# Redirecting river flow to protect bridge approach



## BlueRidgeGreen (Apr 21, 2012)

Robie said:


> Can you sketch that out and post it...draw it on the google photo.
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion....this is a massive project and if you don't get the alphabet agencies involved...you will end up wishing you did. You can't weed-wack weeds next to a body of water around here.




After looking at it all day yesterday, and this morning after a good downpour last night, I have a plan of action. 

It seems very obvious what was done wrong. 

1) The ford that was cut is channeling water up to the approach. 

2) The worst damage/erosion is on the downstream side of the approach where the farmer just let it drop off (where the drop was fairly abrupt from the damage from the last flood). 

3) The bridge abutments suffered no erosion at all, despite taking the brunt of the speed and volume of the water. 
They didn’t lose any rip rap, not even 6” rocks, clearly because they were shaped well to smooth the flow. 

Knowing all of this, my plan is as such....

Bring in a bunch more rip rap to do two things. 
Slope both the up and downstream sides of the approach, and raise the entire approach above high water level. 

One other consideration is a long term solution to the funnel created by the ford. 

That I haven’t quite figured out yet. 


So......?
What say you?

Culverts ....?
Are they completely necessary?

Ford future?


As far as the alphabets....we’re all good. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

hdavis said:


> I'm guessing where he is it won't have to be permitted. Changing a bank or a channel is a no-no, but some vegetation can be removed within 75' of the bank. It's a road, you'd need to have runoff / erosion control during construction if you're digging or placing soil, and that's about it.


Maybe.

Maybe not.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title9/agency25/chapter220/


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

From what I am reading, even FEMA gets involved when small bridges and culverts are in play...even in outlying areas.

All I'm saying is, in today's world, just because some place is out in the sticks, doesn't mean it's out of sight/jurisdiction...from government agencies. That's all.

...and...Virginia owns all water.

(§ 62.1-44.3) "State waters" means all water, on the surface and under
the ground, wholly or partially within or bordering the
Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction, including wetlands. Such
waters are a natural resource which should be regulated by the
Commonwealth.
"Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and
similar areas.
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/TOC6201000.HTM


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

That's pretty much a copy of the federal regulations. His road isn't a wetland or a stream.

If floodwaters were the criteria, the whole country would be in trouble. IMO, if local officials are good with it, he's good. They'll have the overlays for the protection zones and local, state and federal compliance requirements.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Robie said:


> From what I am reading, even FEMA gets involved when small bridges and culverts are in play...even in outlying areas.
> 
> All I'm saying is, in today's world, just because some place is out in the sticks, doesn't mean it's out of sight/jurisdiction...from government agencies. That's all.
> 
> ...


OK, so sue Virginia because their water destroyed the bridge.

Ahhh that's what I thought. They want it both ways, own the water but have zero liability for it. Tell you how you have to do everything and make you pay all the costs.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

hdavis said:


> That's pretty much a copy of the federal regulations. His road isn't a wetland or a stream.
> 
> If floodwaters were the criteria, the whole country would be in trouble. IMO, if local officials are good with it, he's good. They'll have the overlays for the protection zones and local, state and federal compliance requirements.


Depends if the Waters Act that buckwheat put in place is still there. He let the DEP claim that all the water was the govts. Oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, rain water puddles... everything.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Leo G said:


> Depends if the Waters Act that buckwheat put in place is still there. He let the DEP claim that all the water was the govts. Oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, rain water puddles... everything.


It looks like a river. I think they were protected before Obama got into office.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

That looks like a beautiful property why even touch it? 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I won't go too far into it, but federal regulatiins for farms are different from the rest. Even within the exclusion zones, it's particular activities which trigger lots of paperwork and reviews to get approval.

Everything can be tighter, depending on state and local jurisdictions. A couple areas up here have vernal pool restrictiins, so you have to get approval if a vernal pool is within 200 feet.

For thise who don't know, a vernal pool is a mud puddle that frogs, salamanders breed in and then dries up. Operationally, it's more miney to get the study dine, plus the determinatiin that it usn't a *significant* vernal pool to get approval.

That's why I say ask the AHJ, they will know if you'll be triggering additional approvals in that particular location.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

One other comment. The official overlays may not be correct. I've seen ones that shiw wetlands where there are none, and no wetlands where there are wetlands. The FEMA maps for coastal flooding are notirious for being problematic.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I have to admit I'm a little envious. I'd love to have that place. Floods and all just like it sits!!! Maybe I'll move next door than BRG and I can be neighbors. :laughing: you know shoot the **** over a couple ice teas. :laughing:


Mike.
_______________


----------



## BlueRidgeGreen (Apr 21, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> That looks like a beautiful property why even touch it?
> 
> 
> Mike.
> _______________




It’s pure heaven. 

There’s a remarkable natural ford downstream from the bridge that acts like a 10’ wide, 6’ deep, 100’ long whirlpool. 

Great fishing, we stock it with trout. 

Perfect for kayaking, paddle boarding...etc. 

100 acres, half in woods, some we let a neighbor farm, and a third in food plots, which means fantastic deer, turkey, and dove hunting.
Fruit trees all over. 
Peaches, pears, apples, persimmons.
Just built a nice garden. 

Backs up to 10’s of thousands of acres of National Forest. 

It’s about 40 mins outside of town. 

We plan on living here full time when we retire and the kids go off to college. 

Thinking of building some cabins down by the river for vacation rentals/guests. 

We spend every minute we can here. 

I’m just going to beef up the approach so we don’t have to come out of pocket to the tune of $7k a year to pay someone to keep pushing rocks around. 

Won’t change the property at all really. 

Same thing as before. 
Just higher and wider....and sloped correctly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BlueRidgeGreen (Apr 21, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> I have to admit I'm a little envious. I'd love to have that place. Floods and all just like it sits!!! Maybe I'll move next door than BRG and I can be neighbors. :laughing: you know shoot the **** over a couple ice teas. :laughing:
> 
> 
> Mike.
> _______________




The floods never come up near the cabin or the rest of the property. 

Just that darn approach. 

We are hoping to buy the place next door and add another 80 to it. 

I’ll save you a couple acres. 
You can keep a van down by the river.
(You do know that it snows here....?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BlueRidgeGreen said:


> The floods never come up near the cabin or the rest of the property.
> 
> Just that darn approach.
> 
> ...




It gets cold? As in 'no flip flops' cold?????


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

We don't care if you wear flip flops in 20 degree weather Mike, more power to ya.


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

hdavis said:


> One other comment. The official overlays may not be correct. I've seen ones that shiw wetlands where there are none, and no wetlands where there are wetlands. The FEMA maps for coastal flooding are notirious for being problematic.


And then they call a guy in who make $1000 a day who walks around in boots and has a stick to poke in the ground and just stands there and looks around for a while. I saw this same guy on 3 different jobs here, he determines what and what not is wetlands, ties ribbons on trees/bushes so when the surveyor comes mack he can remap it. 

Told me he has the best job in the world because hardly anyone has the experience that he did.


----------



## BlueRidgeGreen (Apr 21, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> It gets cold? As in 'no flip flops' cold?????
> 
> 
> Mike.
> _______________




It certainly does. 

Not HDavis in Maine cold, but cold. 

You’re probably stubborn enough to wear flops anyway. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fixed (Jun 17, 2018)

rrk said:


> And then they call a guy in who make $1000 a day who walks around in boots and has a stick to poke in the ground and just stands there and looks around for a while. I saw this same guy on 3 different jobs here, he determines what and what not is wetlands, ties ribbons on trees/bushes so when the surveyor comes mack he can remap it.
> 
> Told me he has the best job in the world because hardly anyone has the experience that he did.


How do you get that job? You've sold me! 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

If you just raise the ground level of the approach you will be creating a dam that holds back the water that would have normally washed out the approach.
Since you now dam that water you will most likely raise the water to now wash over the bridge.

If you raise the road bed you will need to set some pipes to let that flood water pass by under the road like it normally does when it washes everything away.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

BlueRidgeGreen said:


> After looking at it all day yesterday, and this morning after a good downpour last night, I have a plan of action.
> 
> It seems very obvious what was done wrong.
> 
> ...


The permitting process for changing the ford will be a killer. 

The general approach seems OK, but you're trusting your eyes on this one.


----------

