Puget Sound 'action agenda' unveiled

Recession or no recession, the government must immediately redouble efforts to restore ecologically battered Puget Sound -- and that campaign should be part of the economic stimulus package promised by the Obama administration, state and federal officials said Monday.

The most ambitious effort to date to rescue the Sound, the long-awaited "action agenda," was released Monday to great fanfare. But it didn't include something everyone involved said is important: promised "benchmarks" that will allow scientists and others to measure the success of the restoration effort. Those will take six more months to develop.

The rescue campaign is supposed to deliver a Sound that is mostly clean enough for swimming, fishing and shellfish harvesting by 2020.

Gov. Chris Gregoire's lieutenants said she intends to defend spending for the Sound despite a two-year, $5 billion-plus deficit that's expected to trigger deep cuts in nearly every other budget category.

In fact, the restoration plan unveiled by a 1 1/2-year-old state agency called the Puget Sound Partnership actually asks for an increase in state funding of $199 million over two years. Current state spending on the Sound is pegged at about $400 million for two years.

Whether Gregoire carries the request for increased funding through to the Legislature hasn't been settled, said Jay Manning, director of the state Ecology Department.

"What I heard her say is, 'I am interested in making sure we continue to make progress on Puget Sound. I want to make sure this budget does that,' " Manning said.

But simply maintaining current funding for the Sound, he said, "would essentially be a ramp-up, because everything else is getting cut."

Officials also hope to persuade Congress and the Obama administration to fork out $50 million as part of the planned economic-stimulus package early next year, plus $20 million to match what's in this year's federal budget.

On Monday, Gregoire skipped the ceremony at the Seattle Aquarium where the Puget Sound plan was unveiled, instead traveling to Washington, D.C., with the National Governors Association to talk with the Obama transition team.

"I'm sure that as we speak, the governor is telling the president-elect how essential the cleanup of Puget Sound is to his stimulus package," Bill Ruckelshaus, chairman of the Puget Sound Partnership's Leadership Council, told about 300 government officials, environmental activists and others gathered at the aquarium. "The governor is as committed as ever."

His backdrop was a towering aquarium filled with coho salmon and rockfish like those found in the Sound.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., emphasized that the Sound is inextricably linked to the health of the region's economy, through tourism, fishing and other connections.

The rescue plan itself targets the upcoming federal stimulus expenditures.

"Ecosystem restoration combines the most labor-intensive aspects of the construction, engineering and nursery industries, meaning that more of the stimulus investment will flow directly into paychecks," the action agenda argues.

"Puget Sound restoration will require that investments be made throughout the region, including rural areas that have lagged behind in employment and wages."

Even the cost estimates in the plan, the partnership admits, are incomplete. But it notes that current shortfalls are large. For example, only 50 percent to 60 percent of the $120 million a year needed to restore salmon runs is currently being spent.

The 197-page rescue plan lists two threats to the Sound that could prove contentious. It says that artificial propagation of fish and shellfish threaten the Sound, as does catching too many fish.

"We now have a very clear understanding of what's going on with Puget Sound and what do we need to do to recover it," said David Dicks, executive director of the partnership. "Obviously, we have a lot to do."

The plan proposes more than 150 "near-term" actions and which agency is responsible for getting the job done. Examples include adding more Ecology inspectors to enforce shoreline regulations; buying or otherwise protecting environmentally sensitive lands; beefing up enforcement of laws to protect fish; and developing a plan to protect the Sound from invasive species.

It envisions overhauling the way developers make up for damage they do to wetlands, which store and cleanse water much as if they were the Sound's kidneys.

The plan also broaches the idea of a "cap-and-trade" system that would seek to harness market forces to limit the amount of ground covered by asphalt and shoreline guarded by bulkheads.

And it calls for cities to require "low-impact" development techniques to reduce the pollution from rainwater runoff. Such techniques include minimizing hard surfaces and incorporating big, grassy swales in places where they intercept polluted water.

Builders are willing to try this, said Sam Anderson, chief executive officer of the Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties, who also serves as vice chairman of the Puget Sound Partnership's Ecosystem Coordination Board. He noted that the state is saying the low-impact techniques should be required "where feasible," but that's not been defined.

"Low-impact development is something the building community has embraced for some time," Anderson said. "There's a lot of good reasons to do it. The question is now what and where?"

Other plans to restore the Sound have come and gone, without success.

"The main question now is the question that has been front and center throughout the whole process: Are we going to get the job done?" asked Kathy Fletcher, director of the environmental group People for Puget Sound, who led an agency that spearheaded a Sound rescue effort in the 1980s. She called the funding portion of the plan "weak" and said it needs to do more to help local governments.

The agenda released Monday says the public isn't sufficiently aware of the problems faced by the Sound to ask for an increase in taxes to help it. But it suggests that next year, the Legislature should create a taxing district for the region to fund Sound restoration, with the first taxes to be levied in 2011.

The Legislature's reaction will be key.

Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines, who heads the House Ecology and Parks Committee, said he would defend funding for the restoration. He recalled his scoutmaster's advice to "work smarter, not harder."

"We'll see some efficiencies made in Puget Sound efforts going forward," Upthegrove said. "In tough budget times, we need to do things differently ... and that's what this is all about, the action agenda."

Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, chairwoman of the Ways and Means Committee, was skeptical that any increase in funding for the Sound is possible.

"I guess I'd have to ask: Which hungry children are going to do without?" she said.

She said that "our priority is things that create jobs." Told that partnership officials are pushing the restoration as a way to create jobs, she said, "They know all the right rhetoric."

THREATS TO THE SOUND

The Puget Sound Partnership "action agenda" breaks down ecological threats to the Sound into six broad categories:

Habitat alteration: From clearcutting in the mountains to subdivisions in the foothills to construction of erosion-control barriers along the shoreline.

Pollution: Sources include cars, sewers and the filthy water that courses off streets and other hard surfaces after heavy rains.

Disruption of water supplies: Because of development and human use, the amount of fresh water entering the Sound has been cut by nearly 20 percent over the past half-century.

Invasive species: Non-native plants and animals that find their way to the Sound can overwhelm natives in the absence of their natural enemies.

Artificial propagation of fish, shellfish and plants: Hatcheries can reduce the genetic diversity of salmon and have other bad effects. Aquaculture of shellfish and plants can introduce pollution and non-native species.

Catching fish: Legal as well as illegal taking of fish has left some populations depressed.

Sources: Puget Sound Partnership; P-I research.