FreeLists / sac-forum / [sac-forum] Re: Cherry Rd. concerns

["Andrew Goodwin" <a.goodwin1@xxxxxxx>]

I have the information needed. It is called the Clean Water Act, Title 33,
Section 404. very difficult reading. In short this has to do with the
diversion of the natural path of a given wash. Further it is ok to
transverse a dry wash on rubber tires (as long as you do not disturb the rim
of the high water mark). I have drawings provided by our consultant firm to
demonstrate what this means. You would have to dig deep to find all the
rules burred deep in legal speak. This was first written in 1941 and amended
many times. Section 404 was added in 1989 and only recently started being
enforced. And I was told by the consultants that we are in the clear with
regards to the Cherry Rd. site. This law covers rare species habitat and
Indian ruins and the like. I can bring examples of these to the next
meeting, but I think that we all know the basics of the already well known
laws regarding our access to dark sites in Arizona.

Here in part is the section of concern.

http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/sec_404.html

This is from the California site that also applies to Arizona.
You will need to dig much further to find all the rules for dry wash access.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <starhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:56 PM
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Cherry Rd. concerns


> > I understand that it is BLM land--a rancher has grazing rights to it.
> The BLM is down the street from my job--I'll inquire on Tuesday and post
> the information here.
> Jennifer Keller
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Let me be clear on this, the act in question is that no access to the
> > "high water mark" is to be disturbed in any way. We are very much in the
> > clear in this regard. We should also get in touch with the owner of the
> > land to see if he as been informed of the erosion act. The sign in
> > question did not appear as an "official government sign". I don't think
> > anyone would be foolish enough to setup a scope on the bank of a wash
> > anyway. At our meeting with the state inspectors it was indicated that
> > construction of our infrastructure (fiber optics) would be watched very
> > closely. When I design a route for the fiber it has to pass review by
> > the inspectors. This keeps them busy, so I don't think that we pose any
> > threat to the "indigenous life" that the act is designed to protect. My
> > apology for raising the point, I did not intend to scare anyone from
> > going out to observe. If we continue to use common sense then everything
> > will be fine. I will still gather the information and pass it to the
> > club. Cox is sending us to classes concerning the act (at $16,000 each).
> > I have not seen anyone busted yet, just the stories that the instructor
> > has passed on to us. And it is $25,000 a day until the wash is restored.
> > DON'T PANIC...  We are all very responsible people and would not dream
> > of causing the death of any thing that the government wants to protect.
> > ( I know I could go off on them, but I will refrain).
> >
> > Clear Skies... and can anyone tell me the site for the Voyager III
> > software?
> >
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "AJ Crayon" <acrayon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 9:57 AM
> > Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Last Nights' Meeting.....
> >
> >
> >> Thad, thanks for the post; especially about the Cherry Road "erosion
> > control zone."  This topic came up when someone indicated there's a sign
> > on a post, just before entering the gate, that has words to the effect
> > this is an erosion control zone and cannot be used.  I remember seeing
> > the post but not the sign the last time I was there, on September 20th,
> > but didn't notice the sign.
> >>
> >> The gentleman that offered most information and will, I believe, check
> > into what's going on is Andrew <whose last name escapes me>.  Jennifer
> > spoke with him and chould have more information.  Apparently Andrew has
> > something to do with Cox and digging cable trenches.  This puts him in a
> > unique position to have an idea where to start investigating what is
> > really happening.  Someone may have to take on this task once he gets
> > back to us.
> >>
> >> I think Thad has the correct idea in not posting personal opinions
> >> here
> > but let me just say that I'm very disappointed in, apparently, loosing a
> > very nice observing site.  Let's wait and see what the research and
> > investigating turns up first.
> >>
> >> Clear skies,
> >> aj
> >>
> >>
> >> Thad Robosson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey All,
> >> >
> >> > But we also had some concerns pop up at the meeting.  Apparently,
> >> some
> > government entity has declared the Cherry Road site an "erosion control
> > zone".  It's not clear exactly if this impacts our using the site, but a
> > member (forgive me, I'm terrible with names.....:-(   ) volunteered to
> > find out what is up with this.  The suspicion is that the wash on the
> > West side of the site is the specific target of this.  Either way, until
> > we find out, the fines can be $25,000.  I'll refrain from saying
> > anything bad about certain Politico types here, but if you're interested
> > in my opinion of said Politicos, ask me how I feel about them out of
> > earshot of children!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thad
>
>
>
>