somerset corps meeting

[HURRICANEBOB]

[QUOTE=DaveStewart;507099] The way the regulation the Corps is citing as the reason they are going to restrict the areas has wording that allows for a compromise...QUOTE]

Dave, I put the text of the reg below. I don't know the corps has to compromise on it. They come up with the restricted area based on the highest and worst conditions, and they have to include the views of the sources. But they don't have to compromise the level of safety the restricted area will provide based on local comments only. Now on the other hand, if the local comments, and corps analysis, agree that what the corps first recomended is excessive, and can be reduced and still provide safety, then the corps can site that and reduce the size of the restricted area. Example: Can the discharge be modified to reduce the area of hazardous waters downstream?

Here's a link to the exact specs, look in appendix AA and AB. EP 1130-2-520 (29 November 1996)

And I agree, to folks can read the same thing and come away with 2 considered and different opinions. I repect yours.


ER 1130-2-520
29 Nov 96
10-1
CHAPTER 10 - RESTRICTED AREAS FOR HAZARDOUS WATERS AT DAMS AND
OTHER CIVIL WORKS STRUCTURES
10-1. Purpose. This chapter establishes the policy on restricted areas upstream and downstream
of certain project structures, and establishes standard criteria for determining the extent of these
restricted areas.
10-2. Policy. It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers that:
a. Restricted areas prohibiting public access shall be established for the hazardous waters
immediately upstream and downstream of all Corps-owned locks and dams, flood control dams,
multi-purpose dams, re-regulation structures, and any other structures with similar hazards to
boating or visitor safety.
b. The extent of each restricted area shall be based on hydraulic criteria and operational
considerations. The minimum size of a restricted area is fixed by the hydraulic line and a buffer
zone beyond the line as specified in Chapter 10 of EP 1130-2-520, and in accordance with the
following criteria:
(1) Upstream restricted areas must be sized (including necessary buffer zones) to allow a
boater to reach shore before being carried by currents into the dam or intake area, or to allow a
reasonable expectation of rescue in the event of a boating accident or motor failure.
(2) Downstream restricted areas must be sized (including necessary buffer zones) to
prevent a boat that is without power or a swimmer from being drawn into the dam or discharge
areas. The restricted zones must encompass areas containing turbulent waters caused by the
operation of the project that creates significant risk of swamping or capsizing small boat that are
either underway, moored, or adrift.
c. Restricted area boundaries shall ordinarily be established based on high flow condition,
not variable with fluctuating flows, intermittent discharges, or seasonal variations.d. Approval authority for defining boundaries of restricted areas is delegated to MSC
commanders who may redelegate the authority to district commanders.
e. The District Commander will appoint an interdisciplinary team from Safety,
Hydraulics, and Operations to evaluate all applicable sites and to recommend restricted area
boundaries and associated control measures. The team will consult with the person in charge at
each site, other Corps representatives, and other Federal, state, and local agencies (where
necessary) who may have significant interest or input in the matter. The team will document its
findings, including the calculation of the hydraulic line, operational considerations and views
ER 1130-2-520
29 Nov 96
from other sources. The approving authority will sign the boundary determination.10-2

[Dave Stewart]

Bob....I did not say the Corps has to compromise...only that their regulation allows room for compromise ....which to me they have not shown any indication they have any intention to doing so without being forced to do so by the courts.

It was pointed out to the Commander when he was here by many local and state officials that they had not followed their own regulation in contacting them about this matter.

As far as terrorist concerns: The vulnerable part of a TVA dam is the earthen part....not the superstructure itself. If there are locks they are vulnerable. The locks are not being restricted. So citing security reasons for doing this does not hold water.

[DJD]

As far as terrorist concerns: The vulnerable part of a TVA dam is the earthen part....not the superstructure itself. If there are locks they are vulnerable. The locks are not being restricted. So citing security reasons for doing this does not hold water.

Agreed...I never understood an authority citing anything about terrorists and safety for dams or waters sources. If some group wants to destroy a structure or contaminate a water source then a sign or in some cases a fence will not do a thing. I guess they are trying to cover their tail by saying they did everything possible to prevent an attack?!?!?
Signs and fences will stop law abiding folks but that's it....

After 911 our local private lake (owned by Kentucky water) put a "safe zone" at the dam on the lake side. The barrier was a rope with volleyballs tied to it so the rope would stay afloat. All that did was keep members from fishing up to the dam...if someone wanted to do damage they wouldn't hesitate because of a sign or barrier. I guess the fear wore off because now we do not have a barrier.

[HURRICANEBOB]

Agreed...I never understood an authority citing anything about terrorists and safety for dams or waters sources. If some group wants to destroy a structure or contaminate a water source then a sign or in some cases a fence will not do a thing. I guess they are trying to cover their tail by saying they did everything possible to prevent an attack?!?!?
Signs and fences will stop law abiding folks but that's it....

After 911 our local private lake (owned by Kentucky water) put a "safe zone" at the dam on the lake side. The barrier was a rope with volleyballs tied to it so the rope would stay afloat. All that did was keep members from fishing up to the dam...if someone wanted to do damage they wouldn't hesitate because of a sign or barrier. I guess the fear wore off because now we do not have a barrier.

If you can't prevent it completely, you can atleast do those things that make it "more difficult".
I hang a lock on my shed door. It makes it more difficult for the casual passerby who might want my mower. Can the lock be cut, door forced off, shed cut thru the side, or the whole shed yanked off its base and drug away by a diesel 4X4? Yep.......but those things are not easy and so that little rusty lock serves its purpose of reducing some part of the risk.

Just casue you can't fix it all, don't mean you stop fixing what you can.

Seat belts and airbags don't save everyone. Parachutes don't either, and insurance doesn't mean your house won't burn down. Locks don't stop all criminals, they stop the lazy one's so I can focus on the other bad guys. JMHO. Ya do what ya can with what you got or can afford.

http://viktorvoksanaev.narod.ru/DHS-Dams-CV.pdf
Exhibit 2 Site-Related Vulnerabilities
Site-related vulnerabilities are conditions or situations existing at a particular site or
facility that could be exploited by a terrorist or terrorist group to do economic, physical,
or bodily harm or to disable or disrupt facility operations or other critical infrastructures.
Access and Access Control
1 Facilities typically experience large numbers of visitors due to associated waterbased
recreation and, in some cases, the facility’s status as a tourist attraction.
2 Facilities are typically accessible by road and larger facilities often have a road along
the top, allowing possible vehicle-based attack. Vehicle barriers may not be in place.
3 Facilities are typically accessible by water, allowing possible boat-based attack.
4 Access to key assets such as control rooms, powerhouses and transmission
equipment is generally controlled through gates, doors and fences; some of these
barriers may need to be upgraded.
5 Critical assets such as control areas may be close to the perimeter fence, allowing for
a successful attack from outside the fence line.

[Dave Stewart]

The detachable floating barriers and signs saying Keep Out that the Corps is planning on using are not going to protect anyone or anything from a terrorist attack. Again, the vulnerable part of these type dams is the earthen portion and also the control rooms and locks. The locks are not being restricted....the earthen portion of the dams is not accessable by boat from the down river side....and are not included in the Off Limits areas presented by the Corps in the up river Off Limits areas...and the Control Rooms are already locked and have restricted access.....so the claim of trying to restrict these areas because of terrorists...does not hold water. We had a demolitions expert at our meeting and he brought this up and the Corps personnel present certainly did not disagree.

[Shellkat]

Just ban idiots and terrorist
PROBLEM SOLVED

[Dave Stewart]

Just ban idiots and terrorist
PROBLEM SOLVED

Good point...lol. Problem is you cannot regulate stupidity. What is happening here is that the majority of the time at Lake Barkley Dam, the gates are only open a few days out of the year and on Wolf Creek Dam it is rare to have the gates opened. The Corps wants to close these areas to boats (anglers) based on full flow, which again only happens rarely. The anglers want access during periods of no gates open which is overwhelmingly most of the time and have these areas restricted to access when the gates are open. The wording in the regulation which directs the Corps to restrict these areas based on full flow levels contains the word "ordinarily" which means that there is room for compromise. If the regulation said "shall" or "will" then there would be no room for compromise as they are words which in federal regulations mean "mandatory".

The real reason the Corps wants to close these areas off year round is that they have settled out of court by being sued by families of those folks that have been killed by being in those areas when the gates are open. Kind of like paying off a family that had a member killed or injured when they ran a stop sign and caused an accident....just because there was no barrier that came down when the stop light came on to keep that person from entering the intersection. Like I said, you cannot regulate stupidity. During our meeting here at Barkley, the mayor of Grand Rivers addressed the Corps and told them about how many times the city had been sued by these frivoulous type lawsuits and how the city had never settled out of court but taken the cases to court and that the city had never lost a case yet. The mayor explained that as mayor he was obligated by his office to ensure the taxpayers money was not wasted by paying off frivoulous lawsuits.

Bottom line here is that the Corps held these meetings not to take input, but to tell us that this is what they are going to do and gave us the time frames that this would be accomplished. Their minds were already obviously made up and their attitude here was "here it is, live with it". It was obvious in the meeting here that they were not prepared for resistance they met from the public here...they obviously from Bob's report got a little more prepared by the time the meeting for Wolf Creek Dam and that the officials attending that meeting were not as prepared as the officials that attended the meeting here were.

My gut feeling is that the Corps will continue with their plan and barricade these areas and the only way that there is a chance that this can be changed will be in court where laws and regulations are interpreted. The way I personnally read this regulation is that the Corps can do exactly what they are proposing or they can compromise.....but it is their choice as to whether or not they compromise and not ours.