BayAreaKiteboarding.com

Damn, I've heard rumors but couldn't find anything about it.
We definitely need to do something about it. What's the next step for us as a kiteboarding Community?

Here's my letter:

Dear Ms. Buchnoff:

I would like to comment on your initial study relating to the project.

In general, I believe your comments greatly understate the impact of the project on recreational use of the area, especially as it relates to kitesurfing at the Little Baja site.

As a recreational activity, kitesurfing is limited to geographical areas that have the right combination of water access, wind and currents. The Bay Area is famous for consistent winds generated by thermal lows from April through September. Sherman Island is oriented at just the right angle to these winds and is famous around the world as a premier spot for the sports of windsurfing and kitesurfing. A precious few spots on Sherman Island allow for safe launching and landing of kites. In fact, access to the river for kiting is really restricted to only two areas, one in the county park and one precisely at the Little Baja area where construction is planned.

In this regard, your report is incorrect when it states that activities including kiting and windsurfing occur near the construction area……they occur at the construction area. Any activity that would eliminate usage of the area would greatly impact not only the amount of people using the nearby park (an impact which you completely disregard in the report) but would also eliminate a “last resort” area where people who launch at the park upwind currently can safely exit the water if the wind drops or they encounter equipment problems.

I strongly agree with the comments already submitted to you by the RVWA-SIKO. As a group, we are highly sensitive to loss of access areas for the sports of windsurfing and kitesurfing. The impact of this project on kitesurfing access and safety is in my opinion unduly minimized in your report, and in fact you would create a very significant hazard by eliminating or limiting access at Little Baja. This is true even if access were to be restricted only on a temporary basis during construction.

Mitigation for continuous access should include considerations for parking, pedestrians and biking as suggested by the RVWA-SIKO. Failure to address these matters in your study seems to downplay the impact on a high traffic recreational area for multiple users, but most importantly seems to completely ignore the creation of unacceptable hazards to those users.

I would appreciate a response to acknowledge receipt of my comments. Lastly, thanks for the very hard work you have put into this project already.

Sincerely,

And re-upped RKWA-SIKO membership. Thanks for folks already working on this project. I think the state could mess Little Baja up pretty bad but maybe we can actually improve access if we do this right. As I understand it, access has in the past been a benefit from the land owner, but it could be lost if they re-route the road and the state doesn't consider current use.

Dont forget that the report writers probably dont windsurf or kitesurf, and they are unlikely to understand the dangers associated with removing a backup landing place. Removing one of two (or more) access points does not create a self-evident hazard unless you understand our sport. I think it will be critical to carefully explain to them why the hazard is created rather than just stating that it creates a hazard.

Also, based on their preliminary drawings (page 2-3), there should be plenty of space to use the normal little baja area. Even though it is within the "project area," that does not mean the contractor needs to use that area to get the project done. I think it would be reasonable for them to allow us continued access during construction.

We should also note that the fish release pipes and fish screens will create their own future hazards as well.

I would think that the notification that they are creating a hazard would compel some due diligence investigation simply from a liability standpoint.

I know they have to jump through hoops to get anything accomplished, but it's odd to see the detail they get into on protecting all the little critters while missing or just willfully ignoring the impact on big ones like us. I'm not ant-environmentalist by any stretch, but projects like this kind of make you scratch your head. Seems like a lot of wheels spinning to promote a natural balance.....should be a better way to get to it.

My proposal would be to genetically modify a great white shark to better thrive in fresh water so they could eat the extra seals. ok, not such a good idea. We don't want gmo's.....

friggin old guy,
I'll put a genetically modified shark in your swimming pool, be a good seal and jump in!
River, lake? Mmm, shark bait.

This are the ONLY references to wind / kite surfing i found in the whole proposal... we have nothing to worry about then??

3.15.1 Environmental Setting
The project does not include recreation facilities, however public access and recreation on navigable waters is protected under the Public Trust. Boating, wind surfing, kite boarding and fishing do occur near the project site along the Sacramento River. The project will not extend far enough into the river to require alternate access points for boaters and will only temporarily (during construction)result in restricted access within the project site for recreation. Improvements to the county road will require a county approved detour but will not result in loss of access

etxxz wrote: will only temporarily (during construction)result in restricted access within the project site for recreation.

We are talking about a 2 years "temporary" project, aren't we?
If I don't get my SI fix for 2 seasons, I might end up stabbing one of my customers at the bar... With a corkscrew, mind you...

What is the address to sent the letter or e-mail??