Stormwater Tops List of Problems Preventing a Healthy Puget Sound

By Christopher Dunagan
Thursday, November 6, 2008

Action Agenda
See a copy of the Action Agenda at www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/DRAFT_ACTION_AGENDA_2008/Draft_action_agenda.pdf

Each year, 52 million pounds of toxic chemicals — nearly 150,000 pounds per day — are washed into Puget Sound when it rains.

That makes stormwater the most daunting problem facing those trying to save the cherished waterway.

That was the assessment of David Dicks, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, as he released the first Puget Sound Action Agenda on Thursday. Although the Action Agenda needs further refinement, Dicks said it will serve as a road map for protecting, restoring and cleaning up Puget Sound.

“We now have a single comprehensive plan,” Dicks said, adding that the Action Agenda will help turn the tide against pollution and the ongoing collapse of habitats essential to the survival of salmon, killer whales and the entire Puget Sound food web.

Asked to name the greatest threats to Puget Sound, Dicks said stormwater must be ranked first, followed closely by the loss of habitat.

The toxic “loading” into Puget Sound was revealed in a new report released along with the Action Agenda. Enough toxic runoff is spilled into Puget Sound from streets, parking lots and industrial areas to equal an Exxon Valdez spill every two years, according to the analysis.

“These disturbing numbers are putting more than 40 species in Puget Sound at risk, including the Sound’s orca population, where we just saw a decline of nearly 10 percent in the past several months,” Dicks said in a prepared statement.

Most of the stormwater pollution comes from small amounts of oil and petroleum products from automobiles. But toxic metals account for about a million pounds annually. Such metals include zinc from roofs and chain-link fences as well as copper from automobile brakes.

Once thought to be benign, it is now understood that copper disrupts the sense of smell for salmon, leading to confusion during critical migration periods.

Implementing “low-impact development,” in which stormwater is infiltrated into the ground on site, is one way to reduce pollution in new developments, Dicks said.

The Puget Sound Partnership calls to action every level of government, every homeowner and every business manager to turn things around, Dicks said. Much has been learned about the problems and potential solutions, but more work needs to be done before setting priorities for specific actions.

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, said he is pleased that the Action Agenda is now available for public review.

“It is a huge task,” said Rockefeller, chief architect of the Partnership structure. “I think the important thing now is to get started. It is not easy when you have so darn many things going on. But this is the first time anyone has taken a comprehensive look at Puget Sound and tried to integrate everything together.”

The Puget Sound Partnership was designed to offer carrots and sometimes wield a stick. In the coming months, state and local governments will be expected to make commitments to work on specific problems. The Partnership has been tasked by the Legislature to determine which entities are doing the job and to direct state and federal dollars accordingly.

“The final piece is the accountability system,” Dicks said, “which is a monumental task in its own right.”

No new sources of funding are proposed at this time, Dicks said, though the Legislature may be asked for an additional $200 million to $300 million for the next two years.

Jim Cahill, director of accountability and budget for the Partnership, said the total currently spent on the numerous Puget Sound programs is $572 million per biennium.

Redirecting some of that money to higher-priority projects is one outcome of the Partnership process, Dicks said.

“It will take a long-term effort to get things back,” he said. “We need to start with things that matter a lot.”

Asked for a specific example of a low-priority project, he said removing creosote pilings doesn’t always produce the greatest bang for the buck.

Actions in the agenda are built around four strategic initiatives:

—Protecting sensitive lands, including working forestland, farms and shoreline, while focusing growth away from ecologically important areas.

—Restoring degraded areas, such as estuaries, wetlands and marine ecosystems — including the implementation of salmon recovery plans that have already been developed for every watershed.

—Reducing water pollution, including that from stormwater, sewage treatment plants and septic systems.

—Coordinating efforts to restore Puget Sound by encouraging all agencies, organizations and individuals to manage Puget Sound as one complete ecosystem.

For information, including a copy of the Action Agenda and related scientific reports, go to the Puget Sound Partnership’s main page at www.psp.wa.gov.

Comments on the Action Agenda will be taken until Nov. 20. Two public meetings are planned, both beginning at 9 a.m.:

Nov. 11: Embassy Suites Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 15920 W. Valley Highway.

Nov. 21: Edmonds Conference Center, 201 Fourth Ave N.

COMMENTS

Posted by LuisBarrantes on November 6, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
[Stormwater was "the gorilla in the room that we came right up to and touched ... but nobody was willing to confront," said Brad Ack, who headed the state's previous Puget Sound agency, the Puget Sound Action Team]
He was referring (I think) to the fact that carrots didn't work the first time around and the politicians didn't have the backbone to "wield the stick".
Has anything changed?
For the sake of progress Mr. Dicks (both the elder and the jr), I hope that you've been swinging the bat around for practice a bit to get in shape for the task ahead.
Otherwise nothing has changed...

Posted by dahl on November 6, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You would think that $572 million a year would take care of the supposed problems. But as usual, more money will be allocated because Puget Sound will never ever be in the shape that enviromentalists deem passable. Just call this committee the Bottomless Pit. Problem solved when Pit is filled with money.

Posted by rgdimages on November 7, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It will cost money ... lots of it. The hardest problem will be new shoreline and land use rules somewhat consistently written among dozens of jurisdictions, and then fighting the inevitable lawsuits.
Smaller points, but it's a good time for the state legislature to define what stormwater utilities fees can be used for because they are going to increase substantially. Some properties now pay more stormwater fees to the City of Bainbridge Island than they pay in property taxes.
And floods have to be addressed. Seeing houses, barns, garages and cows floating down rivers every other winter can't be doing much for the Sound. I didn't see much in the plan to address those events.
Great visionary project and glad it's finally underway.
And as for the money ... when I see casino parking lots empty, I'll be more of a believer that people don't have the money to pay for a cleaner and restored natural environment.

Posted by dahl on November 7, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rdgimages,
"And floods have to be addressed. Seeing houses, barns, garages and cows floating down rivers every other winter can't be doing much for the Sound. I didn't see much in the plan to address those events."
Just like the global warming alarmists, they never address natural disasters such as volcanoes. Natural disasters don't pay taxes. Got to blame it all on the evil humans who will be called on to empty their pockets for a non-problem.

Posted by rgdimages on November 7, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Building on flood plains is a completely solvable problem. Elevate buildings and have a plan to move the livestock.
It's done in many parts of the world.

Posted by bremerton_business_owner on November 7, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've been told that everytime it rains in Bremerton, our sewers and storm drainage runs into the Sound. Access to critical areas to deal with the pollution are limited by the tide. That was the dual purpose of the Boardwalk. However due to the ecomomy, I think everything is on hold here in our city and projects like the Boardwalk seem far away. Sometimes I wonder if there is any way to save the environment and our Puget Sound.

Posted by dahl on November 7, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bremerton,
"Sometimes I wonder if there is any way to save the environment and our Puget Sound."
Save it? I didn't know it was lost.

FAIR USE NOTICE
Information provided here contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such information/material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.