Governor budgets $10 million for ecosystems
December 21st, 2009 by cdunaganA few weeks ago, Gov. Chris Gregoire asked the Puget Sound Partnership for a list of important ecosystem projects that should be funded in her capital budget.
Following a review, Gregoire’s supplemental budget now includes $10 million for such projects, including a new bridge over Carpenter Creek, as I describe in a story in Saturday’s Kitsap Sun. The Carpenter Creek bridge, a high-priority project for years, turns out to be the most expensive item on the list from the Puget Sound Partnership.
What I did not report in my weekend story was the remainder of the projects. They include work on stormwater projects in Bremerton and Seattle, restoration work on the Nooksack River in Whatcom County and the Dungeness River in Clallam County, removal of pilings at the Asarco site in Ruston, and various other projects.
The Legislature always has the option of adding more money to pick up projects further down on the priority list or else cutting some or all of the money proposed. Here are descriptions of projects that made the $10-million cut:
Nooksack Tribe, Whatcom County, $746,508: Construction of stable log jams in the South Fork Nooksack to form deep pools with complex cover to improve holding and rearing habitat [Todd Creek reach phase 2 and River Farm Reach phase 1 phase 2]
Pierce County or Department of Natural Resources, $1.03 million: Removal of 2,300 pilings would allow for completion of in-water remediation of the Asarco Superfund site, Ruston. The Docks are on state-owned tidelands. This will improve substantially the shoreline habitat by removing 1.6 acres of over-water shading, removing substantial quantity of creosote from the environment and allow sediment capping to be completed, thereby making clean substrate available to the benefit of the aquatic life and also the community who will for the first time in 100 years have access to this mile long waterfront free of contamination.
Kitsap County (sponsor), $2.78 million: Carpenter Creek estuary restoration; remove blocking culvert, restore tidal function.
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Clallam County, $1.03 million: Build engineered log jams in Dungeness River from river mile (RM) 2.7 to 18.8 and in the Gray Wolf River from RM 0.0 to 1.0. Project would ultimately build approximately 120 stable log jams in 20 miles of main stem river.
Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, Whatcom County, $185,400: Barrier removal / Provide passage to 1.4 miles / large woody debris placement / 41 acres of riparian planting along 2,900 linear feet of stream and several adjoining wetlands.
Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, Whatcom County, $381,100: Middle Fork: Install 6 Large woody debris structures along 1.5 miles of Middle Fork in vicinity of Porter Creek; North Fork: Augment 20 large woody debris structures on 5 channel islands between Maple Falls and Welcome.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound, $1.03 million: Preliminary engineering and property assessments for a portfolio of priority nearshore restoration opportunities. This project will complete preliminary design work for a portfolio of projects that would be eligible for federal funding through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Seattle Public Utilities, King County, $824,000: Use low impact development techniques to reduce stormwater runoff and achieve TMDL implementation objectives in the most important subbasin of Seattle’s Piper’s Creek. Project will significantly benefit water quality, wet weather flow reduction, and salmon survival in the watershed. Implements action item Urban 4 from Washington State’s nonpoint plan.
City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, $1.34 million: Retrofit of streets and drainage systems in “ultra urban” downtown Bremerton using permeable paving, biofiltration, and bioretention low impact development strategies to reduce runoff to 303d-listed Sinclair Inlet. Demonstrating effectiveness and providing thorough documentation will offer guidance to future efforts in Bremerton and other regions. Project implements action item Urban 4 from Washington State’s nonpoint plan.
Various sponsors, various counties, $647,000: Department of Ecology selects the most ready-to-go projects from Ecology’s 2010 Supplemental Clean-Up Toxics and Puget Sound Remedial Action Grants list. All projects on Ecology’s list support Action Agenda near-term priority action C.5(1): “Continue to implement ongoing, high-priority remediation and cleanup projects”
![[Post to Twitter]](http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Tags: Gov. Chris Gregoire budget, Puget Sound Partnership, Washington state capital budget
Loading ...
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Glad Washington State is FLUSH with cash. I’d hate to think we had any budget problems. Let’s keep giving Congressman Norm Dick’s son, David, more taxpayer money to spend! Gregoire appointed David, so the least she can do is to let David have some more money to play with.
After all, $10 million only represents 100 teachers. It’s chump change.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
You are right Randy. And I see that $1.34 million will be going to the City of Bremerton. Those wise, thoughtful stewards of our taxpayer dollars. They are ever mindful of the community’s wishes and priorities. They show an enormous amount of respect to the process and go above and beyond exhausting every attempt to get the most beneficial results for the community on every dollar they approve to spend. Why just look at the practical, usable, functional items they have spent taxpayer dollars on lately…half a million for “Fish Art”. Wow. That is going to help the city’s residents so very much.
Yes, this is sarcasm for the two of you who were wondering.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Companies will be hiring for estuary restoration and log jam preservation!?!? Oh good!
Could someone email me the names of the companies who will be hiring folks to do that work? Many bright and talented young teachers across Kitsap County who will be out of work because of state education cuts may want to go apply.
Yes, that was sarcasm… but it is also likely to be reality for many school districts in Kitsap County in the coming months. I hope those salmon are comfortable and the beavers enjoy the man-made stable log jams.
(shaking my head)
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
This probably won’t change anyone’s negative feelings about these grants, but they are listed in the governor’s capital budget. Under current rules, this money cannot be used for general fund expenditures, such as teachers.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
The key there is “under the current rules”, Christopher.
Under the “current rules”, there is levy equalization for less property prosperous school districts to get a fair shake. The proposed budget eliminates levy equalization. Such would require a “rule change”. Under the “current rules”, school districts are limited to a 24% levy lid. Levies were intended to provide the ‘extras’ and enrichments in school districts. 24% is MORE than enough for that. The Governor is proposing to change “the rules” so that districts can go out for 36% in order to fund locally what should be funded by the State as it’s paramount duty. A convenient “rule change” for the state to shift it’s responsibility to local property owners instead of prioritizing the state’s revenue.
I appreciate what you are saying, but the rules are being made and changed by the same legislators and governor’s office for schools as those that say those rules can’t be changed for capital projects. Those rules could be changed for capital budgets if the legislature and governor’s office willed it with their votes.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:34 am
Hey Chris, can you call over to your friends at the Puget Sound Partnership and ask how much money the state will be spending on Puget Sound restoration in the upcoming budget? Thanks.
And – oh, by the way – those “grants” you list above… As you know, the State has been sued by a bunch of indian tribes and are under court order to replace fish-blocking culverts throughout the state, as a consequence. All of those “grants” to indian tribes should be revoked and spent on culvert replacement. Furthermore, no state money should be given to these sovereign nations until we – as a people – have replaced every culvert they have put us under order to address.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Also, under the “current rules” there are a significant amount of hoops, strings and limitations on State “granted” money. My experience with education funding has shown me that large amounts of state money given to local entities, with very little control, by the local entity, over actual spending of the money, creates an environment that is ripe for waste, abuse and promotes poor decision making by the individuals running the local entity.
This has been proven time and again in education, as well as recent City of Bremerton Decisions and past Port of Bremerton decisions with State taxpayer funds.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Could someone email me the names of the companies who will be hiring folks to do that work? Many bright and talented young teachers across Kitsap County who will be out of work because of state education cuts may want to go apply.
Christian Louboutin
December 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Capital projects are funded through the purchase of bonds (i.e. the state borrowing money). Lenders won’t sell bonds for non-capital items…it is not a matter of “current rules”. This money for Puget Sound cleanup absolutely could not be spent in the state operating budget. The funding represents a very small portion of the capital budget (much more goes to school construction). If we want to leave a health Puget Sound for our children, we have much more work to do. This small list of high-priority projects are just a start I hope.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
What I was referring to is that the sources of revenue are earmarked for capital projects. If there is enough money in the revenue funds to pay off current bond obligations, I was assuming that the “rules” could be changed to direct these revenues to other parts of the budget.
Does someone know if these revenue sources are locked into the capital budget, perhaps through contractual agreements with the bond holders?
December 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
After a 2 minute search, with my very un-reporter like abilities, I found this link:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget09/highlights/highlights.pdf
from the Office of the Governor to be very informative and interesting.
If you go to page 23 and 24 for Natural Resources, the funding is somewhat broken out between the General Funding-State (GF-S) Other Funding Sources and Capital Funding. Money from the General Fund is used to pay, in part, for these projects. I would be very interested in seeing where it is oficially reported that the money that comes from the General Fund could ABSOLUTELY not be spent in the state operating budget.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Don’t disparage “un-reporter” like abilities, Colleen. If you will recall our recent discussion about “environmental journalists”, you will know you are not likely to get fiscal oversight from members of that ilk. As the McIver Institute opined during the recent Climategate matter, “Unfortunately environmental journalists seem to think their job is to protect environmental organizations and promote environmental organizations,” (remember our local, “so, what’s new” dismissal?).
Let’s keep trying, though…
Hey, Chris, can you call your friends at the Puget Sound Partnership and ask them how much the State will spend on Puget Sound restoration in the upcoming biennium?
December 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
BlueLight,
We have been over this topic before. I am not for or against any environmental group, or any kind of group for that matter. I am not for or against government officials, but I do report on their activities, fiscal and otherwise. Generalizations about reporters aren’t very useful. As for your request, Cameron posted on this blog how to get the information you seek. Have you even tried?
December 31st, 2009 at 7:56 am
The Puget Sound Partnership was formed out of an acknowledgment that our recovery efforts had spawned a bunch of self-interested fiefdoms. The new state agency was supposed to bring coordination and efficiency to the effort. The reason I ask you to ask them the question is because it is your job to serve as the public’s watchdog over their state institutions and because the inefficiencies, ineptitudes and extravagances are as much the fault of the “press” as the bureaucracy. If you ask them, I believe, one of three things will happen:
1. They will give you a number that is wrong. (Under this scenario, I believe, they will under-report the amount. If you, then, report it, we can show that the PSP has not met it’s founding obligation.)
2. They will not respond. (So far this is the option playing out; our fourth estate won’t ask, the state agency won’t respond. Under this scenario, both the state and the press – YOU – are failing their constituents.)
3. They will give you the right number. (I believe this is the least likely of the three possibilities. One, I don’t think the PSP has a clue what we spend on Puget Sound restoration. Two, I don’t think the restoration establishment wants the public to know what that cost is.)
December 31st, 2009 at 10:52 am
BlueLight,
I can see where you are coming from, and I’d like to give you my perspective on your persistent questions. It will take a little time to explain.
When you first asked a question about funding related to the Puget Sound Partnership, I forwarded your exact wording to three or four people at the agency. I have not received a response, although a couple people said they would look into it.
I would like to investigate the overall issue of funding for environmental restoration, but the answer is not an easy one. Puget Sound Partnership does not direct the actions of anyone but itself. It is true that the agency was set up to recommend funding to the Legislature for all kinds of activities, but that process is still in transition. The amount of money the Partnership controls is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Puget Sound restoration.
The effectiveness of the Puget Sound Partnership, including funding issues, is a legitimate story, one that will take some work. I’m trying to decide when would be the best time to write that story, which is a bigger issue than the Partnership itself. Meanwhile, I have written numerous stories and blog entries about environmental funding — at the local, state and national level.
As for your personal request for information, I asked you to carefully refine your question before I submitted it again, and you seemed to take offense. The problem is, your questions have mentioned Puget Sound at times but have involved only Hood Canal at other times. You have mentioned all funding sources as well as the Puget Sound Partnership by itself.
While you were focused on Hood Canal, I suggested that you look at the project list maintained by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. You ridiculed that suggestion and admitted that you are going to have follow-up questions after your first question gets answered. At that point, I could see there would never be a simple answer to your pursuit, so I made sure you knew how to go about your inquiry.
I’m not saying you don’t have a legitimate point, no matter what your motives may be. I would like you to take up this issue with the Partnership and report your findings. I hope you will find the staff cooperative. If not, that’s an issue we can raise.
Regardless of your feelings about me, I am not ignoring the fiscal issues of the Puget Sound Partnership. I believe your focus is too narrow for the type of story I am planning to write at the appropriate time.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I have been reviewing all these comments lately and I am curious to know how many of you have ever written a letter to correspond with our elected officials to voice your opinion regarding your inquiries and concerns. Also, which particular issue did you discuss and what was the answer you received?
January 9th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
I have.
In writing to Senator Kilmer in regards to NASCAR and Education Funding over the period of a couple of years.
I prefer to do as much of my business in person that I can and have sought out scheduled opportunities to do so to the following individuals:
Derek Kilmer
Jan Angel
Bob Oke – rest in peace
Last week I publicly addressed the Bremerton City Council with my concerns about spending. Steven Gardner’s article with one of my quotes was published in the sun a couple of days ago here:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jan/07/city-purchases-old-westsound-bank-building-for/
Also I have spoken before the Bremerton School Board numerous times over the past couple of years. I September I wrote a letter that I submitted to all of the school board directors at that time. The Sun received a copy of the letter as well and ran it as a My Turn here:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/sep/26/my-turn-board-still-needs-lesson-in-listening/
And just this past Thursday both before and after the Bremerton School Board meeting I had the opportunity to have a nice long one on one talk with Mayor Lent about a number of things in regards to Bremerton.
But I do get your point Robert. I sincerely wish more individuals were involved like me. The good news, my participation is inspiring others. A very nice women approached me at the last school board meeting and told me she was there because of much of what I had posted on the blogs about education and more people getting involved. It was an inspiring moment.
January 9th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
dang. My cut and paste left of the “I” before “have”
Should read “I have”
Mr Dugan. Why are my comments still awaiting moderation on this blog. I have been a credible long term bloger, who uses my real name, on this site for several years. I have posted several comments on this blog to date and to be still on “restriction” is rather annoying.
Thanks.
Colleen Smidt
January 9th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Okay Colleen,
Who did you contact, what issue did you disscuss, what was your point of view and what was the answer you received?
January 9th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Colleen,
I’ve noticed that about half your comments go through without problem and about half are held for moderation. That’s what happened to your comments above. You are fully approved, so I don’t know why some of your comments are being held up. Are you using the same computer each time?
January 10th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
I’m looking at some of these projects and I see so much value – Sinclair Inlet, continuing with the Asarco remediation projects, Nooksack enhancements – doesn’t it make sense to continue work on these long, onging efforts at some level, versus stopping them all together until the economy recovers?
If we stop efforts, we may lose what progress we have made on some of these massive projects, and then when we start back up again, it would cost the taxpayer even more money to “play catch up.” I see some value in investing in projects that we have been working on for years. Even if it is just a small match.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Chris, how does this budgeting for ecosystems fit with the closure of DNR public areas, and parks – such as Mt. Si and Mima Mounds – which I read in the Olympian was also part of the Governor’s plan?
While I support projects, I also support public access. Do you know anything about this?
http://www.theolympian.com/stategovernment/story/1097106.html
January 11th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
groovyjoker,
I haven’t talked to anyone at the Department of Natural Resources about this yet, so others may wish to chime in. What I understand is that the DNR is losing revenues because lumber prices are down and the agency is deferring some timber sales.
Trail maintenance has been part of the DNR’s operating budget. I would say at this point that everything is up in the air on spending. I wrote a story for tomorrow’s Kitsap Sun about environmental priorities, and almost everyone in Olympia is focused on the budget.
I need to find out if our local trails may be affected.
Check out this explanation regarding the governor’s no-new-taxes budget (PDF 196 kb) for other cuts in natural resources. Tomorrow, she is scheduled to release another budget with new revenues included.
As for the closure of DNR trails, people can still walk on them. Maybe volunteers will do some work on them. I’m not sure about gate closures, but I’ll do some checking when I get a chance.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Chris, The two comments I posted, the one approved and the one not, were within 5 minutes of each other and from the same computer and I did not log out in between. So I am not sure what the hang up could be. I do miss the numbering of the posts from the old site. That way you could refer back to someone else’s comment by just referring to the number instead of having to re-type part of what they said.
I can see I need to bug Angela (Dice) about that again. The new “reply to comment” feature on the story comments have spoiled me. The lack of blog comment amenities feels like the Stone Age. Thanks for checking into it for me.
January 12th, 2010 at 7:43 am
Joker, the closing of popular trail systems is in keeping with the “hit them where they live” strategy to get public “support” for tax increases. The ready statement – should they have chosen to fund these trails – would be, “the state encourages healthy pursuits”. But, no. Money trumps. Every time.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
BlueLight, I am not seeing how taxes would help the DNR, which is not run by the Governor, but is run by a publicly elected official. I think Chris’ statement about the timber market being down makes a bit more sense. But you never know…maybe its a mix of both.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Speaking of blog comment amenities, it would be nice to be able to choose to be informed by email when comments are made on specific blogs. Or is that available and I just don’t know about it? Without that ability, it takes an awful lot of time to stay connected with multiple discussions.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Thanks, John, for your comments. I’m afraid there is no way to be notified every time a new comment is posted, at least as our system is configured now. This would be a nice feature, but most people do OK by checking once or twice a day. Since the list of “recent comments” is in reverse chronological order, it’s fairly easy to spot which ones you’ve read.
Let me take this opportunity to describe some of the features of this blog. If you want e-mail notification when now blog entries are posted, you can sign up in the right column.
If you would rather keep track with a news reader, you may subscribe by RSS, which gives you notification options based on the particular reader you use. An outside service called Feed My Inbox allows you convert RSS feeds to e-mail notifications.
Water Ways is now on Twitter, where I post a notice of all new blog entries plus a sizable number of items listed under “Water, Water Everywhere.” This is a feature at the top of the Water Ways page in which I list news stories, government announcements and research reports that may interest readers.
Of course, one may search all the blog entries by entering words in the search engine or by picking from one of the categories.
January 16th, 2010 at 8:00 am
After posting the previous comment late last night, I woke up this morning wondering if someone may have invented a way for a blog to send e-mail notifications of new comments. If so, we have never used such a thing at the Kitsap Sun.
I began searching the Internet for WordPress widgets related to comments. I may have found one that allows notification when new comments are posted.
If anyone has used this kind of WordPress widget, please send me a link to the blog (cdunagan@kitsapsun.com) or just add another comment here. I’d like to see how it works, and I will pursue this option.
Thanks again, John. I hope to be able to tell you soon that your will has helped me find a way.
January 16th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Chris, I haven’t used a WordPress widget for it, unless that is what Amazon uses on their comment notice.
Works really well.
Sharon O’Hara
January 20th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Your blog is now a pilot for Subscribe-to-Comments which allows users to subscribe to the comments on an individual entry. Let me know how it works.
B. Lewis ~ Kitsap Sun ~ Web Programmer
January 20th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Thanks…I’m looking forward to trying it. Right now.