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