No One Has A Clue

During this holiday season, we take this moment to give thanks for the blessings we've received this past year. As usual, we appreciate the DEP for giving us plenty to write about. But for those of you who are unaware, a good portion of the material in the Pollution Update comes from folks within the regulatory agencies. We should all be thankful that these people are willing to risk their careers to give the public the inside scoop on what's really happening within their agency, as opposed to what the agency says is happening. For those of you who would like to contact us, but are concerned about your livelihood, be assured that you will not be identified.

In a recent edition of PU, we stated that we didn't have a clue about what the Philadelphia District, of the Army Corps of Engineers was doing on the new nationwide permits.

We received a note from our old buddy Ed Bonner who is evidently "Top Gun",--Chief of the Regulatory Branch-- at the Philadelphia District of the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Turner,

We received your letter dated 25 November 1998 concerning the proposed regional conditions for the NWPs. For your information, the Division Engineer has responsibility to approve regional conditions. Where there is more than one Corps district in any state, existing policy and procedure provides that one of the districts assumes the lead responsibility for such issues as regional conditions in that State or Commonwealth. In the case of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Baltimore District has that respponsibility. The Philadelphia District position is coordinated through the Baltimore District. The Philadelphia District has responsibility for the States of New Jersey and Delaware. We share responsibilities for New Jersey with the New York District. As such, the New York District does not mention New Jersey in their public notice. They have the lead responsibility for New York State.

Please refer to our public notice dated October 14, 1998:

Page 1, paragraph 1; "The Philadelphia District has been designated as the point of contact for the development of regional conditions in the States of Delaware and New Jersey." Page 2, paragraph 1; "The Division Engineer makes the final determination as to which Corps regional conditions would be necessary..." Page 2, paragraph 3; "As noted above, the Philadelphia District has been designated as the point of contact for the development of regional conditions in the States of Delaware and New Jersey."

These statements are included with all of our public notices of this nature, and were also included with our previous public notice on the proposed NWPs dated July 13, 1998. Further, our public notice dated July 13, 1998 also stated on page 2, paragraph 5; "The Baltimore District has been designated as the point of contact for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."

You do have a clue!

Edward E. Bonner 

Ed tells us that we erred, when we stated that RPF didn't have a clue about what the Philadelphia District was doing with respect to the new nationwide permits and regional conditions for those permits. Ed says we should have had a clue because the Philly Corps public notices about the new nationwide permits and regional conditions were quite clear about everything. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

As evidence, Ed wrote "The Philadelphia District's position is coordinated through the Baltimore District." If so, then why is the Philadelphia District listing conditions for states they say they don't have the lead? For example, the Philly Corps' 10/14/98 public notice lists regional conditions they say are for New Jersey and Delaware, yet goes on to list regional conditions for work in the Schuylkill River (last time we looked Ed- plate tectonics notwithstanding - it was still located in Pennsylvania) (see regional conditions for NP #12 and #36).

Mr. Bonner provides example of how the New York District has avoided the very confusion he started by stating "We share responsibilities for New Jersey with the New York District. As such, New York District does not mention New Jersey in their public notice" (our emphasis). We wish Ed would have followed New York's example, because the Philly District's public notice (which Ed claims is for MD and NJ - since Baltimore is the lead in PA) refers to streams in both Pennsylvania and New York. If Ed had followed the New York District's example, there would have been no mention of PA or NY streams - and no confusion.

Finally, Ed states "Where there is more than one Corps district in any state, existing policy and procedure provides that one of the Districts assumes the lead responsibility for such issues as regional conditions in that State or Commonwealth."

Ed!!! You have got to be kidding. Have you seen the Pittsburgh District's public notice? Are you able to get a copy? Their regional conditions are not only quite different, but considerably weaker than what the Baltimore District is proposing.

In Ed's e-mail to us, he wrote that we now "had a clue." what the Philly District is doing. After reading this collection of discrepancies and outright nonsense, we don't think any of our members in the Philly District could figure out what is going on. In fact, it appears that Ed may not have a clue what's going on.

<<<<END>>>>

return