TubeNet

The EPA won't like this.

No, Sir!!

Three Valves wrote:The EPA won't like this.

Bloke's method is the centuries old, time tested method of controlling erosion. If none of the material is potentially toxic (creosoted wood and etc.) why would Da Eeeevil Gubberment object? This is how nature does it.

I am on a watershed board and we do stream restorations all the time. The method Bloke is using is very common and an approved design. Yes, the EPA actually likes the method, unfortunately they really don't follow their own recommendations. Case in point, the "yellow" river. In most instances the state you live in sets the guidelines for stream bank restoration. A lot of times, rock and similar materials are used. The trees and brush that Bloke is using helps promote plants to take root also helping control erosion over time. One of the things that needs to be considered is flowrate. You want the rate to be slow and meandering to minimize erosion. Creating pools also helps.

I was agreeing with you, Bloke!

The Big Ben wrote:

Three Valves wrote:The EPA won't like this.

Bloke's method is the centuries old, time tested method of controlling erosion. If none of the material is potentially toxic (creosoted wood and etc.) why would Da Eeeevil Gubberment object? This is how nature does it.

I don't know.

Why would the screw up a perfectly good petrol container??

Or put food in our gas??

bloke wrote:...and certainly no human-manufactured debris of any sort (which - regardless of laws - would LOOK horrible in my woods)

I manufacture most of my human debris while reading TubeNet. I agree, it probably wouldn't look good in the woods.

If it's good enough for the bears...