, c. 264, §3, eff. October 18, 1977.\n\n\n\n4:24-17.6 Appropriation of funds by counties\n\n\n Any board of chosen freeholders may appropriate such funds as it deems necessary to the\nsoil conservation district serving that county for the purpose of providing district services to the\npeople of that county.\n L 1979, C. 459, §5, eff. February 27, 1980.\n\n\n4:24-17.7 Legal services to district by Attorney General\n\n\n The Attorney General, on his own initiative, or the respective county counsel, with the\napproval of the board of chosen freeholders, may provide any and all legal services to any\ndistrict.\n L 1979, c. 459, §5, eff. February 27, 1980.\n\n\n\n\n\n C1-8\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=363)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 364", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 364\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n ARTICLE 5. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATIONS AND TENURE OF SUPERVISORS\n\n\n4:24-18. Governing body of district; supervisors; appointment\n\n\n The governing body of the district shall consist of five supervisors, appointed by the State\nSoil Conservation Committee. The five supervisors shall be legal residents of the district.\n\n\n L 1937, c. 139, §501, p. 330, amended by L 1966, c. 77, eff. June 14, 1966, amended by L\n1977, c. 264, §1, eff. October 18, 1977.\n\n\n4:24-19. Supervisors; chairman; term of office; quorum; per diem\n\n\n The supervisors shall designate a chairman and may, from time to time, change such\ndesignation. The term of office of each supervisor shall be at the pleasure of the State\ncommittee. The selection of successors shall be made in the same manner in which the retiring\nsupervisor shall have been selected. A majority of the supervisors shall constitute a quorum and\nthe concurrence of a majority in any matter within their duties shall be required for its\ndetermination. A supervisor shall be entitled to expenses, and a per diem in an amount to be\nestablished by the State committee within the limits of available appropriations, when engaged\nin the performance of his duties.\n L 1937, c. 139, §502, p. 330, amended by L 1979, c. 459, §6, eff. Feb. 27, 1980.\n\n\n4:24-20. Officers and employees; information to state committee\n\n\n The supervisors may employ, subject to the approval of the state committee, technical\nexperts, and such other officers, agents, and employees, permanent and temporary, as they\nmay require, and shall determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation. The supervisors\nmay delegate to their chairman, to one or more supervisors, or to one or more agents, or\nemployees, such powers and duties as they may deem proper. The supervisors shall furnish to\nthe State Soil Conservation Committee, upon request, copies of such ordinances, rules,\nregulations, orders, contracts, forms, and other documents as they shall adopt or employ, and\n\n\n C1-9\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=364)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 365", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 365\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nsuch other information concerning their activities as it may require in the performance of its\nduties under this chapter.\n L 1937, c. 139, §503, p. 330.\n\n\n\n4:24-21. Surety bonds for officers and employees; records; annual audit\n\n\n The supervisors may provide for the execution of surety bonds for any employees and\nofficers who shall be entrusted with funds or property; shall provide for the keeping of a full and\naccurate record of all proceedings and of all resolutions, regulations, and orders issued or\nadopted’ and shall provide for an annual audit of the accounts of receipts and disbursements.\n L 1937, c. 139, §504, p. 330.\n\n\n\n\n ARTICLE 6. POWERS OF DISTRICTS AND SUPERVISORS\n\n\n4:24-22. District a governmental subdivision and body corporate; enumeration of powers of\ndistricts and supervisors\n\n\n A soil conservation district organized under the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a\ngovernmental subdivision of this State, and a public body corporate and politic, exercising public\npowers, and such district, and the supervisors thereof, shall have the following powers, in\naddition to others granted in other sections of this chapter:\n\n\n a. To conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating to the character of soil erosion\n and the preventive and control measures needed, to publish the results of such\n surveys, investigations, or research, and to disseminate information concerning such\n preventive and control measures; provided, however, that in order to avoid duplication\n of research program except in cooperation with the agricultural experiment stations or\n any other agency of this State, as may be dealing will allied problems;\n\n\n\n C1-10\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=365)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 366", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 366\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n b. To conduct in cooperation with existing State agencies, projects within the district on\n lands owned or controlled by this State or any of its agencies, with the cooperation of\n the agency administering and having jurisdiction thereof, and on any other lands within\n the district upon obtaining the consent of the owner thereof, or those who have rights\n or interests in such lands, in order to demonstrate methods of soil erosion control;\n c. To carry out preventive and control measures within the district including but not\n limited to, engineering operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of vegetation,\n changes in use of land, on lands owned or controlled by this State or any of its agencies,\n with the cooperation of the agency administering and having jurisdiction thereof, and\n on any other lands within the district;\n d. To cooperate, or enter into agreements with, and within the limits of appropriations\n duly made available to it by law, to furnish financial or other aid to, any agency,\n governmental or otherwise, or any owner of lands within the district, in the carrying on\n of erosion control and prevention operations within the district, subject to such\n conditions as the supervisors my deem necessary to advance the purposes of this\n chapter;\n e. To acquire machinery and other necessary personal property, to make provision for it\n safekeeping and to dispose of said property when no longer needed;\n f. To make available, on such terms as it shall prescribe, to landowners within the district,\n agricultural and engineering machinery and equipment, as will assist such landowners\n to carry on operations upon their lands for the conservation of soil resources and for\n the prevention and control of soil erosion;\n g. To construct, improve, and maintain such structures as may be necessary or convenient\n for the performance of any of the operations authorized in this chapter;\n h. To develop comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil resources and for the\n control and prevention of soil erosion within the district, which plans shall specify in\n such detail as may be possible, the acts, procedures, performances, and avoidances\n which are necessary or desirable for the effectuation of such plans, including the\n specifications of engineering operations, methods of cultivation, the growing\n vegetation, cropping programs, tillage practices, and changes in use of land; and to\n publish such plans and information and bring them to the attention of owners of lands\n within the district;\n\n C1-11\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=366)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 367", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 367\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n i. To develop site plans for the construction, operation and maintenance of proposed leaf\n composting facilities located on agricultural or horticultural required pursuant to\n Section 7 of P.L. 89, c. 151 and to conduct an annual inspection of each operational\n facility within the district authorized by the Department of Environmental Protection in\n order to certify to the department that the facility is in compliance with the rules and\n regulations adopted by the department therefor and is operating in conformance with\n recommended agricultural management practices;\n j. To act as agent for the United States, or any of its agencies, or for this State or any of its\n agencies, in connection with any soil-conservation, erosion-control, or erosion-\n prevention project within its boundaries; to accept payments, donations, gifts, and\n contributions in money, services, materials, or otherwise from the United States or any\n of its agencies, or from this State or any of its agencies, or from any governmental\n subdivision or its agencies or from any corporation, association, group or individual,\n and to use or expend such moneys, services, materials, or other contributions in\n carrying out its operations;\n k. To sue and be sued in the name of the district; to have a seal, which seal shall be\n judicially noticed; to have perpetual succession unless terminated as hereinafter\n provided; to make and execute contracts and other instruments, necessary or\n convenient to the exercise of its powers; to make, and from time to time amend and\n repeal, rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, to carry into effect its\n purposes and powers;\n l. To acquire, by gift, devise, purchase or condemnation, any real property located within\n the district, or any interest or estate therein, which is required for the proper exercise\n by the district of its powers; provided, however, that the district shall not acquire any\n real property, or interest or estate therein, by condemnation without first obtaining the\n approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Environmental\n Protection;\n m. As a condition to the extending of any benefits under this chapter, to, or the\n performance of work upon, any lands not owned or controlled by this State or any of its\n agencies, the supervisors may require contributions in money, services, materials, or\n otherwise to any operations conferring such benefits and may require landowners to\n\n\n C1-12\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=367)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 368", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 368\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n enter into and perform such agreements or covenants as to the permanent use of such\n lands as will tend to prevent or control erosion thereon;\n n. To borrow money for the purchase of equipment, either with or without security;\n o. No provision with respect to the acquisition, operations, or disposition of property by\n other public bodies shall be applicable to a district organized hereunder unless the\n Legislature shall specifically so state.\n\n\n L 1937, c. 139, §601, p. 331, amended by L 1957, c. 48, §1, p. 90;\n L 1960, c. 20, §1, p. 79; L 1966, c. 77, §6, eff. June 14, 1966;\n L 1989, c. 151, §7.\n\n\n\n4:24-22.1 Site plan for leaf composting facility; contents; certification; annual inspections\n\n\n a. Every Soil Conservation District shall develop a site plan for each proposed leaf\n composting facility to be located on agricultural or horticultural land, or on lands owned\n or operated by a recognized academic institution, within the district. The site plan shall\n include such information as may be prescribed by the Department of Environmental\n Protection and shall be certified in a manner as may be prescribed by the department.\n b. Every Soil Conservation District shall conduct an annual inspection of each operational\n leaf composting facility located on agricultural or horticultural land, or on lands owned\n or operated by a recognized academic institution, within the district and authorized by\n the department in order to certify to the department that the facility is operated and\n maintained in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by the department\n therefore and the site plan developed by the district, and in conformance with\n recommended agricultural management practices.\n L 1898, c. 151, §7, eff. August 9, 1989.\n\n\n\n\n\n C1-13\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=368)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 369", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 369\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n4:24-22.2 Leaf composting facility located on agricultural or horticultural land or on lands of\nacademic institution; method of operation\n\n\n Each leaf composting facility located on agricultural or horticultural land, or on lands owned\nor operated by a recognized academic institution, shall operate in accordance with the\nconditions specified in the program of agricultural management practices developed by the New\nJersey Cooperative Extension Service of Rutgers, The State University, and approved by the\ndepartment.\n\n\n L 1989, c. 151 §8, eff. August 9, 1989.\n(Editorial Note: In Sections 22.1 and 22.2 the word department means the New Jersey\nDepartment of Environmental Protection)\n\n\n ARTICLE 7. ADOPTION OF LAND-USE REGULATIONS\n\n\n4:24-23. Supervisors to formulated regulations; public hearings; submission to state\ncommittee; objections by landowners\n\n\n The supervisors of any district shall have the authority to formulate regulations governing\nthe use of lands within the district in the interest of conserving soil and soil resources and\npreventing and controlling soil erosion. The supervisors shall conduct such public meetings and\npublic hearings upon tentative regulations as may be necessary to assist them in this work. After\nsuch hearings the supervisors shall draft such land-use regulations as seem to them necessary to\ncarry out the provisions of this chapter. These regulations shall then be submitted to the State\nSoil Conservation Committee which may within thirty days suggest amendments thereto for\nconsideration by the supervisors. Thereinafter the supervisors shall give due notice of the\nregulations by publication and by posting. Any landowner may, for a period of sixty days\nthereafter, file with the supervisors his objections to the adoption of said regulations, said\nobjections shall be made upon a form to be furnished by the supervisors. If objections are filed\nby owners of at least twenty-five percent of the acreage of the district, the supervisors shall not\nhave the authority to enact said regulations, otherwise the supervisors shall thereupon take\nsuch affirmative action as may be necessary to make such land-use regulations effective. Land-\n\n C1-14\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=369)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 370", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 370\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nuse regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this article shall be binding on all\nlandowners within such district.\n L 1937, c. 139, §701, p. 333\n\n\n\n\n\n4:24-24. Amendment, etc., of regulations\n\n\n Any owner of land within such district may at any time file a petition with the supervisors\nasking that any or all of the land-use regulations adopted by the supervisors under the\nprovisions of this article shall be amended, supplemented, or repealed. Land-use regulations\nadopted pursuant to the provisions of this article shall not be amended, supplemented, or\nrepealed except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this article for adoption of land-\nuse regulations.\n L 1937, c. 139, §702, p. 334.\n\n\n4:24-25. Provisions which may be included into regulations\n\n\n Regulations to be adopted by the supervisors under the provisions of this article may\ninclude:\n\n\n a. Provisions requiring the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, dikes,\n ponds, ditches, and other necessary structures:\n b. Provisions requiring observance of particular methods of cultivation including contour\n cultivating, contour furrowing, lister furrowing, sowing, planting, strip cropping,\n seeding, and planting of lands to water-conserving and erosion-preventing plants, trees\n and grasses, forestation and reforestation;\n c. Specifications of cropping programs and tillage practices to be observed;\n d. Provisions limiting the cultivation of highly erosive areas or of areas on which erosion\n may not be adequately controlled if cultivation is carried on;\n e. Provisions for such other means, measures, operations and programs as may assist\n conservation of soil resources and prevent or control soil erosion in the district.\n\n C1-15\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=370)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 371", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 371\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n L 1937, c. 139, §704, p. 335.\n\n\n4:24-26. Regulations to be uniform; printing of copies\n\n\n The regulations shall be uniform throughout the territory comprised within the district\nexcept that the supervisors may classify the lands within the district with reference to such\nfactors as soil type, degree of slope, degree of erosion threatened or existing, cropping and\ntillage practices in use, and other relevant factors, and may provide regulations varying with the\ntype or class of land affected, but uniform as to all lands within each class or type. Copies of\nland-use regulations adopted under the provisions of this article shall be printed and made\navailable to all owners and occupiers of lands lying within the district.\n L 1937, c. 139, §704, p. 335.\n\n\n ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF LAND-USE REGULATIONS\n\n\n\n4:24-27. Authority of supervisors; suit for damages by landowner for violations\n\n\n The supervisor shall have authority to go upon any lands within the district to determine\nwhether land-use regulations adopted under the provisions of article seven of this chapter\n(§4:24-23 et seq) are being observed. Any landowner who shall sustain damages from any\nviolation of such regulations by any other landowner may sue to recover damages in a civil\naction from such other landowner for such violation.\n L 1937, c. 139, §801, p. 335, amended by L 1953, c. 5, §100, p. 56.\n\n\n ARTICLE 9. PERFORMANCE OF WORK UNDER REGULATIONS BY SUPERVISORS\n\n\n4:24-28. Nonobservance of land-use regulations; action\n\n\n Where the supervisors of any district shall find that any of the provisions of land-use\nregulations adopted in accordance with the provisions of article seven of this chapter (§4:24-23\net seq.) are not being observed on particular lands, and that such nonobservance tends to\n\n C1-16\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=371)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 372", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 372\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nincrease erosion on such lands and is interfering with the prevention or control of erosion on\nother lands within the district, the supervisors may bring an action in the Superior Court and the\nsaid court therein may grant appropriate relief.\n L 1937, c. 139, §901, p. 335, amended by L 1953, c. 5, §101, p. 56.\n\n\n4:24-29. Repealed by L 1953, c. 5, §102, p. 56.\n\n\n ARTICLE 10. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT\n\n\n4:24-30. Members; appointment, term, removal, etc., expenses\n\n\n Where the supervisors of any district organized under the provisions of this chapter shall\nadopt land-use regulations in accordance with the provisions of article 7 of this chapter (§4:24-\n23 et seq.), they shall further provide for the establishment of a board of adjustment. Such\nboard of adjustment shall consist of three members, each to be appointed for a term of three\nyears, except that the members first appointed shall be appointed for terms of one, two and\nthree years, respectively. The members of each such board of adjustment shall be appointed by\nthe State Soil Conservation Committee, with the advice of the supervisors of the district for\nwhich such board has been established, and shall be removable, upon notice and hearing, for\nneglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other reason, such hearing to be conducted\nby the State Soil Conservation Committee. Vacancies in the board of adjustment shall be filled in\nthe same manner as original appointments, and shall be for the unexpired term. Members of\nthe State Soil Conservation Committee and the supervisors of the district shall be ineligible to\nappointment as members of the board of adjustment during their tenure of such other office.\nThe members of the board of adjustment shall receive no compensation for their services, but\nthey shall be entitled to expenses, necessarily incurred in the discharge of their duties. The\nsupervisors shall pay the necessary administrative and other expenses incurred by the board,\nupon the certificate of the chairman of the board.\n L 1937, c. 139, §1001, p. 337.\n\n\n\n\n\n C1-17\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=372)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 373", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 373\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n4:24-31. Rules by board; organization; meetings; oaths and witnesses; records\n\n\n The board of adjustment shall adopt rules to govern its procedures, which rules shall be in\naccordance with the provisions of this chapter. The board shall designate a chairman from\namong its members, and may, from time to time, change such designation.\n\n\n4:24-32. Petition by landowner to board for variance in land-use regulations; procedure\n\n\n Any landowner may file a petition with the board of adjustment alleging that there are great\npractical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of his carrying out upon his lands the\nstrict letter of the land-use regulations approved by the supervisors, and praying the board to\nauthorize a variance from the terms of the land-use regulations in the application of such\nregulations to the lands of the petitioner. Copies of such petition shall be served by the\npetitioner upon the chairman of the supervisors of the district within which his lands are located\nand upon the chairman of the State Soil Conservation Committee. The board of adjustment shall\nfix a time for the hearing of the petition and cause due notice to be given. The supervisors of the\ndistrict and the State Soil Conservation Committee shall have the right to appear and be heard\nat such hearing. Any owner of lands lying within the district who shall object to the authorizing\nof the variance prayed for may intervene and become a party to the proceedings. Any party to\nthe hearing before the board may appear in person, by agent, or by attorney. If, upon the facts\npresented at such hearing, the board shall determine that there are great practical difficulties or\nunnecessary hardship in the way of applying the strict letter of any of the land-use regulations,\nin their application to the lands of the petitioner, as will relieve such great practical difficulties or\nunnecessary hardship and will not be contrary to the public interest, and such that the spirit of\nthe land-use regulations shall be observed, the public health, safety, or welfare secured, and\nsubstantial justice done.\n L 1937, c. 139, §1003, p. 338.\n\n\n\n\n\n C1-18\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=373)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 374", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 374\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n4:24-33. Review of order of board\n\n\n Any petitioner aggrieved by an order of the board granting or denying, in whole or in part,\nthe relief sought of the supervisors of the district, or any intervening party, shall be entitled to a\nreview of such order in the Superior Court by a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ.\n L 1937, c. 139, §1004, p. 339, amended by L 1953, c. 5, §103, p. 56.\n\n\n\n\n ARTICLE 11. COOPERATION WITH STATE AGENCIES\n\n\n4:24-34. Duty of state agencies, counties, etc., to cooperate\n\n\n It shall be the duty of all agencies of this state which shall have jurisdiction over, or be\ncharged with the administration of, any state-owned lands, and of any county, or other\ngovernmental subdivision of the state, which shall have jurisdiction over, or be charged with the\nadministration of, any county-owned or other publicly owned lands, lying within the boundaries\nof any district organized hereunder, to cooperate to the fullest extent compatible with the\npurposed for which such lands are held.\n L 1937, c. 139, §1101, p. 339.\n\n\n\n\n ARTICLE 12. DISCONTINUANCE OF DISTRICTS\n\n\n4:24-35 THROUGH 4:24-38 Repealed by L 1977, c. 264, §4.\n\n\n\n\n\n C1-19\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=374)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 375", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 375\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n ARTICLE 13. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL\n\n\n4:24-39. Short title\n\n\n This act may be cited and referred to as the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act.”\n L 1975, c. 251, §1, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-40. Legislative findings\n\n\n The Legislature finds that sediment is a source of pollution and that soil erosion continues to\nbe a serious problem throughout the State, and that rapid shifts in land use from agricultural\nand rural to nonagricultural and urbanizing uses, construction of housing, industrial and\ncommercial developments, and other land disturbing activities have accelerated the process of\nsoil erosion and sediment deposition resulting in pollution of the waters of the State and\ndamage to domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other resource\nuses. It is, therefore, declared to be the policy of the State to strengthen and extend the present\nerosion and sediment control activities and programs of this State for both rural and urban\nlands, and to establish and implement, through the State Soil Conservation Committee and the\nSoil Conservation Districts, in cooperation with the counties, the municipalities and the\nDepartment of Environmental Protection, a Statewide comprehensive and coordinated erosion\nand sediment control program to reduce the danger from storm water runoff, to retard\nnonpoint pollution from sediment and to conserve and protect the land, water, air, and other\nenvironmental resources of the State.\n L 1975, c. 251, §2, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-41. Definitions\n\n\n a. “Application for development: means a proposed subdivision of land, site plan,\n conditional use zoning variance, planned unit development or construction permit.\n b. “Certification” means (1) a written endorsement of a plan for soil erosion and sediment\n control by the local Soil Conservation District which indicates that the plan meets the\n standards promulgated by the State Soil Conservation Committee pursuant to this act;\n\n C1-20\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=375)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 376", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 376\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n (2) that the time allotted in section 7 of this act (§4:24-45) has expired without action by\n the district; (3) a written endorsement of a plan filed by the State Department of\n Transportation with the district.\n c. “District” means a Soil Conservation District organized pursuant to chapter 24 of Title 4\n of the Revised Statutes (§4:24-39 et seq.)\n d. “Disturbance” means any activity involving the clearing, excavation, storing, grading,\n filling or transporting of soil or any other activity which causes soil to be exposed to the\n danger of erosion.\n e. “Erosion” means the detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water,\n wind, ice and gravity.\n f. “Plan” means a scheme which indicates land treatment measures, including a schedule\n of the time for their installation, to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.\n g. “Project” means any disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet of the surface area of\n land (1) for the accommodation of construction for which the State Uniform\n Construction Code would require a construction permit, except that the construction of\n a single-family dwelling unit shall not be deemed a ‘project’ under this act unless such\n unit is part of a proposed subdivision, site plan, conditional use, zoning variance,\n planned development or construction permit application involving two or more such\n single-family dwelling units; (2) for the demolition of one or more structures; (3) for the\n construction of a parking lot; (4) for the construction of a public facility; (5) for the\n operation of any mining or quarrying activity; or (6) for the clearing or grading of any\n land for other than agricultural or horticultural purposes.\n h. “Sediment” means solid material, mineral or organic, that is in suspension, is being\n transported, or has been moved from its site or origin by air, water or gravity as a\n product of erosion.\n i. “Soil” means all unconsolidated mineral and organic material of any origin.\n j. “Standards” means the standards promulgated by the committee pursuant to this act.\n k. “Committee” means the State Soil Conservation Committee in the Department of\n Agriculture established pursuant to R.S. 4:24-3.\n l. “Public facility” means any building; pipeline; highway; electricity, telephone or other\n transmission line; or any other structure to be constructed by a public utility,\n municipality, county or the State or any agency or instrumentality thereof.\n\n C1-21\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=376)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 377", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 377\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nL 1975, c. 251, §3, eff. January 1, 1976, amended by L 1977, c. 264, §2, eff. October 18, 1977,\nL1979, c. 459, §1, eff. February 27, 1980.\n\n\n4:24-42. Standards for control of soil erosion and sedimentation; promulgation, amendment\nand repeal\n\n\n The committee shall have the power, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture\nand the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, to formulate, promulgate, amend and\nrepeal standards for the control of soil erosion and sedimentation, pursuant to the\nAdministrative Procedures Act, P.L. 1968, c. 410 (C. 52:14B-1 et seq.)\n\n\n a. Such standards shall be based upon relevant physical and developmental information\n concerning the watersheds and topography of the State, including, but not limited to,\n data relating to land use, soil, slope, hydrology, geology, size of land area being\n disturbed, proximate water bodies and their characteristics.\n b. Such standards shall include criteria, techniques and methods for the control of\n erosion and sedimentation resulting from land disturbing activities for various\n categories of soils, slopes, and land uses.\n c. Such standards shall include standards of administrative procedure for the\n implementation of this act.\nL 1975, c. 251, §4, eff. November 12, 1975, amended by L 1979, c. 459, §2, eff. February 27,\n1980.\n\n\n4:24-43. Certification of plan by district; development of projects\n\n\n Approval of an application for development for any project by the State, any county,\nmunicipality, or any instrumentality thereof shall be conditioned upon certification by the local\ndistrict of a plan for soil erosion and sediment control. Any person proposing to engage in any\nproject not requiring approval by the State, any county, municipality, or any instrumentality\nthereof shall, prior to commencing such project, receive certification by the local district of a\nplan for soil erosion and sediment control. Any public utility, municipality, county or the State or\nany agency or instrumentality thereof, other than the State Department of Transportation ,\n\n C1-22\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=377)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 378", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 378\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nwhich proposes a project shall, prior to the construction of such project submit to and receive\ncertification by the district of a plan for soil erosion and sediment control. The State Department\nof Transportation shall certify a plan for any project that it proposes to construct and shall file\nsuch certification with the district. Certification by the Department of Transportation shall be\npursuant to soil erosion control standards developed jointly by the Department of\nTransportation, the Department of Environmental Protection and the committee and\npromulgated by the Department of Transportation.\nL 1975, c. 251, §5, eff. January 1, 1976, amended by L 1979, c. 459, §3, eff. February 27, 1980.\n\n\n4:24-44. Certification of plan; criteria; notice\n\n\n The district shall certify such plan if it meets the standards promulgated by the committee\npursuant to this act. The district shall provide written notice to the applicant indicating that:\n a. the plan was certified;\n b. the plan was certified subject to the attached conditions; or\n c. the plan was denied certification with the reasons for denial stated.\n L 1975, c. 251, §6, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-45. Limitation on time for grant or denial of certification\n\n\n The district shall grant or deny certification within a period of 30 days of submission of a\ncomplete application unless, by mutual agreement in writing between the district and the\napplicant, the period of 30 days shall be extended for and additional period of 30 days. Failure of\nthe district to grant or deny certification within such period or such extension thereof shall\nconstitute certification. For purposes of this section, a major revision of the plan by the\napplicant shall constitute a new submission.\n\n\n L 1975, c. 251, §7, eff. January 1, 1980.\n\n\n\n\n\n C1-23\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=378)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 379", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 379\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n4:24-46. Fees\n\n\n The district shall adopt a fee schedule and collect fees from applicants for the certification of\nplans and for on-site inspections of the execution of certified plans. Such fees shall bear a\nreasonable relationship to the cost of rendering such services.\n\n\n L 1975, c. 251, §7, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-47. Stop-construction order; failure to comply with certified plan\n\n\n The district or the municipality may issue a stop-construction order if a project is not being\nexecuted in accordance with a certified plan.\n\n\n L 1975, c. 251, §9, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-48. Exempt municipalities\n\n\n Any municipality, which adopts an ordinance that conforms to the standards promulgated\npursuant to this act within 12 months of their promulgation and obtains the approval of the\ncommittee thereto, shall be exempt from sections 5 through 9 of this act (§4:24-43 to 4:24-47),\nuntil such time as the local district determines that the municipality is not enforcing said\nordinance.\n L 1975,c. 251, §10, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-49. Certificate of occupancy for project; conditions for issuance\n\n\n No certificate of occupancy for a project shall be issued by a municipality or any other public\nagency unless there has been compliance with the provisions of a certified plan for permanent\nmeasures to control soil erosion and sedimentation.\n L 1975, c. 251, §11, eff. January 1, 1976, amended by L\n1979, c. 459, §10, eff. February 27, 1980.\n\n\n C1-24\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=379)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 380", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 380\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n4:24-50. County planning board as agent for district\n\n\n In those counties where the district does not maintain its central office, the board of\nfreeholders may, by resolution, direct the county planning board to act as an agent of the\ndistrict within that county and to administer the powers granted to the district pursuant to this\nact, until such time as a district is established within that county. The committee shall establish\nguidelines to implement this section.\n L 1975,c. 251, §12, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-51. Cooperation with and authorization to receive financial aid from governmental units\nor private sources\n\n\n The districts and the committee are authorized to cooperate and enter into agreements\nwith any Federal, State or local agency to carry out the purposes of this act. The districts and the\ncommittee are authorized to receive financial assistance from any Federal, State, county or\nother public or private source for use in carrying out the purposes of this act.\n L 1975,c. 251, §13, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-52. State aid\n\n\n The committee is authorized to make grants of State aid to districts and to municipalities to\ncarry out the purposes of this act.\n L 1975,c. 251, §14, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-53. Violations, injunction; penalty; enforcement\n\n\n If any person violates any of the provisions of this act, any standard promulgated pursuant\nto the provisions of this act, or fails to comply with the provisions of a certified plan, the\nmunicipality or the district may institute a civil action in the Superior Court for injunctive relief\nto prohibit and prevent such violation or violations and said court may proceed in a summary\nmanner. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act, any standard promulgated\n\n C1-25\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=380)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 381", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 381\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\npursuant to this act or fails to comply with the provisions of a certified plan shall be liable to a\npenalty of not less than $25 nor more than $3,000 to be collected in a summary proceeding\npursuant to the Penalty Enforcement Law (N.J.S. 2A:58-1 et seq.). The Superior Court, County\nCourt, county district court and municipal court shall have jurisdiction to enforce said Penalty\nEnforcement Law. If the violation is of a continuing nature, each day during which continues\nshall constitute an additional separate and distinct offense.\n L 1975,c. 251, §15, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-54. Liberal construction\n\n\n This act shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose and intent thereof.\n L 1975,c. 251, §16, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n4:24-55. Severability\n\n\n If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held\ninvalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to persons or\ncircumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.\n L 1975,c. 251, §17, eff. January 1, 1976.\n\n\n\n\n\n C1-26\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=381)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 382", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 382\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n CHAPTER 113\n AN ACT concerning soil restoration measures and amending and supplementing P.L.1975,\n c.251.\nBE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:\n1. Section 3 of P.L.1975, c.251 (C.4:24-41) is amended to read as follows:\nC.4:24-41 Definitions.\n3. For the purposes of this act, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning:\na. \"Application for development\" means a proposed subdivision of land, site plan,\nconditional use zoning variance, planned unit development or construction permit.\nb. \"Certification\" means (1) a written endorsement of a plan for soil erosion and\nsediment control by the local Soil Conservation District which indicates that the plan meets\nthe standards promulgated by the State Soil Conservation Committee pursuant to this act, (2)\nthat the time allotted in section 7 of this act has expired without action by the district or (3) a\nwritten endorsement of a plan filed by the State Department of Transportation with the\ndistrict.\nc. \"District\" means a Soil Conservation District organized pursuant to chapter 24 of\nTitle 4 of the Revised Statutes.\nd. \"Disturbance\" means any activity involving the clearing, excavating, storing, grading,\nfilling or transporting of soil or any other activity which causes soil to be exposed to the\ndanger of erosion, or compaction of soil which degrades soil so as to make it less conducive\nto vegetative stabilization.\ne. \"Erosion\" means the detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water,\nwind, ice and gravity.\nf. \"Plan\" means a scheme which indicates land treatment measures, including a schedule\nof the timing for their installation, to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation, and which\nspecifies the soil restoration measures, consistent with the standards established by the\ncommittee pursuant to section 2 of P.L.2010, c.113 (C.4:24-42.1).\ng. \"Project\" means any disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet of the surface area of\nland (1) for the accommodation of construction for which the State Uniform Construction\nCode would require a construction permit, except that the construction of a single-family\ndwelling unit shall not be deemed a \"project\" under this act unless such unit is part of a\n\n C1-27\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=382)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 383", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 383\n\nStandards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nproposed subdivision, site plan, conditional use, zoning variance, planned development or\nconstruction permit application involving two or more such single-family dwelling units, (2)\nfor the demolition of one or more structures, (3) for the construction of a parking lot, (4) for\nthe construction of a public facility, (5) for the operation of any mining or quarrying activity,\nor (6) for the clearing or grading of any land for other than agricultural or horticultural\npurposes.\nh. \"Sediment\" means solid material, mineral or organic, that is in suspension, is being\ntransported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water or gravity as a product of\nerosion.\ni. \"Soil\" means all unconsolidated mineral and organic material of any origin.\nj. \"Standards\" means the standards promulgated by the committee pursuant to this act.\nk. \"Committee\" means the State Soil Conservation Committee in the Department of\nAgriculture established pursuant to R.S.4:24-3.\nP.L.2010, CHAPTER 113\n2\nl. \"Public facility\" means any building; pipeline; highway; electricity, telephone or\nother transmission line; or any other structure to be constructed by a public utility,\nmunicipality, county or the State or any agency or instrumentality thereof.\nm. “Soil restoration measures” means those measures taken to ensure, to the maximum\nextent possible, cost-effective restoration of the optimal physical, chemical, and biological\nfunctions for specific soil types and the intended land use.\nC.4:24-42.1 Adoption of standards.\n2. The committee shall, within one year after the date of enactment of P.L.2010, c.113\n(C.4:24-42.1 et al.), and in consultation with the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station\nat Rutgers, the State University, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of\nEnvironmental Protection, adopt standards pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure Act,”\nP.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), which shall modify the existing soil erosion and\nsediment control standards to include soil restoration measures.\n3. This act shall take effect on the first day of the 13th month after the date of\nenactment.\n Approved January 5, 2011.\n\n\n C1-28\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=383)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 384", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 384\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n\nAGRICULTURE\nSTATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE\nSoil Erosion and Sediment Control Act Rules\nAdopted Rules: N.J.A.C. 2:90-1\nEffective Date: February 20, 2014\nExpiration Date: December 8, 2017\n\nSUBCHAPTER 1. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ON LAND DISTURBANCE\n ACTIVITIES\n2:90-1.1 Purpose and scope\n\n (a) The rules in this subchapter are to implement P.L. 1975, c.251, N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.\n (hereinafter referred to as “the act”), to secure timely decisions by the soil conservation\n districts on application for development as defined therein, to assure adequate public notice\n of procedures thereunder to provide for inspection, compliance and enforcement and to\n continue effective administration of the law. The rules in this subchapter clarify the long\n standing provisions of the act prescribing the authorities, roles and responsibilities related to\n implementation of the act for the State Soil Conservation Committee and soil conservation\n districts. Such authorities, roles and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the\n following:\n\n 1. For the State Soil Conservation Committee:\n i. Develop and promulgate rules and technical and administrative\n standards;\n ii. Provide program oversight and training, on its own motion or upon\n request;\n iii. Conduct appeals from district decisions;\n iv. Conduct investigations;\n v. Provide technical assistance;\n vi. Institute policies and procedures and guidance;\n vii. Conduct studies;\n viii. Provide State aid to districts;\n ix. Approve district fee schedules;\n x. Discontinue municipal ordinances addressing soil erosion and sediment\n control;\n xi. Provide program related interpretative assistance; and\n xii. Enter into agreements with public agencies; and\n\n 2. For soil conservation districts:\n i. Make determinations and apply the requirements or grant exemption from\n the act;\n ii. Review and certify or deny certification of plans;\n ii. Perform inspections and take enforcement actions, including violation\n notices, stop construction orders and seek court remedies or fines for\n violations;\n C2-1\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=384)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 385", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 385\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n iv. Issue or withhold reports of compliance, conditional reports of compliance, or\n final reports of compliance;\n v. Coordinate with municipalities, counties, State and Federal agencies and\n instrumentalities thereof;\n vi. Conduct appeals from aggrieved parties;\n vii. Adopt or modify a fee schedule and assess fees;\n viii. Monitor the performance of municipalities implementing erosion control\n ordinances and recommend discontinuance of municipal ordinances when\n such performance is unsatisfactory; and\n ix. Enter into agreements with public agencies.\n\n2:90-1.2 Definitions\n\n All definitions in P.L. 1975, c. 251 are incorporated into the rules of this subchapter. The\nfollowing words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the\ncontext clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n“Act” means the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975, N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.\n“Appeal” means a request for a review of district action.\n“Agriculture and horticulture” means the utilization of land for the production of food, fiber, animals\nand related activities customary to agricultural and horticultural production and operations.\n“Certified plan” means a plan and any revisions thereto reviewed and approved by the district or\nexempt municipality as conforming to the standards promulgated by the Committee.\n“Committee” means the State Soil Conservation Committee.\n“Complete application” means an application and all required items as set forth in N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.4\nfor soil erosion and sediment control plan certification and that are administratively and technically\nsufficient for district or exempt municipality certification.\n“Conservation plan” means a site specific plan which prescribes needed land treatment and related\nconservation and natural resource management measures deemed by the district to be practical and\nreasonable for the conservation and protection of agricultural or horticultural productivity and the\ncontrol and prevention of nonpoint source pollution. Such plan is designed in accordance with the\nUnited States Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2005 Field Office Technical Guide, incorporated\nherein by reference, as amended and supplemented. To obtain a copy of the Field Office Technical\nGuide, see N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.8(b).\n“Demolition” means the demolition of one or more structures including the disturbance of all land area\nnecessary to accomplish the work.\n“Exempt municipality” means any municipality that has secured soil erosion and sediment control\nordinance approval for implementing N.J.S.A. 4:24-43 through 47 from the Committee prior to May 31,\n1978.\n“Hearing body” means the State Soil Conservation Committee.\n“Major revision” means modifications to the soil erosion and sediment control plan which require the\ndistrict to reevaluate the adequacy of erosion controls for the project and compare the plan to the\nstandards.\n“Minor revision” means modifications which require minimal examination of the submittal and do not\nimpact the integrity of the previously certified soil erosion control measures as determined by the\ndistrict.\n“Sequence of construction” or “sequence” means a site specific chronology of proposed erosion\n C2-2\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=385)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 386", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 386\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\ncontrol plan components including temporary and permanent soil erosion and sediment control\nmeasures, integrated with site development related land disturbances that minimizes erosion and\nsedimentation.\n“Withdrawn plan” means a plan for soil erosion and sediment control which the applicant or their\nagent has rescinded from further action by the district.\n\n2:90-1.3 Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control\n\n (a) The State Soil Conservation Committee adopts and hereby incorporates into the rules of this\n subchapter by reference as standards for soil erosion and sediment control those standards\n published in the \"Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey\" and\n identified as revised on July 11, 2011 as the technical basis for local soil conservation district\n certification of soil erosion and sediment control plans. Specifically, these standards include\n the following:\n\n 1. Vegetative Standards:\n Acid Soil Management…………………………………………...1-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Dune Stabilization……………………………………………..…2-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Maintaining Vegetation ………………………………………….3-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Permanent Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization…………..…..4-1\n Revised April 8, 2013\n Stabilization with Mulch Only………………………………..…..5-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Stabilization with Sod……………………………………….……6-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Temporary Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization…………..…..7-1\n Revised April 8, 2013\n Topsoiling………………………………………………….……...8-1\n Revised April 12, 1999\n Tree Protection During Construction…………………………..…9-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Trees, Shrubs and Vines………………………………………....10-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n\n 2. Engineering Standards\n Channel Stabilization…………………………………….……...11-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Conduit Outlet Protection…………………………………..…...12-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Detention Structures……………………………………….……13-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Dewatering………………………………………………………14-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Diversions……………………………………………………….15-1\n C2-3\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=386)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 387", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 387\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Dust Control……………………………………………..………16-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Grade Stabilization Structure…………………………..….…….17-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Grassed Waterway………………………………………...……18-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Land Grading…………………………………………...………19-1\n Revised April 12, 1999\n Lined Waterway……………………………………...…………20-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Offsite Stability Analysis……………………………………….21-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Riprap……………………………………………...……………22-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Sediment Barrier…………………………………..……………23-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Sediment Basin…………………………………….…………...24-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Slope Protection Structures…………………………………….25-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Soil Bioengineering …………………………....………………26-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Stabilized Construction Access…………….…….…………….27-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Storm Sewer Inlet Protection……………………….………….28-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Stream Crossing……………………………………….……….29-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Subsurface Drainage………………………………….………..30-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Traffic Control……………………………………….………...31-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n Turbidity Barrier……………………………………….………32-1\n Revised July 11, 2011\n\n 3. Copies of the Standards may be obtained by contacting the State Soil Conservation\n Committee at 609-292-5540, www.state.nj.us/agriculture, or any of the soil\n conservation districts as follows:\n\n i. Bergen County Soil Conservation District;\n ii. Burlington County Soil Conservation District;\n iii. Camden County Soil Conservation District;\n iv. Cape-Atlantic Soil Conservation District;\n v. Cumberland-Salem Soil Conservation District (Cumberland and Salem\n Counties);\n vi. Freehold Soil Conservation District;\n C2-4\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=387)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 388", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 388\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n vii. Gloucester County Soil Conservation District;\n viii. Hudson, Essex and Passaic Soil Conservation District;\n ix. Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District;\n x. Mercer County Soil Conservation District;\n xi. Morris County Soil Conservation District;\n xii. Ocean County Soil Conservation District;\n xiii. Somerset-Union Soil Conservation District;\n xiv. Sussex County Soil Conservation District; and\n xv. Warren County Soil Conservation District.\n\n (b) Where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated by the applicant that unique or innovative\n control measures or procedures not specified in this chapter may be applicable to specific\n sites, such measures may be proposed for consideration and utilized subject to approval\n by the soil conservation district and the State Soil Conservation Committee. To secure\n such approval, a written request shall be sent to the soil conservation district and State\n Soil Conservation Committee describing the unique or innovative control measure or\n procedure and its proposed function or use on the project. Such approval may be granted\n only where it is determined that strict application of the standards are herein specified\n will not result in the most practical and effective control of soil erosion, sedimentation\n and stormwater damage.\n\n (c) The location, address, and telephone and number of the local soil conservation district\n may be obtained from the State Soil Conservation Committee, PO Box 330, Trenton,\n New Jersey 08625-0330. 609-292-5540.\n\n2:90-1.4 Application\n\n (a) Application for soil erosion and sediment control plan certification shall be made to the\n local district utilizing standard application forms adopted by the Committee. Such\n application shall indicate the information required to make a decision on certification of\n plans. Application forms are available at locations listed at N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.3.\n\n (b) Applications for certifications of soil erosion and sediment control plans shall include\n the following items:\n\n 1. One copy of the complete subdivision, site plan or construction permit application,\n including key map as submitted to the municipality (architectural drawings, plans and\n specifications for buildings not required) which includes the following:\n\n i. The location of present and proposed drains and culverts with their discharge\n capacities and velocities and supporting computations and identification of\n conditions below outlets;\n\n ii. A delineation of any area subject to flooding from the 100-year storm in\n compliance with the Flood Hazard Area Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq.,\n or applicable municipal zoning;\n\n C2-5\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=388)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 389", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 389\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n iii. A delineation of streams and wetlands pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq. and\n 13:9B-1 et seq., and other significant natural features within the project area;\n\n iv. The soils and other natural resource information used (delineation of the project\n site on soil map is desirable);\n\n v. The land cover and use of area adjacent to the land disturbance; and\n\n vi. All hydraulic and hydrologic data describing existing and proposed watershed\n conditions and a completed copy of the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data Base\n Summary Form SSCC 251 HDF1. Where computer simulation models (such as\n HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, TR-55, or other similar models) are used to analyze or\n predict hydrologic or stream flow responses to project development, a copy of\n such input files shall be submitted to the district. The Data Base Summary Forms\n and information regarding these computer programs are available at the locations\n listed at N.J.A.C. 2:90 1.3;\n\n 2. Up to four copies of the soil erosion and sediment control plan at the same scale as the\n site plan submitted to the municipality nor other land use approval agency which\n includes the following information detailed at the plat:\n\n i. The proposed sequence of development including duration of each phase in\n the sequence;\n\n ii. A site grading plan delineating land areas to be disturbed including proposed\n cut and fill areas together with existing and proposed profiles of these areas;\n\n iii. Contours at a two foot interval, showing present and proposed ground\n elevation;\n\n iv. The locations of all streams and existing and proposed drains and culverts;\n\n v. A stability analysis below all points of stormwater discharge which\n demonstrates that a stable condition will exist or there will be no degradation\n of the existing condition;\n\n vi. The location and detail of all proposed erosion and sediment control structures\n including profiles, cross sections, appropriate notes, and supporting\n computations;\n\n vii. The location and detail of all proposed nonstructural methods of soil\n stabilization including types and rates of lime, fertilizer, seed and mulch to be\n applied;\n\n viii. Erosion control measures for non-growing season stabilization of exposed\n areas where the establishment of vegetation is planned as the final control\n measure;\n C2-6\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=389)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 390", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 390\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n ix. For residential development, erosion control measures which apply to\n dwelling construction on individual lots with notation on the final plat that\n requirement for installation of such control measures shall apply to subsequent\n owners if title is conveyed; and\n\n x. Plans for maintenance of permanent soil erosion and sediment control\n measures and facilities during and after construction, which include the\n designation of persons or entity responsible for such maintenance;\n\n 3. An Ownership Disclosure Affidavit Form to determine potential conflicts of interest\n between the applicant and soil conservation district supervisor or staff.\n\n i. A corporation must indicate its registered agent and officers.\n\n ii. A corporation, partnership, or limited liability corporation (LLC) shall list the\n names and addresses of all stockholders or individual partners owning at least 10\n percent of its stock of any class, or at least 10 percent of the interest in the\n partnership.\n\n iii. Any transfer of ownership of more than 10 percent must be disclosed to the\n district;\n\n 4. Appropriate fees as adopted by the individual district and approved by the Committee\n (see N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.12); and\n\n 5. Additional information as may be required by the district depending upon the scope,\n topography and complexity of the project.\n\n (c) The applicant shall certify and agree that the applicant shall:\n\n 1. Certify that all soil erosion and sediment control measures are designed in\n accordance with current Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in\n New Jersey as promulgated by the Committee and found at N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.3\n and will be installed in accordance with the plan as approved by the district;\n\n 2. Acknowledge that structural measures contained in the soil erosion and\n sediment control plan are reviewed for adequacy to reduce offsite soil erosion\n and sedimentation and not for adequacy of structural design;\n\n 3. Retain full responsibility for any damages which may result from any\n construction activity notwithstanding district certification of the soil erosion\n and sediment control plan;\n\n 4. Require that all engineering related items of the soil erosion and sediment\n control plan be prepared by or under the direction of and be sealed by a\n professional engineer or architect licensed in the State of New Jersey in\n C2-7\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=390)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 391", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 391\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n accordance with N.J.A.C. 13:27-6;\n\n 5. Assure that any conveyance of the project or portion thereof is conditioned\n upon transfer of full responsibility for compliance with the certified plan to any\n subsequent owners;\n\n 6. Maintain a copy of the certified plan on the project site during construction;\n\n 7. Allow district agents to go upon project lands for inspection; and\n\n 8. Notify the district in writing at least 48 hours in advance of any land\n disturbance activity and upon completion of the project.\n\n (d) If the person submitting the application is not the project owner, a notarized\n authorization by the owner or authorized corporate officer must be submitted with the\n application. For public agency projects, such authorization shall be made by the principal\n executive officer or elected official of the agency.\n\n (e) All requests for determination that the act does not apply to land disturbance activity shall\n be submitted to the district by the owner or their authorized representative. Non-\n applicability requests shall be in writing and include a plot or site plan depicting all\n proposed areas of disturbance and a resolution from the municipality or other suitable\n documentation indicating the date the lot was created. Hardship exemptions or waivers\n shall not be authorized. The act does not apply to the following activities:\n\n 1. Land disturbance activities 5,000 square feet or less; and\n\n 2. Single-family dwelling lots not regulated under N.J.A.C. 2:90- 1.5.\n\n (f) Any land disturbance activity to which the act was initially determined not to apply but\n which subsequently falls within the definition of project, as defined in N.J.S.A. 4:24-41g,\n shall be subject to the rules of this subchapter.\n\n (g) Any application for development for a project that was approved by the State, any county,\n municipality, or any instrumentality thereof, without the condition that the application for\n development comply with the act pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:24-43 and this subchapter, shall\n not be relieved of the obligation to conform to the act and this subchapter. A successor in\n title shall be subject to this subchapter.\n\n2:90-1.5 Single-family dwelling unit lots\n\n (a) An application for a construction permit for any single-family dwelling unit, on any lot\n that has arisen from a subdivision approved after January 1, 1976 comprising two or\n more contiguous or non-contiguous single-family dwelling lots, the construction of which\n would disturb greater than 5,000 square feet, including associated offsite improvements,\n is subject to the act, and the applicant/owner shall secure certification of a soil erosion\n and sediment control plan. The act shall also apply if any lots in the subdivision are\n C2-8\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=391)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 392", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 392\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n conveyed to separate owners or if construction is by the same or a separate applicant,\n owner, builder or contractor.\n\n (b) The concurrent construction of two or more single-family dwelling units, by the same\n applicant, owner, builder or general contractor on lots that were part of a preexisting\n subdivision approved prior to January 1, 1976, shall be subject to the act and this\n subchapter provided that the proposed cumulative land disturbance, including associated\n offsite improvements, is greater than 5,000 square feet.\n\n2:90-1.6 Mining and quarrying activities\n\n Certification of a soil erosion and sediment control plan shall be required for the operation of all\n mining or quarrying activities regardless of proposed or actual related agricultural or\n horticultural use. Mining or quarrying activities shall include the extraction and removal of soil\n and/or sediment, as defined in N.J.S.A. 4:24-41, from the proposed site.\n\n2:90-1.7 Demolition activities\n\n Any demolition activity of one or more structures and any associated new disturbance activity\n involving more than 5,000 square feet in size including the construction of one single-family\n dwelling or other project shall obtain soil erosion and sediment control plan certification.\n\n2:90-1.8 Clearing or grading of land\n\n (a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) below, a person proposing to engage in or who is\n engaging in clearing or grading of more than 5,000 square feet of land shall be subject to\n the act unless such land disturbance is for agricultural or horticultural purposes. To\n demonstrate to the district that such activity is related to proposed agricultural or\n horticultural activities, the owner shall provide proof that the land is enrolled in a\n farmland preservation program, eligible for farmland assessment, qualifies for right-to-\n farm protections, or possesses a farm conservation plan or forest management plan,\n timber harvest sale contract or other proofs deemed appropriate by the district. Anyone\n seeking to provide a farm conservation plan as proof of agricultural or horticultural use\n must waive confidentiality under the Federal Freedom of Information Act. The district\n shall determine if the proofs demonstrate an agricultural or horticultural activity or is\n subject to the act and this subchapter.\n\n (b) Certification of a soil erosion and sediment control plan shall be required for the\n construction of agricultural structures, involving the disturbance of greater than 5,000\n square feet of land unless the disturbance is incorporated into a farm conservation plan\n approved by the district as conforming to the United States Department of Agriculture,\n June 1, 2005 Field Office Technical Guide, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by\n reference, as amended and supplemented.\n\n 1. Copies of the New Jersey Field Office Technical Guide are available from the NRCS\n Field Offices and the State Office at 220 Davidson Ave., 4th Floor, Somerset, NJ\n 088873.\n C2-9\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=392)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 393", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 393\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n 2. An electronic copy of the New Jersey Field Office Technical Guide is\n available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/.\n\n 3. A copy of this document is on file in the NJDA Office of the Director, Division of\n Agricultural and Natural Resources, Health and Agriculture Building, Market and\n Warren Streets, Trenton, NJ 08625.\n\n (c) Disturbances on agricultural land greater than 5,000 square feet in size other than for\n agricultural or horticultural purposes, may be subject to the act and this subchapter or\n may be incorporated into the farm conservation plan when so determined by the district.\n\n2:90-1.9 Procedure\n\n (a) The district shall carry out the provisions of N.J.S.A. 4:24-43 through 47.\n\n (b) No project shall be undertaken by any person, partnership, corporation, or limited liability\n corporation (LLC) or other private or public agency unless the applicant has submitted to\n the district with local jurisdiction a plan for soil erosion and sediment control for such\n project, and the plan has been certified by the district as conforming to the standards\n promulgated by the New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee. The plan shall\n provide for the control of soil erosion and sedimentation and utilize the standards adopted\n by the Committee.\n\n (c) Approval by a municipality officer or agency for an application for development for any\n project shall be conditioned upon certification by the district for a plan for soil erosion\n and sediment control.\n\n (d) The district shall review all soil erosion and sediment control plans submitted with a\n complete application and provide that the applicant or their agent with a written notice\n indicating that:\n\n 1. The plan was certified;\n 2. The plan was certified subject to the attached conditions; or\n 3. The plan was denied certification with the reasons for the denial stated.\n\n (e) The district shall include in the notice of certification or on the certified plan the\n following clause: \"This certification is limited to the controls specified in this plan. It is\n not authorization to engage in the proposed land use unless such use has been previously\n approved by the municipality, county, State agency or other controlling agency.\"\n\n (f) The district shall furnish the municipal planning board, municipal construction official,\n and municipal engineer, or other responsible official or entity in the case of a county,\n State or other agency, a copy of the certification or denial including all conditions and\n statements.\n\n (g) The district shall grant or deny certification within 30 days from submission of a\n C2-10\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=393)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 394", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 394\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n complete application. The district may be granted an additional 30-day review period\n through mutual written agreement with the applicant. Failure of the district to grant or\n deny certification within such period or such extension thereof shall constitute\n certification. When the applicant fails to respond to two or more written requests by the\n district for additional information, the application may be denied. If the district denies an\n application for soil erosion and sediment control plan certification, the applicant may\n resubmit the plan at any future time for review and certification.\n\n (h) The applicant may withdraw an application or a certified plan by written request to the\n district. The applicant may subsequently resubmit the plan for certification.\n\n (i) District certification of a soil erosion and sediment control plan for any project shall be\n valid only for the duration of the initial project approval granted by the municipality or\n other land use approval agency but in no case shall exceed three and one-half years. All\n such municipal or other agency renewals of the project will require resubmission of the\n project plan and recertification approval by the district. Certification of the plan is\n conferred upon the project and may be transferred or conveyed.\n\n (j) The current project owner shall notify the district in writing if there is a change of\n ownership during implementation of the plan.\n\n (k) By formal action, a district may delegate jurisdiction over a project to another district. An\n applicant proposing a project that requires certification by more than one district shall\n secure certification from each respective district unless full jurisdiction is transferred to\n one district.\n\n (l) The sequence of construction shall be an integral component of the certified plan and\n shall be followed by the applicant or their agent during all phases of the project. The\n sequence shall incorporate the installation of temporary and permanent controls, and shall\n include, but not be limited to, clearing and grading, cuts and fills, temporary diversions,\n sediment basins, tracking controls, temporary and permanent stabilization and dust\n control. The sequence of construction may be revised and shall be resubmitted to the\n district for approval during construction to address site concerns.\n\n (m) At its discretion, the district may require an interim clearing and grading plan on a\n project for critical area stabilization during construction due to the presence of erodable\n soils, slopes or water quality concerns for mitigating existing, emerging or anticipated\n erosion hazards.\n\n2:90-1.10 Revisions to the certified plan\n\n (a) A district may require a new submission of the plan, supporting documentation,\n application and fee when a major revision is made. The district may require submission\n of a revised plan, supporting documentation and a fee where minor revisions are needed.\n\n (b) Revisions to the certified plan shall be submitted to the district for reevaluation and\n certification prior to implementation of the change. Such changes shall be in accordance\n C2-11\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=394)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 395", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 395\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n with the standards in effect on the date that revisions to the plan are being submitted to\n the district.\n\n (c) Revisions to a plan required during construction shall be submitted to the district for\n certification. No report of compliance or conditional report of compliance shall be issued\n if the district determines that a revision to the plan is required.\n\n2:90-1.11 Exempt municipality ordinances and implementation\n\n (a) Adoption by the municipality of soil erosion and sediment control ordinances for\n approval by the Committee must have been completed by May 31, 1978, in order to\n qualify for an exemption from N.J.S.A. 4:24-43 through 47. Such exempt municipalities\n shall enforce the provisions of the ordinance in conformance with district policies and\n procedures for consistency between municipal and district erosion control programs\n Statewide.\n\n (b) Exempt municipal ordinances may specifically require municipal certification of\n demolition, parking lot construction, land clearing or grading or mining and quarrying\n activities. Where such projects are not encompassed in the ordinance, the municipality\n shall not exercise jurisdiction until the ordinance is amended and approved by the\n Committee. No exempt municipality shall exercise jurisdiction over plan certification on\n any county or a State project; or where municipal regulation of a municipal project would\n constitute a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. In all such\n cases, such projects shall be referred to the district for certification and enforcement.\n\n (c) No exempt municipality or any other municipality shall implement a soil erosion and\n sediment control ordinance or provision that is more restrictive than the definition of\n project in the act. No exempt municipality may grant a waiver of the requirements or\n grant an exemption for a project as defined in the act or rules promulgated thereto.\n\n (d) Soil erosion and sediment control ordinances adopted by exempt municipalities may\n provide for the review and certification of plans, inspection and enforcement by the\n district in accordance with this subchapter. In all such cases, there shall be written\n contracts with the municipality, the district and the Committee. The district shall utilize\n its fee schedule for collection of fees from applicants.\n\n (e) Exempt municipalities implementing ordinances approved by the Committee shall utilize\n the Committee's standard application form, letter of certification form, reports of\n compliance form, quarterly report form and Hydraulic and Hydrologic Basin Summary\n form.\n\n (f) Exempt municipal officials enforcing the provisions of the ordinance shall be\n knowledgeable in natural resources management and qualified to review plans and\n inspect project sites. Municipal staff shall attend Committee approved training courses,\n no less than once every two years.\n\n (g) Exempt municipalities implementing ordinances approved by the Committee shall\n C2-12\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=395)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 396", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 396\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n provide reports to the district and provide information as follows:\n\n 1. Verification of municipal certification of the soil erosion and sediment control plan for\n the Construction General Permit 5G3 for eligible activities: at the end of each\n business week;\n\n 2. A copy of the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Basin Summary form for all newly certified\n stormwater basins and stormwater outfalls within 15 days following the end of each\n calendar-year quarter; and\n\n 3. The following information shall be provided to the local district by March 15 of each\n year:\n\n i. The current soil erosion and sediment control ordinance; and\n\n ii. The municipal agent contracts responsible for implementing the erosion control\n ordinance and training classes attended.\n (h) Failure by any exempt municipality to satisfactorily implement the ordinance as\n determined by the district or conform with this section, may result in action by the\n Committee to revoke the ordinance.\n\n (i) Districts shall annually review for compliance all soil erosion and sediment control\n ordinances enacted by exempt municipalities within the district. The municipality shall\n cooperate with the district to demonstrate the manner of municipal implementation of the\n erosion control ordinances. The district shall inform the committee in writing of the\n results of this review by April 15 of each year. If at any time during the year, the district\n determines and so notifies and provides proof to the Committee that any exempt\n municipality is not enforcing its soil erosion and sediment control ordinance, the\n Committee shall consider the proofs given and the Committee shall provide written\n notice to the municipality that it is no longer exempt from N.J.S.A. 4:24-43 through 47.\n The Committee, at its discretion, may schedule a hearing to review revocation of exempt\n status.\n\n (j) Any proposed changes to an exempt municipal ordinance which has received the\n approval of the committee, and is therefore exempt from N.J.S.A. 4:24-43 through, must\n be submitted to the Committee for review and approval prior to enactment of the revised\n ordinance. For the municipality's exempt status to continue, all such changes must be\n found to be in accordance with the act and approved as such by the Committee. Failure of\n the municipality to secure written notification of approval will result in discontinuance of\n municipal exemption from N.J.S.A. 4:24-43 through 47.\n\n2:90-1.12 Fees\n\n (a) Ordinary fees: Reasonable fees shall be set by the districts based on the costs for\n providing services. The district shall establish fee categories based on the types and sizes\n of construction projects and an hourly rate for assessing fees. The fee schedule provisions\n proposed by each district shall be approved by the committee before it is implemented by\n C2-13\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=396)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 397", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 397\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n the district. Any person aggrieved on the set fee may appeal to the Committee as outlined\n in N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.16.\n\n (b) Extraordinary fees: The district fee schedule may include the assessment of fees for\n reimbursement of extraordinary expenses resulting from enforcement actions taken. The\n district may seek reimbursement for litigation expenses including court costs and\n attorney’s fees from the adverse party as part of a negotiated settlement agreement or\n where the district prevails in any litigation action.\n\n (c) Interest income derived from fee reserve balances may be utilized by the district for\n implementing district education programs for applicants, contractors, municipal officials\n and the public.\n\n\n (d) Fee for certain federal projects: Certain federal project activities that are precluded from\n making fee payments directly to a district, based on applicable federal and state laws\n shall remit fees payable to “Treasurer, State of New Jersey” to the local district in which\n the project is to be undertaken. The fee shall be submitted in conjunction with the plan\n for soil erosion and sediment control certification. The fee shall be in accordance with\n the following fee schedule based on the land surface area to be disturbed:\n\n\n Federal Project Fee Schedule\n\n Disturbance Area* Review Fee** Inspection Fee***\n\n 1 to 5 acres $950 $325 per acre\n\n 6 to 10 acres $1,600 $260 per acre\n\n 11 to 25 acres $2,300 $200 per acre\n\n 26 to 50 acres $3,000 $180 per acre\n\n 51 acres and greater $3,500 $160 per acre\n\n * For projects greater than one (1) acre, partial acres are to be rounded to the nearest\n whole acre.\n **Major revisions to a previously certified plan are subject to ½ the original review fee.\n ***Reinspection Fee: A fee of $150 may be assessed (a) when the contractor has failed\n to provide the district with a 48 hour advance written notice of the start of construction, or\n (b) when the second or subsequent district inspection was conducted and there was a failure\n to address the same problem identified in the first written notice of non-compliance issued to\n the applicant/contractor, or (c)when the contractor requested an inspection for receiving a\n Report of Compliance and such district inspection was performed, but the site was not in\n compliance with the certified plan and the Standards. A copy of all written violation notices\n shall be issued to the contractor with a copy provided to the local controlling federal agency.\n C2-14\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=397)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 398", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 398\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n2:90-1.13 Enforcement\n\n (a) Inspection of projects to determine execution in accordance with the certified plan shall\n be carried out by the district in close coordination with the municipal engineer and\n building inspector.\n (b) The district shall determine whether or not the provisions of the certified plan and\n sequence of construction are being followed by the applicant.\n\n (c) The district shall inform the applicant in writing of observed deviation from the certified\n plan and request immediate compliance with the plan. Failure of the applicant to\n adequately correct deficiencies in the time frame set forth in the district letter to the\n applicant shall result in the issuance of a violation notice. Failure of the applicant to\n correct the deficiencies in the violation notice may result in the issuance of a stop\n construction order.\n\n (d) The district or the municipality may issue a stop-construction order if the applicant fails\n to take a majority of identified actions to comply with the provisions of the certified plan.\n The district or municipality may issue a stop-construction order if a person initiates land\n disturbance prior to securing plan certification or fails to renew plan certification on an\n active project within 30 days of receiving notice of pending expiration from the district or\n municipality.\n\n (e) When a stop-construction order is issued, no further construction activity or any other\n work may take place on the project except for implementation of erosion controls as\n required by the district, until such time the project is in compliance with all provisions of\n the certified plan.\n\n2:90-1.14 Reports of Compliance\n\n (a) A district having certified a soil erosion and sediment control plan for a project pursuant\n to N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq. shall issue a written Final Report of Compliance (FROC) in\n accordance with this section, upon the district’s determination that the project is in full\n and complete compliance with the requirements and provisions of the certified plan such\n that all permanent measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation are in effect for the\n entire project.\n\n (b) A Report of Compliance (ROC) shall be issued when the District determines that a\n project or portion thereof is in full compliance with the certified plan and the Standards\n for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey (see N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.3), and that\n the permanent measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation are in effect for the\n area encompassed by the ROC.\n\n (c) A Report of Compliance with Conditions (CRC) shall be issued when the District\n determines that the project or portion thereof is not yet in full compliance with the\n certified plan but is in satisfactory compliance to the extent practicable and in accord with\n the sequence of development and requirements thereof, such that the issuance of a\n C2-15\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=398)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 399", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 399\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n temporary and conditional approval is appropriate with such conditions as may be\n imposed by the District. Satisfactory compliance means temporary measures and\n appropriate permanent measures for soil erosion and sediment control have been\n implemented according to the Standards including provisions for stabilization, site work\n and that no other site specific concerns exists.\n\n (d) Upon written request from the applicant, the District may issue a ROC or CRC on a lot-\n by-lot or section-by-section basis for a project when lots or sections are part of the\n project.\n\n (e) The district may withhold an ROC, CRC, or FROC for any project that has not secured\n discharge authorization of the stormwater general permit 5G3 where an NJPDES permit\n is required for stormwater discharges associated with a construction activity pursuant to\n N.J.A.C. 7:14A-24.2.\n\n (f) All fees shall be paid to the district prior to issuance of the ROC, CRC, or FROC.\n\n (g) A standard Report of Compliance form approved by the State Soil Conservation\n Committee shall be utilized by the district and shall allow for the district's issuance of a\n CRC, ROC or FROC. The district shall complete the standard Report of Compliance\n form in accordance with the requirement set forth in (g) 1 through 4 below.\n\n 1. The district shall identify on the standard Report of Compliance form the\n block and lot, street address (if known), municipal location, the District\n application number and the date of issuance of the ROC.\n\n 2. The district shall state on the standard Report of Compliance form that the project or\n applicable portion thereof is in compliance with permanent measures to the extent\n determined by the district.\n\n 3. In order for the district’s issuance of a ROC to be valid and effective, the standard\n Report of Compliance form shall be signed by an authorized district official, the\n district chairman or designee, and specify its effective date.\n\n 4. In order for the district's issuance of a CRC to be valid and effective, the\n district shall comply with the requirements set forth in (g) 1 through 3 above,\n and shall state in the standard Report of Compliance form all conditions that\n are to be satisfied to assure compliance with the requirements of the certified\n plan, as well as the date for completion of such conditions.\n\n (h) Copies of the ROC, CRC or FROC shall be distributed by the district to the applicant; the\n municipal construction code official having construction code jurisdiction for the project,\n if applicable; and/or in the case where a construction permit is not required for a project\n (such as for mining and land clearing projects among others), the municipal official\n having jurisdiction over such project, if any.\n\n 1. The district may also issue a copy of a ROC or CRC, to such other persons or\n C2-16\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=399)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 400", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 400\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n entities, as the district deems necessary or appropriate in its discretion. This\n includes, without limitation, and county, state and Federal agency, or\n instrumentality thereof, exercising any jurisdiction over the project.\n\n 2. In the case where a municipality authorized under N.J.S.A. 4:24-48 is the\n issuing agent, a copy of all ROC’s and CRC’s shall be submitted to the local\n District.\n\n (i) No certificate of occupancy (CO) for a building or structure on a project, or any portion\n thereof, shall be issued by a municipality or any other public agency unless there has\n been an ROC or FROC issued by the district indicating compliance with the provisions of\n the certified plan for measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation. The district shall\n provide the municipality or other public agency with an ROC or FROC in accordance\n with (h) above.\n\n (j) No temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) for a building or structure on a project, or\n any portion thereof, shall be issued by a municipality or any other public agency unless a\n CRC or ROC is issued by the district. The district shall provide the municipality or other\n public agency with a copy of the CRC, ROC or FROC.\n\n (k) During the non-growing season, as defined in the Standards for Soil Erosion and\n Sediment Control in New Jersey (the Standards), or where seasonal or weather related\n constraints exist, or where the applicant's scheduling has prevented or delayed final\n stabilization (for example, completed site work during winter), the District may issue a\n CRC or ROC in accordance with (k) 1 through 3 below.\n\n 1. Where the applicant has completed temporary stabilization and provided temporary\n erosion control measures in compliance with the certified soil erosion and sediment\n control plan, the applicant may request a CRC or ROC from the District. The District\n may also require the applicant to provide a performance deposit and enter into a\n performance agreement with the District to assure completion of final stabilization. In\n such instance, the District, at its option, may issue the CRC or ROC subject to the\n requirement that final stabilization be completed by the date indicated on the\n performance agreement such as, by the end of the next growing season, as defined in\n the Standards or such reasonable time period established by the District.\n\n 2. Upon receipt of the signed performance agreement and cash performance deposit, the\n District shall deposit the performance deposit into an interest escrow account with\n interest to accrue to the benefit of the applicant. The applicant shall sign and deliver\n to the District, any and all forms required by the District or its bank to open and\n maintain such interest bearing escrow account.\n\n 3. Upon completion of final stabilization by the applicant, the District shall return such\n performance deposit with interest to the applicant minus the administrative costs\n assessed by the District pursuant to (i)6 below.\n\n 4. Upon the failure of the applicant to timely or satisfactorily implement the permanent\n C2-17\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=400)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 401", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 401\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n stabilization in accordance with performance agreement and this section, the District\n shall provide written notification of such failure to the applicant together with a\n demand that such failure be fully cured within 10 calendar days of the date of such\n notification to the District’s satisfaction or a later date established by the District.\n\n If after such 10 calendar day period, or agreed-to time frame, such failure is not\n fully and properly cured to the District’s satisfaction the District may utilize the\n applicant’s performance deposit in order to contract for all work necessary or required\n to cure such failure and to complete all permanent measures in accordance with the\n performance agreement.\n\n\n 5. The District’s rights and remedies pursuant to this subsection are in addition to all of\n its other rights and remedies under the law including N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.\n\n 6. The District may charge a fee in connection with the processing and administration of\n the performance agreement and performance deposit, which shall be listed in the\n District fee schedule, approved by the Committee.\n\n (1) Any exempt municipality authorized by the Committee pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:24-48, and\n implementing an approved ordinance thereunder shall implement these provisions.\n\n2:90-1.15 Reports\n\n The districts shall submit quarterly reports to the committee giving number of applications,\n number of certifications, denials and number of reviews and other information as required by the\n Committee. Reports shall be submitted to the Committee within 15 days after the end of each\n quarter. A copy shall be retained by the district.\n\n2:90-1.16 Appeal process\n\n (a) Any person aggrieved by a decision or action of the district shall first submit a written\n request for reconsideration to the district within 10 working days of the action taken. The\n district shall convene a meeting and make a determination on the request within 35\n calendar days of the request unless additional time is mutually agreed upon by the district\n and the aggrieved person. All such proceedings shall be memorialized in the district\n minutes.\n\n (b) To appeal the determination of the district, the aggrieved person shall subsequently petition\n the Committee in writing within 10 working days of the determination by the district. The\n Committee shall schedule a hearing and make a determination within 90 calendar days of\n the petition for review and notify the appellant pursuant to (c) below unless additional time\n is mutually agreed upon by the Committee and the aggrieved person. The Committee may\n appoint and utilize the hearing office procedures of the Department of Agriculture for fact-\n finding and recommendations to the Committee. The Committee may alternatively pursue\n an informal resolution of the matter contested. Any person against whom a stop-\n construction order is issued by any district shall also have the right to appeal directly to the\n C2-18\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=401)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 402", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 402\n\nTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ADOPTION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE\nJANUARY 20, 2014, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT\nAND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ADOPTION, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.\n____________________________________________________________________________________________________\n Committee. Requests for appeal shall be addressed to:\n\n State Soil Conservation Committee\n PO Box 330\n Trenton, New Jersey 08625\n\n (c) The Committee shall send a written notice to the appellant of the hearing stating:\n 1. The hearing application number; and\n 2. The date, time and place of the hearing.\n\n\n (d) The Committee may, on its own motion or at the request of any person aggrieved of any\n action by the district, review the decision of any soil conservation district and make\n whatever determinations it deems appropriate in the matter.\n\n (e) Any party who disagrees with the determination of the Committee may request a hearing\n pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 and 52:14F-1 et seq.\n\n\n\n\n\n C2-19\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=402)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 403", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 403\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Chronology\n of\n Standards For Soil Erosion And Sediment Control in New Jersey\n\n\nVEGETATIVE STANDARDS\n\n Acid Soils Management: Adopted July 1999, July 2011\n Dune Stabilization: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, September 1979, April 1987, July 1999, July\n 2011\n Maintaining Vegetation: Adopted June 1972, July 1999, July 2011\n Permanent Vegetative Cover for Soil Stabilization: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, September 1979,\n April 1987, July 1999, April 2013\n Stabilization With Mulch Only: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, September 1979, July 1999 , July\n 2011\n Stabilization with Sod: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, September 1979, July 1999, July 2011\n Temporary Vegetative Cover For Soil Stabilization: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, September\n 1979, April 1987, April 2013\n Topsoiling: Adopted June 1972, Revised September 1979, July 1999,\n Tree Protection During Construction: Adopted January 1974, Revised April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Trees, Shrubs and Vines: Adopted January 1974, Revised July 1999, July 2011\n\nENGINEERING STANDARDS\n\n Channel Stabilization: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, September 1979, April 1987, July 1999, July\n 2011\n Conduit Outlet Protection: Adopted September 1979, Correction November 1980, Revised April 1987, July\n 1999, July 2011\n Detention Structures Formerly: Basin, Formerly Floodwater Retarding Structure. Revised April 1987, July\n 1999, July 2011\n Dewatering: Adopted July 1999, Revised July 2011\n Diversions: Adopted June 1972, Revised September 1979, April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Dust Control: Adopted January 1974, Revised September 1979, April 1987, July 1999\n Floodwater Retarding Structures: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, July 1999, Changed to Detention\n Basin and Revised April 1987, July 1999\n Grade Stabilization Structure: Adopted April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Grassed Waterway: Adopted June 1972, Revised September 1979, April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Land Grading: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, April 1987, July 1999\n Lined Waterway: Adopted September 1979, Revised April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Off-Site Stability Analysis: Adopted July 1999, July 2011\n Parking Lot Storage: Adopted April 1987, July 1999, Combined with Detention Structures, July 2011\n Riprap: Adopted September 1979, Revised April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Rooftop Storage: Adopted April 1987, July 1999, Combined with Detention Structures , July 2011\n\n C3-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=403)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 404", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 404\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Sediment Barrier: Adopted September 1979, Revised April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Sediment Basin: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, September 1979, April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Slope Protection Structures: Adopted June 1972, Revised January 1974, April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Soil Bioengineering: Adopted July 1999, Revised July 2011\n Stabilized Construction Entrance: Adopted September 1979, Revised April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Storm Sewer Inlet Protection: Adopted September 1979, Revised April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Stream Crossing: Adopted July 1999, July 2011\n Traffic Control: Adopted January 1974, Revised April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Turbidity Barrier: Adopted July 1999, July 2011\n Underground Tanks: Adopted April 1987, July 1999, combined with Detention Structures , July 2011\n\n\nRUNOFF TREATMENT STANDARDS\n(merged into NJDEP Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual 2004)\n\n Preface to the Runoff Treatment Standards: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n Dry Wells: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n Extended Detention Basin: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n Infiltration Structures: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n On Line Water Quality Storm Sewer Catch Basin: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n Sand Filters: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n Vegetative Filter Strips: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n Wet Ponds: Adopted July 1999, Rescinded 2004\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\n The Universal Soil Loss Equation: Published June 1972, Revised September 1979, April 1987 , July 1999\n Requirements for a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Published June 1972, Revised 1976,\n November 1982, April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n Guide for Construction Specifications: Published June 1972, Revised July 1980, November 1982, April 1987,\n July 1999\n Maintenance of Structural Measures: Published June 1972, Revised April 1987, July 1999\n Guide for Installing Soil Stabilization Matting: Published June 1972, July 1999\n Diversion and Grassed Waterway Design Procedure: Published July 1980, Revised April 1987, July 1999\n Sediment Basin Design Procedure: Published July 1980, July 1999\n Channel Stability Analysis Procedure: Published July 1980, Revised April 1987 Modified Rational Method:\n Published April 1987, July 1999\n\n Structural Guidelines for Detention Basin. Published April 1987 REFERENCES: Published June 1972,\n Revised January 1974, July 19676, July 1980, April 1987 , July 1999, Karst Remediation Measures separated\n as a stand-alone document July 2011\n\n\n\n C3-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=404)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 405", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 405\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\n Example for Seed Specifications Published June 1972, Revised July 1999\n Grass and Legume Planting Guide: Published June 1972, Revised July 1999\n\nAPPENDIX C\n\n Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act Effective January 1, 1976, Amended October 18, 1977, February 27,\n 1980, January 5, 2011\n New Jersey Administrative Code 2:90-1.1 et seq: Effective January 1, 1976, Amended January 5, 1978, July\n 3, 1980, Readopted June 24, 1985, Amended April 6, 1987, Revised July 1999, January 2006, June 2008,\n February 2014\n Chronology of Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey: Published July 1980,\n Revised November 1982, April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n\nAPPENDIX D\n\n Glossary: Published June 1972, Revised July 1980, April 1987, July 1999\n\nAPPENDIX E\n\n Directory Soil Conservation Districts in New Jersey: Published June 1972, Revised January 1974, July\n 1976, July 1980, November 1982, April 1987, July 1999, July 2011\n\nAPPENDIX K\n\n Investigation, Design and Remedial Measures for Areas Underlain by Cavernous Limestone\n Revised as a stand-alone appendix July 2011\n\n\n\n\n\n C3-3\n\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=405)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 406", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 406\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n APPENDIX D\n G L 0 S S A R Y\n\nAcre-feet - An engineering term used to denote a volume 1 acre in area and 1 foot in depth.\n\nAcid Soil - (high acid producing)Soil containing iron sulfide material, which on exposure to air, results in the\nproduction of sulfuric acid and is accompanied by pH levels falling to 3 or below. Treatment with limestone only\nprovides a short term buffering effect with burial at a minimum of 12\" of non acid producing soil is the only\neffective treatment .\n\nAggrade - The alteration of a channel caused by the deposition of sediment.\n\nAllowable velocity - the velocity of flowing water within a defined channel or landform which will not scour and\ntransport surface soil. Non-scouring velocities differ with different soil types.\n\nAnti-seep Collar - A device constructed around a pipe or other conduit placed through a dam, dike, or levee for the\npurpose of reducing seepage losses and piping failures.\n\nAnti-vortex Device - A facility placed at the entrance to a pipe conduit structure such as a drop inlet spillway or\nhood inlet spillway to prevent air from entering the structure when the pipe is flowing full.\n\nBarrel - See conduit.\n\nBorrow Area - A source of earth fill materials used in the construction of embankments or other earth fill structures.\n\nBottomlands - A term often used to define lowlands adjacent to streams (flood plains in rural areas).\n\nBox Inlet Drop Spillway - A form of principal spillway.\n\nCabled Concrete (articulated concrete block)- Blocks of concrete (typically 1' x 1') strung together with a non-\ncorroding metal cable. Used for lining of waterways, shorelines etc.\n\nCantilever Outlet - A discharge pipe extending beyond its support.\n\nCascades or Bedrock - Section of stream without pools, consisting primarily of bedrock with little rubble, gravel, or\nother such material present. Current usually more swift than in riffles.\n\nChannel - A natural stream that conveys water; a depth or channel excavated for the flow of water.\n\nChute Spillway - A form of principal spillway.\n\nConduit - A closed facility used for the conveyance of water.\n\nCool Season Mixture - Grasses or legumes which maximize growth at temperatures below 85 degrees F.\n\nCover Crop - A crop grown primarily for the purpose of protecting soil between periods of permanent vegetative\ncover.\n\nCradle - A device usually concrete, used to support a pipe conduit or barrel.\n\nCrimper - (mulch anchoring coulter tool) A tractor drawn implement, somewhat like a disc harrow designed to push\nor cut some broadcast, long fiber mulch, such a straw, into the soil 3 to 4 inches so as to anchor it to the soil.\n\nCutoff Trench - A long. narrow excavation constructed along the center line of a dam, dike, levee or embankment\n\n D-1 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=406)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 407", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 407\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nand filled with relatively impervious material intended to reduce seepage of water through porous strata.\n\nDegrade - The alteration of a channel caused by the erosion and scour of the channel bottom.\n\nDesign Highwater - The elevation of the water surface as determined by the flow conditions of the design floods.\n\nDesign Life - The period of time for which a facility is expected to perform its intended function.\n\nDiversion - A channel with or without a supporting ridge an the lower side constructed across or at the bottom of a\nslope for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.\n\nDune - A mound or ridge of sand which has been formed by wave or wind action.\n\nEmbankment - A man-made deposit of soil, rock or other materials used to form an impoundment.\n\nEmergency Spillway - A vegetated earth channel used to safely convey flood discharges in excess of the capacity of\nthe principal spillway.\n\nEnergy Dissipater - A device used to reduce the energy of flowing water.\n\nErosion - Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice and gravity.\n\nField Capacity - The amount of water retained in a soil after it has been saturated and has drained freely. It is\nusually expressed as a percentage of the ovendry weight of the soil. Also called field moisture capacity.\n\nFilter Blanket - A layer of sand, gravel, or synthetic fabric designed to prevent the movement of fine grained soils.\n\nFilter Strip -A strip of planted or indigenous vegetation used to filter pollutants from surface runoff before reaching\na body of water or stormwater management structure\n\nFlat - Section of stream with current too slow to be classed as riffle and too shallow to be classed as a pool. Stream\nbottom usually composed of sand or finer materials, with coarse rubble, boulders or bedrock occasionally evident.\n\nFlexible Channel Liner - An open-textured, three-dimensional rolled product manufactured from non-degradable\nmaterials which is laid on the prepared soil surface to act as a substrate for the establishment of grass cover in open\nwaterways.\n\nFlood Plain - The relatively flat area adjoining the channel of a natural stream which has been or may be hereafter\ncovered by flood water.\n\nFlood Routing - Determining the changes in the rise and fall of flood water as it proceeds downstream through a\nvalley or through a reservoir.\n\nFlume - A device constructed to convey water on steep grades lined with erosion-resistant materials.\n\nFreeboard - The vertical distance between the elevation of the design highwater and the top of the dam, dike, levee\nor diversion ridge.\n\nFroude Number - The ratio of inertial to gravity forces in flowing water. It is used to classify the flow as subcritical,\ncritical or supercritical (e.g. Nf >1, Nf = 1 or Nf<1) Froude number is expressed as:\n Vchannel\n Nf = Where d is the hydraulic flow depth 2gd\n\n D-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=407)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 408", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 408\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nGeotextile - A broad range of Afabric@ type materials which contain or filter soil or water. Fabrics may be permeable\nor impermeable and may or may not be degradable.\n\nGrade Stabilization Structure - A structure for the purpose of stabilizing the grade of a watercourse, thereby\npreventing further headcutting or lowering of the channel grade.\n\nGrading - Any stripping, cutting, filling, stockpiling, or any combination there-of and shall include the land in its cut\nor filled condition.\n\nGrassed Waterway - A natural or constructed channel, usually broad and shallow, covered with erosion resistant\nvegetation, used to conduct surface water.\n\nHood Inlet - A pipe entrance wherein the top edge of the pipe is extended 3/4 of the diameter beyond the bottom\ninvert cut on an angle.\n\nHydraulic Conductivity - A coefficient describing the rate at which water can move through a permeable medium.\n\nHydrograph - A graph showing for a given point on a stream or for a given point in any drainage system, the\ndischarge, stage, velocity, or other property of water with respect to time.\n\nHydroseeding - The application of a seed - fertilizer liquid slurry to the soil surface of the prepared seedbed using an\napparatus consisting of a storage tank, pump and hose.\n\nInoculant - A peat carrier impregnated with bacteria and applied in powder or slurry form to legume seed at the time\nof planting, which form a symbiotic relationship enabling legumes to utilize atmospheric nitrogen for plant growth.\nMost legumes require specific bacteria.\n\nImpact Basin - A device used to dissipate the energy of flowing water. Generally constructed of concrete in the\nform of a depressed and partially submerged vessel and may utilize baffles to dissipate velocities.\n\nLand - Any ground, soil or earth including marshes, swamps, drainageways and areas not permanently covered by\nwater.\n\nLiquid Limit - The moisture content at which the soil passes from a plastic to a liquid state. In engineering. a high\nliquid limit indicates that the soil has a high content of clay and a low capacity for supporting loads.\n\nLiquid Mulch Binder - Organic, synthetic and asphaltic based materials which are physiologically harmless to plant\ngrowth and not result in a phytotoxic effect, mixed with water and applied to straw, hay mulch or salt hay to anchor\nmulching materials together and prevent movement.\n\nMannings Formula - A formula used to predict the velocity of water flow in an open channel or pipeline:\n 1.49 2 1 2 V = n R3S\nwherein \"V\" is the mean velocity of flow in feet per second; \"R\" is the hydraulic radius; \"S\" is the slope of the\nenergy gradient or for assumed uniform flow the slope of the channel in feet per foot; and \"n\" is the roughness\ncoefficient or retardance factor of the channel lining.\n\n\n\n\n\n D-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=408)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 409", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 409\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nMulching - The application of plant residue or other suitable materials to the land surface to conserve moisture, hold\nsoil in place, aid in establishing plant cover and minimize temperature fluctuation.\n\nMulch Netting - Paper, jute, cotton or plastic netting materials applied to seeded and mulched areas, usually on\nslopes or critical areas to prevent erosion and promote seedling establishment.\n\nMulch Blanket - Plastic netting lined with straw or excelsior fibers, placed and anchored onto seeded areas, usually\non slopes or critical areas to prevent erosion and promote seedling establishment.\n\nOutlet - Point of water disposal from a stream, river, lake, tidewater, or artificial drain.\n\nPeak Discharge - The maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a specific location.\n\nPelletized Mulch - Compressed and extruded paper or wood fiber product which may contain copolymers, tackifiers,\nfertilizer and coloring agents, applied a dry form to seed bed and activated with water to form a mulch mat. Uniform\ndistribution and adequate initial watering of the mulch is critical to optimum results.\n\npH - A measure of acidity or basicity of soil with pH 7 being neutral and pH 6.5 being a desirable degree of soil\nacidity for growth of grasses and legumes. Basicity above pH 7 is rare in eastern U.S. soils.\n\nPipe Drop - A circular conduit used to convey water down steep grades.\n\nPlant Hardiness Zone - Geographic regions differentiated by climate and growing conditions.\n\nPlasticity Index - The numerical difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit; the range of moisture\ncontent within which the soil remains plastic.\n\nPlastic Limit - The moisture content at which a soil changes from a semisolid to a plastic state.\n\nPlunge Pool - A device used to dissipate the energy of flowing water that may be constructed or made by the action\nof flowing. These facilities may be protected by various lining materials.\n\nPool - Section of stream deeper and usually wider than normal with appreciably slower current than immediate\nupstream or downstream areas and possessing adequate cover (sheer depth or physical condition) for protection of\nfish. Stream bottom usually a mixture of silt and coarse sand.\n\nPreformed Scour Hole - An area at the outlet end of a storm drain at an elevation essentially the same as the outlet\ninvert which has been excavated and lined with stone which provides both vertical and lateral expansion\ndownstream of the outlet to permit dissipation of excess kinetic energy in turbulence.\n\nPrincipal Spillway - Generally constructed of permanent material and designed to regulate the normal water level,\nprovide flood protection and/or reduce the frequency of operation of the emergency spillway.\n\nPure Live Seed - The desired amount of any warm season grass seed to be planted for temporary and permanent\nstabilization which excludes the weight of inert matter, non viable and undesirable seed as expressed on the seed tag.\nA practical adjustment is made by multiplying the weight of the bag of seed x per cent purity x per cent germination\n= the amount of pure live seed contained in the bag.\n\nRational Formula - Q=CIA. Where \"Q\" is the peak discharge measured in cubic feet per second, \"C\" is the runoff\ncoefficient reflecting the ratio of runoff to rainfall, \"I\" is the rainfall intensity for the duration of the storm measured\nin inches per hour, and \"A\" is the area of the contributing drainage area measured in acres.\n\n\n\n D-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=409)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 410", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 410\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nRetention Basin - A stormwater management basin which provides storage for a permanent pool of water below the\nstormwater management storage volume elevation.\n\nRidge - The bank or dike constructed on the downslope side of a diversion.\n\nRiffle - Section of stream containing gravel and/or rubble, in which surface water is at least slightly turbulent and\ncurrent is swift enough that the surface of the gravel and rubble is kept fairly free from sand and silt.\n\nRiprap - Angular broken rock placed on earth surfaces, such as the face of a dam or the channel of a stream for\nprotection against the action of water.\nRiser - The inlet portion of a drop inlet spillway that extend vertically from the pipe conduit barrel and control the\nwater surface\n\nScour Hole - See preformed scour hole.\n\nSediment - Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved\nfrom its site of origin by air, water, gravity or ice.\n\nSediment Basin - A depression formed by the construction of a barrier or dam built at suitable locations to retain\nrock, sand, gravel, silt or other material.\n\nSoil - The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural\nmedium for the growth of land plants.\n\nSoil Bioengineering - The use of native plant species together with natural materials (rocks, logs, and vegetative\nbyproducts such as coconut fiber) and hydrologic, hydraulic and soil engineering principles to provide restoration to\nstreambanks, slopes and open water shorelines which are subject to the forces of wind and water erosion.\n\nSoil Horizon - A layer of soil, approximately parallel to the surface. that has distinct characteristics produced by\nsoil-forming processes.\n\nSpillway - A form of principal spillway.\n\nStability - A condition within a channel or on a landform such that flowing water will not erode the soil surface.\n\nStabilized Center Section - an area in the bottom of a grassed waterway protected by stone, asphalt, concrete or other\nmaterials to prevent erosion.\n\nStorm Frequency - An expression or measure of how often a hydrologic event of given size or magnitude should on\nan average be equaled or exceeded. The average should be based an a reasonable sample.\n\nStraight Drop Spillway - A form of principal spillway.\n\nStraw - The natural dry stem and related material threshed of its seed.\n\nTailwater - The depth of the receiving water at the end of the apron.\n\nTemporary Protection - Stabilization of erodible or sediment-producing areas.\n\nToe Drain - A drainage system constructed in the downstream portion of an earth dam or levee to prevent excessive\nhydrostatic pressures.\n\n\n\n D-5 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=410)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 411", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 411\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nTrash Rack A device used to prevent debris from entering a spillway or other hydraulic structure.\n\nTopdressing - The application of additional nitrogen based fertilizer to vegetation as a follow-up to initial fertilizer\napplications to help combat nitrogen deficiency.\n\nUnderdrains pipelines of tile with open joints or perforated pipe used for the collection of subsurface water.\n\nUnified Soil Classification System - A classification system based on the identification of soils according to their\nparticle size. gradation. plasticity index and liquid limit.\n\nUplift Forces - Vertical pressures acting upward on a structure, usually caused by a buoyant condition.\n\nVegetative Protection - Stabilization of erosive or sediment producing areas by covering the soil with:\n\na. Permanent seeding, producing long-term vegetative cover,\n\nb. Short-term seeding, producing temporary vegetative cover, or\n\nc. Sodding, placement of cultivated sod onto prepared topsoil causing instant soil stabilization.\n\nVelocity - The rate of flow measured in feet per second.\n\nWarm Season Mixture - Grasses or legumes which maximize growth at temperatures below 85 degrees F.\n\nWaterway - A natural course or constructed channel for the flow of water. See grassed waterway.\n\nWatershed - a geographic area defined by topographic high points such that precipitation falling within the\nboundaries of the high points drains to a single outlet, such as a mouth of a stream, lake or river.\n\n\n\n\n\n D-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=411)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 412", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 412\n\nSOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN NEW JERSEY 2014\n\nBERGEN BURLINGTON CAMDEN\n700 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 106 1971 Jacksonville-Jobstown Rd. 423 Commerce Lane, Suite 1\nOradell 07649 Columbus 08022 W. Berlin 08091\n201-261-4407 609-267-7410 856-767-6299\n201-261-7573 (fax) 609-267-3347 (fax) 856-767-1676 (fax)\n973-538-1552* 609- 267-0811* 856-267-0811*\nwww.bergenscd.org www.bscd.org www.camdenscd.orgcraig.mcgee\ninfo@bergenscd.org rreitmeyer@bscd.org @camdenscd.org\n\nCAPE-ATLANTIC CUMBERLAND-SALEM FREEHOLD\nAtlantic County Office Building PO Box 68, 1516 Route 77 (Monmouth & Middlesex)\n6260 Old Harding Highway Deerfield 08313 4000 Kozloski Road\nMays Landing 08330 856-451-2422 PO Box 5033\n609-625-3144 856-451-1358 (fax) Freehold 07728\n609-625-7360 (fax) 856-205-1225* or 732-683-8500\n856-205-1225* 856-769-1126* 732-683-9140 (fax)\nwww.capeatlantic.org www.cumberlandsalemsoil.com 732-462-0075*\ncapeatlanticscd@comcast.net cumbsoil@aol.com www.freeholdscd.org\n info@freeholdscd.org\n\nGLOUCESTER HUDSON-ESSEX & PASSAIC HUNTERDON\n14 Parke Place, Suite C 15 Bloomfield Avenue 687 Pittstown Road, Suite 1\nSewell, NJ 08080 North Caldwell 07006 Frenchtown, NJ 08825\n856-589-5250 973-364-0786 908-788-9466\n856-256-0488 (fax) 973-364-0784 (fax) 908-788-0795 (fax)\n856-769-2790* 973-538-1552* 908-782-4614 ext. 3*\ngloucesterscd.org www.hepsoilnj.org www.hcscd.weebly.com\ngloucester@gloucesterscd.org information@hepscd.org hcscd687@embarqmail.com\n\nMERCER MORRIS OCEAN\n508 Hughes Drive PO Box 900 714 Lacey Road\nHamilton Square 08690 30 Schulyer Place Forked River 08731\n609-586-9603 Morristown 609-971-7002\n609-586-1117 (fax) 07963 609-971-3391 (fax)\n908-852-2576 ext. 3* 973-285-2953 609-267-0811 ext 115*\nhttp://mercerscd.org 973-285-8345 (fax) www.soildistrict.org\nmercersoil@aol.com mcscd.org info@soildistrict.org\n morris@mcscd.org\n\nSOMERSET-UNION SUSSEX WARREN\nSomerset County 4-H Center 186 Halsey Rd, Suite 2 224 Stiger Street\n308 Milltown Road Newton 07860 Hackettstown 07840\nBridgewater 08807 973-579-5074 908-852-2579\n908-526-2701 973-579-7846 (fax) 908-852-2284 (fax)\n908-526-7017 (fax) 908-852-2576 ext. 3* 908-852-2576 ext. 3*\n908-782-4614 ext. 3* www.sussexscd.org smyers@warrencountyscd.com\nwww.co.somerset.nj.us/publicworks/soil/in sussex@sussexscd.org www.warrencountyscd.com\ndex.html\nSoilConsrv@co.somerset.nj.us\n\n State Soil Conservation Committee *USDA-NRCS Field Office\n New Jersey Department of Agriculture\n PO Box 330, Trenton, New Jersey 08625\n 609-292-5540\n 609-633-7229 (fax)\n www.state.nj.us/agriculture\n frank.minch@ag.state.nj.us\n\n Return to TOC\n\n E-1\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=412)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 413", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 413\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Investigation, Design and Remedial Measures for Areas\n Underlain by Cavernous Limestone\n\nIntroduction\n\nCarbonate rocks, including limestone, dolomite and marble, underlie the land surface in many areas of northwestern\nNew Jersey (FigureA10- 1). Carbonate rocks primarily occur in valleys, because they are easily eroded. Soil erosion\nprocesses in areas underlain by carbonate bedrock are unique, because carbonates are highly susceptible to chemical\nerosion (\"solutioning\") and their associated soils subject to collapse. Weak acids formed by the combination of\ninfiltrating ground water and carbon dioxide in the soil attack carbonate rocks, causing the formation of voids,\nknown as solution cavities, in these otherwise competent rocks. . Sinkholes, caves, disappearing streams, springs,\nbedrock pinnacles, and \"blind valleys\" develop on soluble carbonate rock. These features are characteristic of a type\nof landscape known as \"karst.\"\n\nPercolation of surface water can cause a migration of soil into solution cavities, forming \"sinkholes\" at the surface.\nSinkholes cause instability of the land surface and must be given serious consideration in the development of soil\nand sediment erosion control plans. Sinkhole formation is often accelerated by construction activities that modify a\nsite's hydrology or disturb existing soil and bedrock conditions. Ground failure in karst areas is most often caused by\nthe alteration of drainage patterns, emplacement of impervious coverage, excessive grading, and increased loads\nfrom site improvements.\n\nAn awareness of the limitations to site development posed by karst features can prevent problems, including damage\nto property, structures and life, and contamination of ground water. Appropriate site testing, planning, design, and\nremediation help to prevent sinkhole formation during site development. Conventional methods of design and\nengineering may be inappropriate for karst areas. Often minor modifications in the approach to site testing and\ndesign can prevent persistent and costly post-development problems.\n\nSite testing for detection of potential karst-related problems\n\nThe most effective and economical approach to designing and installing a successful soil erosion and sediment\ncontrol system in karst areas is to evaluate the potential for ground failure by first collecting easily obtainable\ninformation on surface and subsurface conditions prior to construction activities. Applicants filing for certification\nof Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plans are encouraged to determine if their site lies within an area underlain by\ncarbonate bedrock. Figure 1 shows the occurrence of carbonate units in northern New Jersey. To obtain more\ndetailed geologic maps, applicants may contact the New Jersey Geological Survey at the following address:\n\n New Jersey Geological Survey\n P.O. Box 427\n Trenton, N.J. 08625\n 609-292-2576 or 292-1185\n\nVarious methods are available to collect information about the bedrock and soil conditions at a proposed\ndevelopment site. These can range from inspecting topographic and geologic maps and aerial photographs of the\nsite, to drilling test borings at the location of planned facilities. Professionals involved with projects in karst areas\nshould make a special effort to observe signs of ground subsidence during development\n\nSite evaluation for karst features is usually carried out in two phases: (1) preliminary site investigation, done prior to\nsite design and development, and (2) site-specific investigation, conducted once the decision is made to design a site\nplan and proceed with development.\n\nPreliminary site investigation includes a review of topographic and geologic maps, soil surveys, aerial photography,\nand any previous technical reports prepared for the site. This phase of investigation should include a site visit,\nwhere the experienced professional studies the site terrain in an effort to locate any obvious features, such as rock\noutcrops, sinkholes, springs, caves, etc. The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to identify areas of concern\n\n K-1\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=413)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 414", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 414\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nthat may require additional investigation, and to review the preliminary site design in relationship to potential\nproblem areas. The preliminary site investigation will often result in immediate changes to the site layout to avoid\nfuture problems.\n\nSite-specific investigation includes collecting subsurface information at sites identified as potential problem areas\nduring the preliminary investigation. During the site-specific investigation process the professional may examine\nsubsurface soil and geologic conditions using test pits, test borings, and geophysical instruments to evaluate the\nstability of soil and rock at locations of proposed site facilities. If unstable subsurface conditions are encountered, a\ndecision can be made to proceed to remediate prior to construction or to modify the site layout to avoid problem\nareas. The record of findings during this phase of the investigation includes logs of test pits, probes and borings,\nnoting evidence of cavities in soil and rock, loss of air pressure or drilling fluid during drilling, and the condition of\nsoil and bedrock from samples collected.\n\nTable K-1 lists the steps in the preliminary site investigation and the site-specific investigation, methods of\ncollecting data, objectives of each step, and the application of information obtained. A discussion of the various site\ninvestigation methods follows:\n\nGeologic maps: Geologic maps contain information on the physical characteristics and distribution of the bedrock\nand/or unconsolidated surficial deposits in an area. Geologic features such as the strike and dip of strata, joints,\nfractures, folds, and faults are usually depicted. The orientation of strata and geologic structures generally controls\nthe location and orientation of solution features in carbonate rock. Geologic contacts, faults, and certain fractures\nsets may be more prone to solution than others. The relationship between topography and the distribution of\ngeologic units may reveal clues about the solubility of the specific rock units. Geologic maps are often available at\nvarious scales, the most common being 1:24,000. Digital geologic data may be available as well.\n\nAerial photography: Aerial photos are a simple, quick method of site reconnaissance. Inspection of photos can\nquickly reveal vegetation and moisture patterns that provide indirect evidence of the presence of cavernous bedrock.\nPiles of rock or small groups of brush or trees in otherwise open fields can indicate active sinkholes or rock\npinnacles protruding above the ground surface. Circular and linear depressions associated with sinkholes and linear\nsolution features and bedrock exposures are often visible when viewed in stereo image. Inspecting photos taken on\nmore than one date can be especially valuable in revealing changes that take place over time. Images defined at\nwavelengths other than visible light can be useful in detecting vegetative or moisture contrasts.\n\nSite visit: An on-site reconnaissance is an inexpensive, important step in finding potential site constraints. Although\nmany karst features are obvious to the eye, it is an advantage to conduct the site visit with an individual\nknowledgeable in karst geology. Prior to the site visit field personnel should review geologic maps, topographic\nmaps, and air photos to help anticipate where problems might be found. It is important to review drainage patterns,\nvegetation changes, depressions, and bedrock outcrops to look for evidence of ground subsidence. Sinkholes in\nsubdued topography can often only be seen at close range. Disappearing streams are common in karst areas, and\nbedrock pinnacles that can be a problem in the subsurface will often protrude above the ground surface. A\nparticularly simple and often overlooked part of the site visit is to interview the property owner. Often property\nowners can recount a history of problems with ground failure that may not be evident at the time of the site\nevaluation. The location of karst features should be noted on the site map for later reference. These can be\ncompared to other information collected to assess the risk potential for karst-related problems.\n\n\n\n\n\n K-2 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=414)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 415", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 415\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Figure K-1\n\n\n\n\n\n K-3 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=415)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 416", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 416\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nTest pits: Test pit excavations are a simple, direct way to view the condition of soils that may reveal the potential for\nground subsidence, and to inspect the condition and variability of the limestone bedrock surface where bedrock is\nsufficiently shallow. Soil texture is an important indicator of soil strength and, therefore, the ability of soils to\nbridge voids. An inspector should look for evidence of slumping soils, former topsoil horizons, and fill (including\nsurface boulders, organic debris, and other foreign objects) in the test pit. Voids in the soil or underlying bedrock\ncan be revealed. The presence of organic soils at depth is an indicator of potentially active sinkhole sites. Leached\nor loose soils may also indicate areas of existing or potential ground subsidence. Observations of this type should be\nrecorded in the soil log.\n\nTest probes: Test probes are performed by advancing a steel drill bit into the ground using an air-percussion-drilling\nrig. Probes can be installed rapidly and are an effective way to quickly test subsurface conditions. Penetration\ndepths are usually less than 50 feet. During the installation of a test probe the inspector should be aware of the rate\nof advance of the drill bit, sudden loss of air pressure, soft zones, free-fall of the bit, and resistant zones. These\nobservations can provide clues to the competency of the bedrock and the presence of cavities in soil or bedrock. The\nvolume of fluid cement grout needed to backfill the probe hole can yield a measure of the size of subsurface voids\nencountered during drilling.\n\nTest borings: Test borings often yield virtually complete and relatively undisturbed soil and rock samples. Borings\nmay provide direct evidence of the presence and orientation of fractures, weathering, fracture fillings and the\nvertical dimensions of cavities, and provide undisturbed samples that can be subjected to laboratory testing. Use of\na split inner core barrel in rock coring provides the most meaningful results, because this method collects a relatively\nundisturbed sample in the core barrel. Losses of drilling fluid can indicate the presence of soil or rock cavities.\nWhen drill holes are sealed, the volume of fluid cement grout placed in the drill hole can also yield a measure of the\nsize of openings in the subsurface. All borings must be performed by a well driller or test borer licensed by the New\nJersey Department of Environmental Protection under N.J.S.A. 58:4A-4.1 et seq. Borings should be sealed after\ncompletion. Borings less than 25 feet deep may be sealed with cuttings from the boring. Borings in excess of 25\nfeet must be sealed according to procedures published by the NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation (609-292-2957).\n\nGeophysical methods: Geophysical methods can serve as a rapid reconnaissance tool to detect physical anomalies in\nthe subsurface that may be caused by karst features. These methods are especially suited to surveying linear\ncorridors, and are non-disruptive to the land. Geophysical data are often useful for extrapolating between locations\nwhere other sampling methods are used. Generally it is advisable to apply more than one geophysical technique,\nowing to the variability in physical properties of karst terrain. Geophysical methods require an experienced\nprofessional to interpret the data collected. The properties of weathered limestone, including a highly variable\nbedrock surface and soils with high clay content, often hinders the depth of penetration and resolution of\ngeophysical signals and can compromise the effectiveness of geophysical surveys. Despite these limitations,\ngeophysics can sometimes provide a cost-effective, relatively rapid means of determining the potential for problems\nwith karst features, including the location of shallow bedrock and significant cavities in the soil or bedrock.\nGeophysical anomalies should be targeted for additional direct testing procedures.\n\n\n\n\n\n K-4 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=416)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 417", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 417\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Table K-1: Investigative Methods for Sites Underlain by Carbonate Bedrock\n Tool Sources Subject of Interest Significance\n Phase 1 - Preliminary site investigation\n Geologic maps New Jersey Geological Survey (1) Is carbonate rock present Indicates karst risk present\n United States Geological Survey (2) Risk level based on geologic unit(s) present Indicates possible extent of problem\n County planning agencies Presence and location of faults and folds Indicates condition of rock, location of high-risk areas\n Township environmental resources inventory Orientation of strata and joints Indicates relationship of karst features to one another\n Original report for site by qualified geologist\n Aerial photography U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (3) Land cover for site Significance of previous land use\n N.J.D.E.P. Land Use Regulation Program (4) Location of hedge rows High probability areas for sinkhole\n New Jersey Geological Survey (1) Presence of vegetation in cultivated fields High probability areas for sinkholes and outcrops\n United States Geological Survey (5) Circular patterns High probability areas for sinkholes\n Private aerial survey firms Linear patterns Presence of \"sags,\" outcrops, faults, fracture zones\n Differential shading Subsurface drainage patterns\n Topographic maps United States Geological Survey (2) Site relief Presence of steep slopes\n New Jersey Geological Survey (1) Site drainage patterns Natural of modified drainage\n Private camping stores, bookstores Natural depressions High probability areas for sinkholes\n Land cover Significance of previous land use\n Site field visit Observations of reconnaissance party Previous experiences with sinkholes, springs, etcHistory of karst-related problems\n Observations of previous owners or land users Land-use changes over time Controlling factors on land use\n Drainage patterns Surface drainage patterns; disappearing streams, springs\n Identification of features on maps, photos Identification of potential karst hazards, test sites\n Phase 2 - Site-specific investigation\n Test pits Previous logs collected at site Presence of voids in soil High probability areas for sinkholes\n Logs performed on site Presence of soft or organic soils Previous sinkhole activity; high risk for reactivation\n Depth to shallow bedrock Obstacles to underground facilities; pollution hazard\n Voids in bedrock High probability areas for sinkholes; pollution hazard\n Condition of shallow bedrock Risk to excavation, loads\n Bedrock topography Need for excavation, blasting.\n Test probes Private drilling or blasting firms (percussion probe) Thickness of unconsolidated overburden Potential for or potential size of, subsidence features\n Competency of unconsolidated overburden Potential for ground subsidence\n Presence of voids in soil High probability areas for sinkholes; need for foundation elements\n Presence of voids in bedrock High probability areas for sinkholes; need for foundation elements\n Condition of bedrock Foundation element design\n Circulation of air in rig Presence of voids\n Test borings Private drilling firms (coring rig) Condition of unconsolidated overburden Potential for subsidence; foundation design\n Voids in unconsolidated overburden Potential for or potential size of subsidence features\n Condition of bedrock Sinkhole risk; foundation element design\n Voids in bedrock Presence and size of voids/sinkhole risk\n Water circulation Presence and size of voids in overburden or bedrock\n Geophysical surveys Private geotechnical firms Geophysical anomalies Potential location and size of karst features\n Location for additional subsurface data collection\n Bedrock topography Need for excavation, blasting.\n\n (1) New Jersey Geological Survey, P.O. Box 147, Trenton, NJ 07825, 609-292-2576, 609-633-1004 (fax), URL: http://njgs.state.nj.us\n (2) U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225, 1-800-USA-MAPS, 303-2-2-4693 (fax), URL: http://mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to_order.html (local dealers also available)\n (3) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, State Soil Scientist, 732-246-1171, ext. 170\n (5) U.S. Geological Survey, EROS Data Center, Customer Services, Sioux Falls, SD 57198, 605-594-6151, 605-594-6589 (fax),\n e-mail: custserv@edcmail.cr.usgs.gov, URL: http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/eros-home.html\n K-5\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=417)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 418", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 418\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nProcedures to follow if karst features are identified during investigation\n\nThe site investigations described above may reveal the location of suspected areas of ground subsidence. These\nfindings should be compared to the proposed layout of site facilities. Wherever possible, facilities should be sited to\navoid suspected areas of potential ground subsidence. Where relocation of facilities is not practical, remedial\nmeasures and design standards can be employed to minimize future ground failure. Remedial sealing of voids in\nthe soil or bedrock and /or compaction of soil and rock voids may be a viable in some areas.\n\nSite Design and Construction General Guidelines\n\nSite design and construction procedures can be important in reducing the risk of sinkhole development. Sinkholes\nmost often form in areas where storm-water runoff is concentrated, where bearing loads are concentrated, and where\nground water is pumped in large volumes. When development is proposed consideration should be given to the\nfollowing general guidelines to minimize the risk of ground failure:\n\n Minimize site disturbance, including cuts and fills and drainage alteration.\n\n Minimize impervious surface so as to minimize the volume of surface runoff generated.\n\nEmploy storm-water management measures that minimize flow velocities and ponding to avoid erosion of\nover-saturation of soils.\n\nWaterproof pipefittings and pipe-to-basin fittings to minimize underground leaks. Leaks weaken and erode soils\naround underground conduits.\n\nPlace foundations on sound bedrock.\n\nSoil Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities General\n\nThe selection, design, and implementation of soil erosion and sediment control practices in karst areas should be\nguided by the following objectives and should incorporate the following design elements:\n\nThe site should be designed to take maximum advantage of topography. Modifications of site topography should be\nminimized.\n\nChanges to the existing soil profile, including cuts, fills, and excavations, should be minimized.\n\nWhere practical, drainage facilities should consist of embankments at or above grade. Excavation into the existing\nsoil profile to construct swales and basins should be minimized to the degree possible.\n\nTemporary and final grading of the site should provide for drainage of storm-water runoff away from structures.\n\nAll storm-water management facilities, including grassed waterways, diversions and lined waterways, should be\ndesigned to disperse the flows across the broadest channel area possible. This reduces the level of soil saturation\nand reduces the potential for soil movement. Shallow trapezoidal channel cross sections are preferred over parabolic\nor v-shaped channels.\n\nSedimentation and detention basins should be used as a last resort for sediment control in karst areas, and should be\nused only after other designs have been considered and rejected. Consideration should be given to constructing\nbasins required for permanent storm-water detention at the end of the project, after the site has been stabilized.\nVegetative cover should be established as rapidly as possible over exposed areas. Construction scheduling should\nstrive to minimize the time that soil excavations are open and non-vegetated. This reduces the time that the site is\nexposed to periods of concentrated flows as well as preventing excessive drying of soils.\n\n K-6 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=418)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 419", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 419\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nUtility trenches should be back filled with in-situ soils or low permeability fill material to discourage sub-surface\nwater flow along the trench. Clay dams may be used at intervals along the trench excavation to impede subsurface\nflow along the trench. Trench backfill should be compacted to prevent future settlement and ponding. Backfill\ndensities for open areas should exceed 90% of ASTM D-1557 maxima. Densities for areas supporting structures\nsuch as roadways should equal or exceed 95% ASTM D-1557 maxima. All underground piping should have\nwater -tight fittings. The piping should be designed to withstand some limited displacement due to the probable\nground settling and/or downward migration of trench bedding material into solution features.\n\nStorm-water facilities design waterways\n\nStorm-water conveyance structures to be used in karst areas should be designed in such a way as to dissipate\noverland flow over the largest area possible. Every attempt should be made to avoid concentration of flows and\nponding. Grassed waterways can be effective storm-water-diversion structures in karst areas. Particularly effective\nare waterway designs that are shallow and broad, providing maximum bottom width and wetted perimeter to\ndisperse flow over the greatest area. Grassed waterways in karst areas should be designed in accordance with\nstandards provided in \"Standard for Grassed Waterways\" (pg. 18-1).\n\nStorm-water facilities design sedimentation and detention basins\n\nSedimentation and detention basins in karst areas have a poor performance history. Collapse of the basins and basin\ninlet and outlet structures is common. Detention basins are particularly vulnerable to collapse in karst areas, because\nthey are designed to concentrate and detain surface-water runoff. Ponding and associated soil saturation occur\nwhere surface-runoff is concentrated. Saturation of fine-grained soils that develop on weathered limestone can\ncause reduction in soil strength and erosion into bedrock voids.\n\nMethods traditionally used to reduce or eliminate excessive seepage from an impounded area may have limited\nsuccess in limestone areas. Traditional sealing methods include compaction, clay blankets, bentonite treatment and\nflexible membrane liners. The sealing of the solution channels in bedrock beneath the basin area can reduce seepage\nand soil displacement into underlying voids.\n\nWhen they function properly, detention basins can be effective in removing contaminants commonly found in storm\nwater, including heavy metals, nutrients, herbicides, pesticides, solids, and bacteria. Most of these contaminants are\nattenuated by sedimentation and soil filtration in the basin bottom. Sinkholes undermine the beneficial effects of\nbasins on water quality by allowing introduction of untreated surface runoff directly to ground water. They\n\"short-circuit\" the hydraulic benefits of basins by allowing bypassing of outlet structures.\n\nDetention basin sites can be evaluated and facilities designed and retrofitted to guard against sinkhole formation and\nimprove performance from a water-quality perspective. Testing procedures and design elements recommended to\nminimize detention basin failure include:\n\nMinimize the coverage of the site by impervious surfaces, so that detention basin size will be minimized.\n\nEvaluate soil texture. The basin should be constructed to minimize excessive seepage (Fig. K-2). Highly cohesive\nsoils such as silt and clay loams may require minimum preparation of basin bottoms. Soils with low cohesive\nstrength, such as sandy loams may require compaction and/or replacement or modification by the addition clay\nbinders or by installation of liners. Acceptable practices for installing liners are summarized in Table K-2.\n\nInvestigate soils and bedrock below the basin for presence of voids. Repair existing voids and/or perform\npreventative grouting of basin substrate.\n\n$ Basin profiles should be broad and flat to allow maximum dispersion of detained flow.\n\n$ Basin bottoms should be smooth to avoid ponding.\n\n K-7 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=419)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 420", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 420\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n$ Inlet and outlet structures should be designed to provide diffuse discharge of water; avoid concentration of\n flows. Under drains are preferred to provide gradual discharge of water and to avoid prolonged ponding of\n water. Refer to Appendix A-7 for sediment basins for design and installation of under drains.\n\n$ Repair sinkholes that occur in basin after construction.\n\n\nTable K-2. Appropriate liners for sedimentation and detention basins\n\n\nPractice Standard (1) Practice\n\n 521-A Pond sealing or lining - Flexible membrane\n\n 521-B Pond sealing or lining - Soil dispersant\n\n 521-C Pond sealing or lining - Bentonite sealant\n\n 521-D Pond sealing or lining - Cationic emulsion waterborne sealant\n\n 521-E Pond sealing or lining - Asphalt sealed fabric liner\n\n(1) USDA National handbook of conservation practices, IV. Standards and practices.\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n\n\n K-8 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=420)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 421", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 421\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Figure K-2 Determination of Specific Discharge\n\n\n\n\n\n K-9 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=421)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 422", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 422\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nBlasting\n\nRock blasting with explosives can cause soil collapse and cavern collapse, leading to sinkhole development. Specific\nguidance should be developed in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. For further information on\napplicable state laws contact the New Jersey Department of Labor, Office of Safety Compliance (609-292-2096).\nBlasting guidelines are designed to protect structures against damage. Mobilization of unstable soils or rock in karst\nareas may be brought about at velocities lower than those specified in the regulations.\n\nResponse and remediation of sinkholes occurring during construction\n\nIt is common for sinkholes to form during construction of a project. Sinkholes that occur during construction should\nbe repaired immediately to prevent their enlargement and associated adverse impacts. When sinkholes occur during\nconstruction the site supervisor should take the following steps:\n\n$ Report the occurrence to the Soil Conservation District within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery;\n\n$ Halt construction activities in the immediate area of the sinkhole until it is stabilized. Secure the sinkhole\n area.\n\n$ Direct the surface water away from the sinkhole area, if possible, to a suitable storm-water drainage system.\n\n$ Select a remedial measure from Section 2 (following). Communicate proposed remediation plan to the\n Soil Conservation District. Some jurisdictions may have local requirements for notification and review as\n well.\n\n$ Repair any damage to soil erosion and sediment control improvements and restore ground cover and\n landscaping;\n\n$ In those cases where the hazard cannot be repaired without adversely affecting the soil erosion and\n sediment control plan design, the applicant should arrange a conference with the Soil Conservation District\n to discuss modifications to the plan.\n\nThe type of repair chosen for any sinkhole depends on its location, the extent and size of the void, the type of\ninfrastructure planned for the sinkhole area, and the financial and technical resources available to the developer of\nthe site. Sinkhole sealing methods can include the use of available on-site materials, dry or wet grout, filter material\nand geotextiles.\n\nTreatment methods for repairing sinkholes can be found following the bibliography of selected references.\n\nAll sinkhole remediation activities should be under the direct supervision of a geologist, or geotechnical engineer\nwith experience in limestone investigations and remediation practices. A certified professional should perform all\nborings.\n\n\n\n\n\n K-10 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=422)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 423", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 423\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\nSelected References\n\nAmerican Society for Testing and Materials, 1991. ASTM D1557-91, Test method for laboratory compaction\ncharacteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lb/ft), West Conshohocken, PA.\n\nBeck, B. F. 1984. Sinkhole terminology, in: Proceedings of the First Multi disciplinary Conference on Sinkholes,\nOrlando, FL.\n\nFischer, J.A., J.J. Fischer, T.C. Graham, R.W. Greene, and R. Canace. 1984. Practical concerns of\nCambro-Ordovician karst sites, in: Proceedings of the First Multi disciplinary Conference on Sinkholes, Orlando,\nFL, p. 233-237.\n\nIqbal, M.Ayub. 1995. 'Engineering experience with limestone'. In: Karst GeoHazards, Beck (ed) Balkema,\nRotterdam, pp. 463-468.\n\nKalmes, A. and E. Mohring. 1995. Sinkhole treatment to improve water quality and control erosion in southeastern\nMinnesota, in: Karst GeoHazards, Beck (ed) Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 265-272.\n\nKochanov, W.E. 1995. Storm-water management and sinkhole occurrence in the Palmyra area, Lebanon County,\nPennsylvania., in: Karst GeoHazards, Beck (ed.) Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 285-290.\n\nNewton, J.G. 1984. Review of induced sinkhole development, in: Proceedings of the First Multi disciplinary\nConference on Sinkholes, Orlando, FL, p. 3-9.\n\nNatural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. 1995. Sinkhole and sinkhole area treatment. Sinkhole Treatment\n370, pp. 1-3.\n\nSowers, G.F. 1984. Correction and protection in limestone terrain, in: Proceedings of the First Multi disciplinary\nConference on Sinkholes. Orlando, FL, pp. 373-378.\n\nU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Handbook of conservation practices, IV. Standards and practices,\n(stock no. 001-007-00903-1) Washington D.C.\n\n(USDA manuals and handbooks can be obtained through the National Technical Information Service Research\nDepartment, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161, 703-487-4780,\n703-321-8541 (fax))\n\n\n\n\n\n K-11 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=423)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 424", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 424\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nSection 2 - Sinkhole Treatment\n\nDefinitions\n\nA sinkhole is a surface depression caused by collapse of soil or bedrock into cavities in soluble bedrock. Sinkhole\ntreatment is the cleaning out, excavation, and back filling of a sinkhole, and treatment of the associated drainage\narea to prevent its expansion or recurrence.\n\nPurpose\n\nThe purpose of sinkhole treatment measures is to repair sinkholes by addressing their cause, which is typically a\nsolution cavity in bedrock. Objectives include stabilization of the ground surface at the site of the sinkhole and\nprevention of ground-water pollution.\n\nApplicability\n\nSinkhole treatment practices should be applied where geologic conditions have resulted in the development of\nsinkholes, where contaminated water and/or soils have the opportunity to enter sinkholes and pollute ground water,\nand where land management measures can be made more effective by treating sinkholes. Considerations for\nselecting the appropriate treatment measure include:\n\n geologic conditions, including depth to bedrock and size of cavernous zone(s);\n\n dimensions of sinkhole;\n\n presence or absence of open \"throat\";\n\n existing and planned land use;\n\n sinkhole drainage area;\n\n quality and volume of surface-water runoff;\n\n need for filter strip or other water-quality measure;\n\n nature of \"clean-out\" material;\n\n availability and quality of materials;\n\n project budget;\n\n safety of labor and equipment during and after treatment.\n\n proximity to permanent structures.\n\n\n\n\n\n K-12 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=424)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 425", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 425\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nPlanning Considerations\n\nA systematic approach should be used in treating both the sinkhole and its drainage area. A determination must be\nmade as to whether the sinkhole should continue to receive surface-water runoff, or if runoff should be diverted\nfrom the treated area. A sinkhole treated in such as way as to continue to receive runoff may be referred to as a\n\"drainage sinkhole.\" Drainage sinkholes are appropriate where the drainage area is small, water quality is high, or\ncontrol of the watershed is not feasible. Drainage sinkholes should work in conjunction with water-quality\nimprovement practices, such as conservation cropping systems, nutrient management practices, filter strips, and\nconservation practices that control sheet, rill, and gully erosion.\n\nThe treatment design should not result in ponding of surface water or high soil moisture conditions. Diverting\nsurface water from a sinkhole should be considered if runoff is contributing to its formation or expansion, or if the\nquality of the runoff entering the sinkhole is unsatisfactory. Surface water can be excluded by sealing the sinkhole\nand/or diverting runoff away it. Sinkholes can be sealed by effective compaction of backfill material that minimizes\ninfiltration. The drainage area contributing runoff to the sinkhole area should be minimized to the extent practical\nthrough the use of diversions, waterways, graded terraces, surface inlets, or outlets, as required.\n\nSite Investigation Prior to Treatment\n\nA site investigation should be extensive enough to determine if the sinkhole could be treated effectively for the\nintended purpose. The site investigation should address geology, soils, hydrology and water quality. An area larger\nthan the extant sinkhole may need to be addressed to prevent future sinkhole development.\n\nThe geologic investigation of the sinkhole site should be extensive enough to determine the following:\n\n depth to bedrock;\n\n susceptibility of bedrock to solution;\n\n depth to suspected void(s);\n\n presence of or potential for other sinkholes in the treatment area.\n\nThe minimum site-specific soil investigation should be extensive enough to define the following:\n\n filter requirements of the soil;\n\n availability of backfill;\n\n compaction requirements of the backfill;\n\n moisture changes that may affect stability.\n\n The minimum hydrologic and hydraulic considerations include:\n\n drainage area to the sinkhole area;\n\n design runoff rates to the sinkhole if water is to be diverted;\n\n stable outlets for proposed waterways, diversions, etc.\n\n The minimum water quality considerations include:\n\n present and future water quality impairments of the inflow;\n\n K-13 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=425)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 426", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 426\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n identification of and nature of the receiving water body and/ or aquifer.\n\n\nTreatment Methods, Designs, and Procedures\n\nA. Preparation of Sinkhole Prior to Treatment: All Methods\n\nPreparation of the sinkhole is required to insure success using all treatment methods. All needed filter and backfill\nmaterials must be on site during preparation of the sinkhole. The following steps are necessary to prepare sinkholes\nfor any of the treatment methods selected:\n\n(1) Clean out\n\nAll foreign materials in and around the sinkhole should be removed and properly handled. A landfill disruption\npermit from the State Department of Environmental Protection may be required prior to disturbing the site. Other\ncounty and/or municipal laws, rules or regulations may apply.\n\n(2) Excavation:\n\n Loose soil material should be excavated from the sinkhole in an attempt to expose the cavity in the bedrock.\nPotable water may be used to flush the soil and expose the void(s). Any weak, exposed bedrock should be\nintentionally collapsed into the cavity. The sinkhole may have to be enlarged for safety purposes and for the proper\nplacement of backfill or filter materials.\n\n(3) Bridging\n\nAll exposed cavities are to be bridged with a material suited to the treatment method planned:\n\nFor a drainage sinkhole, rock which is 50 percent larger than the opening should be placed in a layer over the cavity.\n\nFor a sinkhole plug, concrete or rock may be used. Where concrete is used, a low slump and/or quick set mix is\nrecommended.\n\n For a sinkhole treatment at site to be used for structures, concrete or grouted rock is required.\n\nB. Sinkhole Treatment Method - Drainage Sinkhole\n\n(1) Application\n\nA drainage sinkhole method should be used where the sinkhole(s) is an integral part of the existing drainage system\nfor the site, such as for sinkholes occurring in swales, watercourse, and receiving depressions. Drainage sinkholes\nshould not be used within the foundation area of a structure. The design consists of placing layers of graded\nmaterial to bridge the void, allow infiltration of surface water, and percolation of ground water through the layers\nwithout causing erosion. Geotextiles may be used as a filter layers if seepage quantities are low and clogging is not\nsuspected to be a problem. The geotextile shall be designed for the anticipated infiltration rate.\n\n(2) Procedure\n\n (a) Preparation: Sinkhole preparation as per Preparation of Sinkhole Prior to Treatment-All Methods\n (above). Rocks should be used to bridge the sinkhole throat. Excess spoil from the excavation must be\n disposed of in a proper way (fig. K-3).\n (b) Inverted filter: Installation of inverted filter designed to function as a combined filter and drain in\n accordance with standard engineering practice (fig. K-4). Each filter or drainage layer will consist of a\n specific gradation of sand, gravel and/or rock, depending on the gradation of the adjoining layer. An\n acceptable design method is currently contained in the USDA-NRCS National Engineering Handbook,\n\n K-14 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=426)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 427", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 427\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Chapter 26, Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters.\n\n Typical design: If the base soil is fine grained and the sinkhole is in a low-risk situation (i.e. removed from\n structures), the typical inverted filter design as shown in figure 1 may be used.\n\nC. Sinkhole Treatment Method - Sinkhole Plug with Inverted Filter\n\n(1) Application\n\nThe sinkhole plug method should be used for areas that are not an integral part of the drainage system for the site. It\nis suitable for areas that shed runoff. It should not be used for sites that will support structures.\n\nThe inverted filter design permits percolation of soil moisture while preventing internal erosion. The method\nemploys readily available materials to plug the void. The surface of the finished plug is graded to prevent ponding\nof surface water.\n\n(2) Procedures\n\n (a) Sinkhole preparation: The sinkhole area should be prepared as per Preparation of Sinkhole for\n Treatment: All Methods (above). Any method of bridging may be employed. Suitable excavated material\n should be salvaged for use as backfill.\n\n (b) Inverted filter: The inverted filter shall be designed in accordance with standard engineering practice.\n Each filter layer will consist of a specific gradation of sand, gravel, or rock, depending on the gradation of\n the adjoining layer. An acceptable design method is contained in the USDA-NRCS National Engineering\n Handbook, Chapter 26, Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters.\n\n Typical design: If the base soil is fine grained and the sinkhole is in a low-risk situation, the typical\n inverted filter design as shown in figure K-2 may be used. A geotextile may be used between the fill layers\n to prevent migration of materials between layers. This fabric should permit percolation of ground water.\n The geotextile shall be designed for the anticipated infiltration rate and selected to prevent clogging.\n\nD. Sinkhole Treatment Method - Remedial Grouting\n\n(1) Application\n\nRemedial grouting should be used to treat sinkholes in areas that are near or are intended to support structures,\nwhere internal drainage is not a concern. Grouting can be used as a means of sealing the sinkhole throat in\nconnection with sinkhole plugs, as described above. Three types of grouting methods are appropriate for karst areas:\nslurry grouting, compaction grouting, and \"cavity treatment grouting.\"\n\nGrout is a mix of cement and additives to reduce shrinkage and accelerate or reduce hardening time. Slurry grouting\nis the filling of a cavity with cement. Compaction grouting is high-pressure injection of grout to fill cavities and\ndisplace and/or compress surrounding soils to achieve greater strength. Cavity treatment grouting is a combination\nof slurry and compaction grouting. Since the grouting methods seal voids, grouting is not recommended in\ncombination with the drainage sinkhole design, except to supplement it by stabilizing areas surrounding the drainage\nsinkhole.\n\n(2) Procedures\n\nIn all grouting methods a hole is drilled into the subsurface cavity(s) in the bedrock or soil and a grout mixture is\nintroduced. The grout mixture is selected based on conditions encountered during treatment. The grout is\nintroduced by pumping via a hose or by gravity via a chute. Backfill of the remaining sinkhole after grouting\nshould follow the above procedures for sinkhole plugging.\n\n K-15 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=427)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 428", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 428\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n (a) Sinkhole preparation: The sinkhole area should be prepared as per Preparation of Sinkhole for\n Treatment: All Methods (above). Suitable excavated material should be salvaged for use as backfill.\n\n (b) Introduction of grout - slurry grouting (fig. K-5).: A lean cement mix (1:1:1 water/mason sand/cement)\n with an appropriate anti-shrinkage agent (e.g. bentonite) is placed into the void(s) in the soil and/or bedrock\n in the area of concern (figure 3). Slurry grout can be placed in stages with the use of down-hole packers.\n\n Introduction of grout - compaction grouting: Inject a low-slump (less than 2 inches) grout to displace\n and/or compress the surrounding soils to achieve greater strength. The grout mix should consist of cement\n (ASTM C150-97e1 Portland cement Type I), fine aggregate (mason sand, ASTM C144-97), and water with\n an anti-shrinkage agent (e.g., bentonite) and appropriate accelerators and/or thickeners. The mix should\n have a slump of less than 4 inches (ASTM C143/C143M-97). The mix should start at 1:5:1 cement: mason\n sand: water by weight with an anti-shrinkage agent. The mix may be varied as conditions warrant. The\n low-slump grout placement may be controlled in such a way as to provide structural support for inlet/outlet\n structures or to close a sinkhole void at depth.\n\n (d) Introduction of grout - cavity treatment grouting (fig. K-6): In this method fluid grout and/or grouted\n concrete columns are used to fill voids in the bedrock . A good understanding of the subsurface geology of\n the site is needed to undertake this method. In cavity treatment grouting the decision on the best method to\n treat the void based on its size and the expertise and equipment available to carry out the remedy. Options\n include:\n\n (1) the void is small enough to fill economically with cement grout slurry;\n\n (2) the void requires the grout columns within the cavity to reinforce the cavity roof and seal the\n opening. The columns are installed atop sound rock using cement thickeners, sand or gravel pyramids,\n and/or accelerating additives.\n\n After grouting a grout seal should be placed over the entrance to the underlying solution cavity to prevent\n soil erosion into the cavity.\n\n\n\n\n\n K-16 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=428)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 429", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 429\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Figure K-3: Drainage Sinkhole - Typical Design\n\n\n\n\n\n K-17 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=429)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 430", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 430\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n Figure K-4: Sinkhole Plug with Inverted Filter – Typical Design\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure K-5: Slurry Grouting Treatment Method\n\n\n\n\n\n K-18 Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=430)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 431", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 431\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\n\n Figure K-6: Cavity Treatment Grouting Method\n\n\n\n\n\n K-19\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=431)"} {"metadata": {"source_document": "NJ SESC", "version_year": "2017", "chapter_subchapter": "Complete standards", "citation": "SESC 2017, PDF p. 432", "topic": "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control"}, "programmatic_checks": {}, "content_markdown": "# SESC 2017\n\n## PDF page 432\n\nStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey January 2014\n\nSelected References\n\nAmerican Society for Testing and Materials, 1997, Standard C143/C143M-97, Standard test method for slump of\nhydraulic cement concrete, West Conshohocken, PA.\n\nAmerican Society for Testing and Materials, 1997, Standard C144-97, Standard specification for aggregate for\nmasonry mortar, West Conshohocken, PA.\n\nAmerican Society for Testing and Materials, 1997, Standard C150-97e1, Standard specification for Portland\nCement, West Conshohocken, PA.\n\nNational Crushed Stone Association, 1978. Quarried stone for erosion and sediment control, Manufactured products\nof the crushed stone industry, V. 2, Site work, drainage/marine work, Washington, D.C.\n\nU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1995. Sinkhole and sinkhole\narea treatment. Sinkhole Treatment 370, Trenton, NJ, pp. 1-3\n\nU.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1994. National engineering handbook,\nPart 633, Chapter 26, Gradation design of sand and gravel filters, 210-vi-NEH, Washington D.C., October 1994, 37\np. w. appendix.\n\nU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Handbook of conservation practices, IV. Standards and practices,\n(stock no. 001-007-00903-1) Washington D.C.\n\n(USDA manuals and handbooks can be obtained through the National Technical Information Service Research\nDepartment, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161, 703-487-4780,\n703-321-8541 (fax)\n\n\n\n\n\n K-20\n Return to TOC\n\n[Original page](SOURCE.pdf#page=432)"}