Congress Enacts More
More than 20,000 statutes have been enacted since 1789.
Congress has enacted approximately 200–600 statutes during each of its 112 biennial terms.
In addition,
MORE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS CREATE
MORE AMENDMENTS to ACTS
MORE Appointed federal Agencies and
MORE state agencies mandate
MORE and Rule Out
MORE OF Our Freedom with
MORE multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and
MORE AUTHORITIES creating
MORE challenges for
MORE coordination for
MORE decision-making and
MORE proactive planning
MORE GOVERNMENT AND
MORE TAXES
A CHALLENGE INDEED … OVERLAPPING INDEED
———————————————————-
CONGRESS ENACTS MORE ACTS AND MORE AMENDMENTS
National Environmental Policy Act
Clean Water Act
Coastal Management Act
Endangered Species Act
Clean Air
MORE EDICTS mandate Our Freedom
MORE Appointed federal agencies EDICTS mandate
MORE American sovereign? states rubber stamp
MORE WAC Ruling regulates and restricts Our Freedom
MORE Appointed state agencies EDICTS rule
MORE American counties and cities rubber stamp
———————————————————
Indeed MORE IS BETTER
A plethora of appointed agency edicts, rules, mandated, formal proclamation, especially one issued by a government, ruler, or other authority, indeed a very large amount of something or number of things, especially an excessive amount
————————————————————
NOW THEY have added
WSR 13-15-073
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
[Filed July 16, 2013, 12:19 p.m.]
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948), Under chapter 43.372 RCW, the department of ecology (ecology) has determined that it is lead agency for the development of the PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
————————————————————-
April 4, 2013 We have been advised that RESTORATION is not required by WA State lawon the WA State Clallam County (SMP) Shoreline Management Update
—————————————————-
INDEED… The RESTORATION program for MARYLAND was not required by state law on their (SMP) Shoreline Management Updates either.
RESTORATION IN MARYLAND IS AN
APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCY MANDATED EDICT
RUBBER STAMPED BY Maryland General Assembly with the passage of HB 987
HB 987 is an 11 page document on the $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RESTORATION RAIN TAX WAS MANDATED BY AND UNFUNDED BY THE APPOINTED EPA in Maryland.
————————————————-
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
———————————————————-
A FEDERAL Part of the PUGET SOUND restoration plan
FINAL May 2009, GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND
(PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND
The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.
This is not a casual report of RESTORATION plan for SMP mitigation.
——————————————-
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
Once the MSP is complete, ecology will submit it to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its review and APPROVAL for incorporation into
Washington’s FEDERALLY APPROVED coastal zone management program
Under the 1972 CONGRESS ENACTED FEDERAL Coastal Zone Management ACT
——————————————————-
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 | Department of Energy
Full text of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, available as a download. NEPA established a national policy for the environment …
————————————————-
Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/
Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
————————————————
1972 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Clean water act
CWA | Civil Enforcement | Compliance and Enforcement | U.S. EPA
www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/
In 1972, Congress enacted the first comprehensive national clean water … The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law that protects our nation’s waters, …
—————————————————
1966 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Endangered Species Act
Congress passed the ESA as part of the explosion of federal … – Gale
www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/
by ES ACT – Related articles
Congress passed the ESA as part of the explosion of federal legislation ENACTED BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. As a wildlife law, the ESA is …
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure that … of endangered and threatened species OF PLANTS
Endangered Species Act – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, … Congress enacted significant MORE amendments in 1978, AND MORE 1982, and MORE 1988, …
Enacted by the, 93rd United States Congress …. The ESA is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the …
————————————————————-
FEDERAL AND STATE APPOINTED
My serious concerns on RESTORATION are from the following (PSNERP) report.
(it was mentioned briefly, in the SMP 39 page report)
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
FINAL May 2009, GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND
While this 373 page, RESTORATION PROJECT has not been disclosed to us, I am requesting a discussion of it at the April 9, 2013 SMP Committee Meeting.
—————————————————————
WSR 13-15-073
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
[Filed July 16, 2013, 12:19 p.m.]
SEPA Lead Agency, Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement for the PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948), the department of ecology (ecology) has determined that it is lead agency for the development of the Pacific Coast marine spatial plan (MSP).
Washington’s Pacific Coast is potentially adversely affected by increasing pressures on the resources in this area, conflicts among uses, and proposed new uses. In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and authorities creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning. Under chapter 43.372 RCW, the development of an MSP is intended to address these issues by providing a nonregulatory framework for coordinating information and decisions. This state law requires an interagency team of state natural resource agencies to coordinate the development of the MSP.
Washington is using an existing interagency team, the State Ocean Caucus, for this planning process. The team is chaired by the governor’s office and coordinated by ecology.
Ecology is the designated lead for coordinating the development of the MSP.
Other State Ocean Caucus agencies involved in developing the MSP include:
Washington department of natural resources,
department of fish and wildlife,
Washington Sea Grant and
state parks and recreation commission.
The planning process will also involve and engage coastal stakeholders, the public and local, tribal, and federal governments.
Once the MSP is complete, ecology will submit it to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its review and approval
For incorporation into Washington’s federally approved coastal zone management program under
the FEDERAL Coastal Zone Management ACT
Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a nonproject EIS will provide a general evaluation of the alternatives and potential significant adverse impacts associated with developing the MSP for Washington’s Pacific Coast (WAC 197-11-704(2)(b)). Additional project-level environmental review under
NEPA and SEPA would occur when individual projects or activities are proposed.
More information [on] this public comment opportunity may be found at http://www.msp.wa.gov/news.
Scoping: As part of SEPA, scoping is conducted to receive public and agency comments on the scope of an upcoming environmental impact statement (EIS). A scoping document provides important background, context, and draft proposed language to assist those wishing to provide comments. A copy of this document is available at http://www.msp.wa.gov/wp-
Written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m., September 23, 2013. Send written scoping comments toMSPComments@ecy.wa.gov or the Department of Ecology, SEA Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
Location of Proposal: The proposed Marine Spatial Plan addresses marine waters along Washington’s Pacific Ocean Coast, including Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor and Pacific counties, Washington.
SEPA Responsible Official: Gordon White.
Date: July 16, 2013.
————————————————————-
PSNERP
FINAL May 2009
GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP
COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATIONPROJECT
Prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Prepared In Support of Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
In Association With
Additional Anchor Team consultants and
Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Program
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Point No Point Treaty Council
Skagit River System Cooperative
University of Washington Wetland Ecosystem Team
Scope and Definitions
The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.
The PSNERP GI Study Area was divided into 7 sub‐basins for analysis and reporting.
——————————
MY COMMENT APRIL4, 2013
Our oppression starts at the centralized federal government 3000 miles away.
Our elected representatives, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray are directly responsible for legislating UNLIMITED powers to FEDERALLY Appointed Agencies.
The mandates of those LEGISLATED, APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES, their laws and rules have nullified the power of our state and local elected representative to protect we the people.
——————————
ENACTED BY CONGRESS
• Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/
Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
APPOINTED U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, …
APPOINTED State Department of Fish and Wildlife
The Army Corp of Engineers have already done the SPATIAL DATARESTORATION FOR PUGET SOUND.
—————————————————–
I made an SMP comment about it under RESTORATION, Hannah put it under general comment.
——————————————–
History and Mission – Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem …
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/
Army Corps of Engineers initiated the “Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project” (PSNERP) to identify the problems and solutions for nearshore …
——————————————————————–
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration – Seattle District …
www.nws.usace.army.mil › … › Programs and Projects › Projects
The result was the PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT, …
APPOINTED State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the APPOINTED U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, …
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT IN PUGET SOUND
Executive Summary on Findings
NFWF Project: 2010 0060
002 Protect Puget Sound Shoreline Ecosystems
——————————
GSA AND ESA General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule Contract Number GS-10F-0191M
GSA contracting allows federal agencies to negotiate directly with ESA, take advantage of pre-approved services and rates, and generate simple delivery orders. The firm’s qualifications are pre-approved, so using this instant contracting vehicle saves time and procurement costs.
ESA offers the following general areas of service through GSA contracting: SIN 899-1 environmental planning and documentation, SIN 899-7 geographic information systems (GIS) and SIN 899-8 restoration and reclamation. Projects must be based in the U.S. or Puerto Rico and range from $100 to $5 million in cost.
Prepared for:
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
1133 15th Street N.W.
Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005 June 2010
—– Original Message —–
From: pearl hewett
To: zSMP
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:35 AM
Subject: SMP NNL AND PSNERP 373 page Restoration report
Comment on SMP Update
NNL and RESTORATION
Pearl Rains Hewett
Member SMP Update Committee
We have been advised that RESTORATION is not required by law on the SMP Update.
While researching NNL I found a report prepared by ESA Adolfson Margaret Clancy
Initial Findings from Clallam County Summer 2012 – date 9/26/12
Shoreline Planners Meeting a 39 page report (view the entire report on line)
My serious concerns on RESTORATION are from the following (PSNERP) report.
(it was mentioned briefly, in the 39 page report)
(PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND
This is not a casual report of restoration for mitigation.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
FINAL May 2009, GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND
While this 373 page, RESTORATION PROJECT has not been disclosed to us, I am requesting a discussion of it at the April 9, 2013 SMP Committee Meeting.
———————————————————-
As the Geospatial data is expanded, what serious consequences will it have for shoreline private property owners in the future?
——————————————————–
PSNERP PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
A 373 page report on the restoration of Puget Sound
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
—————————————————————-
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
Initial Findings from Clallam County
Summer 2012 date 9/26/12
Shoreline Planners Meeting a 39 page report (view the entire report on line)
Presentation Overview
What is No Net Loss?
Background on Clallam County’s EPA grant
Steps for assessing NNL
Examples for marine shorelines
Ensuring NNL moving forward
——————————————–
What is No Net Loss?
As shoreline development occurs, ecological functions stay the same (or are improved) over time
Some Complexities:
How do you measure ecological functions?
At what scale do you account for gains or loses?
How do you segregate the effects of SMP development from other activities that affect ecological functions?
Can you have development and still achieve no net loss?
Can/should we rely on restoration when funding for restoration is limited and uncertain?
How do NNL and salmon recovery fit together?
Goals of Clallam County’s EPA Grant
“Measure” shoreline conditions at the parcel and reach scales
Document how future development would affect shoreline conditions over time
Where, how much, what type?
Link potential changes in the shoreline ecology to specific SMP management decisions and tailor the
SMP to achieve desired outcomes
Identify restoration actions to offset specific functional losses (if any)
Share methods and strategies with others
————————————————-
Indicators everyone’s talking about them
Puget Sound Partnership
•
Willamette Partnership (EPA)
•
Oregon Division of State Lands (ORWAP)
•
Ecology (Chapter 4 – shoreline handbook)
———————————————————
Considerations for Selecting Indicators
Data readily available (now and in the future)
Relationship between indicators and shoreline functions
Correlation between indicator and SMP decisions
Measured with reasonable accuracy at reach scale
Build from Ecology & PSP (Puget Sound Partnership) indicators
Reflect conditions of importance or value
————————————————————–
Metrics that Indicate Shoreline Health
Percent of shoreland mapped as feeder bluff
Percent of aquatic area supporting submerged aquatic vegetation (kelp)
Percent closed canopy forest within 200 feet of the ordinary high water line
Forage fish suitability index
———————————————————–
Metrics that Indicate Shoreline Alteration
Percent of shoreline classified as modified
Percent of feeder bluffs with armoring
Percent of armoring outside feeder bluffs
Number of overwater structures
———————————————————–
NNL Assessment Steps
Step 1. What do we care about?
Maintaining shoreline ecological functions by protecting habitat forming processes.
Step 2. What are the components of healthy shorelines?
Marine Shorelines
Nearshore Functions
Feeder bluffs /sediment sources
Riparian vegetation
Aquatic vegetation
(eelgrass, kelp beds)
Pocket estuaries / stream mouths
Salmon (stock status)
Forage fish
—————————————-
Components
Selected as part of Inventory & Characterization Consistent with regional efforts
PSP Puget Sound Partnership a special interest non-profit
PSNERP PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
Ecology