[sac-forum] Re: Cherry Site

This morning I drove by the Cherry site on my way to another 
destination. I took a side trip into it. Here is what I found.
1. The blader did a very sloppy job on the whole road.
2. Part of the reason the rise is 6"-8" is that in the process of 
blading the ditch on each side of the road dirt got pushed up above 
grade level because there was no place for it to go. This cannot 
possibly be viewed as being part of the road drainage. If you were to 
remove this pushed up dirt to grade level I think you would knock off 
3"-4" off the rise. I cannot imagine doing this being a problem or a 
violation of article 404, but of course the club would have to check 
this out.
3. If the pushed up dirt were removed and then the edge of the rise 
rounded off I think it would be pretty much the way it was the last time 
I visited the site. I cannot imagine rounding off the edge being a 
problem (it certainly would not interfere with the road runnoff), but of 
course the club would have to check this out.
4. On the observing field side of the road about 200 feet down someone 
has already made a path, by driving a vehicle, over the graded rise. 
This has also been done on the observing field side of the about a half 
mile beyond the site. Thus, someone has already done what some would 
have contemplated doing to get into the observing site. Of course, these 
are facts that would only be good in court.
5. There are posted signs, as some have probably already seen, that say 
"Road Closed". I do not know what legal bearing they have, but it should 
be noted that there is a contradiction on the east side of the road soon 
after you turn off highway 169 with respect to this sign. Recall that 
there is a drive-in into an open area. It also has one of these signs. 
The grader bladed a runoff ditch on each side of the drive way, but not 
through it which he should have done if the ditch is meant to control 
runoff. There are parts of the road where the grader did not continue 
the ditch because it is a natural water run _away_ from the road, but 
this drive-in is not one of them.
6. About a half mile on the other side of the site is an open field on 
the east side of the road. You can still get into this very easy. If all 
else fails, the club could move the star parties to there, although it 
will be more in the open to drive by traffic. However, I really think 
modifying the drive in to the current site should not be a problem. Of 
course, the club will have to check into this before doing anything.
Stan

Andrew Goodwin wrote:

>  It is enforced by the Army Corps of Engineers who report violations directly 
> to the Justice department. We need to look at the area first and make a 
> judgement as to what we can do within the bounds of the law. Simply put, you 
> are not allowed to divert a wash or water management grade or ditch in any 
> way. The risk is too great for our club and the members. I will check with 
> our sources here for how this can be handled to avoid a steep fine. 
>BTW   Right of access will not protect us. 
>Clear skies
>Andrew G.
>
>  
>
>>From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: 2005/04/04 Mon AM 11:50:05 EDT
>>To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Cherry Site
>>
>>It seems like repeated driving over the rise by a lot of cars going to 
>>and from the star party might have the same effect as taking a shovel to 
>>it. Once a bank is rounded off it cannot be restored. It must be the 
>>depth of the grade that has to be restored by section 404. Maybe it is 
>>okay by section 404 to cut the bank down  and create more of a gradual 
>>incline as long as the removed dirt is not thrown into the grade(?) 
>>
>>Stan
>>
>>
>>Andrew Goodwin wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>> Do not dig or alter the entrance to the observing site. 
>>> This rise is required to divert run off water from causing erosion of the 
>>> road and field. This is covered by the clear water act section 404, if you 
>>> are caught The fine is $25,000 a day until the effected area is restored. I 
>>> will discuss this at our next meeting. 
>>>
>>>Clear Skies 
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>Andrew Goodwin
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Other related posts: