+menu-


  • Category Archives The Army Corp of Engineers
  • 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 …


  • POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE and Justice Scalia

    POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE  and Justice Scalia

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ACE (Corps) promulgated in 2016.

    The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.”

    It instructs EPA and the ACE Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    President Trump signed executive order on February 28, 2017 instructs EPA and the Corps to

    “CONSIDER” ADOPTING THE SCALIA TEST FROM RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

    ORDER § 3. SCALIA OPINED IN RAPANOS THAT, “THE PHRASE ‘THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    ————————————————————————

    Notice that Trump signed the EO back at the end of February 2017, and the EPA is JUST NOW sending the information out. It looks like they have deliberately STALLED.

    These statements have to be in by June 19, 2017. Heads up!

    ————————————————————————————

    THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

    IS LOCATED AT 33 CFR 329.4

    • 329.4 General definition.

    Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb (the outgoing phase; when the tide drains away from the shore) and flow (the incoming phase; when water rises again) of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of  navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The federal definition 40 CFR 230 .3 pertains to the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States.

    WOTUS BY OBAMA

    The definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) is very dangerous and overreaching. Under section (o), parts of the definition read as follows:
    o) The term waters of the United States means: …

    (ii) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

    (iv) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section;

    (vi) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section, including  wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters;

    (vii) All waters in paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a  significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an  adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.

    (A)Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest.

    (viii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tideline or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. For waters determined to have a  significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific  significant nexus analysis is required.

    —————————————————————————————

    WRITING FOR THE COURT IN THE 2014 CLEAN AIR ACT CASE, UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA, JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED EPA’S INTERPRETATION UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING ABOUT AN ENORMOUS AND TRANSFORMATIVE EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

    JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance,’” he wrote.
    —————————————————————————————

    OBAMA VETOES GOP ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WOTUS WATER RULE

    By Timothy Cama – 01/19/16 07:22 PM EST

    ———————————————————-

    EPA ‘Waters of U.S.’ Rule Is a Power Grab | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/431134/epa-waters-us-rule-power-grab

    by Rupert Darwall February 11, 2016 4:00 AM. Obama’s power-mad agency claims jurisdiction over land and water use almost everywhere in … EPA, under the Clean Water Act, a statute Congress passed two years after its clean-air sibling. … partially checked, in what has become known as the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

    ————————————————————————————————-

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) promulgated in 2016. The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” It instructs EPA and the Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    The Order raises a number of interesting issues. First, it instructs EPA and the Corps to “consider” adopting the Scalia test from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Order § 3. Scalia opined in Rapanos that, “the phrase ‘the waters of the United States’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    Because Rapanos was a split decision (4–1–4), there is no controlling opinion. The circuit courts, applying the Marks analysis, have concluded that Kennedy’s lone concurring opinion, which focused on the significant-nexus test, is the controlling standard from the case. (A couple of circuits have allowed Kennedy’s or Scalia’s opinion to be used to establish jurisdiction.) All of the circuit courts and almost all of the district courts have rejected the argument that Scalia’s test should be adopted as the sole jurisdictional test. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari numerous times since Rapanos on WOTUS issues, so we have no clarification from the Court on how to interpret the decision.

    IT IS CLEAR WHY THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHOSEN SCALIA’S TEST—IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OF JURISDICTION.

     THAN THE KENNEDY TEST, WHICH EPA AND THE CORPS ADOPTED IN THE WOTUS RULE.

    UNDER THE SCALIA TEST, MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS—ESPECIALLY IN THE ARID WEST—WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO  THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) BECAUSE MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS ARE EPHEMERAL OR INTERMITTENT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT “RELATIVELY PERMANENT WATERS.” HEADWATER SYSTEMS COMPRISE A LARGE PART OF THE NATION’S TRIBUTARY SYSTEM. IN PLACES LIKE ARIZONA EVEN THE MAIN CHANNELS ARE DRY MOST OF THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT MEET THE SCALIA TEST FOR JURISDICTION.

     

    THE SCALIA TEST WOULD LIKELY ALSO REMOVE MANY OF THE NATIONS’ WETLANDS FROM . EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

     

    AS JUSTICE SCALIA SAID “WE EXPECT CONGRESS TO SPEAK CLEARLY IF IT WISHES TO ASSIGN TO AN AGENCY DECISIONS OF VAST ‘ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE,’”

    —————————————————————————-

    President Trump Issues Executive Order Directing EPA to Review the WOTUS Rule

    Thursday, March 2, 2017

    On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to review the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) definition of “Waters of the United States”(WOTUS) Rule (the Rule) (80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015). Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule, Executive Order (Feb. 28, 2017) (EO). The EO directs EPA and ACE to review the WOTUS Rule for consistency with the policies set forth in the EO which specifies that “It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” The EO also directs EPA and ACE to “publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the [WOTUS] rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.”

    Pursuant to the EO, EPA and ACE submitted for publication in the Federal Register, a notification of intention to review and rescind or revise the Rule. Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule, Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Defense, Feb. 28, 2017. The notification will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.

    THE EO ALSO DIRECTS EPA AND ACE TO CONSIDER INTERPRETING THE TERM “NAVIGABLE WATERS,”IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA IN RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The Rapanos opinion set out two separate standards for CWA jurisdiction. See Rapanos at 715‑718. Justice Scalia, writing for a plurality, determined that the statute should only apply when there is a “continuous surface connection”between “relatively permanent”waters. Id. at 743. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, determined that jurisdiction should be based on whether a water or wetland possesses “a significant nexus to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Id. at 759. Neither standard was supported by a majority, so neither standard has become binding precedent. See Id. at 715-718. Regulators, however, have generally followed Justice Kennedy’s standard,

    AND THUS, A SWITCH TO JUSTICE SCALIA’S STANDARD WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL EXTENT OF THE CWA. SEE 80 FED. REG. 37054, 37056, 37060-37061 [WOTUS RULE].


  • Public Notice of Net Pens NWS-2016-100

    Public Notice of Net Pens in the Strait of Juan De Fuca

    The  PDF document  NWS-2016-100  is a Public Notice for a proposed project where a
    permit is being requested from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.

    Acquisition Icicle Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC. -has proposed to
    decommission and remove their existing net pens structures in Port Angeles
    Harbor, Port Angeles, Washington, and install new net pen facility for
    rearing of Atlantic Salomon in Strait of Juan De Fuca near Port Angeles,
    Clallam County, Washington.

    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

    COMMENT MUST BE RECEIVED BY MAY 28, 2016

    ———————————————————-

    I wanted to give concerned local people the NWS-2016-100  information ASAP, so they can make public comment. (so I emailed the public notice)

    Just saying, Word gets around in emails..

    But….

    The bottom line is…

    Word gets around BETTER in cyberspace.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————

    Scroll down…

    Listed below are the current Public Notices published by the Seattle District for proposed projects within the state of Washington. The Public Notices are sorted by Effective Date and are provided in PDF format. You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your PC to view these files. You may download Adobe free from http://www.adobe.com/.

    Viewing Public Notices. To view a Public Notice, left-click on the Permit Application Number (highlighted in blue). To download the file to your PC, right-click on the Permit Application Number, then select “Save Target As” from the menu.

    How to Submit Comments. To submit comments via E-mail, left-click on the respective Project Manager’s name in the table below. To submit comments in writing, send them to the respective Project Manager at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, WA 98124-3755. All comments should include the permit application number and project name, your name, address, and phone number.

    How to be Added to the Public Notice Mailing List. Please submit your email address to the Regulatory Branch: Attention: Shannon Wilson

    Email Address Changes. If you change your email address, you will need to contact Shannon Wilson. Please provide your old address and your new address. Emails returned due to a change of address will be deleted from our electronic mailing list system.

    Issued Date Expiration Date Applicant Project Description Permit Application No. County Project Manager
    2-May-2016 17-May-2016 Sunset Marina, LLC Erratum for proposed marina NWS-2007-2030  Chelan Knaub
    29-Apr-2016 29-May-2016 Whatcom County Public Works Place fill, replace and install outfalls, and construct trail NWS-2016-124  Whatcom Perry
    28-Apr-2016 28-May-2016 Icicle Acquisition Subsidiary LLC Decommission and removal of existing net pen structures NWS-2016-100  Clallam Sanguinetti
    22-Apr-2016 22-May-2016 Yakima Nation Fisheries Dredging NWS-2015-158  Skamania Martin
    21-Apr-2016 21-May-2016 Pierce County Public Works Construct pier, drive piles, and install ramp and float NWS-2007-1878  Pierce White

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

    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

    ——————————————————————-

    I received a paper copy of this Public Notice for NWS-2016-0100-; via US
    Mail,

    I called Pamela Sanguinetti at her contact number (206) 764-6904 and
    requested an email copy of the “Open Public Comment Period Notice” listed as
    “Regulatory Public Notices”

    COMMENT MUST BE RECEIVED BY MAY 28, 2016 (but may be extended? per Ms Pamela  Sanguinetti)

    Acquisition Icicle Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC. -has proposed to
    decommission and remove their existing net pens structures in Port Angeles
    Harbor, Port Angeles, Washington, and install new net pen facility for
    rearing of Atlantic Salomon in Strait of Juan De Fuca near Port Angeles,
    Clallam County, Washington.
    ———————————————————–

    Just saying….

    NEAR? Port Angeles, Clallam County, Washington
    I received a paper copy of this Public Notice for NWS-2016-0100-; via US
    Mail, addressed to George C. Rains Sr., at my address.(Dad died over 8 years
    ago?).

    Pamela Sanguinetti was very nice and thanked me for taking the time to call
    her and  request this email notice of public comment (and the PDF
    documentation) for our community.

    She asked if I wanted to make a public comment??

    I have not opened the file… YET…

    I wanted to give concerned local people the information ASAP, so they can
    make public comment. (so I emailed the public notice)

    Just saying, Word gets around with emails..

    But, word gets around BETTER in cyberspace.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    ——————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–
    From: “Sanguinetti, Pamela NWS” <Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil>
    To: <phew@wavecable.com>
    Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 12:51 PM
    Subject: FW: Public Notice for NWS-2016-0100-; Icicle Acquisition Icicle
    Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC. -Request for comments

    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-2016-0100-, Clallam County, Icicle Acquisition
    Icicle Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC.
    PROJECT MANAGER: Pam Sanguinetti
    TELEPHONE: 2067646904
    E-MAIL: Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil

    The  PDF  NWS-2016-100 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

    The bottom line is…

    Word gets around BETTER in cyberspace.