+menu-


  • Category Archives Army Corp of Engineers
  • The Dredged Report Nighttime Dumping?

    Public Comment Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    235 W 5th St

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    (360) 417-9452

    THIS IS MY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DREDGE REPORT AS PROVIDED ON THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    EFFECTING PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WA.

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED

    THE AREAS IN PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WHERE THE DUMPING OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL WILL BE DISPOSED OF  BY THE MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

     (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

     ——————————————————————-

    186,761 CUBIC YARDS WERE SUITABLE FOR UNCONFINED DISPOSAL AT AN OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL SITE IN PORT ANGELES.

    THE REMAINING 21,270 CUBIC YARDS WERE FOUND TO BE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL, UNSUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL. AFTER MECHANICAL REMOVAL,

    The sediment testing data are available at the Corps, Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office.

    THIS CONTAMINATED  MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREA, APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    ———————————————————————

    WHO KNEW?

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL

    AND APPROVED BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THE  CONTAMINATED  MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREAS IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA……

    INDEED, WHO KNEW,  CLALLAM COUNTY WA HAS A  DUMPING AREA FOR DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED DREDGING MATERIAL?

     ——————————————————–

    DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (DMMP):

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED

     DREDGING PLAN:

    A DREDGING PLAN, SUFFICIENT TO ADEQUATELY SEPARATE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL FROM SEDIMENTS SUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL, WILL BE PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT AND SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY AGENCIES FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO DREDGING.

     A PRE-DREDGING CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD TO REVIEW QUALITY CONTROL PLANS AND PROCEDURES FOR MATERIAL SEPARATION.

     FOR THIS PROJECT, THE DMMP AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT 186,761 CUBIC YARDS WERE SUITABLE FOR UNCONFINED DISPOSAL AT THE DMMP NONDISPERSIVE (OR DISPERSIVE) OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL SITE IN PORT ANGELES AND/OR PLACEMENT IN NEAH BAY FOR INTERTIDAL AND/OR SUBTIDAL BENEFICIAL USE.

     THE REMAINING 21,270 CUBIC YARDS WERE FOUND UNSUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL. AFTER MECHANICAL REMOVAL, THIS MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREA, APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    DREDGED MATERIAL TESTING:

    THE PROPOSED DREDGED MATERIAL has been tested according to the procedures specified by DMMP, a multi-agency program for the evaluation of dredged material proposed for disposal at open-water sites in Washington State.

    The DMMP EVALUATIONS MAY INCLUDE BOTH CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TESTING OF SEDIMENTS.

    AND TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ACTIVITY. THE DESCRIBED DISCHARGE WILL BE EVALUATED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES PROMULGATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 404(B)(1) OF THE CWA.

    THESE GUIDELINES REQUIRE AN ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR ANY PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    ———————————————————

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

     (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

    Other APPROPRIATE special conditions may be added as a result of comments received during the public review period for this public notice.

     ———————————————————————-

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD:

    Public Notice Date: October 6, 2017

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    Reference No.: NWS-2016-826

    Name: Makah Indian Tribe

    Conventional mail or e-mail comments on this public notice will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered in determining whether authorizing the work would not be contrary to the public interest.

     In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the permit applicant’s name and reference number as shown below.

    Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the permit applicant’s name and reference number, as shown below,

    Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    and the commenter’s name, address, and phone number.

    All comments whether conventional mail or e-mail must reach this office, no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration.

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    ———————————————————–

    CORPS COMMENTS:

     All e-mail comments should be sent to pamela.sanguinetti@usace.army.mil.

    ————————————————————————-

    ECOLOGY COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for Coastal Zone Management consistency concurrence, may do so by submitting written comments to the following address:

    Department of Ecology, Attn: SEA program – Federal Permit Coordinator, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington,

    98504-7600, or e-mail to ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————-

    MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, may do so by submitting written comments to

    the following address: Makah Indian Tribe, Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries Water Quality Specialist,

    P.O. Box 115, Neah Bay, WA 98357

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826, or email to aaron.parker@makah.com

    ——————————————————————-

    PEOPLE SEND ME STUFF…

    I research it, document it, post it and disseminate.

     

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Marquell, Elizabeth E CIV USARMY CENWD (US) <Elizabeth.E.Marquell@usace.army.mil>
    Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:44 AM
    Subject: Public Notice for NWS-2016-0826-; Makah Indian Tribe -Request for comments (UNCLASSIFIED)
    To: “Sanguinetti, Pamela A CIV USARMY CENWS (US)” <Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil>, CENWS Cultural Resources <Cultural.Resources@usace.army.mil>

    CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

    PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL
    For comments or questions regarding this Public Notice, please contact the project manager listed below.

    CONTACT INFORMATION:
    PROJECT NUMBER:  NWS-2016-0826-, Clallam County, Makah Indian Tribe
    PROJECT MANAGER: Pam Sanguinetti
    TELEPHONE: (206) 764-6904
    E-MAIL: Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil

    The attached PDF document is a Public Notice for a proposed project where a permit is being requested from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.

    To view the attached document, you will need to use the Adobe Acrobat Reader.  For a free copy of the Acrobat Reader please visit: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

    To provide any project specific comments in writing or by e-mail, please visit the link below and follow the instructions outlined in the “How to Submit Comments” section.
    Http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PublicNotices.aspx

    For more Regulatory Program information, please visit http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory.aspx
    CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

    Joint Public Notice

    Application for a Department of the Army Permit and

    a Makah Indian Tribe Water Quality Certification and

    Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone

    Management Consistency Concurrence

    US ARMY CORPS

    OF ENGINEERS

    Seattle District

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Regulatory Branch

    Post Office Box 3755

    Seattle, WA 98124-3755

    Telephone (206) 764-6904

    Attn: Pamela Sanguinetti, Project

    Manager

    WA Department of Ecology

    SEA Program

    Post Office Box 47600

    Olympia, WA 98504-7600

    Telephone (360) 407-6076

    Attn: SEA Program, Federal Permit

    Coordinator

    Makah Indian Tribe

    P.O. Box 115

    Neah Bay, WA 98357

    Telephone (360) 645-2201

    Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries

    Water Quality Specialist

    ______________________________

    Public Notice Date: October 6, 2017

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    Reference No.: NWS-2016-826

    Name: Makah Indian Tribe

    Interested parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) AND THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) HAVE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION TO PERFORM WORK IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AS described below and shown on the enclosed drawings dated March 16, 2017.

    THE CORPS will review the work in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

    THE MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE will review the work pursuant to water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA.

    ECOLOGY will review the work pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    APPLICANT: Makah Indian Tribe

    Post Office Box 115

    Neah Bay, Washington 98357

    ATTN: William S. Parkin, Jr., Director, Port of Neah Bay

    Telephone: (360) 645-3019

     

    AGENT: Berger ABAM

    33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300

    Federal Way, Washington

    ATTN: Ms. Victoria England

    Telephone: (206) 357-5621

    LOCATION: The project is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca at the Makah Reservation in Neah Bay, Clallam County, Washington

    WORK: The project consists of an extension to an existing fishing pier to accommodate an emergency response towing vessel and other associated spill response vessels. The pier extension will be about 563 feet in length extending to the northwest. Two finger piers, respectively about 325-foot and 340-ftoot lengths, will extend to the north from the angled pier extension. Two floating piers, each about 180 feet long, will be located on the north side of the pier extension. The new pier extension will be supported by up to 220 steel piles, which includes eighty-five 24-inch diameter steel piles and one hundred thirty-five 18-inch diameter steel piles. The floating piers will be secured to 18-inch diameter steel piles.

    The pier extension will have concrete decking that will be paved with an asphalt overlay. The pier extension is sloped to drain stormwater to a central utility corridor with a grated cover. The bottom of the corridor will be sealed so that stormwater will drain into the trench and be collected. The collected water will be routed to a vault with cartridges to treat the stormwater prior to discharge into Neah Bay.

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED to increase the depths to elevations ranging from -15 to -25 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) plus one foot allowable overdepth (-16 to -25 feet MLLW). Material would be dredged using either mechanical (clamshell) or hydraulic dredging equipment. Material suitable for in-water use would be placed using hydraulic pipeline or clamshell dredging equipment on the beneficial use site. Material not suitable for in-water disposal would be placed at an upland facility in accordance with state and federal waste and disposal regulations.

    PURPOSE: The project purpose is to provide secure, reliable support for enhanced oil spill response capability in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of Neah Bay.

    DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (DMMP):

    Dredged Material Testing: The proposed dredged material has been tested according to the procedures specified by DMMP, a multi-agency program for the evaluation of dredged material proposed for disposal at open-water sites in Washington State. The DMMP evaluations may include both chemical and biological testing of sediments. For this project, the DMMP agencies determined that 186,761 cubic yards were suitable for unconfined disposal at the DMMP nondispersive (or dispersive) open-water disposal site in Port Angeles and/or placement in Neah Bay for intertidal and/or subtidal beneficial use.

     The remaining 21,270 cubic yards were found unsuitable for open-water disposal. After mechanical removal, this material will be loaded onto trucks and transported to an upland disposal area, approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Clallam County Department of Health.

    The sediment testing data are available at the Corps, Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office.

    DREDGING PLAN: A dredging plan, sufficient to adequately separate contaminated material from sediments suitable for open-water disposal, will be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the regulatory agencies for review prior to dredging. A pre-dredging conference will be held to review quality control plans and procedures for material separation.

    DISPOSAL SITE USE CONDITIONS: The following standard site-use conditions will be specified by the Corps and the Washington Department of Natural Resources as part of the Federal/State permitting processes if a permit is issued:

    (1) DISPOSAL OPERATIONS MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH INDIAN TREATY FISHING AT THE DISPOSAL SITE, INCLUDING GILL NETS AND OTHER FISHING GEAR;

    (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

     Other appropriate special conditions may be added as a result of comments received during the public review period for this public notice.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

    THE WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD.

     The line of Mean High Water/ Mean Higher High Water shown on the project drawings have not yet been verified by the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS). If the Corps determines the boundaries of the wetland/waters ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INACCURATE a new public notice may be published.

    MITIGATION: The applicant MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE is evaluating a number of sites within Neah Bay where derelict structures could be removed to mitigate the increased overwater coverage of the replacement structure. The PROPOSED DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT would return a section of shoreline to its historical conditions based on historic photographs of the area.

    ENDANGERED SPECIES:

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on all actions that may affect a species listed (or proposed for listing) under the ESA as threatened or endangered or any designated critical habitat.

    After receipt of comments from this public notice, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will evaluate the potential impacts to proposed and/or listed species and their designated critical habitat.

    ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires all Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on ALL ACTIONS, OR PROPOSED ACTIONS, PERMITTED, FUNDED, OR UNDERTAKEN by the agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The proposed action would impact EFH in the project area.

    If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines that the proposed action may adversely affect EFH for federally managed fisheries in Washington waters, the Corps will initiate EFH consultation with the NMFS. The Corps’ final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by and coordination with the NMFS.

    CULTURAL RESOURCES:

    The Corps has reviewed the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data and other sources of information. The Corps invites responses to this public notice from Native American Tribes or tribal governments; Federal, State, and local agencies; historical and archeological societies; AND OTHER PARTIES likely to have knowledge of or concerns regarding historic properties and sites of religious and cultural significance at or

    near the project area. After receipt of comments from this public notice, the Corps will evaluate potential impacts and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Native American Tribes in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as appropriate.

    PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

    EVALUATION – CORPS – The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

     That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST ITS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DETRIMENTS.

    ALL FACTORS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS THEREOF; AMONG THOSE ARE CONSERVATION, ECONOMICS, AESTHETICS, GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, WETLANDS, HISTORIC PROPERTIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES, FLOOD HAZARDS, FLOODPLAIN VALUES, LAND USE, NAVIGATION, SHORELINE EROSION AND ACCRETION, RECREATION, WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION, WATER QUALITY, ENERGY NEEDS, SAFETY, FOOD AND FIBER PRODUCTION, MINERAL NEEDS,CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND, IN GENERAL, THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.

     The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Native American Nations or tribal governments; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate THE IMPACTS OF THIS ACTIVITY. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for the work. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,

    historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above.

    Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing AND TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ACTIVITY. The described discharge will be evaluated for compliance with guidelines promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. These guidelines require an alternatives analysis for any proposed discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

    —————————————-

    EVALUATION – ECOLOGY:

     ECOLOGY is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, Native American Nations or tribal governments, State, and local agencies and officials; AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. ECOLOGY will be considering all comments to determine whether to concur or object that the project is consistent with Ecology’s Coastal Zone Management program.

    ——————————————–

    EVALUATION

    Makah Indian Tribe: The Makah Indian Tribe is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,

    Native American Nations or tribal governments, State, and local agencies and officials; AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES  in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. The Makah Indian Tribe will be considering all comments to determine whether to certify or deny certification for the proposed project.

    ———————————————————-

    COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD:

    Conventional mail or e-mail comments on this public notice will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered IN DETERMINING WHETHER AUTHORIZING THE WORK WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the permit applicant’s name and reference number as shown below. Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the permit applicant’s name and reference number, as shown below, and the commenter’s name, address, and phone number.

    All comments whether conventional mail or e-mail must reach this office, no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration.

    Copies of this public notice which have been mailed or otherwise physically distributed feature project drawings in black and white. The electronic version features those drawings in color, which we think more accurately communicates the scope of project impacts.

    TO ACCESS THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS PUBLIC NOTICE, GO TO THE SEATTLE

    DISTRICT’S WEB PAGE AT http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ AND UNDER THE HEADING OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS SELECT REGULATORY PUBLIC NOTICES. RECENTLY-ISSUED PUBLIC NOTICES ARE LISTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE.

    SELECT AND VIEW THE LISTING FOR THIS PROJECT.

    —————————————————

    CORPS COMMENTS:

     All e-mail comments should be sent to pamela.sanguinetti@usace.army.mil.

    Conventional mail comments should be sent to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch,

    Attention: Ms. Pamela Sanguinetti, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124-3755. All comments received will  become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses.

     —————————————————–

    ECOLOGY COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for Coastal Zone Management consistency concurrence, may do so by submitting written comments to the following address:

    Department of Ecology, Attn: SEA program – Federal Permit Coordinator, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington,

    98504-7600, or e-mail to ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov

    ———————————————————–

    MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, may do so by submitting written comments to

    the following address: Makah Indian Tribe, Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries Water Quality Specialist,

    P.O. Box 115, Neah Bay, WA 98357

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826, or email to aaron.parker@makah.com

    ———————————————————————

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    The bottom line….

    IF NIGHTTIME DUMPING OF CONTAMINATED AND OTHER DREDGED MATERIAL IN PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WA,  AND THE APPROVAL OF THE  CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. CONCERNS YOU

    SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS


  • Raising the Debt Ceiling for Hurricane Harvey?

    ACROSS THE US AND WORLDWIDE, FLOODING IS THE DEADLIEST AND MOST COSTLY NATURAL DISASTER.

    17 MINS AGO – HURRICANE HARVEY A CATASTROPHIC RAINFALL FLOOD THREAT; STRONGEST TEXAS …ONE OF THE WORST IN U.S HISTORY. STORM’S WORST THREAT ALSO DEADLIEST …

    —————————————————————————–

    JAN 12, 2017 BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT

    THE US NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) WAS  $20 BILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT. THE LAST TIME I RESEARCHED NFIP  CIRCA 2012, IT WAS $18 BILLION DOLLARS UNDERWATER.

    Behind My Back | FEMA-NFIP $20 Billion Dollar Obama Mess

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/01/12/fema-nfip-20-billion-dollar-obama-mess/

    Jan 12, 2017 – ANOTHER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION $20 BILLION DOLLAR FINANCIAL … FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESS TO CLEAN UP.

    NFIP IS SCHEDULED FOR CONGRESSIONAL REAUTHORIZATION IN 2017, AND THIS DEBATE PROMISES TO BE LIVELY.  THE NATURAL HAZARDS RESEARCH AND MITIGATION GROUP AT UC DAVIS HAS BEEN ANALYZING NFIP DATABASES, EXAMINING PATTERNS OVER THE HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM AND FOCUSING ON FLOOD LOSSES AND FLOOD INSURANCE, PARTICULARLY IN CALIFORNIA.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Aug 25, 2017

    Is FEMA Prepared for Hurricane Harvey? – Heavy.com

    heavy.com/news/2017/08/is-fema-prepared-for-hurricane-harvey/

    2 hours ago – Hurricane Harvey will pose THE FIRST MAJOR TEST FOR FEMA DURING DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY. In August 2005 Hurricane Katrina struck Florida, …

    ————————————————————————-

    Hurricane Harvey: Texas braces for ‘catastrophic flooding’ as storm …

    abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-harvey-catastrophic-flooding/story?id=49412285

    52 SECS AGO – THE TEXAS COAST IS BRACING FOR IMPACT AS HURRICANE HARVEY BEARS DOWN ON … IS EXPECTED TO BE THE WORST TO HIT THE STATE IN NEARLY TWO DECADES.

    ————————————————————————–

    National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

    www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nfip.htm

    Jun 12, 2017 – National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization protects … NFIP REAUTHORIZATION EXPIRES ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND CONGRESS WILL BE …

    —————————————————————————————-

    LESSONS LEARNED BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT

    ACROSS THE US AND WORLDWIDE, FLOODING IS THE DEADLIEST AND MOST COSTLY NATURAL DISASTER.

    SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS FEMA  NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM NFIP

    FLOOD INSURANCE CRITICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE PROGRAM, ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)

    DURING AND  FOLLOWING KATRINA (left out of the summary?):  THE COSTLIEST NATURAL DISASTER AND ONE OF THE FIVE DEADLIEST HURRICANES IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

    SUPER STORM SANDY AND OTHER DISASTERS, .. PARTICULARLY IN CALIFORNIA?

    UNSUSTAINABILITY ($20 BILLION DOLLARS UNDERWATER)

    LOW PARTICIPATION RATES

    AN INDIFFERENCE TO THE BENEFITS OF FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE LEVEES AND  DAMS (THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS?)

    AGENCY MISMANAGEMENT

    UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT SERVICE COSTS

    AND CONTRACTOR PROFITEERING.

    INACCURATE FLOOD MAPS

    Behind My Back | 2014 FEMA’s Warped Data?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femas-warped-data/

    From Maine to Oregon 2014 FEMA FLOOD MAPS have often been built using outdated, inaccurate data. Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the cost of fixing …

    please click on the FEMA/NFIP  links on behindmyback.org

    ————————————————————————

    INDEED……

    Behind My Back | FEMA-NFIP $20 Billion Dollar Obama Mess

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/01/12/fema-nfip-20-billion-dollar-obama-mess/

    Jan 12, 2017 – ANOTHER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION $20 BILLION DOLLAR FINANCIAL … FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESS TO CLEAN UP.

    —————————————————————————————

    (SAFE) National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2017

    https://www.menendez.senate.gov/…/menendez-leads-bipartisan-flood-insurance-refor…

    Jun 13, 2017 – Legislation extends National Flood Insurance Program for 6 yrs., institutes … Congress must reauthorize the NFIP, which expires on Sept.

    The Sustainable, Affordable, Fair, and Efficient (SAFE) National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 tackles systemic problems with flood insurance,

    puts it back on solid fiscal ground,

    and reframes our nation’s entire disaster paradigm to one that focuses more on prevention and mitigation to spare the high cost of rebuilding after flood disasters. 

    Congress must reauthorize the NFIP, which expires on Sept. 30, 2017.

    The bill is also cosponsored by Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.),

     ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MASS.) Pocahontas?

    and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), all members of the Senate Banking and Appropriations Committees that are ULTIMATELY CHARGED WITH WRITING THE NFIP REAUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION, and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).   

    SAFE NFIP addresses critical problems with the program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), following Superstorm Sandy AND OTHER DISASTERS: unsustainability, low participation rates, inaccurate flood maps, an indifference to the benefits of flood control infrastructure, agency mismanagement, unsustainable debt service costs and contractor profiteering.

    —————————————————————————–

    Reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program – RIMS.org

    https://www.rims.org/externalaffairs/…/NFIP%20Reauthorization%20Issue%20Brief.p…

    The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), created as a result of the … WE EXPECT THE FUTURE OF THE NFIP TO BE CHALLENGED WHEN IT COMES UP FOR REAUTHORIZATION IN 2017; ... it is eligible for funding through an appropriations bill in congress.

    —————————————————————————-

    S.1571 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): National Flood Insurance …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1571

    Jul 17, 2017 – S.1571 – National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2017115th Congress (2017-2018) | Get alerts …

    ——————————————————————————-

    HURRICANE HARVEY – National Hurricane Center

    www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?cone

    This graphic shows an approximate representation of coastal areas under a hurricane warning (red), hurricane watch (pink), tropical storm warning (blue) and …

    ———————————————————————————

    Hurricane Harvey will bring ‘large-scale’ damage; FEMA chief ‘afraid …

    abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-harvey-bring-large-scale-damage-fema-chief/story?…

    4 hours ago – Hurricane Harvey is still strengthening as it steers toward Texas today, and FEMA administrator Brock Long fears residents may not be heeding …

    —————————————————————————————–

    Hurricane Harvey a Catastrophic Rainfall Flood Threat; Strongest …

    https://weather.com/…/hurricane/…/hurricane-harvey-forecast-gulf-coast-texas-louisia…

    17 MINS AGO – HURRICANE HARVEY A CATASTROPHIC RAINFALL FLOOD THREAT; STRONGEST TEXAS …

    ONE OF THE WORST IN U.S HISTORY. STORM’S WORST THREAT ALSO DEADLIEST …


  • Outrage Over WA DNR Logging?

    Outrage Over WA State DNR Logging?

    Indeed, four or more cars full of outraged tourists, identified by their out of state license plates, at the Lake Crescent view point, inside the Olympic National park,  were absolutely outraged by the ugly view of WA State Dept. of Natural Resources clear cut logging of Public Trust lands on the NE end of Lake Crescent.

    —————————————————————————-

    Outrage by definition,  powerful feeling of resentment or anger aroused by something perceived as an injury, insult, or injustice

    —————————————————————————————————

    As the tourists from four or more states, stood around pointing and loudly discussing their outrage of  the ugly logging issue with each other, they were totally clueless about what land was being logged? Who was doing the logging?  And, last but not least, why the land was being logged? They were so distracted by the ugliness of logging that they saw, that they barely glanced at or appreciated  the millions of ONP trees surrounding them.

    Unfortunately this ignorance is also shared and proliferated by members of our county government with regard to the ugly logging view on the Olympic Discovery Trail. And just imagine this shared and proliferated message from thousands of bicyclists that use it. That ugly view from the Olympic Discovery trail was discussed at a Clallam County Planning Commission meeting. Two members of that Commission, brought up the ugly view logging subject. They to, appeared to be  totally clueless about what land was being logged? Who was doing the logging?  And, last but not least, why the land was being logged?

    ———————————————————-

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON LOGGING AND HARVESTING? Federal Public Trust Land, WA State Public Trust Land  and  the entire private forest land industry has a very serious impact on the economy of the of Washington State.

    —————————————————————————————–

    AT THE VERY LEAST, Olympic National Park must put up informational signage on the purpose and intent of  DNR harvesting  of state trust land at the Lake Crescent viewpoint.

    AT THE VERY LEAST, Washington State Department of Natural Resources must put up informational signage in logged areas, on the purpose and intent of  DNR harvesting  of state trust land on the Olympic Discovery Trail.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    AT THE VERY LEAST The ONP and DNR informational signage for DNR  logged areas must include. Who, what,  and why the DNR logging was done.

     

    EACH QUARTER, DNR REPORTS the earned income and projected revenue from State Forest Lands (formerly known as Forest Board lands) in Clallam and several other Washington counties. Harvesting timber provides most of the revenue, which the counties use to support various taxing districts that provide county services — roads, schools, hospitals, libraries and fire districts.

     

    ————————————————————————————

    Olympic Discovery Trail ODT | Washington Bike & Multi-use …

    www.olympicdiscoverytrail.com/

    Olympic Discovery Trail

    THE OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL, one of America’s premier trail systems! … This is timber country in a big way.

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON DNR LOGGING AND HARVESTING? THE OUT OF STATE TOURISTS,  OUR  COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE THOUSANDS OF OUT OF TOWN BICYCLISTS THAT RIDE ON THE OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL, one of America’s premier trail systems! … This is timber country in a big way. … The Olympic Peninsula is approximately 130 miles of lowlands is Washington State’s premier destination for non-motorized touring, filled with views of snow capped peaks, …

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT?

    Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/…/the-enablingact-february-22-1889/

    Mar 9, 2014 – Through the Enabling Act, a specific acreage of land was endowed and is held in trust for each identified beneficiary. Revenues generated from …

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON LOGGING AND HARVESTING? Federal Public Trust Land, WA State Public Trust of Land and  the entire WA State private forest land industry has a devastating  impact on the economy of the of Washington State.

    —————————————————————————————————

    STATE FOREST TRUST LANDS THAT BENEFIT CLALLAM COUNTY?

    State Trust Land | Ear to the Ground | Page 11

    https://washingtondnr.wordpress.com/category/state-trustland/page/11/

    Tags:biomass, DNR, forest, timber, trust land, Washington … from managing 92,532 acres of STATE FOREST TRUST LANDS THAT BENEFIT CLALLAM COUNTY. … AND THE PUBLIC AND COUNTIES CAN BE REASSURED THAT DNR’S SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTED …

    —————————————————————————————————-

    THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC TRUST LANDS?

    THE MAJORITY OF PUBLIC LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    Most of the PUBLIC LAND MANAGED BY THE US FOREST SERVICE and … Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands …

    IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THOSE FEDERAL TRUST LANDS CANNOT ANY LONGER BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC LANDS …

    WHEN THOSE PUBLIC TRUST LANDS ARE MANAGED, BY THE? WITH THE? OR THE? UNDER THE? AND THE? OR THE ? AND THE OTHER THE?  WHICH INCLUDES ? 

    1. managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

    2.The United States National Park Service,

    3. Bureau of Reclamation, 

    4. or the Fish and Wildlife Service,

    5. under the Department of the Interior,

    6. or the United states Forest Service,

    7. under the Department of Agriculture,

    Other federal agencies that manage public lands include

    8. the National Oceanic and atmospheric  Engineers,

    9.  United States Department of Defense

    10. which includes  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    ———————————————————————————–

     More info on US FOREST SERVICE TRUST LANDS?

    The US Forest Service alone manages 193 million acres (780,000 km²) nationwide, or roughly 8% of the total land area in the United States.[3]

    Most of the public land managed by the US Forest Service and … Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands …

    Each western state also received federal “public land” as trust lands designated for specific beneficiaries, which the States are to manage as a condition to acceptance into the union. Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands as allowing any benefits to the “public” would be in breach of loyalty to the specific beneficiaries.

    ——————————————————————————-

    THE GOOD NEWS IS… Pacific Legal Foundation Lawsuit.

    Releases|3-18-15 Feds sued for blocking thousands of …

    www.pacificlegal.org › Home › News & Media

    Pacific Legal Foundation

    Mar 18, 2015 – The victims include all citizen users of public lands — including the disabled … The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Forest Service, a division of the Department of … and has additionally contributed to her overall sense of well-being. … county, and depriving the county of revenue related to logging operations.


  • Comments-Objections to PSNERP

    Comments-Objections to (PSNERP)

    I strongly oppose the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem “RESTORATION” Project (PSNERP) and, in my opinion, it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

    IT’S FEDERAL, IT’S STATE, IT’S OUR MONEY

    AND,  IT’S THE ENTIRE PUGET SOUND

    THE FOLLOWING ARE WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS ON PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP)

    ————————————————————————————

    Subject: FW: Skagit CAPR Chapter: FW: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    From: Kathy Mitchell
    Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 6:13 PM
    To: <nearshore@usace.army.mil>
    Subject: PSNERP Projects Comment

    ——————————————————

    From: Roger Mitchell
    Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:56 PM
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    ——————————————————————————

    Subject: FW: submittal For Clallam County of PSNERP written objection

    From: Pearl Rains Hewett
    Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2015
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP Clallam County written objection

    ————————————————————————————————-

    My PSNERP written public comments and objections PLUS…..

    The fact that these ideas were churned out by the Puget Sound Partnership and by the Envisioning people at OSU, is no surprise.

    —————————————————————————-

    My written comment on the SHADY? history of the Puget Sound Partnership

    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    scroll down for more

    ——————————————————————-

    My written comments on RESTORATION….. period

    Behind My Back | RED FLAG WARNING Page 2

    www.behindmyback.org/category/red-flag-warning/page/2/

    Apr 9, 2014 – EPA RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND … the cost of an unfunded WA STATE RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” TO CLEAN UP PUGET SOUND? ….. Goggle behindmyback.org for the full text of “Sue and Settle Sucks”

    —————————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – A highly convoluted GAME OF RESTORATION that is involving the … MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    ———————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | $14.8 Billion for Restoration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/10/14-8-billion-for-restoration/

    Jun 10, 2014 – http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf … The “RESTORATION” Shell Game In the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 …. The “RESTORATIONShell Game.

    ———————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | Bang for their buck? Restoration

    www.behindmyback.org/category/bang-for-their-buck-restoration/

    Dec 3, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/ …… for planning, authorizing and implementing the RESTORATION SHELL GAME .

    ————————————————————————-

    INDEED, while we’re RESTORING

    While we’re in the “RESTORATION” business I’d like a few things restored, too:

    Behind My Back | American Restoration of Law and Order

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/…/american-restoration-of-law-and-order/

    Jun 11, 2014 – American Restoration of Law and Order? OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY IN AMERICA?

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | Senate Hearings on EPA

    www.behindmyback.org/category/senate-hearings-on-epa/

    Sep 1, 2014 – GIVE “STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY” BACK TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! … http://heartland.org/policy-documents/replacing-environmental-protection- ….. Is anyone in congress addressing the Restoration of “Law and …

    ————————————————————————–

    THE HISTORY OF PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2007-2010

    read the complete text at

    Behind My Back | The Bad News On Kilmer

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/08/31/the-badnews-on-kilmer/

    Aug 31, 2013 – US. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue the work of Norm Dicks on behalf of WETLANDS, SHORELINES By ROB CARSON — Staff writer …

    “Everyone was scratching everyone’s back with this PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP,” said Republican state Sen. Mark Schoesler, who has been a vocal critic of the partnership. “They were banking on daddy Dicks to bring money home, and then his son squandered it.

    ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” May 2010
    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    ———————————————————————————

    I Pearl Rains Hewett, submit and concur, with the following PSNERP Projects comments. ——————————————————————————————————

    From: Kathy Mitchell
    Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 6:13 PM
    To: <nearshore@usace.army.mil>
    Subject: PSNERP Projects Comment

    C/O: Nancy C. Gleason

    USACOE

    CENWS-EN-ER

    POB 3755

    Seattle, WA 98124-3755

    nearshore@usace.army.mil

    The PSNERP projects, especially those for Skagit County, must be abandoned; the enormous waste of tax dollars for these ill-conceived and harmful projects to precious farmland under the guise of flimsy reasoning and faulty assumptions is wrong.

    The fact that the concept for these unneeded and unnecessary projects got this far, especially with such an outrageous price tag, is a disgrace. These proposed projects would necessarily cause ruination of thousands of acres farmland, and more than likely cause unforeseen and unintended consequences to those and adjacent lands.

    Furthermore, in my opinion, the fact that these ideas were churned out by the Puget Sound Partnership and by the Envisioning people at OSU, is no surprise; both groups are well known for their inferior, ideology-based recommendations rather than sound work based on pertinent, fact-based science, on appropriate field work, and on site-specific work.  Since when do they ‘know all’ and ‘see all’ about what restoration really means for areas they really know nothing about?  As a classically trained geologist, I do know that the land is in a constant state of flux and that these people’s notions of exactly what ‘snapshot in time’ to use as this golden state of restoration is laughable.  Do we go back 30 years?  Go back 300 years?  Go back 3,000 years?  Go back 3 Million years? Erosion, sedimentation, and associated processes are dynamic – the land will change over time.

    Finally, I am appalled and quite dismayed that the Army Corps of Engineers has had anything to do with this wasteful boondoggle.

    Sincerely,

    Kathy Mitchell

    1155 Chuckanut Ridge Drive

    Bow, WA 98232

    ——————————————————————————-

    From: Roger Mitchell
    Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:56 PM
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP written comment

     

    Written Comment on Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)

    Roger H. Mitchell, Bow, Washington

    I strongly oppose the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) and, in my opinion, it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

    Opinion:

    The entire premise for PSNERP is scientifically flawed, ideologically driven, and just another veiled attempt to socially engineer and control the lives of private property owners. At it’s best, PSNERP is a government make-work program; at it’s worst PSNERP is merely another chapter in irresponsible environmentalism run amok.

    Procedurally, this proposed project has been seriously flawed. There are significant inconsistencies and discrepancies between pugetsoundnearshore.org’s website and the website at nws.usace.army.mil. Discrepancies include different numbers of affected acres and in cost projections. If the goal was to confuse the public then, for once, government has succeeded. Why are we just getting to comment now on something that has been proceeding for years ? Why and how are we now being “steamrollered” into supporting this proposal in what appears to be a predetermined outcome that, once gain, bears little resemblance to the “consent of the governed?

    The proposed project is at odds with RCW 36.70A – the Growth Management Act (GMA). PSNERP will cause destruction and loss of farmland and rural business that is contrary to GMA mandates.  Some ideologues have relentlessly made it more and more difficult for farmers to grow the crops that feed the rest of us. Why let PSNERP add to the decline of farmland, farming, and farmers ? Any PSNERP proposed project must show, in detail, how it complies with the GMA. Thus far, that demonstration of compliance has been disregarded, overlooked, or intentionally omitted in PSNERP proposals.

    Among the many problems with PSNERP and its many clones is that the instigators are never held accountable for their mistakes and failures. They play with other people’s money or, in this case, other people’s properties. Essentially they have no “skin in the game”. Ten years from now, when PSNERP has failed to do anything positive, and has had numerous, negative, unintended consequences, do you think the current PSNERPers are going to say, “Gee; I’m sorry ‘bout that PSNERP thing and wasting that Billion dollars. Do you want your refund in cash or a check ?”

    Actions:

    The EIS should be withdrawn. My preference would be to abandon this proposal and not waste another taxpayer dollar on it.

    There needs to be a true cost/benefit analysis. We’re talking about potential misappropriation and misapplication of taxpayer dollars. Without an honest cost benefit study, the public cannot properly determine whether the proposed project is acceptable or worthy of full funding, partial funding, or, my personal favorite, no funding at all.

    Let’s have a little chat about “restoration” and unanswered questions:

    re·store

    rəˈstôr/

    verb:  return (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position.

    res·to·ra·tion

    ˌrestəˈrāSH(ə)n/

    noun:  the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition

    So, I ask you, where are the answers to the following “restoration” questions ?

    1.       Apparently there is a specific time and condition to which we should presumptively “restore”. How do we know that that chosen time and condition was, in fact, optimal or better in any way relative to the current time and condition ?

    2.       Who actually knows the details and dynamics of that presumptively chosen optimal time and condition to which PSNERPers would have us restore to from current conditions ?

    3.    Who gets to make the determination of what time and condition we are restoring to ?

    4.       Even if the PSNERP proposal could be determined to be either good or bad, who has decreed who has the authority to decide for all of the rest of us whether the proposal is good?

    5.       The issue is “restoration” projects; these projects do not exist in a vacuum — they affect other people, locations, and conditions as well. Worldviews, movements, and projects — these things all have consequences. What are PSNERP’s costs in resources (time & taxpayer dollars) and what other possible projects and programs will PSNERP preclude ?

    6.       What are the unintended consequences of the proposed PSNERP projects ? Forces result from interactions. The proposed PSNERP projects are interactive forces. Newton’s Third Law of Motions reminds us that For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. When you poke the balloon in one place it pops out in another. When PSNERP projects “poke” the balloon of status quo, what is going to pop out elsewhere as a result ?

    7.       Does anyone at PSNERP realize that the earth’s geology, biology, and ecology have been in a constant state of change since their very inceptions and will continue to change for infinity ? How incredibly arrogant, condescending, and egocentric of some to think they can determine exactly what is “best” in terms of time or condition for any of these dynamic, natural processes.

    8.       By what criteria has someone determined that current conditions are not “best” and has chosen the particular, proposed, “restore to” slice of time and conditions as better or optimal?

    9.       Purportedly, PSNERP is, like detrimental instream flow rules, all about salmon. Why are some people so wrapped up in attempting to “protect” one particular species (salmonids) to the detriment of others ? Who chose salmonids over other worthy species (including humans) who are left to compete, unassisted and unprotected, in the Darwinian battle with the rest of us ? We call it, “life”.

    PSNERP proposals have not provided good or acceptable answers to any of the above questions.

    Fallacies:

    PSNERP is yet another exercise in governmental fallacious reasoning. Fallacies can be divided into categories according to the epistemological factors that cause the error:

    The reasoning is invalid but is presented as if it were a valid argument

    • The argument has an unjustified premise
    • Some relevant evidence has been ignored or suppressed

     

    The PSNERP proposal has all of these fallacies. But, just be sure, PSNERP also has the types of fallacies listed below:

    False Dilemma

    A proposal that unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices

    False Cause

    Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another.

    Reversing Causation

    Drawing an improper conclusion about causation due to a causal assumption that reverses cause and effect.

    Unfalsifiability (Untestability)

    This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false. There is no null hypothesis.

    And the environmentalist ideologue’s perennial favorite:

    Scare Tactic

    Terrorizing people in order to give them a reason for believing that you are correct.

    By the way, while we’re “restoring”:

    While we’re in the “restoration” business I’d like a few things restored, too:

    I’d like my inherent, natural property rights restored.

    • I’d like my pursuit of happiness restored by not being constantly barraged with yet another manic, trumped up, Chicken Little environmental “crisis” that needs to be “mitigated”.
    • I’d like my Washington State government restored to what the state’s founders intended in

    that calls for “consent of the governed”.

    Will it help if I ask nicely ?

    Please ! Stop wasting our time, money, and goodwill. PSNERP is wrong for many, may reasons; it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

     ——————————————————————————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From:

    Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:37 PM

    Subject: FW: Skagit CAPR Chapter: FW: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    ———————————————————————————–


     


  • The Dam Shame Of Flooding

    Derek,

    I posted this on my website last year.
    Flooding is a Dam Shame
    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    ——————————————————————————–

    Why has Congress spent ALL of it’s time FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS? TAKING AND USING taxpayer dollars? to legislate and fund the NGO’s “Sue and Settle” global agenda on the environment?, “WILDING?” the United States of America, to protect scenic rivers and views?, and to SAVE AND PROTECT endangered species,TAKING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NATURAL RESOURCE LAND TO PROVIDE Critical Habitat for endangered species,created manipulated balding, breeding, seeding and trans location of endangered plants and animals?

    IN A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE? FOR THE PEOPLE? BY THE PEOPLE?

    WHO IS PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

    Why has congress FAILED TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN “PEOPLE” FROM the LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE AND PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AKA “HABITAT FOR HUMANITY” FROM THE DAMN MISERY OF PROVEN, CONTROLLABLE DAM FLOODING?

    The increase on FEMA flood insurance is a DAM shame on Congress.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    —————————————————————–

    Flooding is a Dam Shame
    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    FLOODING IS A DAM SHAME

    DROUGHT IS A DAM SHAME

    CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD.

    HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER CONTROLS THE WORLD?

    IN THE USA THE GOVERNMENT WAS AND IS SO DAM STUPID THEY DECIDED THAT HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER WAS NOT DAM CLEAN, DAM CHEAP, DAM RENEWABLE DAM ENERGY, NOT DAM FLOOD CONTROL AND NOT DAM DROUGHT AND DAM PROPERTY LOSS PREVENTION.

    THE DAM CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM SMART THEY WORK IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DAM PEOPLE.

    THE CHINESE DAM PREVENTS THE DAM LOSS OF LIFE, BILLIONS OF DAM DOLLARS IN PROPERTY DAMAGE, PROVIDES DAM CHEAP, DAM CLEAN, DAM RENEWABLE, DAM ENERGY AND HELPS KEEP THEIR DAM ECONOMY STRONG.

    THE CHINESE DAM CONTROLS THE DAM WATER RELEASES THE DAM WATER TO ELIMINATE THE DAM DROUGHTS

    WHAT PART OF THIS DAM CHINESE POLICY DOES THE DAM US GOVERNMENT NOT UNDERSTAND?

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM DUMB THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    THE BEST DAM INTEREST OF THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE USA BE DAMMED

    AS DICTATED BY THE DAM US GOVERNMENT

    THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE DAM USA ARE FLOODED AND CLEANING UP THE DAM WATER DAMAGE FOR SIX DAM MONTHS OF THE YEAR.

    THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE USA SUFFER THE DAM DROUGHT FOR THE OTHER SIX DAM MONTHS OF THE YEAR

    THE CHINESE DAM CONCEPT IS TO BUILD AND KEEP DAMS TO PROVIDE CLEAN RENEWABLE ELECTRIC POWER, CONTROL THE DAM WATER AND PREVENT THE DAM FLOODING AND RELEASE THE DAM WATER TO PREVENT DROUGHT

    THE USA DAM POLICY CREATES LOSS OF DAM LIFE, DAM MISERY AND DAM SUFFERING FOR MILLIONS OF DAM AMERICANS EVERY DAM YEAR.
    This entry was posted in Economic Impact, FEDERAL ISSUES AND REFORM, The We’s who WANT,


  • Reform on HR 3080

    REFORM OPTIONS FOR H.R. 3080 Congress should go through the Corps’ budget and cut out all those activities that could be financed and OPERATED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    Given the agency’s long-standing mismanagement and misallocation of spending, it should be removed from those activities where federal involvement is not essential.
    ——————————————————————–
    CUTTING THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Chris Edwards
    March 2012
    Overview
    Two Centuries of Mission Creep
    A Pork-Barrel Machine
    A Legacy of Mismanagement
    Wasteful Projects and Faulty Analyses
    The Corps and Hurricane Katrina
    Reform Options

    – See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace#sthash.QAfBQM9V.dpuf
    THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CUTTING THE BUDGET OF THE ARMY CORPS IS TO END PASSAGE OF NEW WATER RESOURCE AUTHORIZATION BILLS. It makes no sense for Congress to keep putting new civilian projects into the Corps’ pipeline when the agency already has hundreds of projects previously authorized but not funded.

    Then Congress should go through the Corps’ budget and cut out all those activities that could be financed and OPERATED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Given the agency’s long-standing mismanagement and misallocation of spending, it should be removed from those activities where federal involvement is not essential.

    MANY OF THE CORPS’ ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE PRIVATIZED. Activities such as harbor construction and maintenance, beach replenishment, and hydropower generation could be provided by private construction, engineering, and utility companies. Those companies could contract directly with customers, SUCH AS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, to provide those services.

    CONSIDER THE CORP’S HARBOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ON THE SEACOASTS. These activities are funded by a Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) collected from shippers based on the value of cargo. The tax generates about $1.4 billion a year and is spent on projects chosen by Congress and the Corps. But the federal government is an unneeded middleman here—port authorities could simply impose their own charges on shippers to fund their own maintenance activities, such as dredging. By cutting out the middleman, ports could respond directly to market demands, rather than having to lobby Washington for funding.

    Groups representing shipping interests complain that Congress is not spending enough on harbors to keep America competitive in international trade.
    But THE CURRENT FEDERAL SYSTEM ALLOCATES FUNDS INEFFICIENTLY, creating large cross-subsidies between seaports.

    The Congressional Research Service notes that harbor maintenance funds are often “directed towards harbors which handle little or no cargo” and “there is no attempt to identify particular port usage and allocate funds accordingly.”91 The Port of Los Angeles, for example, generates a large share of HMT revenues, but it receives very little maintenance spending in return. The Congressional Research Service further explains:

    Examining where trust fund monies have been spent INDICATES THAT LITTLE OR NO SHIPPING IS TAKING PLACE AT MANY OF THE HARBORS AND WATERWAYS THAT SHIPPERS ARE PAYING TO MAINTAIN. . . . Given the amount of HMT collections not spent on harbors, and the amount spent on harbors with little or no cargo,
    A ROUGH ESTIMATE IS THAT LESS THAN HALF AND PERHAPS AS LITTLE AS A THIRD OF EVERY HMT DOLLAR COLLECTED IS BEING SPENT TO MAINTAIN HARBORS THAT SHIPPERS FREQUENTLY USE.92

    THE SOLUTION TO THESE SORTS OF INEFFICIENCIES IS NOT MORE FEDERAL FUNDING, but greater port independence and self-funding. One step toward that goal would be to privatize U.S. seaports, which are generally owned by state and local governments today.

    Britain pursued such reforms in 1983 when it privatized 19 seaports to form Associated British Ports (ABP).93 Today ABP operates 21 ports, and its subsidiary, UK Dredging, provides dredging services in the marketplace. ABP and UK Dredging earn profits and pay taxes.

    TODAY TWO-THIRDS OF BRITISH CARGO GOES THROUGH EFFICIENT PRIVATIZED SEAPORTS.94 One advantage of private seaports is that they can expand their facilities when market demands warrant, free of the uncertainties created by government budgeting.

    Privatization is also a good option for the Corps’ 75 hydropower plants. More than two-thirds of the roughly 2,400 hydropower plants in the nation are privately owned.95 While federal facilities—INCLUDING THOSE OF THE ARMY CORPS—dominate hydropower in some states such as Washington, other states such as New York and North Carolina have substantial private hydropower. The point is that the private sector is entirely capable of running hydropower plants, and thus Congress should begin selling the generating facilities of the Corps.

    MANY OF THE CORPS’ ASSETS SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. THESE ASSETS INCLUDE FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE, MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS, the Washington, D.C., aqueduct system, and recreational areas.

    The financing and control of flood control infrastructure in Louisiana, for example, should be handed over to the State of Louisiana. That would give citizens direct responsibility over their hurricane defenses,

    RATHER THAN TO HAVE THEM RELY ON A DISTANT WASHINGTON BUREAUCRACY.

    State and local officials could better balance the costs and benefits of levees and other infrastructure if their own citizens were footing the bill.

    The Commerce Clause of the Constitution allowed the federal government to assert control over navigable rivers, and the Corps has taken the lead role in river navigation activities since the 19th century.

    However, CONGRESS SHOULD CONSIDER REFORMS TO REDUCE THE COSTS ON GENERAL TAXPAYERS OF THESE ACTIVITIES.

    Currently, a barge fuel tax generates revenues for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, but this fund only pays half the cost of constructive projects on the inland waterways and none of the operation and maintenance costs.96

    One reform step would be to raise fees to cover a higher share of system’s costs, as proposed by the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission in 2010.97

    An expert on the system, Steve Ellis, testified to Congress last year about the inefficiency of the current funding structure. One problem is that “since users don’t have to pay anything for maintenance, they are constant cheerleaders for new construction.”98

    ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THAT SPENDING IS ALLOCATED BASED ON POLITICS, not on market demands such as barge traffic levels. Some rivers in the system receive very little barge traffic, yet receive substantial spending from the Corps. Ellis also notes that inland waterway projects suffer from the Corps’ usual distorted analyses and cost overruns:

    “None of the inland navigation projects the Corps has green-lighted in recent decades have met their economic predictions.”99

    To create more efficient inland waterways, CONGRESS SHOULD CONSIDER TRANSFERRING THE CORPS’ ACTIVITIES TO STATE GOVERNMENTS OR PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

    In 2002 the Bush administration determined that the Corps’ civilian activities were not a “core competency” of the government and should be opened to private contractors.100

    It proposed allowing private bidding for 2,000 Corps jobs involved in the operation of locks and dams on the waterways, but that plan did not come to fruition.101

    Another idea is to create a self-funded organization to operate the inland waterways, either as an arms-length part of government or as a private entity.102

    To conclude, the nation’s long experience with the Army Corps illustrates how federal involvement in local infrastructure often leads to mismanagement, inefficiency, and pork-barrel spending.

    IT’S TIME TO REVIVE FEDERALISM IN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND BEGIN TO PRIVATIZE ARMY CORPS ACTIVITIES OR TRANSFER THEM TO THE STATES.

    Those remaining activities of the Corps that are truly federal in nature should be moved to the Department of the Interior AND THE CIVILIAN SIDE OF THE CORPS CLOSED DOWN.


  • HR 3080 US Army Corp?

    The Corps and Hurricane Katrina
    In 2009 a federal judge found that THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISMANAGEMENT OF MRGO, failing to maintain the MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PART OF THE FLOOD DAMAGE TO THE CITY.87

    U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. concluded,

    “THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LASSITUDE AND FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS DUTIES RESULTED IN A CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE AND PROPERTY IN UNPRECEDENTED PROPORTIONS

    88 And he found that “THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CORPS, in this instance by FAILING TO MAINTAIN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET properly, WAS NOT POLICY, BUT INSOUCIANCE, MYOPIA AND SHORTSIGHTEDNESS.”89
    ——————————————————————–
    Indeed,by definition words used by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr to define

    “THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS” MRGO and Hurricane Katrina

    LASSITUDE tiredness or apathy

    FAILURE something less than required

    CATASTROPHIC DISASTROUS causing or liable to cause widespread damage or death, awful completely unsuccessful or very bad

    UNPRECEDENTED having no earlier parallel or equivalent

    NEGLIGENCE civil wrong causing injury or harm, law a civil wrong
    tort causing injury or harm to another person or to property as the result of doing something or failing to provide a proper or reasonable level of care.

    INSOUCIANCE carefree attitude cheerful lack of anxiety or concern
    MYOPIA lack of foresight or long-term planning done or determined without taking the future into account

    SHORTSIGHTEDNESS done or determined without taking the future into account
    ——————————————————————-
    October 19, 2013 9:03 AM KILMER ON H.R. 3080

    THE WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

    Every two years Congress has passed legislation that authorizes the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO CARRY OUT PROJECTS THAT MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP NAVIGABLE CHANNELS AND WATERWAYS INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE RESTORATION.
    ——————————————————–
    REALLY, CONGRESS IS LEGISLATING MORE FUNDING FOR AN APPOINTED US AGENCY WITH A HISTORY LIKE THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    HAS ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS BOTHERED TO READ, RESEARCH OR CONSIDER
    THE OPTIONS FOR DOWNSIZING the government by cutting THE BUDGET FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS?
    ——————————————————————–
    – See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace#sthash.QAfBQM9V.dpuf

    CUTTING THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CUTTING THE BUDGET OF THE ARMY CORPS IS TO END PASSAGE OF NEW WATER RESOURCE AUTHORIZATION BILLS.

    Chris Edwards
    March 2012
    Overview
    Two Centuries of Mission Creep
    A Pork-Barrel Machine
    A Legacy of Mismanagement
    Wasteful Projects and Faulty Analyses
    The Corps and Hurricane Katrina
    Reform Options

    When is someone in Congress going to learn to READ before they pass legislation?

    There are 102 reports listed

    Start with number 97

    National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, “The Moment of Truth,” December 1, 2010, www.fiscalcommission.gov. See option no. 34. See also Congressional Budget Office, “Budget Options: Volume 2,” August 2009, p. 258. – See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace#_ednref97

    ——————————————————————
    Is anyone in Congress going to READ the documented history of The Corps and Hurricane Katrina before they pass legislation for MORE
    funding?

    There are at least five ways THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARMY CORPS MAGNIFIED THE DAMAGE DONE TO PEOPLE AND PROPERTY FROM HURRICANE KATRINA.
    —————————————-
    The American Society of Civil Engineers concluded that “A LARGE PORTION OF THE DESTRUCTION FROM HURRICANE KATRINA WAS CAUSED BY . . . ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING-RELATED POLICY FAILURES.”79
    ————————————–
    The dismal performance of the flood protection system in New Orleans was the focus of much attention after the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005.
    ——————————————————-
    Michael Grunwald has researched Katrina and the Corps in detail, and he concludes that “it wasn’t a natural disaster. IT WAS A MAN-MADE DISASTER, CREATED BY LOUSY ENGINEERING, MISPLACED PRIORITIES, AND PORK-BARREL POLITICS.”75 He argues that most of the damage to New Orleans was attributable to FAILURES OF THE CORPS.76 –

    ——————————————————————-
    Some of the “natural disasters” of recent decades have been partly man-made disasters. DESPITE MASSIVE FEDERAL SPENDING ON FLOOD CONTROL BY THE CORPS AND THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION OVER THE DECADES, for example, floods cause more damage today in constant-dollar terms than they did in the earlier decades

    – See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace#sthash.QAfBQM9V.dpuf