Concrete Across the Creek

With shallow water just standing there it could be a wetland.

The present law (until they have water resources classified) is that any new or changed wetland crossings must be licenced.

Check your water law it may have some prescriptions.

The new pipe, is laid alongside an existing pipe, and normally, the creek only flows during the wet season. The water that is now there is the remnant of last season's rain. The existing pipe is cased in concrete so to lay and encase a new pipe alongside shouldnt be a problem. it is not wetlands in the sense that the area is permanently wet. I am located in in the tropics of North Queensland, Australia. Norm

Hi Norm

Our definition of a wetland in the Act is "land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil"

That is a bit rough but the government must classify and authorize development under certain conditions. (which they have neglected up to now)

What is the law in OZ?

I would really like to know because I have a case here where an OZ based concern is developing illegally in/next to (within 500m - legal limit ) a true wetland.

YES WILL

Taken from the link below

Will concrete harden under water?

Portland cement is a hydraulic cement which means that it sets and hardens due to a chemical reaction with water. Consequently, it will harden under water

http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_faqs.asp

Depends on the concrete mix design, but probably not. I would add some admixures to speed up the hydration and harden. Grace materials here are the items used on launch pad concrete. Next to the ocean and blasted with chemicals from rocket blasts. Stablecrete is a waterproofer used by many here in Florida.

No worries concrete that is wet while curing is the stronger, if the water is just standing you'll not have a problem with normal portland cement.

If you place the concrete with a tremmie tube so the mix is not diluted as you place it the results should be satisfactory. You might consider a wire mesh type reinforcement around or over the pipe to help tie things together. While it is tempting to pour a dry or stiff mix into the water and hope the water mixes with it to create the right mixture, this technique is not recommended. Getting the mix to the right consistency beforehand, ( probably about a 4" slump so it will go through the pipe or tube ) will give you a stronger mix.

Good luck

Hi Norm

Get a truck load of concrete shrapnel from the new City Mall redevelopment and fill it in. Top it up with concrete and wish it doesn't come down cats and dogs two hours later. Good as gold Mate as long as its not larger than what a truck load can fill.

Send us a pic when your done, Ky.

With out a design it's kind of hard to picture, but for our storm water and sewage pipes around streams we use coffer dams and pumps to de-water around the pipe to allow the concrete to set better.

I understand that you want to use concrete to anchor the replacement pipe alongside an existing concreted pipe.

If you are concerned about washout from the creek flow during flooding, why do you not just excavate on the top side of the present concrete, and cover the immediate pipe area with sand, and then top off with small and large rocks then smooth out the creek soil over the top (up to level with the existing concrete "plynth").

The present concrete holds the rock from washing down stream, the rock stops the sand wash, and the cost saving of concrete is your reward.

As for the bloke who thinks that regulations by bureaucrats are some sort of heaven sent answer that are to be revered, just remember that the government sold the rights to the land without encuberances, and if government wish to take those rights back, then they need to pay compensation for it!

Unfortunately for the producers of this nation, there are too many bluffing Little Hitlers whose justification for their interference really stems from their own puffed up self importance, and their selfish desire to keep themselves in a job and anybody elses unneccessary expense!

Without encumbrance does not mean you can violate environmental laws, dam safety laws, building codes, water rights laws, etc. that may have come into being since the first original structures were installed. It is just wise, and any real engineer already knows this, to permit projects properly, since the government can come in fine you, then force you to remove the structure and restore the site to some arbitrarily high standard of habitat quality. I had a client who install an earthen dam and didn't obtain a grading permit from the county, it was small and very rural. The county discovered the work he conducted and sent him a letter, they copied USACE, RWQCB, Flood Control and a few other agencies. Now the client had violation letters from the State and federal government with accrued fines daily, and eventually a court order to remove the structure, and they wanted the habitat restored for a bunch of obscure beattles, and other stuff. He had to comply or spend huge sums of money to fight it when he obviously violated the law (his lawyer told him he'd lose). So it is probably not the best plan to just go ahead and violate the law, unless you can afford the costs that may be incurred or the risk of government intervention is so low (my client thought his dam was so rural no one would ever go look out there).

RCE, I have to ageree that we need too take responsibility for our actions and sometimes will come foul of the law.

The law is not always right, as evidenced by land clearance laws that were instigated to protect native vegetation in South Australia.

While fire or disturbance is considered a land clearance tool and is prohibited, the curtailing of these things is causing the decline of biodiversity in our area.

On my property the first "official" private/public fire trial was conducted (after many years of raising this issue with officials), and where 50 native plant species lived pre burning, now 150 different species were found. Areas where fire has been curtailed for longer periods have much less species regeneration as lower seed reserves remain, and those species whose seeds are more suseptable to decay or whose parent plants had been dead for longest have not come back strongly.

On the issue of water rights we have seen officials remove the rights to farmers to retain water on their land. While we are told that we are not allowed to take what is called "envirnmental water flows", these same officials did not even understand that the majority of water that flows from cleared farming land is actually generated because the land was cleared. The native vegetartion yeilds very little streamflow comparitevely. In low rainfall areas, the yeild is zero except in extreme circumstances, while the cleared land often yields flows which we are told we cannot dam!

The environmental lobby thinks it knows what is best, yet does not understand that every area of good environmental managment is extremely site specific, and it just might be that those who live in that area have a damn good idea about what works and what doesn't.

The community needs to be very vocal to inhibit the devaluing of our commonsense, experience and rights, and the bureaucrats need to remeber that they are paid to be the servants of the community.

If, for community good, rights are taken away from individuals, then the community must pay just compensation. What house owner would expect any less if their house was required for the extension of roads for community good? A farmers property is just as much his right, as is the house owners property.

I believe in equity for all people!

couple of things. I am not at all suggesting anyone not familiar with the regualtions and not of professional standing try to take on the laws and regulations in their area by doing something. At least not before first consulting some experts in the field, in particular engineers who have experience in design of such facilities, as they routinely run afoul of environmental activists (or lets be honest most are NIMBY activists against developments of any kind, except their own) and are knowledgeable about the process and how much trouble might be incurred and how to achieve the ends desired. Engineers routinely come into conflict with "environmental activists" as any modernization to support human life is typically contrary to some specific groups personal agendas for their own benefits. As far a controlled burns go, same thing happens in the Us, controlled burns have both benefits and risks, and since the experts in these fields are not comprised of physical scientists or engineers, they really have not good precise quantifiable methods to evaluate risk/benefits and it is more like water witching with them, which ever way the public opinion and political winds blow. Relating to a home owner versus a farmer. One huge difference is that even small farming families usually put their business and the associated lands under a closely held corporation, which home owners can not because their home is not a business. A home is more of personal property, farms are purely a business like an industrial park or a commercial strip mall. Thus a farmers property is substantially different then a home owners residence.

I mostly agree with your thoughts, and we would call them armchair environmentalists.

As for farms versus homes, businesses are also compensated when comandeered for road building. I just used houses as it "brings it home" to most people.

And those who use their home as a base to earn their income from are no different than those whose homes are also their farms from which they earn income.

Private property is still private property, and tresspass laws clearly demonstrate this official principle.

If the rights of an individual/corporation are infringed for the community good, then the community must pay just compensation.

How much?

RCE

I think the landscape, climate in question here was not tampered with in any way. I don't know the site but I know the area. One can be too over zealous in defending the original land scape. Due to the climate here some little creek crossing will not hurt nothing and nobody.

Permissions?

I saw Jonno, head of works here, and asked him what to do for a bridge permission over a creek. He knew me well and the look of his facial impression gave me an indication of about 3 years of approval time. He promised to look away for a week and the Bridge was built. A truck load of dismantled 18 foot jetty sleepers, a chain saw, concrete, 100m of fat black bamboo and a few nuts and bolts. Yep, all on council property and creating a new walk way at the same time.

Guess what, the only structure standing after Cyclone Tessie (2000) and the floods she brought was? Yep, my bridge. My Gallery was a complete right off. I have some before and after shots but they are in print and I would have to scan them first. Just trust me Mate she was really pretty. Locally it was known as "the bridge over the river Ky". I know of couples which made it a point to propose on that little bridge. Only during the cyclone clean up did they take her out, because there was no plan for her.

Well, if I would try this 10 years later..........................?

Build first, shoot later. Just joking, Ky.

Good on ya bridge builder!

I have just finished my own crossing of 13 x 1.2m pipes.

The fish love it, I've got access to my land, but now the regs have changed to prohibit me from minding my own business.

Its easier to ask forgiveness than seek permission, and seeking permission invokes that someone else may have rights over my use of my land.

Cheers

Tim

TimKI

Are you here in dogs own country Mate?

All in the hands of the ink urinators, the guys with the pens in their top pocket and who then goes back to the Capital and file it off. Ah, no, they have it filed off, apologies to the Lady at the front desk.

Were I am now, just up the road really, I built a fish pond in the front yard. When they found out that it was deeper than 270,43mm (about 10 inches) they made me fill her in. I have it now in my back yard were it can not be seen by any vengeful neighbor or council approvalist.

I remember a time when being a "dobber inner" was a disgrace, maybe not only in Australia. It seems now to be a fashion statement. Dog have mercy.

I'll go watch the fish for a while, I'm over it, Ky.

I feel the same way about the fight being unrewarding, but I've kids and grandkids who don't need the CRAP (Carbondioxide Redefined As Pollution) or other such environmental disaters that have been invented.

I'm just lucky that many fathers and grandfathers fought, and some died, to give us freedom.

I don't have anyone shooting at me so surely the use of letter to the Editor and Pollies to give support to rational thinking is not too much to spare!

Cheers Tim of K.I. S.A. Yep Dogs own island.

I see you points. You're pretty lucky you're not in the states. RCE and myself deal with very harsh environmental regulations and regulators here in the states. I live on the east coast where my job duties include doing environmental permitting and environmental engineering for a highway construction and surface mining firm. Just to clear out a 100 feet of ditch line and replacing two 24" pipes under roads; I needed to coordinate with two federal agencies, four states agencies and a county conservation district. I've already seen two friends who are formen for our company get handcuffed and the company charged $100,000, for killing a turtle, even though we had all the permits and clearances to do the work. It's getting to the point where you can't fart around here without an air permit.

Like they indicated above, they also have a fairly restrictive review process (three years to permit a bridge), but as is typical if they are rural enough the local authorities may turn a blind eye. However, believe you me, if a state or federal regulator comes along, they will act totally innocent and sell you down the river rather than risk their own job exposure for violating federal laws, even in Australia. this happens a lot in the westenr US also. However, then some guy who knows a guy in new mexico who just built a bridge and got away with it tries to do the same thing on his property in eastern Orange County, and what a surprise he rapidly finds it was against federal law, and the bridge will now cost him 10 times as much to tear down and restore the habitat (plus fines).

PADEP just had their budget cut and their numbers thinned, so now they are on the war path just fine us for any minor infraction. Then to top everything off now EPA is tightening regulations in every field: air quality, spill plans, NPDES, NEPA, etc. It's getting to the point where companies can't function anymore.

Companies can function, they just don't have the convenience of no regulations like they have had for the last 10 years. Reguilations used to be enforced, but through out the 90's enforcement wnet into decline as the corporations lobbied, and by 2000 they got a government in most places that was so friendly against the health and welfare of its own constituents that they got into the habit of neglecting good well thought out practices, and started employing poorly thought out paper practices just to keep up the image for the regulators to appear to have completed their minimum due diligence. BTW project specific NEPA requirements aren't really defined by US EPA, the are really defined through things like section 7 consultations with NOAA and Fish and Wildlife biologists and such. USEPA, USBR, USDA and USACE just rather not get into a pissing war with underqualified overly zealous environmental activist playing at "biologists" at these other agencies. If you push EPA, BR or ACE they will however supercede the consultation sometimes if they can justify it strongly. Other things that EPA, NRCS and ACE are far more comfortable with like air quality, water quality, hydrographic modifications, traffic impacts, etc.. you know well defined physical/chemical properties, they will take a lead role on.

Agree it's like a roller coaster ride. I've only been in the permitting/construction/mining field 17 year but for some reason the last two years have been crazy. Fee increases sometimes 400%, tighter air regulations, changes in the SPCC plans, tightening of the RCRA laws, changes in E&S and storm water management, and the list just gets longer and longer. It just seems like their hitting us all at once and not giving us time to breath. It's like they don't realize we are just starting to get out of the recession. I know it sounds like I'm bitching but the should have stretched it out a bit so we can adapt to the new regulations.

RCE do you work as a consultant or for company?

I am a professional engineer and work for a large multi discipline engineering and planning corporation. So we dont really mind so much if they change the regulations, though some of our old less adaptive personnel aren't crazy about the minor changes that have occurred. Many of them have occurred to make up for the defieicneies in the process that many consultants have become specialize in taking advantage of, such as the self monitoring and regulating processes in storm water. Surprisingly, I think the EPA got wise and discovered that if you let the contractor be responsible for the decisions regarding monitoring and stormwater management, you don't really get any practical management or control of the discharges, just some templated paperwork filled out. they are really minor changes to fill in loopholes, that good practice by professional engineers would have taken care of before, rather than the most short-term cost effective practice by the contractors. As far as RCRA goes, their our huge loopholes all over that their have developed whole populations of consultants specialized in taking advantage of. I am working on some clean closures of a former burn dumps and get to see this all the time, especially the whining about a lack of funds by to proceed with the closures, but they seem to be building new community centers and sports facilities all the time. If you tell a City Council they have to clean up their messes, they just try to find a way to bury it for a few years until the next council comes along, and hope to negotiate away any fines for as long as possible (e.g. Los Osos in dealing with the California RWQCB regarding septic system waste releases to Morro Bay). There is not much political clout to gain from cleaning up a hazardous waste dump in a town, and actually the people tend to shoot the messagers in the next election if a City brings it up (holding it against the current council for something their council 20 years ago did on the cheap and secret).

I'm a one man band, the owner of the company I work for refuses to hire anyone else or "rent" a consultant so I get any job that looks remotely environmental. Main problem is getting up-to-date regulations before I get blind sided by an agency. PADEP pretty much runs the show for EPA here. Over here there really isn't a lot of loop holes to squeeze through. Mining industry is pretty tight.I think we get beat-up so much is because we're in the mining and construction materials industry and where an easy target.

should not be any loopholes to circumvent the intent of the law. If there weren't any loopholes, then all businesses would be working with and equal hand, instead those who can afford the most consultants obtain the greatest understanding of where the loopholes lie and how to squeeze through them with minimal public awareness, until something like a mine shaft, bridge or dams fails and kills people (or a oil pipeline fails), then you get a overly zealous reactionary response to companies knowingly trying to circumvent the intent or mis interpret the language of the law.

Hi Guys, Many thanks to you all for your advice, the project has now been completed, with great success, the concrete was placed, and went off no problems, you would almost think that it was done by a professional, Thanks again lads, Norm.

Good to hear. Thanks for letting us know, Ky.