Letter to Sioux County Board of Supervisors

On Tuesday, August 23, 2011, the Sioux County Board of Supervisors will meet to make a decision on whether or not to allow a gun range to be built at Sandy Hollow. This is my letter to them; I encourage you to write a letter or e-mail (board@siouxcounty.org) if you would also be affected by this decision, or to sign the petition if you have not already.

To: Sioux County Board of Supervisors: John Degan, Arlyn Kleinwolterink, Al Bloemendaal, Mark Sybesma, Denny Wright

I am writing concerning the NIOSC application and my correspondence is for the record. I lived in the vicinity of Sandy Hollow for many years and now visit my parents and family there a few times a year. I am concerned about how the proposed NIOSC shooting range would affect myself, my family, friends and former neighbors in the area.

The first thing thing that would affect me as a regular visitor is the level of noise. I have one toddler who loves spending time playing outdoors and another child on the way who doubtless will as well. My husband and I like to spend time playing games, gardening, grilling, sledding, doing photography, and enjoying the fresh air at my family's house.

The noise of the shooting, especially so close to the Sandy Hollow driveway, would make it unlikely that we could continue such activities at the level we currently enjoy. Walking down the Sandy Hollow driveway to get to the playground, campground, or bike trail would expose my children to levels of noise that would be frightening and could damage their hearing (an estimated 105 decibels, the level of a rock band). Even in the yard of my parents' residence and in their home, the noise would be enough to disrupt conversation and activity, and would likely even disrupt sleep. A decibel level of 45 is considered enough to make it difficult to sleep, and in my experience, kids can be very sensitive to unexpected noises while trying to fall asleep. Gunshots would be louder and much more surprising to a child than the "whoosh" of a car going by or muffled conversation through the walls. Of course, with two kids and possibly more in the future, I know that sleep is important for a child's health, and for their parents' well-being as well!

The noise from a shooting range is the reason the NRA strongly recommends a 1/2 mile buffer between the range and nearby residences; there are 70 residents within a 1/2 mile of Sandy Hollow, in addition to businesses and farms. Many of these are in areas zoned as "residential" and they deserve to have the residential character of their beautiful homes and yards protected. The level and frequency (2500 shots per day at half capacity, more during busier days or tournaments) of noise generated by a shooting range would not be tolerated in an area immediately bordering a city residential housing area, and Sandy Hollow area residents deserve the same respect. In addition to the 70 residents in the immediate 1/2 mile area, there are an unknown number of people within 1-2 miles that would certainly hear the shots while trying to enjoy their own yards, and there are many people who currently enjoy the fishing, biking, and camping opportunities at Sandy Hollow that would choose not to visit there if the shooting range were to be built. Many people would be negatively impacted.

I am convinced that a shooting range does not mix well with a family recreational area, for safety reasons. With the shooting stations so near to the edge of the proposed range, nearer than recommended by the NRA, I would avoid walking or taking my children along the Sandy Hollow driveways and trails during shooting hours even if it were not for the noise. Accidental shots do happen, and a buffer safety space around shooting stations is recommended for legitimate reasons. I think a site should be found that can accommodate those types of safety recommendations instead of trying to squeeze a shooting range into the Sandy Hollow site.

In addition, the airborne lead dust and lead shot deposited by the shooting range would pose a health and safety risk. The ideal level of lead in humans is zero; it serves no purpose to the human body. Lead poisoning, even at low levels, can cause symptoms such as fatigue, behavioral problems, raised blood pressure, headaches, reproductive problems, and anemia. It can be difficult to pinpoint the cause of such symptoms, meaning that children or adults with lead poisoning can suffer for an extended amount of time and incur permanent damage. As a mom and a teacher, I am glad that our society has taken steps to eliminate lead in fuel, paints, and toys. Allowing a shooting range so close to crops, water supply, residential and recreational areas is a step backwards that would be hard or impossible to undo.

Please make the sensible choice that benefits and protects the whole community: reject the NIOSC application.

Signed,

Hannah Vander Wilt

P.S. Read Heather's letter too, or browse them all.

Be a Dear, Face the Rear

Today I had a curious friend ask me "Why is he facing backwards, is he not big enough to face forward yet?" as I put Tobias into the car. I've heard this question many times, and it is not a silly question at all! Until fairly recently, 1 year was the minimum amount of time that kids were required/recommended to face backwards. While the law still allows kids to face forward at their first birthday in most states, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other safety organizations now recommend a minimum of 2 years facing backwards in the car.

The difference in safety is significant: a child riding rear-facing is five times safer. Another way of stating this (taken from this site) is:

In 100 collisions of rear facing kids, 8 rear facing children will die or become seriously injured. 92 will walk away fine. In 100 collisions with forward facing kids, 40 will die or become seriously injured. 60 will walk away fine. Those are large differences which help to save lives.

Nate and I laugh about our society's over-protectiveness; Nate once joking that "in the future, all toys will be colorful plastic wiffle-spheres". Certainly turning all toys into "safe" but bland objects would have an impact of kids' development, and they'd surely find more interesting (and dangerous) things to play with. We can't eliminate all the risks. Based on the statistics, though, I don't think that keeping your child rear-facing for 2 years or more is excessively overprotective, or that anything in their development will be sacrificed for the increased safety.

Today's families seem to be putting on more miles at higher speeds than previous generations, and it is good to know that we can keep reducing the number of serious injuries and fatalities that occur.

If you have children or will soon, and your car situation allows it (our pickup truck is not very conducive to rear-facing, so Tobias does face forwards in the truck now), I strongly encourage you to research and follow these recommendations.

Progress, Pain, Cost, Risk, and the Greater Good

My sister Heather wrote an excellent post describing how disillusioned she is by the decision of the Sioux Center City Council to approve the Sandy Hollow gun range, despite being presented strong evidence of it's risk, and over 400 signatures from those opposed.

These are some thoughts that I wanted to add to hers:

There are risks in all areas of life. And yes, "progress" sometimes causes pain, and it costs something. As a pregnant woman, I'm well aware that that the progress of bringing another child into the world will involve risk and pain, and it will cost something. There's road construction near my house. There's an element of risk there to the workers working with construction equipment. The progress will cost the city money, and the detour I am sure is causing excess noise to a residential community, for a short time.

There is a tiny element of truth in most lies, and I think this idea that "a little risk is OK, a little pain is OK, progress always has it's costs" is one of the ideas causing people to support the gun range. However, they are failing to realize the bigger truth that whenever possible, a good leader will minimize the risks, and the risks are borne by consenting adults, hopefully for a short time in order to have a long-term gain. A good leader follows the reasonable recommendations of expert organizations: I take my vitamins and eat healthy and get prenatal care, and I see the construction workers using safety equipment and directing traffic away from workers. A good leader speaks up for those less powerful than himself.

People undertake the risk of having children, building roads, etc. because the situation of never having children, or continuing to use an old and overcrowded road system would be, in the long run, more dangerous and risky than the temporary risks of pregnancy and road construction.

These situations are entirely different than the situation of the gun range, where the City Council (and others) are asking someone else to bear long-term or permanent risks, costs, and pain of "progress" that isn't essential at all, and meanwhile ignoring the safety recommendations of experts such as the NRA and EPA.

John Byl, president of NIOSC, the gun club planning to build the range, said

"All progress is not good for everyone in the community." (quote in Northwest Iowa Review).

I think this statement admits that the gun range plan would have a significant negative impact on a lot of people, including neighbors of Sandy Hollow and people who do or would participate in other recreational activities there.

I think Heather's post excellently demonstrates that the thinking behind approving this range just isn't right, and it is a shame to those that approved it.

Sandy Hollow: Better Options

Hello readers! I feel that perhaps my last few Sandy Hollow posts, by necessity, have been a little information heavy and negative. I do not know what the next steps will be in the process of trying to stop the gun range. Today I would like you to help me brainstorm some great ideas that could be done that would not be controversial, that would allow current attractions such as camping and fishing to continue undisturbed, that would not decrease the quality of life and property value for Sandy Hollow area residents, and that would not present a safety and health risk. Some ideas that have been proposed so far, plus a few of my own, are:

• Three hole golf course. putting green, driving range and mini-golf. This level of golf activity would not compete with the Ridge and would likely foster more desire in people to actually golf at the Ridge, which would increase their business.
• Facilities for sporting activities such roller hockey, volleyball, and disc golf could be made or upgraded
• Ponds, beaches and shorelines could be improved. There are many people that enjoy fishing and swimming at Sandy Hollow, and these improvements would increase their numbers.
• Improve the camping facilities and add camping spots. As other improvements are added more campers will come. They will spend money in Sioux Center also.
• Improve and add shelter houses
• Prairie, wetland, or nature areas with walking trails
• Connect the bike trail to Orange city, which is connected to Alton
• Archery range
• Community gardens
• Cabins that could be used for camping, family reunions, etc. I have enjoyed spending time with family at Inspiration Hills at their cabins, which are available year round, and I think something similar would be great at Sandy Hollow.
• Rock climbing wall
• Low ropes course for teamwork activities
• Outdoor exercise and fitness equipment such as that available on the Orange City/Alton bike trail

What activities would you like to see at Sandy Hollow that would provide excellent recreation for residents and visitors?

More brainstorms that have come up (added August 2011):

• Gazebos: good for relaxing, small group meeting place useful for day camps, retreats, reunions
• Paddleboat rental
• Paintball area

Sign the Petition Against Sandy Hollow NIOSC gun range

Wednesday update: The City Council voted unanimously to approve the lease of Sandy Hollow to NIOSC. Opponents managed to collect almost 400 signatures in just two days and presented a comprehensive packet of information detailing the problems with the current plan (which I will post later) but unfortunately it still passed.

Tomorrow, Wednesday 18, the Sioux Center City Council will be meeting to discuss a proposed 25 year lease, with the option to sell, of Sandy Hollow to NIOSC (Northwest Iowa Outdoor Sportsmen's Club).

Residents and property owners of Sioux Center are invited to show up and voice their concerns and opposition orally or in writing. There is also a time for public input open to non-residents.

If you are opposed to the building of this complex (see previous posts for information on the sound issues, lead contamination risk, etc.), please sign the petition. Your signature carries more weight if you own property or live in Sioux Center. However, please sign anyway if you are a regular visitor to Sioux Center, a student in Sioux Center, someone in the surrounding area (especially if you are in Orange City and your drinking water wells are at risk for lead contamination from this project), or just concerned about the general risks of this project.

Also be in continued prayer that this issue can be resolved quickly and without legal action.

What does the petition say?

We the following people of the City of Sioux Center and surrounding area hereby object to the City’s leasing of City property to the Northwest Iowa Outdoor Sporting Complex Board for the purposes of a public shooting range and sports complex. We object to the City’s involvement in such shooting range and sports complex as it will inevitably subject the City to future liability for personal injury, property damage, nuisance, diminution of surrounding real estate values, and environmental waste and cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

How do I sign the petition?

Contact someone who lives in the Sandy Hollow area to sign the petition in person, or sign electronically by sending an e-mail to warren at parkingdesigngroup dot com (replace at and dot with the appropriate punctuation). In the e-mail, you need to include a jpg or tiff file of your signature (take a picture of it or scan it), along with your address and phone number.

If you prefer, you can e-mail me (hnnhhyr at gmail dot com) and I will send you a pdf document of the petition that you can print, sign and then scan and send in by e-mail, or deliver to someone.

Why should I get involved?

NIOSC board chairman John Byl says that only a handful of neighbors are opposing the plan; please sign the petition to show that this is not the case and that a wide variety of people are concerned about it. He also stated in an interview with the Northwest IA Review, about the residents of the Sandy Hollow area:

"If you want to go to a place where you're protected from what your neighbor does, you ought to live in a community".

Please show your support and that "community" is something larger and deeper than simply the city limits of Sioux Center, it is a group of people who want to support each other and do what is safe and respectful of all.

Flood pictures at Sandy Hollow

At the proposed Sandy Hollow shooting ranges, 15-30 tons of lead shot would be deposited on the ground each year. The DNR plans to clean up the lead every several years. However, as you can see in these pictures from 2010, the West Branch creek that runs through the proposed shooting range can flood, covering the area of the proposed gun range. This would wash the lead into the stream where it could soak into the groundwater or harm wildlife. Both Orange City and Rural Water have wells downstream from this area. The EPA's Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges states:

In areas of groundwater discharge such as river flood plains and most flat areas, the groundwater surface is often a few feet below the surface. Remember, the shorter the distance traveled, the greater the risk that the lead will migrate into the environment. Shallow depth to groundwater is indicative of higher risk for lead to reach the water.

Due to the flooding creek, the ground water being close to the surface, and the sandy soil, building a shooting range at Sandy Hollow would pose an unacceptably high risk of lead contamination.

Sandy Hollow Gun Range DNR letter

For the last few months my parents have been working hard organizing opposition to a proposed gun range at Sandy Hollow, near Sioux Center IA. My sister Heather wrote a great letter to the DNR expressing many problems with the gun range. She already said everything, basically, but I wrote a letter too, expressing my own perspective as a mom with a kid who eats dirt, drops things in the dirt, plays in the dirt, etc.

If this topic affects you, please contact Dale Garner (dale.garner@dnr.iowa.gov) to express your concern. Use the subject line "NIOSC gun range Sioux Center Iowa".

Here is a portion of my letter:

Lead poisoning is a dangerous problem, especially to children under 6 years old. The symptoms include irritability, learning difficulties, and fatigue. These symptoms can be easily confused with other problems or be ignored, meaning that children can suffer for extended periods of time without being diagnosed. Lead poisoning can cause miscarriage or premature birth for pregnant women.

Widespread lead contamination has been documented from shooting ranges. For example, the Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware had contamination levels in the groundwater of 400 micrograms to 1 milligram per liter due to a shooting range in the area. The Sandy Hollow area is at risk for lead contamination since the west branch of the Floyd River runs through the area, and there are frequent floods that would contribute to the lead spreading downstream, soaking into the soil, or reaching the groundwater. The floods often reach over farmland nearby or downstream, and it seems that this poses a risk to farmers, livestock, and possibly even to the food supply. The EPA states that shooting ranges should not be near water for this reason.

As a parent I watch my child very closely, but as there is no fence planned around the edge of the shooting range, and guns might be shot very close to the borders and driveway of the property, I worry that my curious child might come into contact with lead pellets in the soil near the borders of the shooting area while taking a walk. I know that simply touching a lead pellet once is not likely to harm a child, but there is a definite risk for children who might accidentally ingest the lead. Even with close supervision, children tend to put objects and dirt in their mouths, or eat food that has been dropped in dirt. Children who live in the area could also be exposed to long term contamination through water or soil.

The noise level is another concern to me as a mom of young children, since the noise levels along the driveway at the edge of the property (estimated to be around 100 db) are high enough to cause hearing loss. Even in neighborning residential areas, the noise would be loud enough to disrupt outdoor activities, and would be concentrated in the times that people would want to spend outdoors.

If a shooting range is to be built in the Sioux County area, a site should be found that follows current expert recommendations: it should be a half mile or more to the nearest residence as recommended by the NRA (currently there are over 25 residences within a half mile of Sandy Hollow), the noise level should be 55 decibels or less at the property line as recommended by the NRA (at the Sandy Hollow site noise levels are estimated to be around 100 decibels at the property line), and the shooting range should not be near water, as recommended by the EPA. It would also be sensible to find a site that does not interfere with other healthy outdoor recreation and exercise such as fishing, biking, camping, running, walking, picnicking, photography, swimming and more.

The current plan would benefit only a few, while having a negative impact on many and causing risk to the smallest and most vulnerable.

The shooting range was designed by a DNR employee, and would depend on funding from the DNR, but as you can see it goes against the DNR's mission to enhance the quality of life and preserve natural resources. Please act to prevent this gun range from being built.