Anonymous
10-01-2003, 08:05 PM
Dear Bobbie:
Many boaters, like ourselves, are concerned about the proposed project to amend the play wave and hole at Chili Bar. Very few of us have enough information to say whether we will eventually support (or oppose this effort). So, currently, we have to say that our strong reservations cause us to hold off support, financial or otherwise. Some of us are members of Gold Country Paddlers, and until some of the issues regarding this proposal are cleared up, we strongly oppose having our dues go toward paying for adding a rock to the stream bed at Chili Bar.
We deeply respect the volunteer energy you’ve put forward here. But, we always have to remind ourselves that our good intentions don’t entitle us to cut corners so as to get good things done. That can often create a number of unintended problems.
Because we don’t want this to become personal, let us lay out some of our concerns, based on the partial answers in your email of Monday 9/29/03 to Jude Lee.
1. It’s not possible to infer that the project is without unacceptable drawbacks because it has obtained permits, or because there is “no intensity in the work in this project,” and that “even the suppliers of the permits thought it was a good cause.”
Those who are signing this letter have opposed projects that would affect California rivers – hydro projects that cut stream flows, gravel pits and grading that change the course of rivers and add sediments, and discharges by companies and local agencies that add pollutants that harm fisheries and create health hazards, etc. Both the proponents and permitting agencies often thought that those projects were good ideas, until we raised issues that they hadn’t stopped to consider. Sometimes the permitting agencies even argued that the merits of the project and the ‘good causes’ that benefited outweighed environmental concerns the law requires them to enforce. So, we aren’t comfortable with the issuance of the permits as an argument that there aren't problems .
Frankly, because we’ve been so tough on other projects, we can’t let this slide by without asking the same questions we’ve asked of the California rice industry and Central Valley Water Control Board’s standards for pesticides in the Sacramento River and Sacramento’s drinking water, about hyro-electric projects on Sierra rivers and streams, about Aerojet-General’s solvent discharges into groundwater that exchanged into the American River and wells serving Orangevale residents, and about East Bay MUD’s efforts to take water from the lower American. The fact that this project benefits our friends and creates play waves for us doesn’t allow us to skimp on oversight. If we aren’t as questioning about this project as we have been on others, we’d be accused of being hypocrites.
And don’t think that our opponents won’t miss the point. Frankly, knowing how hard it has been for them, we’re all still amazed that you got through the permitting process so quickly.
So, we’d like to learn more about the proposed project before it goes any further. How will the rock be secured? Will grout or any cement be used here? Will the rock be pinned in place in any way? What safety issues did the planner consider? Are there any fisheries issues that came up? Will the change in flows affect downstream flows sedimentation in any way (for example, changing the river course in ways that might affect other features or river banks)? Which Army Corp of Engineers nationwide permit did you apply for and receive? Was it a Section 12 or Section 44 permit? We have many more questions before we can say whether we think this is an acceptable project or not.
2. We are very concerned about the lack of public notice.
Public notice is not just bureaucracy. Without public notice, we wouldn’t know about the projects we've often opposed . Without advance notice we wouldn’t have time to raise issues, seek changes that mitigate bad impacts or to oppose and stop bad projects. So, the fact that many folks we consider our friends have thought that something like this might be a good idea, or that it has benefits for programs we support, is not enough to make us comfortable.
We dread the idea that other folks might decide that it would be a good idea to help the fisheries by dropping a couple of trees advantageously into a rapid to create habitat. Or that kayakers might decide that dredging habitat essential for fish spawning is a good idea. Is that what will happen at Chili Bar that extreme? Possibly not.
But if we don’t bring our ideas into the light of day for public examination and review, then others will get the idea that they’re also entitled. If we don’t maintain a high standard for ourselves, then we’ll be a little less credible the next time we protest when the City of Folsom decides to discharge raw sewage into Lake Natoma and the lower American, and overlooks their legal requirement to notify regulatory agencies. Frankly, some of us might feel a little better if you’d reported to Jude Lee that some folks had raised issues of concern, and how you’d worked to solve them. Instead, your letter simply identified all the support you’ve gotten.
Sometimes, you need to listen to voices of caution more carefully than the voices of support. In fact, it’s better to take the time beforehand, and go out and find those contrary opinions and see what you can learn. Sometimes you can use that to improve your project. Other times, you may find out that you don’t want to go ahead because the thing you and your supporters overlooked just might be the one disaster you also want to avoid.
We don’t agree that creating some kind of public notice on this proposal is demands resources. For the future, let’s remind ourselves of some of common ways that are simple and timely.
1. A flyer at the River Store.
2. A flyer at Chili Bar.
3. Posting copies of the permit applications in these places.
4. If emailing to the GCP list serve is not feasible, perhaps posting on the GCP website or www.boof.com. We saw flyers and requests for volunteers for the American River Festival there, and hopefully that proved to be a good way to get info out.
5. Are nearby property owners aware? Did they get letters? Visits?
Some of us listened to Gary Lacy urge caution and respect for environmental review at meetings about making changes to accommodate play holes and a slalom course at Henningsens. We’d like to believe that he’s brought the same kind of care and foresight to this project. But we don’t know, and feel like we must raise these issues and get acceptable answers before the project is allowed to move ahead.
We don’t want to create personal differences or needless divisions in the boating community. So, we’d like to ask you to take the time to sit down with us (and others) and talk these concerns out.
Michael Picker Jonas Minton Jim Crenshaw
Many boaters, like ourselves, are concerned about the proposed project to amend the play wave and hole at Chili Bar. Very few of us have enough information to say whether we will eventually support (or oppose this effort). So, currently, we have to say that our strong reservations cause us to hold off support, financial or otherwise. Some of us are members of Gold Country Paddlers, and until some of the issues regarding this proposal are cleared up, we strongly oppose having our dues go toward paying for adding a rock to the stream bed at Chili Bar.
We deeply respect the volunteer energy you’ve put forward here. But, we always have to remind ourselves that our good intentions don’t entitle us to cut corners so as to get good things done. That can often create a number of unintended problems.
Because we don’t want this to become personal, let us lay out some of our concerns, based on the partial answers in your email of Monday 9/29/03 to Jude Lee.
1. It’s not possible to infer that the project is without unacceptable drawbacks because it has obtained permits, or because there is “no intensity in the work in this project,” and that “even the suppliers of the permits thought it was a good cause.”
Those who are signing this letter have opposed projects that would affect California rivers – hydro projects that cut stream flows, gravel pits and grading that change the course of rivers and add sediments, and discharges by companies and local agencies that add pollutants that harm fisheries and create health hazards, etc. Both the proponents and permitting agencies often thought that those projects were good ideas, until we raised issues that they hadn’t stopped to consider. Sometimes the permitting agencies even argued that the merits of the project and the ‘good causes’ that benefited outweighed environmental concerns the law requires them to enforce. So, we aren’t comfortable with the issuance of the permits as an argument that there aren't problems .
Frankly, because we’ve been so tough on other projects, we can’t let this slide by without asking the same questions we’ve asked of the California rice industry and Central Valley Water Control Board’s standards for pesticides in the Sacramento River and Sacramento’s drinking water, about hyro-electric projects on Sierra rivers and streams, about Aerojet-General’s solvent discharges into groundwater that exchanged into the American River and wells serving Orangevale residents, and about East Bay MUD’s efforts to take water from the lower American. The fact that this project benefits our friends and creates play waves for us doesn’t allow us to skimp on oversight. If we aren’t as questioning about this project as we have been on others, we’d be accused of being hypocrites.
And don’t think that our opponents won’t miss the point. Frankly, knowing how hard it has been for them, we’re all still amazed that you got through the permitting process so quickly.
So, we’d like to learn more about the proposed project before it goes any further. How will the rock be secured? Will grout or any cement be used here? Will the rock be pinned in place in any way? What safety issues did the planner consider? Are there any fisheries issues that came up? Will the change in flows affect downstream flows sedimentation in any way (for example, changing the river course in ways that might affect other features or river banks)? Which Army Corp of Engineers nationwide permit did you apply for and receive? Was it a Section 12 or Section 44 permit? We have many more questions before we can say whether we think this is an acceptable project or not.
2. We are very concerned about the lack of public notice.
Public notice is not just bureaucracy. Without public notice, we wouldn’t know about the projects we've often opposed . Without advance notice we wouldn’t have time to raise issues, seek changes that mitigate bad impacts or to oppose and stop bad projects. So, the fact that many folks we consider our friends have thought that something like this might be a good idea, or that it has benefits for programs we support, is not enough to make us comfortable.
We dread the idea that other folks might decide that it would be a good idea to help the fisheries by dropping a couple of trees advantageously into a rapid to create habitat. Or that kayakers might decide that dredging habitat essential for fish spawning is a good idea. Is that what will happen at Chili Bar that extreme? Possibly not.
But if we don’t bring our ideas into the light of day for public examination and review, then others will get the idea that they’re also entitled. If we don’t maintain a high standard for ourselves, then we’ll be a little less credible the next time we protest when the City of Folsom decides to discharge raw sewage into Lake Natoma and the lower American, and overlooks their legal requirement to notify regulatory agencies. Frankly, some of us might feel a little better if you’d reported to Jude Lee that some folks had raised issues of concern, and how you’d worked to solve them. Instead, your letter simply identified all the support you’ve gotten.
Sometimes, you need to listen to voices of caution more carefully than the voices of support. In fact, it’s better to take the time beforehand, and go out and find those contrary opinions and see what you can learn. Sometimes you can use that to improve your project. Other times, you may find out that you don’t want to go ahead because the thing you and your supporters overlooked just might be the one disaster you also want to avoid.
We don’t agree that creating some kind of public notice on this proposal is demands resources. For the future, let’s remind ourselves of some of common ways that are simple and timely.
1. A flyer at the River Store.
2. A flyer at Chili Bar.
3. Posting copies of the permit applications in these places.
4. If emailing to the GCP list serve is not feasible, perhaps posting on the GCP website or www.boof.com. We saw flyers and requests for volunteers for the American River Festival there, and hopefully that proved to be a good way to get info out.
5. Are nearby property owners aware? Did they get letters? Visits?
Some of us listened to Gary Lacy urge caution and respect for environmental review at meetings about making changes to accommodate play holes and a slalom course at Henningsens. We’d like to believe that he’s brought the same kind of care and foresight to this project. But we don’t know, and feel like we must raise these issues and get acceptable answers before the project is allowed to move ahead.
We don’t want to create personal differences or needless divisions in the boating community. So, we’d like to ask you to take the time to sit down with us (and others) and talk these concerns out.
Michael Picker Jonas Minton Jim Crenshaw