[sac-forum] Re: Cherry Rd. concerns
- From: david fredericksen <david.fredericksen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:41:45 -0700
Andrew Goodwin wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
Andrew,
Along with Thad, I want to say thank you from SAC for your efforts to let us
knoe more about this issue. It is a big relief.
Clear Skies,
David
Other related posts:
