Building a bridge over a stream ...

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=gumtree;8985035]
This would be the last thing I would do. I am all for soil conservation, realistic environmental rules and regs. Long before it was fashionable.

But like most if not all over stuffed bureaucratic regulators they feed upon themselves. Growing larger and bigger each year to justify their existence and budget. IMO WAY too many mountains are made out of mole hills.

We are talking about a VERY small bridge crossing one of most likely numerous small steams in the area. I think it would be a REAL stretch to think what the OP wants to accomplish is going to cause some sort of major environmental degradation. Something that needs a have an environmental impact study done. Lets be realistic here.

This will not take major money or effort to accomplish IMO and experience. I have built several. With much larger spans than 4+ feet.

IMO this falls under, build it and if for some reason some bored EPA agent stubble’s upon it ask forgiveness. This is private land not a state park or public. The worst that can happen is it may have to be removed. I would certainly take my chances on MY property.

The key to not causing any future soil erosion is not to disturb the existing stream bed. Pretty darn easy to accomplish with something this small.

Installing a culvert that is around 4’ wide is not easy nor inexpensive. This will require a reasonable amount of “engineering” to be done right, stand the test of time. If not done right there will be major soil erosion. I have seen many of these poorly installed and they have been a total PITA. Requiring constant repair and maintenance.

We have a small stream at the bottom of one section of our property that runs under the road. The state installed the wrong size culvert more than 15 years ago. The state has plenty of money and god knows how many “engineers” on the payroll. What do they have to worry about it’s not their money. They can’t get fired for screw ups. Unlike the rest of us.

Like most areas we get flash flood rains from time to time. Not something new, not something caused by global warming. Water seeks its own level and because the culvert was under sized to begin with the water backs up and flows over the culvert and the road. Never gets very deep but the state never put up a warning sign “Watch for high water”.

Instead they have sent crews out to dick with it year in and year out. Band aid fixes wasting god knows how much of tax payer money. Typical bureaucratic way of going about it, 3 people “working” 8-12 standing around. I know I’ve counted.

OP, pictures speak a 1000 words. If you post some pics, looking up stream, down stream and from both side I pretty sure I can tell you exactly how to go about it. Prefer not on Photobucket. Hate that sight. Slow to load full of BS and they send constant emails EVERYDAY when ever I check out someone’s link.

Post on FB which is far easier than Photobucket of crap anyway. Make the post “public” and provide the link.

This can most likely be a simple and fun project. But it may require far more effort and money than you want to put into.

Our fox hunters can easily handle jumping a 4’ wide stream.[/QUOTE]

Everything you’ve said is quite true. But if your project, no matter how innocuous looking, crosses somebody’s rules then the arguments, above, will gain you precisely nothing. Even in a low regulation state like TN the bureaucrats take their rice bowls seriously and will defend them to your last dollar. Thus my suggestions.

G.

[starsandsun]

Gumtree, thanks. Will take some pix and send. I am sure my youngster could easily clear the width; not sure I would stay on! : )

[HungarianHippo]

Your stream likely is jurisdictional Waters of the US and subject to US Army Corps regs. Don’t do your project until you thoroughly understand the rules.

Perhaps you’ll choose to knowingly violate them on the assumption that you won’t get caught and who needs to protect those silly wetlands, anyway?. Kinda like the people who litter-- I have to imagine they’re thinking that this one thing they’re throwing on the ground’s not gonna make a difference, right?

One way to clear-span a stream (and thus avoid wetlands impacts) is to use a old flatbed truck chassis, or a “flatrack” railcar.

[Hilary]

Actually I did check and in NH what I did was legal.

[DHCarrotfeeder]

Hilary, you’re talking state regs. HH rightly brings up jurisdiction of the USACE.

To the OP, sorry this is a jurisdictional nightmare. The regs are poorly understood, inconsistently enforced, and overlap on the municipal, county, state, and national levels.

I like the idea of the flatbed. I’ve seen this done and it’s simple and if someone gets their knickers in a bunch you’ve done nothing to damage the streambed and it can be moved/removed if necessary.

[clanter]

[QUOTE=starsandsun;8983916]
Hi - I am looking for advice on how to build a bridge over a stream that can support horse traffic.

Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Personally I am glade the internet wasn’t around when the push west was started in the 1700s otherwise I believe everyone would still be within eye sight of the Atlanta ocean

[suz]

Used steel I beams and old railroad cars can make great bridge supports. When we built ours we used 40’ beams to cross the span, and I found the state had decommissioned bridges they occasionally sold as well.
Also if you’re in snow mobile country their trail builders are usually good with bridge building too.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=clanter;8985753]
Personally I am glade the internet wasn’t around when the push west was started in the 1700s otherwise I believe everyone would still be within eye sight of the Atlanta ocean[/QUOTE]

The problem isn’t the internet. If that had been available we’d have had a transcontinental railroad a decade or more earlier than we did and the Donner Party wouldn’t have had to resort to cannibalism.

The problem is the Alphabet Soup. Under the Obama regime there has been a significant increase in regulatory action on “waters of the U.S.” The traditional definition of those waters was that they could float a log at some time during the year. If they could they could be regulated; if they couldn’t then they were outside Federal purview. The State ALWAYS had regulatory authority no matter the water’s depth.

The regulation of “wetlands” (which pretty much by definition can’t ever float logs) and farm drainage swales (that sometimes can) are part of that regulatory effort.

I had the Soil Conservation guys out here a year or so ago to talk about runoff control as my land has a lot of hills and dales and I want better erosion control. The FIRST thing they recommended was that I fence ALL of my stream frontage to keep livestock out. That would have meant four strands of barbed wire over something close to two miles. They would pay for half of it if I followed their “best practices” which are quite extensive and expensive. I declined and we got to talking about what I could and could not do with runoff from hills. I could tell that they were following a “script” because one of them had been here several years ago and he was much freer in suggestions in that earlier visit. It was worth it to have them out as I did get some helpful information. But it wasn’t as valuable as it was in the past.

There are a lot of threads in this forum about regulation of rural property. If you review them you find just how much there actually is. Much local and state action is, in fact, driven by Federal unfunded mandates. Often the Feds don’t have the authority to command, but they do have the authority to dangle money if one follows their rules. What’s that folks say about “follow the money?” Since those of us who actually own useful property for production of something account for less than 5% of the population we are not always big fans of “democracy.” We remember that it was “democracy” that killed Socrates. It has the potential to “kill” us.

There are no easy solutions to all this and I don’t think the new administration will be able to do nearly what they’ve promised. But maybe we’ll get a hiatus from “land grabs” by D.C.

G.

[rugbygirl]

You could look at using a rig mat for this, if the banks are in decent shape. Yes, look into regulations…but a rig mat is exactly what it sounds like, a self supported flat piece that you plunk on top of stuff (anything from small holes to miles of muskeg) and drive heavy things over.

My neighbor did a nice job welding a low rail to the edges of his. Rig mats are sTeel with wood, you buy them prefabbed. If you can span your creek with recommended landing distance on each side…I’d ride a horse over it.

This isn’t engingering advice, if you are not confident in the variables particular to your application, do not pursue this without engaging a professional.

[Stonewall]

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates wetlands and the placing of fill in the waters of the United States is NOT something that was ramped up in the Obama administration. This law was passed by Congress during the Nixon administration.

As a wildlife biologist, I have reviewed project after project and most were FONSI. (Findings of No Significant Impact) but even so, so much has been destroyed. If you don’t know the value of wetlands, then I suppose it doesn’t matter to you.

[Manahmanah]

[QUOTE=Stonewall;8985930]
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates wetlands and the placing of fill in the waters of the United States is NOT something that was ramped up in the Obama administration. This law was passed by Congress during the Nixon administration.

As a wildlife biologist, I have reviewed project after project and most were FONSI. (Findings of No Significant Impact) but even so, so much has been destroyed. If you don’t know the value of wetlands, then I suppose it doesn’t matter to you.[/QUOTE]

But but but but… sekret liberal agenda!

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Stonewall;8985930]
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates wetlands and the placing of fill in the waters of the United States is NOT something that was ramped up in the Obama administration. This law was passed by Congress during the Nixon administration.

As a wildlife biologist, I have reviewed project after project and most were FONSI. (Findings of No Significant Impact) but even so, so much has been destroyed. If you don’t know the value of wetlands, then I suppose it doesn’t matter to you.[/QUOTE]

I think this is what Guilherme was referring to:

https://cramer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-passes-waters-of-the-united-states-resolution-of-disapproval

That is just the first hit on google.

Kind of disingenuous to call him to task on something anyone working with those government programs should have heard, as that huge power grab attempt, that is being fought in the courts by several states best I remember and has been the current news on that topic for several years now.

Even the Corps of Engineers has been against this and has called the department that is pushing it on going around law protocol to get their way.

No matter how strongly someone may feel on any government regulation, we can’t let those in power run roughshod to get their way, if it is for something we want, or for something we don’t want.

[Equibrit]

Where I live, you are not allowed to break the banks of a stream in order to bridge it. You really need to check local regulations BEORE you start. My bridge guy ended up using 4ft I beams to span more than merely the width of the stream. You could waste an unnecessarily large amount of money on a redo.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Equibrit;8985967]
Where I live, you are not allowed to break the banks of a stream in order to bridge it. You really need to check local regulations BEORE you start. My bridge guy ended up using 4ft I beams to span more than merely the width of the stream. You could waste an unnecessarily large amount of money on a redo.[/QUOTE]

That’s typical here- and then you need to consider what you are using to anchor- if you are doing footers, etc., and their environmental impact. The guy across the street was getting ready to use old rail road ties (with creosote) in the banks. If he’d actually gotten the thing built, they’d have crucified him.

I was in building and development for many long years, and the company I worked for won the awards from the Conservation District, routinely. You can do it right the first time- jump through the hoops- or you can take your chances, and deal with the possible outcome.

I DO understand the feeling that “hey, it’s MINE, and I’ll do as I please”, but it doesn’t always work out quite like that.

[poltroon]

I think the main takeaway that I would suggest is to find out what the rules are. What you do next is up to you, but you might discover that a simple change to your plan makes it all kosher or that any plan you can afford to consider is riskier than you expected. Or you might find out you’re good to go.

Also, the problem is in most instances easily solved with money, but it sounded like OP was on a budget. Those flatcar bridges are outstanding solutions if you can afford them.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Stonewall;8985930]
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates wetlands and the placing of fill in the waters of the United States is NOT something that was ramped up in the Obama administration. This law was passed by Congress during the Nixon administration.

As a wildlife biologist, I have reviewed project after project and most were FONSI. (Findings of No Significant Impact) but even so, so much has been destroyed. If you don’t know the value of wetlands, then I suppose it doesn’t matter to you.[/QUOTE]

I understand when the Clean Water Act was passed. I also understand the concept of “unintended consequences” and “heavy handed regulation.” I’m not a wildlife biologist, just a lawyer turned almost retired farmer.

The health of wetlands matters to me but they are not ALL that matters to me. If the United States wants to burden my property with regulation that prevents me from engaging in productive activities on my freehold then they ought to have to pay for it. Ditto for the State. If you were to ask me the first qualification I’d look at in the next Supreme Court justice nominee it would not be abortion or public prayer or voting rights or 2nd Amendment rights it would be how they view the relationship between the 5th Amendment and regulation “in the public interest.”

G.

[poltroon]

On the list of unintended consequences though, most regulation is put into place… because of someone else’s failure to think of the neighbors.

So that person who terraced their land to put in more vineyards… the change in the land shape caused someone else’s land to flood, because water that used to go over that land no longer can, and settles somewhere else instead.

The person who thought it would be simple to throw in a culvert and some fill, but sized the culvert for summer flow and not a big 10 year rainstorm causes flooding upstream because the water can’t get out fast enough.

This is not to say every regulation is sensible or well written or carefully thought out. But most regulations come with some sort of cautionary tale of someone, somewhere, who negligently damaged someone else’s property or livelihood. (And with respect to Ye Olden Good Old Days Of The West, let me point out that the more developed the land, the more likely this becomes, or at least, more likely to happen to someone that will have standing with the Law.)

Not knowing the expertise of the OP, I think it is important to convey the various potential risks that may not be obvious to the first-time bridgebuilder.

[Kodiak]

I’m not touching the rest of the mess on this thread, but I am going to point out some of the design considerations.

First, the materials you listed would probably be okay for human traffic, especially if you used treated wood. They aren’t nearly up to making a safe bridge for horses. There is a reason bridges made for horse traffic have decking you could drive a truck on. Look at the size of a horse’s hoof, figure how much the horse weighs, and consider how much force is being applied to a very small area. The math gets worse the longer the span runs. You’ll need to be thinking in terms of much bigger, thicker, heavier, and more reinforcing underneath if you want to avoid having a horse stick a leg through your bridge decking at some point, or worse.

Second, water is amazingly powerful. I’ve seen bridges built on steel I-beams torn out and bent by floods in creeks that are normally ankle deep. There are generally two options with bridges: build ones down in the flood zone (where you’re describing) that you’ll be okay with replacing when it’s torn out, or build a longer span high enough up the hill that the flood never reaches it.

Third, along the same lines, streams generally have straight sides because they’re caving in periodically. Any bridge would need to extend well beyond the stream banks and be carried by competent ground.

Honestly, the cheapest, safest options for livestock crossings are either a properly-sized and -set culvert (soil and water should be able to run the flood-sizing calculations for you, and one that is short in length and set flush/slightly buried in the stream bed shouldn’t cause problems with any enviro regs) or a stabilized livestock crossing. That’s basically laying the stream banks back on at least a 3:1 and building a short section of stone or concrete roadway so the horse has a hard path to walk on. Designed and built properly, either should be a fairly permanent solution that is cheaper, safer, and less maintenance than a bridge.

[starsandsun]

Thanks to all for the good and practical advice. The stream already has a culvert farther down and because of flash floods this past year, I do appreciate the challenges in properly engineering one to manage heavy water flow.

This was an easy stream crossing before a major flood event a few months ago; that episode widened the stream and deepened the drop. I think it may be simpler to wait for nature to erode the banks to make it more attractive to walk into rather than jump, and possibly provide a different entrance/exit so my horse has multiple options to experience water crossing. I wanted a bridge to be one of those experiences, but sounds like it’s much more involved than I had thought.

Just wanted to add that as stewards of our land, we are very engaged in making improvements that benefit water quality and flow, and the land around it. We’ve planted more than 1,000 native trees and shrubs to improve soil conservation along our waterways, and do our best to manage erosion/sediment control that may impact those downstream of us. We have regularly worked with the County extension office to improve run off from sacrifice paddocks and fields to keep streams and ponds healthy.

Thanks!

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=starsandsun;8986288]
Thanks to all for the good and practical advice. The stream already has a culvert farther down and because of flash floods this past year, I do appreciate the challenges in properly engineering one to manage heavy water flow.

This was an easy stream crossing before a major flood event a few months ago; that episode widened the stream and deepened the drop. I think it may be simpler to wait for nature to erode the banks to make it more attractive to walk into rather than jump, and possibly provide a different entrance/exit so my horse has multiple options to experience water crossing. I wanted a bridge to be one of those experiences, but sounds like it’s much more involved than I had thought.

Just wanted to add that as stewards of our land, we are very engaged in making improvements that benefit water quality and flow, and the land around it. We’ve planted more than 1,000 native trees and shrubs to improve soil conservation along our waterways, and do our best to manage erosion/sediment control that may impact those downstream of us. We have regularly worked with the County extension office to improve run off from sacrifice paddocks and fields to keep streams and ponds healthy.

Thanks![/QUOTE]

Since you have already been working with the USDA Soil Conservation office, today called Natural Resources, you could run this by them and see what they suggest?

They have extensive experience with all regulations and your region and possibly could give you several options to work there.

We don’t have running water here, no “creeks” but “draws”, similar features but only run water as runoff after the rare big rains, some times considerable amounts of it for a day or two, to again be dry for long periods afterwards.

Because of that, we don’t have the problems with riparian areas by flowing water you have there.

Good luck managing that spot.