COMMUNITY FORUM: Draping the river

Sheets blowing in the wind

Reading the Opinion page this week, I see I must have missed a major article on the Christo curtain last week. I missed it because I was at a weeklong family reunion, camping near Coaldale. Of the 30 people, 27 were from out of state (and two of those visiting from another country). Fourteen of us chose to spend a day rafting on the beautiful Arkansas River.

We spent over $2,300 on campsites and cabins, around $850 rafting, we visited the Royal Gorge and Bishops Castle. Everyone drove here and purchased most of their food supplies in Cañon City.

Some of my family drove a couple of days to come see the natural beauty of Colorado, not manmade fabrications. We wouldn’t have spent money rafting the river if it was covered. As the organizer of the reunion, I would have picked a different location for our gathering.

I don’t know how much tourist revenue is expected from sheets blowing in the wind, but I doubt people will come cross-country to see it. Now I’m wondering where our next reunion will be.

Brian Eschner

Colorado Springs

Your opinion counts

Recently, The Gazette published an ad for the upcoming Christo lecture Wednesday, which included a valuable piece of information for those of us who want to object to the Christo project.

Please go to www.overtheriverinfo.com, and you can send an e-mail for the Environmental Impact Study. Your opinion counts. Let Christo go put his pretty cloth over some big-city slum where it is needed. The Arkansas River needs no beautification by Christo.

Shirley Dunmore

Colorado Springs

Project could mean hazards

While I don’t live in Colorado at the moment, I still return periodically to paddle its rivers and creeks, hike its trails, and climb its mountains.

I am an American Canoe Association (ACA)-certified swiftwater rescue instructor with 30 years of kayak, canoe and rafting experience — some of it in Colorado, including the Arkansas River. I’m writing to voice my deep concerns about the short-term and long-term impact of Christo’s project on the safety of those paddling the river.

To explain those concerns, I need to provide a little background on one of the hazards of moving water: entrapment. Entrapment occurs when a person (in or out of their kayak, canoe or raft) is pinned in place by the force of the current. Entrapped victims are very difficult to rescue.

Entrapments happen any number of ways: one unfortunately common method is “foot entrapment”, which is what happens when a person floating in the river attempts to stand up and instead lodges one or both feet in a rock crevice, or tree branch, or other underwater object.

Another common method is “boat entrapment,” which usually involves a canoeist or kayaker who has broached their boat in a horizontal or vertical position against a rock or other obstruction. Rescuing victims from either of these is difficult, even for trained, coordinated, experienced teams equipped with the right equipment and in the right place at the right time.

River runners, commercial and private, are aware of these risks, in a general sense in a situation-specific sense. The general sense is addressed by paddler education, including the safety talks all commercial outfitters on every river give their clients — those talks always emphasize foot entrapment, and this message is often reinforced by repetition. Kayakers and canoeist are trained to avoid being upstream of rocks in moving water. The situation-specific sense is addressed by guide and paddler knowledge of particularly hazardous rapids, rock formations, and other features.

The worst of these hazards are nearly always man-made: low-water bridges, leftover rebar from construction, wire fences, power cables, pipelines, and so on. They’re the worst for several reasons: first, because they’re new. Rivers will, over many millenia, erode at least some of the hazards in strong current — but anything from the last century is far too new to be affected. Second, because they’re made to last — to resist environmental degradation including erosion.

Third, because they show up in unexpected places; that is, they lurk invisibly in locations where natural hazards are very unlikely. Fourth, because they’re often jagged and irregular, capable of puncturing the hulls of canoe and kayaks as well as the tubes of inflatable craft.

If any piece of this proposed project ends up in the river, it may form an extremely dangerous hazard.

Moreover, depending on how large the piece is and where it ends up, it may be extremely difficult to remove.

I’ve read the assurances of the proposers that this won’t happen, but frankly, I’m not convinced that they fully grasp the serious consequences of even a relatively small incident. Twenty feet of cable or a 10-by-15 piece of fabric may not seem like much in the context of the art project, but it’s a major threat to river runners.

My opinion is that the risk of creating a persistent, lethal river hazard is too high to allow this project to proceed.

Richard Kulawiec

Sparks, Maryland

No ‘gentle disturbance’

I have just finished reading the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for “Over the River”, the Christo art project.

Contained in this document are a few items of great concern, as the impacts are unacceptable to me, for something that doesn’t need to happen. The DEIS states there will be a significant impact on the bighorn sheep.

Section 3 states “ bighorn sheep are notorious for being negatively affected by humans and by anthropogenic disturbances of any sort” and “Research is conclusive that stress, such as human contact, vehicles, dust, noise, and harassment on bighorn is a factor in their susceptibility to disease (Spraker et al. 1984)”. 

Section 4 goes on to say “The overall impact to the struggling indigenous herd is termed significant, over the 3 year duration of the project.

In section 4 on traffic, it states “The twenty minute delay scenario generated a vehicle queue of approximately 2.9 miles. The model estimated that delayed conditions would last approximately 138 minutes. The maximum queue would involve slightly over 600 vehicles while traffic is stopped. Approximately 2,450 vehicles would be delayed before the traffic returns to normal speeds.”

Well now, 138 minutes to get into line so I can get from Howard to Salida when there’s a stop in the flow of traffic. This is not a minor inconvenience and the significant impact on the bighorn sheep for which the canyon is named, is not a “gentle disturbance” as the artist says.

The above items are just 2 out of over 40 other concerns that were raised during my first read-through of the DEIS.

Marshall Nichols

Howard