Ernie's Canyon diversion possibility
Printed From: ProfessorPaddle.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Whitewater Forum
Forum Discription: Open Discussion Forum. Whitewater related subjects only
URL: http://www.professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10870
Printed Date: 21 Jun 2024 at 3:10am
Topic: Ernie's Canyon diversion possibility
Posted By: dcell
Subject: Ernie's Canyon diversion possibility
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 3:52pm
|
Before you freak out over the subject, read on. I recently ran the run above Ernie's on the NF Snoqualmie, and I met a guy at the bridge who told me that he is looking into setting up a diversion dam on Ernie's Canyon for electricity. He said that he is a rafter, and he would like to talk to people who do this run about how to work together. His idea is that his company would work with kayakers so that if they want to do the run, the diversion amount would be modified to make it possible for people to do the run. He even mentioned the idea of providing transportation down to the put-in at the bridge. If you guys want to contact him, here is his info: Thom Fischer Whitewater Engineering Corp. 360-738-9999 thom@whitewatereng.com |
Replies:
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 4:20pm
|
Don't freak out at the suggestion of diverting water away from the best whitewater in the Seattle area? Get real. What's the probability that a profit-making venture would willingly forgo money to let paddlers run a river? I can't see that ever being reality in the long-term. Offering a ride for the 1-mile hike-in? Yeah, that's mitigation. Thanks for the heads up, at least. I like the NF the way it is. ------------- |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 4:32pm
|
would this make it appropriate to say Dam Rafter by any chance.... ahahah probably a totally inappropriate joke. |
Posted By: dcell
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 4:35pm
|
Actually, the mitigation would be to manage the diversion amount so you would have enough water to run it. But, you guys are welcome to go make this guy feel really bad so he won't even consider helping you out, and still do the diversion for electricity. It's so much easier for him to just take it all anyway. I guess it was a little much to ask you not to freak out until you read and understood my message. Too many rock shots to the noggin? |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 4:45pm
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 4:58pm
|
Rather then shots to the noggin, my skepticism is due to the fact that power companies are not known to make expensive concessions to paddlers unless forced to do so. Releasing water whenever paddlers asked would be expensive, and untenable in the long term, especially if this run ever becomes as popular as it deserves to be. I just emailed the guy, I'm happy to hear what he has to say, but pardon me if I immediately come out and say that DIVERTING WATER AWAY FROM ERNIE'S CANYON WOULD BE A TRAGEDY. ------------- |
Posted By: jalmquist
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 8:49pm
| Before we all start emailing this guy, it might behoove us to link in Tom O'Keefe and AW... |
Posted By: PowWrangler
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 10:30pm
|
My first reaction would be skepticism like Ben. This guy's company develops, owns and operates hydro projects. Regardless of his promises, he's not going to own the project forever and then it's up to the whim of whoever owns it next. He says he's a "rafter" but he's in the business of dewatering rivers and creeks. Sounds fishy. No sense in emailing him, let AW do the representing as Jon said. |
Posted By: tiziak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 5:42am
|
How can the cost of building a dam on the NF, the cost of the permits and the general maintenance costs associated with a long term project possibly be less than just buying the power from PSE. Or just using a generator? What are they doing out there other than harvesting trees? There is so little water in that creekbed I don't see how it can be considered a viable powersource? This doesn't make sense. ------------- If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. Daniel Patrinellis 360.434.4616 |
Posted By: AaronS
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 6:36am
|
So...post a thread about a diversion dam...on a whitewater forum...expect paddlers to "not freak out"...then accost them for leveling their very real concerns...interesting.
Don't we have some of the lowest power costs in the nation due to our abundance of hydro power? Weren't they recently threatening to shut the wind farms down for periods of time so as not to compete with the hydro companies? I agree wit Dan, how foes this make any sense? |
Posted By: tiziak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 6:45am
|
I emailed Tom this morning asking if he has heard about this and to please check out this thread.
I also emailed Thom asking for more specifics as well as permit status, timelines and contact info for the governing body.
I have nothing against hydro power. But, where I grew up, relations between the boating community and the power company degraded to the point that the dam only released monday through thursday for almost 3 years... ------------- If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. Daniel Patrinellis 360.434.4616 |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 9:50am
|
I hear folks complain about how little the Green runs all the time and if it lost even more release I am sure you would hear more complaining. Again I am not saying we should all complain just that when you affect the flow on a run that is special to someone it is going to cause unrest. No one is really trying to offend anyone here it is obvious so if the discussion continues lets focus on the project not people. Slick, a diversion for power generation causes de-watering. You can't divert and not de-water, don't want to call it a dam, cool Ashlu is not a dam either, although there must be a dam present for the "diversion" it is not a proper dam for holding water in a reservoir.  Release is applicable however because if you divert the water you have to release it back some where and if you have a diversion setup you must decided how much water to divert for your use, and then how much to "release" down stream. I think it was great that DCell posted and I should not have joked about, but you can't expect a bunch of river lovers to just jump on a support wagon for a project that hugely impacts a rivershed and when they don't be offended or consider it rude. I support the rivers, and I don't think that these types of projects are sustainable or viable for any purpose. I am trying to think of another word that ends in "ble" but they are not coming to be. Trouble, Bubble, Fumble, Rumble, Tumble, see I am getting no where, just like this post. Sometimes it's hard to stop huh? |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 10:32am
|
I have more of a beef with the fact that the purpose of the resevoir on the Green was not for water sales, and that the usage of the resevoir over the past 15 years has become increasing targetted at just that. In my opinion the breech in the integrity of that dam is due to the change in usage. If it were simple flood mitigation that resevoir would have been drained prior to the storm a few years ago. That change in usage is what is also a concern on any river project, you say lets just skim off a little 50cfs maybe 100 but in 2 years that can easily get bigger, and history shows we don't often reverse the cycle of demand in profits but rather increase it. I do recall a few threads by the way about the usage of HH res. and the increase in capacity. The difference is that when they increased the capacity they never set about major construction with an advertised repurpose for the res. If they did that, ie stated hey were not worried about flood mitigation, were going to do power and drinking water, which would be like the Skagit, well I do think you might hear a big of squaking, and I can promise at our next wine and cheese night you would have a hard time getting me to put a lid on my can!!! |
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 11:09am
|
Originally posted by James Slick, a diversion for power generation causes de-watering. You can't divert and not de-water, don't want to call it a dam, cool Ashlu is not a dam either, although there must be a dam present for the "diversion" it is not a proper dam for holding water in a reservoir. Slickhorn, James hits the nail on the head. What does it matter how much water we are talking about or what type dam is being proposed? It seems like you are making an issue of semantics, and it's confusing. Your disucssion about the Green is getting a little off topic, but I will say that I didn't realize how horrible losing that river was until I got to run it at high water this year. What a tragedy that we don't get to have the Green with it's natural flow regime. It would be great to get more information and how we as paddlers can oppose any plans to develop hydropower on the NF Snoqualmie. I trust that American Whitewater wiill get involved if this truly is a credible threat and I will help any way I can. ------------- |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 11:29am
|
I typed a nice response and lost it so I will make this one short. 1. Lowest ele on the green res. is 1020, sediment damage is 1030-1040 per ACE. 2. They could have gone lower, I don't think it would have made a huge difference so I agree with you on that. 3. The biggest issue is that they not only held off letting out water but they backed off by lowering the flow for 16 hours during the biggest peak. Why? well that may never be known. My understanding is that they wanted the luxury of leveling off the res. to the level they wanted to enter summer with knowing that this particular storm could have big impact on the snow pack that season, limiting captures which it did. Had the focus been on mitigation only I think it would have ended differently but that is not my main point. MY point is that they use that structure for something other than it was designed. I don't argue it is needed, the Green used to flood the valley bad bad bad back in the day and that res. saved lives and a lot of money. So yea I agree it was a good purpose but mitigation is not what people were focusing that dams use for a few years ago. It had been almost 10 years since a late season storm so folks got soft and thought they could balance profits with purpose. Was it a massive storm, sure but there is still fault regardless of the fact that it might not have 100% changed the outcome. I just don't want more developed hydro projects, I would prefer to turn off the car and maybe not use a computer before loosing these priceless resources. Unfortunately that is not what 99% of the people feel which means we need to start blowing up cars and infecting PCs with Viruses. Holy crap, does that make Terrorists and Chinese hackers patriots? ... I just did it again, started yaking about. Ok time for me to get back to work. |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 11:50am
|
This is not the first time that a project has been proposed on the NF Snoqualmie. Back in the 80s (and perhaps earlier as well, would need to research further) the city of Bellevue wanted to build a dam and reservoir on the NF for a municipal water supply. I think they were jealous of Seattle's dams on the Cedar and SF Tolt, Tacoma on the Green and for f's sake, even Everett has a dam on the Sultan, so why don't we have one? Luckily that project died, mostly because of the cost because they wanted the dam to be built as a joint project by Nordstrom and BMW. OK, that last bit might be a partial fabrication, but the rest is true. I was hoping after that last threat, we were good to go now as far as no new dams on the upper Snoqualmie basin. But it looks like we have a new threat. Too bad. Hopefully we can keep this from happening. It seems like a poor choice of placement for a hydro power project to me. Of course I'm more in favor in removing dams than building them... whether they are impoundment dams or diversion. |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 11:57am
|
And to those who jumped on dcell... give him a break. Don't shoot the messenger. He's a boater and has the same concerns as the rest of the community. That's why he passed this info on. He should be thanked for sharing and getting information on this matter first hand. And also, he didn't say don't freak out... He said to read his full post on the matter before you freak out (and not just freak out on the title alone). Once you read his full post (which isnt very long) you are free to freak out in whatever manner best befits you. |
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 12:51pm
|
My first post wasn't intended to attack the messenger. I guess I was trying to make the point that even though the developer may be trying to work with whitewater interests, this is still an issue worth "freaking out about". ------------- |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 12:56pm
|
Thanks dcell that was kind to pass along and I agree with Joe 100%. We should be thanking you and your friend for even letting this information flow and allowing discussion and comments.
Brian I agree with your points but would prefer to save face and keep arguing ... Nkay Again since I am a rafter too I should have never cracked a joke. I am not funny and I am just trying to be more sauve. |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 12:58pm
| Ps I just gave props to Dcell and neg myself because I deserve a stern talking too |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 1:02pm
|
Originally posted by fiddleyak My first post wasn't intended to attack the messenger. I guess I was trying to make the point that even though the developer may be trying to work with whitewater interests, this is still an issue worth "freaking out about". I agree. I'd like to see what it is that's being proposed. I'm concerned about more of these smaller hydro projects creeping in... such as the one on Youngs creek in the Sky drainage. |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 1:04pm
|
Originally posted by slickhorn wait ... was this a debate? I was just trying to be contrary!  I didn't read any of your posts, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with them.  |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 1:05pm
|
Originally posted by James Ps I just gave props to Dcell and neg myself because I deserve a stern talking too Well done, after that stern talking to, you should take a bow. |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 1:10pm
| I am to embarrassed. |
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 1:34pm
|
Originally posted by JoesKayak I agree. I'd like to see what it is that's being proposed. I'm concerned about more of these smaller hydro projects creeping in... such as the one on Youngs creek in the Sky drainage. And the other point I was trying to make is that Ernie's is not just some random stretch of water (I've never heard of Young's Creek), but arguably the 2nd best whitewater run in the State of Washington, after the Little White Salmon ------------- |
Posted By: Ellingferd
Date Posted: 26 May 2011 at 2:24pm
| There is a well established recreational use of this river which is why AW should be getting on top of this. I have no doubt Tom will be doing something. |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 27 May 2011 at 11:22pm
Posted By: SOPBOATER
Date Posted: 31 May 2011 at 4:14pm
| Travis has an interesting point in the fact that streams classed as "anadromous fish" streams are very difficult in todays world to get permitting to build much of any structure on or in. Most Class V runs and the like have point barriers restricting migration of "anadramous" fish, ie salmon and steelhead which are targeted, caught, and sold for money by tribes or other comercial companies. I find it interesting that it seems to be relatively easy to dam or divert a stream that has only resident fish ie trout and such which are not worth much economically to anyone. Either way a dam or diversion is extremely detrimental to them therefore is not green power in any shape or form. I for one cannot support the construction of any structure in the river that would alter flow in any way. I mean we have enough dams on other systems to provide power, why do we "need" this one. I have to agree with Ben here in the fact that this would be exactly like damming the Little White. Yes the LW gets run more but Ernies is non the less a valuable resource for boaters and whitewater aside, I see no reason to mess with it. Most boaters realize that gorges and canyons like this are some of the last wild places around, sometimes they exist with civilization at the rims yet the interiors are unfettered with the exception of course the requisite upstream redneck garbage reminents. A diversion is really just an extension of this garbage. Just my humble opinion. |
Posted By: jalmquist
Date Posted: 31 May 2011 at 7:46pm
|
Brian / James, great discussion on HHD and "the event" back in 09. According to ACE website ( http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/report/hah.htm - http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/report/hah.htm ) the dam has usable storage of 1035' to 1206'. If you look at the prior days weather, lots of low elevation snow on the ground. If you look at the prior days dam control, very low outflow from the reservoir (they were NOT lowering the reservoir level). If you look at the prior days forecast, warmer and wet. There was lots of talk about how this storm was well forecast. Hmmmm…. Noticed what happened when the forecasted storm hit. Reservoir Inflow spiked, they started spiking the outflow UNTIL they realized that the levee capacity downstream would be exceeded, so they cut dam outflow (red line) to basically zero! If you look at the corresponding gauge readings for downstream (Auburn) at this time, you’ll see that in-stream discharge there was still almost at levee topping levels. All due to side flow from rain on the lowland snow. So, the big question remains why didn’t the ACE, prior to the forecasted storm, increase outflow from HHD to lower the reservoir level. Usable storage goes down to 1035’, and they were sitting at 1070 feet – that’s 35 feet of reservoir head with which to play. To this day (I work in Kent), we still get our fall / winter flood warnings and associated evacuation plans, all centered around the limited storage capacity of the dam (and their associated need to potentially release beyond levee capacity) due to the “flood damage of 2009” which they claim was due to the flood. Or was it a combo of the flood and questionable reservoir management….?
|
Posted By: chipmaney
Date Posted: 31 May 2011 at 8:27pm
|
I don't think there is any question everyone on this site is against putting any sort of dam or diversion on NF Snoqualmie. I don't see the relevance of the Green, which is managed for public safety. There is no such concern on Ernie's, on which any project would likely be more akin to the diversons on the Ashlu and Sultan Rivers. These rivers are both de-watered using a diversion and accompanying run of the river dam.
It may be true that the river is not accessible by anadromous salmon. However, if this is a rationale for decision-making, then the assumption has been that a dam may in some cases be the desirable outcome. This is patently wrong. The paddling community's position should be that this recreational area, which already sustains severe impacts to natural resources from roads and timber production, as anyone who is up there during a rainstorm can easily see. The area also support a suite of recreational interests, not just kayaking. People pay to access fees to use the area, so there are clear alternatives already in place for those whose aim is financial profit. This is most concernedly to us one of the most valuable whitewater resources in the state. People come from around the country to paddle this V+ test piece of American whitewater. Nor least of all, the stream discharge baseflow suggests the amount of energy that would be gained is paltry relative to the gross statewide power production. One could argue that compromise would be to have power production while requiring a certain number of flow days, but this backyard run gets paddled tens of times a year, and it is very unlikely that so many days would be negotiated into any dam construction permits. With dams coming out on the Elwha and White Salmon, it seems there is a weight of support to protect this resource area by concluding that a diversion would degrade the overall value of the watershed. The path to achieve the objective of stopping this project is to be a strong united voice by writing or attending meetings and supporting organizations such as AW, whose reputation provides it "a seat at the table". ------------- sitting all alone on a mountain by a river that has no end |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 10:25am
Posted By: Ellingferd
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 3:36pm
| Not to play devils advocate here, but the only way a dam on a river would equal the output of a nuclear plant would be what you see on the Columbia. You would need a thousand Nooksacks to equal one nuclear plant. Which is the problem. |
Posted By: jalmquist
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 6:46pm
|
Brian, Totally realize we’re not talking a reservoir with vertical sides, and from a storage capacity perspective, a foot elevation change at lower levels doesn’t equate to a foot of change at higher levels. Not even close. Yes, 1035 is minimum low, with 1141 being the “conservation pool level”. Usable storage is claimed from 1035 to 1206 (totaling 106K acre feet) and the conservation storage range of 1035 to 1141 only accounts for 25K AF of that total. So with levels at the time before the event hovering in the 1070 range, they had little capacity left with which to draw down – well less than the 25K AF of the conservation pool. And considering there’s about 44K cubic feet in one AF, and inflow spiked (briefly) to 30K cf PER SECOND, any draw down of what was left would be negated by a few minutes of the max recorded inflow. And yes, the concern was with the abutment and not the dam itself – where the dam is build against what appears to be ancient land slide material (separate conversation unto itself…). After this event, traceable die indicated water was passing through the abutment and an alarming rate, causing concern for further erosion. Hence, storage capacity was limited, leading to possible “action” in the downstream communities. Not because of potential dam failure, but due to the ACE being unwilling to impound water up the max 1206 reservoir level. Beyond a certain capacity, the plan was that outflow would have to match inflow, and that could easily top levees further downstream. I’m still unclear how higher inflow (30K cfs) would damage the abutment, as I'm assuming we’re talking a rapidly rising pool level rather than a raging torrent. And a rapidly rising pool level still imparts less stress on its surroundings than a full pull – we’re just talking hydraulic head. It would be interesting to understand the cause / effect the significant inflow / outflow delta had on the abutment and it’s damage. |
Posted By: tiziak
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2011 at 4:48am
|
Ok, was finally able to connect with Thom yesterday and he does seem like a genuinely nice guy. I took around 4 pages of notes on what he had to say, and then I left them in the hotel so bear with me... Thom says that the state, power companies and the company that owns the land around Ernie's actually call it Black Canyon. There is already on small power plant out there. The large waterfall on RL with the massive old growth directly below it is the run out of this power station. They intend to put an inflatable rubber bladder type dam about a half mile from the beginning of the gorge. As far as I can tell it’s about a quarter mile from the old put in where the river makes almost a 90 degree to the left and a large sand/rock bar is on the RR. The inflatable bladder would raise the water level to around 10 feet from where it is right now and this would spill over into a tunnel that would bypass all of Ernie’s. The power station and output would be in Ernie’s Grove, the end of the run. Thom seemed very optimistic that they could maintain a relationship with boaters in the area and he wants to meet with us to figure out what we want. I obviously relayed the message that we are not particularly thrilled about possibly losing the best run in the state (my opinion). He said that the wheels are already in motion. It will be roughly a 4 year process to get the required permissions, build the tunnel and install the dam. It is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project so there will be a lot of red tape, good for us. The power company will need all of the federal components to work together to push this through. SO, we still have time at least. I emailed Tom O'Keefe and briefly described the issue. So, hopefully it comes into the spotlight for AW. I'm sorry this post is a bit splotchy; when I get home I will read through my notes and post them for you guys. Until then, get out there while we have it!! Cheers Dan
------------- If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. Daniel Patrinellis 360.434.4616 |
Posted By: okeefe
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2011 at 4:20pm
|
I will keep an eye on this. Snohomish PUD has preliminary permits to evaluate Calligan and Hancock Creeks, tributaries of the North Fork, for hydro and they intend to build these projects. We filed an intervention and raised concerns. One concern is that once infrastructure is in place for projects on those tributaries it could make the mainstem North Fork Snoqualmie more attractive for development. To date I have not seen any preliminary permit application though which would be the first step required prior to evaluating a site for development. -- Tom ------------- Thomas O'Keefe PNW Stewardship Director American Whitewater |
Posted By: okeefe
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2011 at 10:56pm
|
Correction. There is a preliminary permit application and FERC has recently opened the public comment period.
Details here: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/31058/ ------------- Thomas O'Keefe PNW Stewardship Director American Whitewater |
Posted By: tiziak
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2011 at 5:09am
|
Ok, here are the things I either left out from my notes or just want to expand upon:
First off, Thom made it very clear on several occasions during our conversation that anyone who hikes in and boats Black Canyon is TRESPASSING on land owned by Hancock Forest Management and that if we are caught our cars will be impounded and we will be arrested or at a minimum fined. I didn't argue with Thom, just tried to figure out of he was talking about the old put in that now has all the decorative wood railing around it. From what he explained, even if we walk down the gravel road with the gate on it, the new put in, we are still liable for prosecution. Hancock Forest Management has made it clear they will have any kayakers that are caught trespassing arrested. So, yeah. The only way we are allowed access to the North Fork from that area is if we buy the permit that the hunters and wood scavengers buy for a couple hundred bucks.
As far as the FERC permit:
All local federal and state agencies will have a say in the project and whether or not it happens. They will have to have a stream inflow requirement for fish. They want to meet with kayakers to talk about the construction of the Dam and the spill way.
The existing power plant on Black Creek:
Has been there for over 15 years now. Is 160 feet above the old growth waterfall on RL.
The power station currently puts out around 4 MW ( I was surprised about that one).
The Ernies Dam:
They want 900cfs to push the turbines. They are looking at "Black Canyon" because they want the area with the steepest gradient for efficiency. So no other place on the North Fork is as appealing from an energy generating perspective. Thom said that anything over 900 cfs they would "have" to allow to bypass the power station. He had a bunch of stats on flow levels over the years for Ernies. Stating that the average flow from Apr 1st to July 1st is greater than 500 cfs, with half of that time being greater than 1500 cfs. That means based on their own inflow needs, Ernies would be dry for half of the spring. He didnt seem to understand the issue there.
He stated multiple times that he would want to work out some kind of contract with the local boating community that specified a boatable water level but didnt really specify how we would guarantee it, request it, any of that. He seemed sincere when explaining that he wanted to grant us legal access to the river but didn't actually seem to know how he could make this happen. Per his flow statistics, the Dam would be shut off for most of July, August and September because if the inflow is less than 500 cfs theres no point in turning it on. I doubt that.
Take care and go get wet people!
Cheers ------------- If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. Daniel Patrinellis 360.434.4616 |
Posted By: okeefe
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2011 at 10:41pm
|
Just for the record I was part of a dinner meeting a couple months back with local management from Hancock. For the Snoqualmie Tree Farm public access by bike or foot is welcome (different story on Puyallup). If any one wants more details drop me a line but I will be following up on all this. ------------- Thomas O'Keefe PNW Stewardship Director American Whitewater |
Posted By: huckin harms
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2011 at 9:42am
|
Wow! Never thought this would happen. Was this meant to stay 'under the radar'? ------------- |
Posted By: SOPBOATER
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2011 at 1:53pm
| I thought there was a big drive on for alternative power that is not dam derived. Just cause these guys will work with boaters does not mean that they will not damage this canyon and its inhabitants. This is not needed and clearly a pork project for someone to make money at the expense of a public resource. |
Posted By: okeefe
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2011 at 4:31pm
|
Originally posted by tiziak First off, Thom made it very clear on several occasions during our conversation that anyone who hikes in and boats Black Canyon is TRESPASSING on land owned by Hancock Forest Management and that if we are caught our cars will be impounded and we will be arrested or at a minimum fined. I didn't argue with Thom, just tried to figure out of he was talking about the old put in that now has all the decorative wood railing around it. From what he explained, even if we walk down the gravel road with the gate on it, the new put in, we are still liable for prosecution. Hancock Forest Management has made it clear they will have any kayakers that are caught trespassing arrested. I just checked directly with Hancock. Here is the response: "The developer may have gotten bad information about walk-on access. You are welcome to walk-on at this time." We hope to maintain a good relationship with Hancock and continue this policy. Note that this applies to access at the Spur 10 gate. ------------- Thomas O'Keefe PNW Stewardship Director American Whitewater |
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 10:11am
|
As of now, there are fewer than 10 comments posted. Come on! Can EVERYONE please spend the 5 minutes to post a comment saying that you are against this project?
Simple directions:
Click -------> http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp - HERE <-------
-Click the Orange eComment Tab at the top of the page.
-Fill in your name and email
-Check your email for an email from FERC
-Search and select docket P-14110
-Write a comment!
If you want to register, you will be notified of other comments and updates. For that, go to:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp - http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp
For American Whitewater's links:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/31058/ - http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/31058/
------------- |
Posted By: septimus prime
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 10:35am
|
Done. ------------- Jon Shell Bee |
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 10:39am
|
To see comments, go to: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/docket_search.asp - http://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/docket_search.asp
Search: P-14110
------------- |
Posted By: PowWrangler
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 12:26pm
|
|
Posted By: tiziak
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 12:56pm
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 1:04pm
|
I just posted to PDX kayaker and Boof.com, and the comments are finally starting to stream in!
------------- |
Posted By: okeefe
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 1:13pm
|
I don't want to outline all the strategy in a public forum but we are in good shape. Many permit applications don't get any public comments.
------------- Thomas O'Keefe PNW Stewardship Director American Whitewater |
Posted By: okeefe
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 1:21pm
|
Just to clarify, more comments is a good thing. ------------- Thomas O'Keefe PNW Stewardship Director American Whitewater |
Posted By: PowWrangler
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 1:44pm
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 1:59pm
|
Originally posted by PowWrangler I noticed this too with my comment right after I submitted it. Then hours later, it looks fine. ------------- |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 2:31pm
|
Excerpt : "Steep walled river canyons are difficult to access by foot and as such, are some of the last bastions of wilderness in densely populated areas." Very well stated - Indeed |
Posted By: water wacko
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2011 at 6:44pm
|
awesome, brian. thanks for making it easy Ben! long live uncle ernie... ------------- "Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." ~Howard Thurman |
Posted By: BRoss
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2011 at 10:54am
|
Has anyone posted this to Boatertalk? That'll reach a ton of boaters ------------- "That boated a lot better than it looked." "It always does until it doesn't." |