Draft plan released for Sound recovery

The much-anticipated blueprint for reviving Puget Sound is a sprawling, costly and complex plan that would require the region to make changes big and small in how it grows.

Now, let the wrangling begin.

While the general outlines of the Sound's problems — and the solutions — have been known, the draft plan released Thursday offers a foundation for attacking the issues.

It's also a new script for the political debate that will accompany the plan as it becomes final and then moves into the 2009 state legislative session.

Weighing in will be developers, environmentalists, bureaucrats, scientists and citizens. Some already have.

A leading environmentalist expressed impatience Thursday, saying the region should move faster than the plan suggests.

"Let's get the money and let's make sure we don't wait for some magic moment to ask for it and find out that Puget Sound died in the meantime," said Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound.

A representative for business, meanwhile, expressed qualms about increasing spending amid questions about how effectively millions of dollars have already been spent.

"We're looking at this saying, 'Hey, if $2 billion to $4 billion a year isn't working, before you guys start talking about new taxes, you need to start looking at what's not working,'" said Chris McCabe, governmental-affairs director for the Association of Washington Business.

Underlying the spending debate is uncertainty about how much the recovery plan would cost. Officials with the Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency that released the plan, said they expect to have cost estimates when the plan is finalized Dec. 1. But the 96-page draft, on which the public has until Nov. 20 to comment, comes without dollar figures.

David Dicks, the partnership's executive director, said the group wants to hold off on asking for a new fee or tax dedicated to Puget Sound, until it can demonstrate more progress on recovery. But the group plans to ask the Legislature for an additional $200 million to $300 million for the coming two-year budget, on top of the roughly $570 million the state budgeted for the Sound in the past two years.

Key issue: development

The funding debate is just part of a plan that illustrates the web of connections among Puget Sound, how we develop the land around it, and government regulations.

Success, according to the partnership, hinges on protecting sensitive land from development, and reducing the damage when new homes and malls are built or old buildings are torn down and replaced.

Rather than a whole new body of regulations, the plan instead calls for better coordination of chaotic and sometimes conflicting government initiatives. It envisions a common approach to steering growth toward urban areas, selecting which lands to protect or which restoration projects to fund.

It also proposes a common set of goals — such as reducing the number of acres of shellfish beds closed by pollution.

"Everybody then is working off the same song sheet, instead of playing random instruments in a room," Dicks said.

One key, Dicks said, is stormwater runoff, the contaminated rainwater that flushes at least 52 million pounds of petroleum, toxic metals and other pollutants into the Sound every year, according to a state Department of Ecology study released Thursday.

The plan offers a laundry list of ways to tackle the runoff problem. Among them: Make it easier for developers to use new techniques to control stormwater; steer development away from forests and farmland, and toward urban centers; and buy up critical land that is at immediate risk.

Acknowledging that the plan would have to be undertaken in steps, Dicks said a top early priority was moving to secure pockets of the most important undeveloped habitat.

"If we lose those, it's over," he said.

While the plan doesn't spell out major new regulations, it does recommend some specific reforms, as well as beefed-up enforcement of existing laws.

One proposed change would be significant for shoreline property owners. The plan calls for requiring a new permit before bulkheads are built on beaches in front of homes — a reform the Legislature would need to approve.

Scientists and state officials have complained that their hands are tied when it comes to effectively restricting bulkheads that can destroy vital shoreline habitat. But property-rights advocates have resisted changes, arguing that the new requirement would burden people trying to protect their homes.

Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or wcornwall@seattletimes.com