fun fun fund raiser for future fun fun fun

Housatonic Area Canoe & Kayak Squad (HACKS) is currently developing a plan for the creation of low-water river environment improvements that will provide a sheltered environment for the native species of fish, as well as make summer time boating a reality.
The next step in this process is raising enough money to get a whitewater park engineering company involved to help us further develop this comprehensive plan. This is where we can all pitch in and want to help. (scott@lozer.com)


Nicely framed with a durable metal gallery frame and plexiglas. This one is "Loop". It is the fourth and final generation (or "state" from this plate. 20 are in black and white only,but five were colored by hand.

All profits from the sale of these prints (until April 15) will go towards HACKS. The price of the prints includes shipping, framing, and basic HACKS membership for the year 2006.


With one already taken, only four of these will be for sale at a price of only $125. (shipping within continental U.S. is free)
The image size is 4 1/2" x 6 1/2", and the framed size is 9' x 12'


This one is called "To Be Run". It is a view from atop a large, technical waterfall. It is a scouting view as one decides how to negotiate this chaotic beauty. It, too, will show up at your doorstep in a quality gallery frame with plexiglas, that measures 9" x 12". The image size is 4" x 8". The price is $125 as your reminder of your contribution to the fun cause of making playwaves and better summer habitat. (shipping is free within continental U.S.A.)

Only available until April 15, 2006!

This is the second edition from this etching plate. (3 editions were made). All of this edition have been colored by hand (10). Since the color choices varied, they'll be listed with the number below them. (#3 of 10 is already spoken for)


"To Be Run" (second state) #9 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second state) #10 of 10 (hand colored) $125



"To Be Run" (second state) #8 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second state) #6 of 10, #2 of 10, #1 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second state) #7 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second stated) #4 of 10, #5 of 10 (hand colored) $125

Mail check to:
HACKS WWPark Fund
247 Bulls Bridge Road
South Kent, CT 06785


just look how great these will be hanging on your wall, a proud reminder that you are a part of this whole thing

Only available unti April 15, 2006!

Below you will find the larger print that is for benefit of this summer time plan. It is called "Over the Edge: double impression" There are only four of these prints; each one a different color. Therefore, every print is unique.


"Over the Edge: double impression" #1 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"


"Over the Edge: double impression" #2 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"


"Over the Edge: double impression" #3 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"


"Over the Edge: double impression" #4 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"

Just drop me an email to arrange shipping before they are all gone.
scott@lozer.com

Cohoes site visit

visited the proposed project site,and it was super exciting! The canal, which is one of the possible places that they'd put a ww park, is 1/2 mile long. Wow. that's long. The ww park section would be 1/4 mile! pretty long for a ww park.

currently the canal is 100' across, and the proposal is to lower the water level and remove alot of the berm to expose the original canal that is 50' across. This would add 25' of park space on either side of the ww section. Imagine a nice 1/2 long park surrounding a stretch of whitewater. Also, the original canal is super super old, so it's a piece of history.

the FALLS, which the canal bypasses, is 1000' across, and is a single drop of 80'. It's hard to see that kind of enormous scale in the photo, but just try to imagine that! 80' high!!!! 1000' across!!!! The rallying cry for this whole thing is to rewater the falls. Normally, the falls is dry; just a huge chunk of rock. What a crime! The proposed project would provide about 1000cfs to go over the falls all the time. We were lucky to be there on one of those super rare days in which the falls was actually running. It should look like this all the time.

there is a debate whether or not the canal gatehouse will stay or be removed. But, if you look into the photo, you'll see a couple of brick buildings. one is the gatehouse and the larger one is a block of row houses/condos that overlook the dry falls. Just imagine the view that they'll have when the project is finished! A huge 80' falls out the back window. A brand new park to replace the mounds of dirt and jersey barriers that currently sit there. A 50' wide whitewater course.
The whitewater course (in the canal) would hang onto the side of the gorge walls. It would be the first time that paddlers are heading to the TOP of the gorge to go paddling. Get done throwing ends, and you'll be on top of an enormous cliff, with a spectacular view of a beautiful waterfall, and the other side of the river, the beauty over there, where there is very very little development,the spot where the Great Law of Peace became a reality as it was constructed by native American tribes at the falls. The Great Law of Peace that was the basis for the U.S. Constitution (this was recognized by Congress in 1987, on the 200th anniversary of the Constiution)

Wouldn't it be wonderful, if we all made our voices heard, and water were to fall over the falls again, as it did when George Washington and Benjamin Franklin (and other founding fathers) were using the model of the Great Law of Peace to draft the Constitution of the United States.....

Housatonic Meeting summary

I got there at the end, but here is the Agenda and some discussion points that they sent out to accompany the meeting......





Housatonic Basin Natural Resources Restoration Project

Natural Resources Trustee SubCouncil for Connecticut

Public Informational Meeting

AGENDA

Tuesday, March 28, 2006
7:00 PM
Kent Town Hall


Public Informational Session:

• Project Updates:

 Status of Contract Review

• Presentation and discussion of the proposed Restoration Project Eligibility Criteria

• Questions/Comments


Connecticut SubCouncil Meeting:

• Because there are no items requiring formal action by the SubCouncil, it is anticipated that a formal meeting will not be convened.


Housatonic River Basin
Natural Resources Restoration Project
Natural Resource Trustee SubCouncil for Connecticut


The Trustee SubCouncil for the Geographic Area of Connecticut (“SubCouncil”) seeks comments from the public on proposed Eligibility Criteria. The Eligibility Criteria will be used in the future to screen all restoration proposals submitted to the SubCouncil.

The SubCouncil will present and discuss the proposed Eligibility Criteria at the March 28, 2006 SubCouncil public meeting. Approval of the “Eligibility Criteria,” if appropriate, will be an action item for the SubCouncil at it’s April 25, 2006 meeting. The development of restoration project Evaluation Criteria will commence, and include public input, after the finalization of the Eligibility Criteria.

Proposed Eligibility Criteria for Restoration Projects in Connecticut:


1. Does the [preliminary] proposal contain the information identified by the CT SubCouncil as set out in the “Instructions for the Preparation and Submission of Restoration Proposals”?

A “NO” response may render the proposed project ineligible for further consideration.

The CT SubCouncil is planning to review the various funding mechanisms available to it for implementation of selected projects. Depending on the mechanism selected, it may be possible to refer incomplete proposals back to the proposer for additional information. If this proves to be the case, the CTSC reserves the right to either reject the [preliminary] proposal as incomplete or to return it to the proposer with a description of the additional information required. If the preliminary proposal is returned for additional information, the CT SubCouncil may set a deadline for resubmission.
2. Does the Proposed Project restore, rehabilitate, replace, and/or acquire natural resources or natural resource services equivalent to those that were injured by the release of PCBs or other hazardous substances from the GE facility at Pittsfield, MA?

A “NO” response renders the proposed project ineligible for further consideration.

The CT SubCouncil will only fund a restoration project if the primary purpose of the project is to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources and/or their services that were injured by the release of PCBs and/or other hazardous substances into the Housatonic River watershed. The CT SubCouncil may not select a proposed project for funding if, in the opinion of the Trustee Representatives, the restoration benefit to the injured natural resource and/or its related services is incidental to the objective of the project. This criterion addresses the requirements of NRDA regulations 43C.F.R. § 11.81-82 and 11.93.

3. Is the Proposed Project, or any portion of the Proposed Project, an action that is presently required under other federal, state, or local law, including but not limited to, enforcement actions?

A “YES” response renders the Proposed Project ineligible for further consideration.

In the Trustee Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) , Part VII, Section D, the Trustees state that:

“The Trustees agree that all selected Restoration projects or alternatives, whether funded or undertaken directly by the Trustees or otherwise, must not…be otherwise required by an independent legal obligation to perform the project pursuant to statute, regulation, ordinance, consent decree (excluding the consent decree that is the subject of this MOA), judgement, court order, permit condition or contract or if otherwise required by federal, state, or local law. Regardless of whether a governmental body or agency has elected to exercise its discretion to enforce a provision of law, if any governmental body or agency has the authority to order a party to commence certain work or activities subject to enforcement actions then the Trustee Council or relevant SubCouncil will consider the project “otherwise required” and not appropriate to be considered for funding.”


4. Is the Proposed Project inconsistent with any federal, state, or local law or policy?

A “YES” response renders the Proposed Project ineligible for further consideration.

The CT SubCouncil will determine whether a proposed project is consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies. The CT SubCouncil will not fund a restoration project that is inconsistent with any federal, state, or local law, regulation, or policy. This criterion addresses the direction provided to the Trustees in NRDA regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 11.82(d)(9) and (10).


5. Will the proposed project, or any portion of the proposed project, be inconsistent with any ongoing or anticipated remedial actions in the Housatonic River watershed?

A “YES” response renders the Proposed Project ineligible for further consideration.

In the MOA, Part VII, Section D, the Trustees state that:

“The Trustees agree that all selected Restoration projects or alternatives, whether funded or undertaken directly by the Trustees or otherwise, must not …be inconsistent with any ongoing or anticipated remedial action.”

The CT SubCouncil will not fund a restoration project that will be undone or negatively impacted by, or that will interfere with, any remediation work, including completed, ongoing, and future actions. The CT SubCouncil will consult with the USEPA for additional information relevant to the likelihood that the proposed project will or may be inconsistent with future remediation activities.

The CT SubCouncil recognizes that this Eligibility Criterion may be difficult to apply to some proposed projects; particularly those located in areas where remediation plans have not been completed. The CT SubCouncil may, at its sole discretion, retain for further consideration any project for which such determination is not yet possible. The CT SubCouncil may also retain sufficient funding in the restoration account to allow the future implementation of one or more such projects. The foregoing notwithstanding, no retention of a proposed project or any restoration funds shall be interpreted to be a commitment to implement such project.


Table 1: Proposed Eligibility Criteria.

Criterion Response Response Result
1. Does the [preliminary] proposal contain the information identified by the CT SubCouncil as set out in the “Instructions for the Preparation and Submission of Restoration Proposals”? YES or NO A “NO” response may render the proposed project ineligible for further consideration.

2. Does the Proposed Project restore, rehabilitate, replace, and/or acquire natural resources or natural resource services equivalent to those that were injured by the release of PCBs or other hazardous substances from the GE facility at Pittsfield, MA?
YES or NO A “NO” response renders the Proposed Project ineligible for further consideration.
3. Is the Proposed Project, or any portion of the Proposed Project, an action that is presently required under other federal, state, or local law, including, but not limited to, enforcement actions?
YES or NO A “YES” response renders the Proposed Project ineligible for further consideration.
4. Is the Proposed Project inconsistent with any federal, state, or local law or policy? YES or NO A “YES” response renders the Proposed Project ineligible for further consideration.
5. Will the proposed project, or any portion of the proposed project, be inconsistent with any ongoing or anticipated remedial actions in the Housatonic River watershed? YES or NO A “YES” response renders the Proposed Project ineligible for further consideration.

low head dams

just some links to site about low head dams. These are drowning machines, that COULD be designed or modified to be safer, actually they could be contructed to act as play spots instead of lethal obstacles. But, we must educate ourselves, and teach the public at large about the potential dangers in their rivers.

www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/dsafety/safeowner.htm

About the Binghamton drowning incident:
Binghamton,NY

Drowning incident video (very scary)
video

www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/lowhead.htm

dam removal paper (pdf)
DAMpdf

this site encourages people to go swimming near some places that have low head dams. How dangerous is that?!?
swimming

www.fish.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/lowhd1.htm
http://www.fish.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/damhaz.htm

"Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams are some of our most precious natural resources and should be enjoyed by all," Gov. Ridge said. "But these man-made dams can at times become killing machines. Until now, there’s been no warning that these dams are hazardous article_here

A great abstract on the subject:
read

scary videos:
video


more

MORE

again

crazy

“Maine
Lawsuit targets contractor in kayaker's death, (AP), 10/12/2005.
Lawsuit contends that a Sept. 20, 2003 drowning at the Sebasticook Lake dam was a result of negligent design, construction and installation of a trash screen installed in 2003. A kayaker became pinned against the grate during the annual drawdown of the lake. No-trespassing signs were posted on the dam, but no signs warned boaters of the open dam. The Cianbro Corp. says it will aggressively defend itself against the allegations.”
From this website: here



http://www.boatertalk.com/forum/BoaterTalk/983205

super low water is playable

These three photos are of the whitewater park in Denver. The flow was below 200cfs that day and the features are still playable. Not great,but it shows what is possible at low flow.
Note the construction of the whitewater section. It is built into a low-head dam, heading upstream of the dam. The bank has been sculpted from a formerly ugly structure into a nice gathering area. All of this acts as a fish ladder too, allowing fish passage around the low head dam.
Think of New Milford bleachery dam looking like this. The pond height is maintained so things don't change upstream. The features are useable at low water. And, I was told that at medium flows there are three GREAT playwaves. At high spring flows there is one world-class playspot!

This is a mid-city location so there is lots of concrete. New Milford could have minimal concrete and be mostly rock, earth, and grass to reflect the natural beauty of the surrounding area.

FUNd raiser for summer time FUN!

Housatonic Area Canoe & Kayak Squad (HACKS) is currently developing a plan for the creation of low-water river environment improvements that will provide a sheltered environment for the native species of fish, as well as make summer time boating a reality.
The next step in this process is raising enough money to get a whitewater park engineering company involved to help us further develop this comprehensive plan. This is where we can all pitch in and want to help. (scott@lozer.com)


Nicely framed with a durable metal gallery frame and plexiglas. This one is "Loop". It is the fourth and final generation (or "state" from this plate. 20 are in black and white only,but five were colored by hand.

All profits from the sale of these prints (until April 15) will go towards HACKS. The price of the prints includes shipping, framing, and basic HACKS membership for the year 2006.


With one already taken, only four of these will be for sale at a price of only $125. (shipping within continental U.S. is free)
The image size is 4 1/2" x 6 1/2", and the framed size is 9' x 12'


This one is called "To Be Run". It is a view from atop a large, technical waterfall. It is a scouting view as one decides how to negotiate this chaotic beauty. It, too, will show up at your doorstep in a quality gallery frame with plexiglas, that measures 9" x 12". The image size is 4" x 8". The price is $125 as your reminder of your contribution to the fun cause of making playwaves and better summer habitat. (shipping is free within continental U.S.A.)

Only available until April 15, 2006!

This is the second edition from this etching plate. (3 editions were made). All of this edition have been colored by hand (10). Since the color choices varied, they'll be listed with the number below them. (#3 of 10 is already spoken for)


"To Be Run" (second state) #9 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second state) #10 of 10 (hand colored) $125



"To Be Run" (second state) #8 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second state) #6 of 10, #2 of 10, #1 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second state) #7 of 10 (hand colored) $125


"To Be Run" (second stated) #4 of 10, #5 of 10 (hand colored) $125

Mail check to:
HACKS WWPark Fund
247 Bulls Bridge Road
South Kent, CT 06785


just look how great these will be hanging on your wall, a proud reminder that you are a part of this whole thing

Only available unti April 15, 2006!

Below you will find the larger print that is for benefit of this summer time plan. It is called "Over the Edge: double impression" There are only four of these prints; each one a different color. Therefore, every print is unique.


"Over the Edge: double impression" #1 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"


"Over the Edge: double impression" #2 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"


"Over the Edge: double impression" #3 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"


"Over the Edge: double impression" #4 of 4 $250
image size: 6" x 12" framed size 11" x 14"

Just drop me an email to arrange shipping before they are all gone.
scott@lozer.com

Dam removal article

from Binghamton. Note the photo of the basketballs trapped in the hydralic.

http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060311/NEWS01/603110311/1001

This is certainly a project to keep track of as we move forward with getting started on the bleachery dam project (New Milford, CT)

GE Settlement Meeting

We attended a meeting to gather information regarding which proposals will be accepted as candidates for the settlement money from the GE pollution law suits. Wouldn't it be nice to get some of that money to build some more whitewater opportunities along the Housatonic River?

Here are some quick notes:

Mike Powers seems to be the person who is actually getting things moving along. He had retired, but now is back to focus on moving this forward so that the money can be doled out, and lost recreational opportunities and habitat reclaimation can start happening soon.

The Massachusetts part of the settlement is farther along. We can look to that as an example of how the process works.

The overall impression is that the more beneficial purposes a proposed project serves, the more likely it will be to receive funding. So, think whitewater park, but also think outside the box. What else can a whitewater park offer to the Housatonic Valley?
Riverbank stabilization?
River cleanup?
Improved fish habitat?
What else?

A couple of the major questions the committe will consider when looking at proposals:
1. does it restore, replace opportunities that were destroyed?
2. what is the relevance?
3. why is this a priority over other proposals?
4. how many different purposes does this serve?
5. how cheap/expensive is this project (and does it leave us money for more projects)?

The committe tends to favor restoration,
but will consider educational programs.

Think "big picture"

The bleachery dam in New Milford was brought up briefly. It seems that there is some consern over the amount of PCBs in the silt that has built up behind the dam. Someone was murmering about removing the dam. But, it would have to be done carefully so that the PCBs are not resuspended and flushed down stream. This could be an opportunity to offer up a modification proposal instead of a full removal of the dam.
Basically, make it safe and playable, but leave it there to continue catching any of the PCBs that are missed during the cleanup (so they don't continue further downstream)

Responsibilty for the bleachery dam is in question. If anyone knows who owns or is responsible for the dam, please let us know.

$ to clean up vs. $ to replace rec. opportunities

Some Northeast Utilities lands are coming up for sale. We have to research it further (could use your help on this one), but the GE settlement fund might go to purchasing some of this land. The question will also be whether it is as a conservation easement or to mitigate lost recreational opportunities.

This is an ongoing process that is just getting started.

Canaan Dam is a clean up opportunity.
Bleachery Dam is a clean up opportunity.
Gaylordsville is a habitat restoration opportunity.
All are chances to make summer time boating spots.