Skip to content
Menu

Document Author: Ad Hoc Committee

2021 Ad Hoc Committee on NPDES Permit Condition S8 and SAM for 2024 permit

Summary: Condition S8, proposals for permit, SAM and the NPDES permit, SAM funds, contributions to SAM fund, what the fund can support, SAM studies for chemicals of concern

2021 Stormwater Permit Ad Hoc group for the Stormwater Action Monitoring recommendations to
Ecology for the 2024 permit revisions.
AdHoc NPDES S8 and SAM
The chair and co-chair have endeavored to include all comments and represent the intent of those
comments in these notes. Committee member’s level of support for individual comments has not
been evaluated at this time.
16 permittees and private organization representatives expressed an interest in this committee. 13
attended the committee meeting to offer comments. 2 offered clarifications to the meeting’s combined
notes.
The committee chair requested that participants read Ecology’s 2019 permit response to
comments regarding S8 and the permit Fact Sheet for background. SAM is in the process of
creating a history of how the SAM came to exist in its current structure so that future permittees
and others interested in the permit have the historic perspective. Co-Chairs takeaway was that
most attendees didn’t understand the structure of SAM or how it fit into the bigger picture – where the
money comes from.
They could use help clarifying the questions they have and collaborating with other jurisdictions
to turn their questions into a viable SAM proposal.
They are too busy and don’t have the time needed to take on getting educated enough to know
where and when to plug in.
A Request to fund studies of emerging chemicals as a priority, which SAM can do without
changes to the permit was clear.
Jurisdictions feel like they are doing a lot of sampling for a lot of different things. They aren’t
understanding the benefits regional studies have to their jurisdiction.
NEEDS for group discussions moving froward:
a history of SAM,
something summarizing beneficial changes implemented in the permit from SAM
studies would give the “too busy to be involved” staff something to use when talking to
their bosses about SAM costs.
Comments generally fit into one of these six topics:
1. Support and non-support for limiting SAM funds to studies within the permit boundaries.
2. Recommendations on who is/should be at the table in SAM and how to reduce the burden on
permittee volunteers.
3. Recommendations for reducing jurisdictions’ Permit-mandated contributions to SAM and instead
allow the jurisdiction’s contribution to fund local or more regionally local monitoring efforts that
support existing permit and TMDL requirements.
4. Recommendations to broaden SAM funding options and increase flexibility to allow SAM funds to
support studies and programs not currently considered.
5. Recommendations to prioritize certain studies to address emerging chemicals of concern
6. Comments regarding coordinating funding with other agencies
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2021 Stormwater Permit Ad Hoc group for the Stormwater Action Monitoring recommendations to
Ecology for the 2024 permit revisions.
1. Location and nexus of SAM projects to Permit:
Comments across the spectrum from requesting an audit of the funding program, further limiting the
funding criteria, and expanding the funding criteria.
1. SAM should widen the boundaries of what can be funded.
2. Conduct third-party audit of the SAM funding program to assess the degree to which the funds
have been spent for the purposes outline in the Permits.
3. Do not extending monitoring requirements beyond the MS4.
4. Do not fund SAM monitoring projects outside of the MS4.
5. Effectiveness studies that are run by the Sub-group are outside of the permit’s boundaries.
6. Limit SAM funds to permit authority and data needs
7. Don’t limit SAM funds to permit authority and data needs
8. Make sure studies support permit intent
2. Municipal Volunteer Staffing of SAM/SWG and who should be at the table:
These comments focused on the agencies represented and the time commitment involved. Praise for
the system and coordination, requests to include other agencies that routinely would with permittees
within their jurisdictional boundaries and responding comments that other agencies have mandates
outside of permit responsibilities, which may dilute their focus and understanding of the permitted
jurisdictions needs.
1. SAM is a great value for people who have no capacity
2. Great Regional coordination
3. There are too many groups, meetings and organizational requirements that compete for all
permittees participation.
4. Create credit (via fee reduction) for actively participating on SWG and Subcommittees.
5. Fund a contractor to take over some of the administrative tasks to relieve permittees of this
burden. Describe what body of work we could pay someone to do.
6. Cross overs on issues with other groups: Washington Stormwater center, STORM
7. De-silo federal and state agencies that we have within SAM. SAM should be broader than an
oversight committee.
8. SWG serves the purpose of removing silos between the agencies and acts as an oversite
committee for SAM. It is important for SAM to be run by permittees since it’s our money that is
funding the studies.
9. The Health Departments were not represented in Ad Hoc and SWG teams. They are critical
contributors to ground water quality and should be involved in these groups. The SWG should
invite them to table and make another seat available if needed.
10. Other organizations needed at the table: Salmon Groups and WRIA?
11. Salmon Groups and WRIA organizations may participate at the larger PSEMP organization level –
Is that enough?
2021 Stormwater Permit Ad Hoc group for the Stormwater Action Monitoring recommendations to
Ecology for the 2024 permit revisions.
3. Request for flexibility in monitoring requirements in the permit for local monitoring efforts.
This Group of comments offered suggestions for local programs sampling efforts that would replace the
pay in option for monitoring. The comments were focused on jurisdictions priorities, which differed
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
1. Broaden SAM Funding options and increase flexibility to allow SAM funds to support studies on
status and trends in additional types of receiving waters, education and outreach, research into
new BMP effectiveness and tools for addressing stormwater and emerging chemicals of concern
2. Allow local jurisdictions to spend some portion of the funds they are currently required to pay
into the monitoring to fund local sampling programs. Local sampling informs effective actions
that would result in more and better stormwater improvements than regional effort.
3. Allow local status and trends stream sampling substitute for paying into Ecology’s SAM program.
Do not include requirement or provision for local monitoring under S.8 outside of the MS4
4. TMDL/effectiveness monitoring at the local level should reduce the pay in amounts for S.8.
5. Local sampling to support basin planning should reduce the jurisdiction’s pay in amounts for S.8.
6. Include sampling of receiving water by local jurisdictions in lieu of paying into SAM funding.
7. Recognize groundwater as a receiving water and allow groundwater sampling as a status and
trends sampling that lowers the local jurisdiction’s amount that they must pay into SAM.
8. Allow local sampling groundwater for bacteria, nitrogen, Dissolved oxygen, and seasonal high-
water table in lieu of paying into SAM. SAM should identify groundwater as a receiving water
especially because of Ecology’s focus on the UIC program. Ground water sampling contributes
to stormwater knowledge, therefor it should either be funded by SAM or jurisdictions could
reduce their pay in costs so that they could sample locally.
9. Allow SAM monetary credit for becoming a Salmon Safe community, or at a minimum
coordinate the requirements and do not require duplicate effort.
10. Integrate Salmon Safe community requirements into or programs into the permit. These
programs have a more robust sampling and response to sample results program than Ecology’s
permit and should be recognized as such rather than requiring a permittee to run it as a
separate program. It is a dis-incentive to implementing local receiving water improvement
programs.
2021 Stormwater Permit Ad Hoc group for the Stormwater Action Monitoring recommendations to
Ecology for the 2024 permit revisions.
4. Broaden and add flexibility to what SAM can fund.
This group of comments recommended other funding efforts for SAM money. Several comments for
Education and Outreach funding, joining SAM funds with other funds for a larger project effort (no
specific project named), adding the WQ research, development of BMPs and other tools to the list of
things SAM can fund and sampling other receiving waters in addition to small streams, specifically lakes,
TMDL areas, rivers and groundwater. Some recommendations for specific studies of the efficacy of the
construction permitting and evaluating stormwater program staffing needs across permitted
jurisdictions.
1. Consider widening the definition of effectiveness studies, like funding Education and Outreach
2. Add SMAP Actions to SAM Effectiveness Study Topics
3. Portion some funding for outreach campaigns.
4. Permanently fund STORM with SAM money
5. Provides some funding to WA Stormwater Center for development/housing of regional tools
6. Use funds to develop modeling and GIS tools
7. Look at regional retrofit projects and SSC points to coordinate projects
8. Add flexibility to permit language so that SAM/local jurisdiction sampling can address all waters
addressed in the permit. Include sampling of all receiving waters in SAM to develop data for a
better understanding of how all stormwater impacts receiving water.
9. In addition to S8.A.2.a regional receiving water status and trends monitoring of small streams and
marine nearshore areas add groundwater sampling programs for stormwater effects Groundwater is
a receiving water in the permit, S2.A.
10. Ground water sampling should be an allowable type of sampling for SAM funds. We cannot
understand what is happening in storm and surface waters without it.
11. What other monitoring efforts could take on the advisory role and have SAM interact with Salmon
Recovery and PSEMP work (SAM is under the umbrella of PSEMP already; keep in mind permittees
outside the Puget Sound basin).
12. Broaden beyond effectiveness studies to include innovation studies/research and development of
regional tools and resources
o Tools to find the answers/pollutants and resources to implement them.
o Research would support TAPE or more, like emerging chemicals and treatment options.
o Examples: Nature Conservancy’s Heat map and Source control tools for SW
management.
13. Fund the development and maintenance of SWM monitoring SOPs (Ecology did fund monitoring
SOPs for stormwater grab sampling, statistics, and stormwater automatic sampling monitoring).
14. Study of Internal overburdened communities. SAM study to evaluate adequate staffing levels at
local governments.
15. Study that tries to understand the efficacy of the stormwater management construction oversight
processes
16. Add Study that tries to understand the efficacy of construction processes.
2021 Stormwater Permit Ad Hoc group for the Stormwater Action Monitoring recommendations to
Ecology for the 2024 permit revisions.
5. Prioritize certain studies on emerging chemicals of concern for funding.
Comments requesting that SAM focus funding on emerging chemicals of concern. Projects ranged
from identifying impacted streams, to BMP effectiveness. Jurisdictions are concerned overall with the
state of the science and their ability to successfully address these chemicals jurisdiction by
jurisdiction.
1. Funding TAPE to researching BMP treatment effectiveness for emerging chemical of concern.
2. Add 6-PPD Quinone as chemical of concern to all relevant existing studies.
3. Add pilot Capital projects for new chemicals of concern, (6-PPD Quinone, Nutrients (nitrogen)).
4. Specifically recommending that 6-PPD Quinone studies get priority because some jurisdictions are
concerned with what they may need to spend individually. Add additional points to ranking for
projects that include 6-PPD Quinone.
5. Prioritize other studies for Chemicals of concern: e.g., Nutrients, PFAS. – This could happen without
changes to the permit language.
6. Fund a survey for where pre-spawn mortality is occurring due to MS4 discharges.
6. General SAM Program Comments:
These comments were specific to the SAM project proposals. Recommendations to narrow the focus
and spend more on a high need effort, such as emerging chemicals of concern. Recommendations to
combine SAM funds with other funds in order to fund larger and more in-depth projects and
recommendations that SAM funds not fund projects that can be funded by other grant sources.
1. There now is a diminishing number of proposals submitted. Use SAM mechanism more effectively
to target areas and topics of interest.
2. Recommendation to divide the SAM funding into buckets (reminder that we just combined two
buckets into one).
3. We’d like to see Cross grant coordination while ensuring that SAM doesn’t fund things that are
funded routinely by another type of grant, such as a GROSS grant.
4. Expand SAM to incorporate other funding mechanisms (DNR, F&W, PSEMP)
5. Would rather have it be more competitive than fund studies with little benefit. Fund more
expensive high-quality projects. Recently funds were adequate to fund all proposals submitted.
There are concerns that these proposals weren’t high quality projects.

2022 Ad Hoc Committee on 6PPD Topic White Paper for 2024 permit reissuance

Summary: Permit Condition S8 and 6PPD, testing methods for 6PPD needed, Ad Hoc Committee ideas for SAM to fund, S5.C.2 Mapping and documentation of vulnerable areas, S5.C.8 SSC and 6PPD, treatment for 6PPD, S5.C.11 E&O and 6PPD, 6PPD and funding

6PPD Topic Group White Paper
Co-Leads
Melissa Ivancevich [email protected]
Doug Navetski [email protected]
The following report contains issues identified and recommendations by the 6PPD topic group. The report is organized
into topics, explanations of the issue, comments made during the meetings, and recommended adjustments or
requests.
1. Section 8, Monitoring and Assessment
The group identified the need for additional research in order to move ahead on controlling the pollutant 6PPD- Q.
There are currently a number of areas that need additional research, including fate and transport, sub-lethal effect
on various species, treatment and source control. Permittees need more information to effectively control 6PPD
sources, address legacy loads and develop treatment options. It’s critical that the limited municipal resources
available are effectively utilized, and Best Management Practices be developed and implemented efficiently. Some
of the areas of concern/interest include:
a) The group identified the SWG 6PPD subgroup as the nexus for information on 6PPD. Route
communications and discoveries through SAM.
b) There are questions about whether compost filter material is the most effective treatment method. Can
other filter media be as effective and not be a source of nutrient pollution?
c) There are conflicting studies about 6PPD persistence in the environment and if it persists after the first
flush events. Are legacy loads an issue that would require extensive cleanout of the MS4 system?
1. What is the potential importance of catch basin vactoring? Are tire wear particles captured in
catch basins a source of 6PPDQ?
d) As an initial step, could street sweeping be an effective source control BMP?
1. Would it be more effective to prioritize areas that discharge directly into streams?
2. Focus on potential higher-concentration areas such as stream crossings, rumble strips, curves,
braking, and curb hit areas. Tacoma has a study that shows catch basin sediments have higher
concentrations of chemicals associated with cars at drive-thrus.
3. Timing (e.g. coho spawning season and prior to storms following long dry periods with largest first
flush concentrations) may also be important for sweeping effectiveness.
4. Could previous studies be valuable in identifying areas where concentrations of 6PPD might
accumulate (i.e., King County’s Roads HotSpot study)?
e) To meet current regulatory standards, municipalities need EPA-approved and affordable testing methods.
These tests are needed for various aspects of the issue including to determine levels of concern per outfall,
effectiveness of treatment systems, and to determine needed maintenance practices.
1. Need EPA testing approval, analytical standard method for benchmarks, or can we get agreement
on levels of concern?
2. SAM grant to fund methodology study?
f) Do other parameters affect 6PPD’s effects?
g) Want to have a better understanding of the fate & transport of the chemical. What impact does
environmental exposure like sunlight do to the speciation?
h) What are the toxicological impacts to the marine environment?
Is it possible to include a moratorium for installing ball fields, or any other infrastructure (e.g. electron
dam?) that include tire rubber? Or a product replacement approach using an approved list of infill
materials?
1. Potential criteria: if there is potential to discharge to surface waters or for rubber to be physically
transported to surface waters.
There are concerns regarding the cost of sampling, scaling/proportionality for smaller communities with
limited resources, and the timing and quantity of sampling.
k) Concerns were expressed about not getting discoveries and solutions into the permit in a timely manner.
The current method is to fold new requirements into the permit every 5 years. There was support to have
a permit modification process to adopt actions to address 6PPD mid-cycle of the permit, if appropriate,
based on findings from SAM-funded studied.
Recommended Solutions:
Support the SWG 6PPD Subgroup and route communications and discoveries through SAM.
More research needs to be funded and conducted to have an accurate picture of the extent and level
of impact of this pollutant. Recommend SAM grant funding program prioritize studies on 6PPD,
impacts and treatment.
More research needs to be funded regarding sources, potential BMPs, and maintenance requirements.
o Need more research on sources. Tire storage, building materials, buried, etc.
o Study recently installed bioretention systems to see if they are effective as a control for 6PPD.
o Study retrofitting current stormwater treatment systems. Do current types of green/grey
treatment systems remove 6PPD?
o Could some BMPs be effectively implemented seasonally?
o Study effectiveness of street sweeping in removing 6PPD.
o Look at using modeling (i.e., King County’s Roads HotSpot study) to identify high priority areas
and high priority timing.
Develop a product replacement approach using an approved list of infill materials. Establish a deadline
for replacement of turf fields that contain crumb rubber? Potential criteria: if there is potential to
discharge to surface waters or for rubber to be physically transported to surface waters.
Study using the permit modification process to add new 6PPD solutions to the permit.
2. Phase I Section S5.C.2 MS4 Mapping and Documentation
a) Would a vulnerability study be of value? Mapping for high potential impact locations such as road
crossings, sports fields, etc. help identify locations to install treatment facilities (i.e., King County’s Roads
HotSpot Application).
b) Mapping should be a regional effort rather than a separate effort by municipalities to capture a watershed
picture rather than separate municipalities.
c) Regulatory authority ends at outfalls. Receiving waters are outside the authority of the Permit. It shouldn’t
be a mapping requirement in the Permit.
d) There is a prioritization-based approach to general stormwater impacts but seems like an efficient way of
finding trouble sites statewide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng2FacZ4-LY
Recommended Solutions:
Recommend actions outside of the permit, such as regional mapping to identify coho-bearing streams
and 6PPD-impaired streams (coordinate with WDFW mapping).
Identify outfalls that discharge to coho streams.
Identify 6PPD impaired water bodies and incentivize SMAPs for those water bodies.
3. Phase I Section S5.C.8, Structural Stormwater Controls
1. Some municipalities would be happy to implement proven technologies as budget cycles allowed; other
municipalities don’t have the resources to implement quickly.
2. Funding opportunities would expedite implementing technologies as they’re developed and proven
effective.
3. Incentivize to build treatment systems, pilot systems. Source control could be challenging. Extra point
concept? When mandating some other municipalities don’t have resources to fund.
4. Some would be happy to implement proven technologies but wouldn’t want them to be sudden surprises –
wouldn’t want it mandated. Budget cycle allowance to fund quickly without heartache.
Recommended solutions:
Prioritize 6PPD pilot treatment facilities by increasing the points awarded to a 6PPD SSC project by
increasing the multiplier.
5. Section S5.C.11, Education and Outreach Program
a) Some of the challenges anticipated include motivating drivers to move their cars to allow sweepers to
access the curb to clean the roads. Could Ecology spearhead a campaign to educate car owners to move
their cars?
b) Could outreach efforts on this subject be paired with currently mandated commute trip reduction efforts
for air pollution or transit promotion efforts?
Recommended solutions:
Include 6PPD as a general awareness topic.
o Target audiences include the general public, businesses including tire storage, sales and
recycling operations, and municipal government officials.
6. Funding
a) Could SAM potentially fund Operation & Maintenance studies?
b) Could a funding mechanism be put in place for source control, replacing sources?
c) Is there a funding mechanism we could use to replace ball fields? And what would we replace them with?
No data available on this.
d) Concerns may also fall outside of salmon waterways; we don’t know how it affects other species.
e) Recognize that any solutions need to be aware of municipal funding cycles, most jurisdictions are on a
biennial cycle and some capital programs plan funding program commitments to projects lasting multiple
years.
Recommended Solutions:
Access funding (legislative and new federal funding for salmon recovery) for 6PPD related studies.
Prioritize 6PPD-related studies in grant processes.

2022 S4F Ad Hoc Committee White Paper for MS4 permit reissuance in 2024

Summary: Permit Condition S4.F, burdensom reporting, G3 versus S4.F reporting, nexus between permits ISGP CSWP and Muni, Adaptive Management Reports and dispute resolution, TMDL versus S4.F reporting

S4F Topic Group White Paper
Co-Leads
Melissa Ivancevich
[email protected]
Doug Navetski
[email protected]
The following report contains issues identified and recommendations of the S4F topic group. The report
is organized into topics, explanations of the issue, comments made during the meetings and
recommended adjustments or requests.
1) The administrative burden for an S4F report is challenging for many jurisdictions because of
the process for meeting the G19 signature requirement.
a. A G19 signator is often a senior administrator or public official that requires approval
from multiple levels of management and accompanying documentation explaining the
need for the S4F report in order to get the signature. This is burdensome and time
consuming and can lead to a permit violation if the process takes longer than 30 days.
b. Some members of the group questioned the value of producing both aG3 notifications
and an S4F report for single-event incidents like spills. This concern is about single-event
incidents where the water quality implementation plan consists of implementing
current permit requirements with no need to change the geographic focus or change
any other permit actions in response to the incident.
i. Is there a way to address the water quality violation and to come back into
compliance with the permit for single event incidents that are already
addressed by current permit requirements that would not require a G19
signature?
ii. Is there a way to combine G3 notifications and S4F reporting into a single report
for single event incidents? Does Ecology need (use) the reports differently?
Could it be coordinated?
c. The S4F needs to be implemented equitably over the Regions. Currently, some
jurisdictions file lots of S4F reports, other jurisdictions file very few.
d. Need to ensure that Ecology has a way to ask for additional information for some
situations, how can they ask through the system? Concerns about legal aspects.
Recommended solutions: Some members propose combining the S4F reporting process with
the G3 reporting process for single event incidents. Some members propose that a G19
submittal for an S4F report not be required for single event incidents. Other members propose
to extend the timeline for submittal (i.e. within 7 days of becoming aware, notify Ecology you
will be submitting an S4F, then submit within 45 days) if the notification and signature
requirements remain unchanged. Because of the varied recommendations, the committee
recommends a follow-up conversation with Ecology.
2) There is a lack of clarity in the permit defining credible site-specific information.
a. Insert a definition of credible site-specific information in the definitions section of the
permit.
b. The definition should include the following:
i. The information must demonstrate the contribution of the MS4 outfall to the
receiving water using samples from the MS4 and samples downstream from the
outfall or samples taken from the receiving water upstream and downstream of
the outfall.
ii. Laboratory analyses should be done by an Ecology certified lab and obtained
through documented methods
iii. Field data should be conducted using calibrated instruments that have been
documented and using a documented collection method
iv. Documented observational data (photos or visual) can be used for oil sheens
and turbidity plumes when obtained by qualified personnel.
c. Qualified personnel:
i. Permittee’s investigators should verify the reported field observation(s).
Recommended solution: Add definition of “credible site-specific information” to the definitions
section using the conditions described above.
3) How to address the nexus between Construction General Permit/Industrial General Permit
and Municipal Phase I & II permits.
a. Benchmarks for Construction/Industrial Permit can be viewed as a G3 for the Municipal
permittees as the water quality standards are 5 NTU over background when the
background is 50 NTU or less; or a 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background
turbidity is more than 50 NTU.
b. The group identified the differences between Construction General Permit/Industrial
General Permit and Phase I& II permits. Permittees may or may not be notified of
CGP/IGP discharges that exceed benchmarks that are reported to Ecology. Some get
ERTS, others not.
Recommended solution(s): Ensure that all exceedances reported from CSGP or ISGP permit
holders be reported to the respective jurisdictions.
4) Currently there is no process other than a legal challenge to address differences between
Ecology and the permittee on the contents of the Adaptive Management Report.
a. Suggest adding a dispute resolution process for Adaptive Management Response
Report.
i. What are the boundaries, what does Ecology do now?
ii. The directives may include things that aren’t possible to do, such as extra
sweeping without regard to conditions like ice, etc.
b. Ecology requests additional information and/or actions that aren’t in the Permit.
Otherwise, Ecology would need to pursue a Permit Modification process.
c. Implementation Plans from S4F may include work outside of Implementation
Plan/Permit.
d. The scope has changed to include Capitol Projects and may be high cost for producing
new Implementation Plans.
Recommended solution: Insert the following statement into S4.F.3.b (Phase I & Phase II):
“If the permittee and Ecology have irreconcilable differences over the revised report then a
dispute resolution process can be invoked.”
5) Workflow process and timeline process for S4F reporting and the timeline for S4F.
a. Become aware, when does the clock start? What are the timelines for IC/IDDE and
complaint response and how does that tie into S4F?
b. Timeliness is a concern. Procedures for response create a level of insurance that
response will happen in a timely manner. Maybe put timeliness in Definitions? Also in
the flow chart?
c. At what point do incidents lead to enforcement plans? What are the discretion points?
d. Permittees (Phase Is and IIs) have the same timelines to respond to complaints.
Recommended solution: Add a flow chart as an appendix to the permit or as a Municipal
Stormwater Permit Guidance document, showing the process and timeline from receiving a
complaint to completing S4F remediation actions, including enforcement where needed.
6) Reporting S4F for discharges discovered implementing a TMDL. Already addressed under
TMDL or enforceable water quality cleanup plan?
a. What is the value of producing an S4F report for incidents discovered during a TMDL or
enforceable water quality cleanup plan? This concern is about water quality
implementation plans, implementing current permit requirements which will result in
no change to the geographic focus or change any other permit actions in response to
the incident.
b. Recommended solution: Do not require a notification under S4F or use a non-G19 S4F
(as described above) for discharges of pollutants that the TMDL is addressing discovered
during the implementation or a TMDL or other enforceable water quality cleanup plan.

2022 Ad Hoc White Paper: Proportionality/Scaling/Tiering and Permit Requirements

Summary: Alleviate proportionality concerns, 2024 permit comments on scaling, tiering, scarce resources and permit obligations, ideas to handle scaling with small staff

Proportionality/Scaling/Tiering and Permit Requirements
White Paper
Co-Leads:
Melissa Ivancevich, [email protected]
Diane Hennebert, [email protected]
This report contains issues identified by and recommendations of the Proportionality/Scaling/Tiering
and Permit Requirements (Proportionality) ad hoc committee.
The Proportionality committee convened to examine requirements within the Western Washington
municipal stormwater permits (Permits) that were disproportionately difficult to achieve for
jurisdictions, based on a variety of economic and land use characteristics, and to provide
recommendations that will alleviate some of those disparities.
Desired Outcome
The Proportionality committee first assessed concerns regarding the existing Permits. A common theme
raised was that as new requirements are added to future reissued Permits, permittees would like the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to take into consideration the timing of the new
Permit requirements and encourage menu options and/or regional programs to allow jurisdictions to
achieve desired outcomes in a manner that allows their stormwater management programs to support
and reflect their individual jurisdiction’s characteristics.
In addition, committee members encourage Ecology to consider whether some aspects of the Permit
may realize improved outcomes if deployed at a regional level scale instead of a municipal one.
Background/Rationale
The Proportionality committee identified shared concerns regarding Permit structure, clear guidelines
and resources for Permit compliance, and how different Permit programs affect each other.
Under existing Permit language, compliance can be much more challenging for jurisdictions with fewer
resources and smaller ratepayer bases. Complying with some requirements (specifically mentioned were
source control and social marketing) requires a subject matter expert not typically found in the
stormwater field. For jurisdictions with few staff and limited resources, developing and executing new
programs can be challenging. Expecting new programs that require highly specialized knowledge to
result in enduring water quality outcomes is unrealistic. As new Permit requirements are added with
each permit reissuance cycle, the strain increases to create and deploy new programs requiring
specialized knowledge while at the same time maintaining the high level of service required to
implement existing programs effectively. As stormwater programs continue to broaden in their scope,
the Proportionality committee recommends that Ecology look at opportunities for permittees to select
from a menu of programs that best reflects and suit their jurisdiction’s characteristics and needs to
support improved outcomes in meeting the Permit’s desired goals at a regional and/or jurisdictional
level.
New requirements within the Permit cycle often have coincident timing. In small stormwater
departments this creates a workload challenge. As an example, in the current Phase II permit the lead
time for SMAP and Source Control are overlapping. These are large items to move forward
simultaneously while also balancing the other program requirements of the Permit.
Options
Two strategies that the Proportionality committee proposes include the addition of more menu options
and increased compliance pathway opportunities to meet Permit requirements through participation in
regional programs.
Menu Approach
Using a menu approach for Permit requirements provides the opportunity to build a stormwater
program that best optimizes outcomes while meeting the needs of a jurisdiction. The committee agrees
that a data driven approach should be used in determining the appropriate menu item selection. The
Permit’s prescriptive program management approach that treats all jurisdictions the same, regardless of
their underlying characteristics, leads to inefficiencies, continued promotion of environmental
disparities, and poorer outcomes overall. By providing menu options each permittee has the ability to
build a customized program that can best support the characteristics of their jurisdiction.
Some of the ideas proposed that support the menu option include:
Allowing jurisdiction’s predominated land use characteristics (e.g., bedroom communities vs
those with more commercial industrial development), MS4 system type (e.g., open, closed,
combined), and receiving water conditions dictate menu option selection and program emphasis
o Potential to use data gathered and assessments used during the SMAP process as the
basis to support selection of menu option selected.
o Jurisdiction with large commercial/industrial areas get a “bigger bang” for the buck from
implementing a source control program vs. a bedroom community.
o Education and outreach; stewardship
Implications for Phase I counties’ greater Permit geographic scope (e.g., incur increased travel
times, more TMDL-related obligations, greater land use variability).
Implications for Phase II counties whose Permit’s geographic scope is disjointed (e.g., incur
increased travel times, SMAP, and SSC should it become an obligation in the Phase II permit.
Implications for economically constrained jurisdictions (I.e., small ratepayer base), particularly
program area fixed costs and acquiring subject expertise proves cost prohibitive.
The Proportionality committee pointed to the Permit’s existing catch basin cleaning alternative as a step
towards menu options that are supported by permittees. The committee would like to see an expansion
of menu options in the Permit.
Regional Programs
Regional programs offer many benefits for both permittee stormwater programs and regional efforts to
improve water quality. Regional programs provide the opportunity to provide consistent messaging and
practices across a larger geographic region. Regional programs also aid permittees in leveraging
collective resources which is particularly beneficial for jurisdictions whose resource base doesn’t support
the staffing levels and inhouse expertise necessary to easily meet the Permit’s expanding program
requirements.
Several large-scale regional programs exist in the south Puget Sound region (e.g., STORM, Local Source
Control). The committee discussed expanding these programs to cover a wider geographical area
(ideally western Washington) and allowing a pay-in approach to offer jurisdictions with fewer resources
a choice to access the benefits a much larger program can offer than they can administer on their own.
Some program area candidates identified include:
Expanding STORM for meeting education and outreach requirements.
Develop regional source control program agreements across jurisdictions.
Implement behavior change strategies across an entire region, meeting the social marketing
requirement as a group.
Regional decant facilities
The Proportionality committee felt it was very important to provide a meaningful choice for opting in or
out of a regional program. Opting out should not impose punitive implications to jurisdictions who see
greater benefit in implementing their own programs. Other aspects of the long-term operational success
of regional programs included determining an appropriate payment contribution schedule, addressing
volunteer fatigue, and devising ways to support active participation in regional groups by permittees
that have small staffing levels.
Conclusion
The Proportionality committee strongly recommends that future Permits include a greater variety of
options for achieving Permit compliance. Not only does this provide the opportunity to tailor
stormwater management programs to the needs of the watersheds and the communities, but it also
allows for jurisdictions to build the strongest and most effective program possible with the resources
available to them.

2022 Ad Hoc Committee Structural Stormwater Controls (SSC) Whitepaper

Summary: Structural Stormwater Controls permit action to improve WQ, permit flexibility for SSC, ideas for S5.C.7, S5.C.7 point system

2024 Ad-Hoc Structural Stormwater Controls (SSC) subcommittee
whitepaper
Please send questions/comments to:
Blair Scott, King County [email protected]
Angela Gallardo, City of Tacoma [email protected]
Introduction:
The best outcome for the SSC Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) discussions would be one that leads to
permit actions that improve WQ (WQ here taken to mean water quality and flow control, inclusive) and
creates flexibility for how structural stormwater controls occur. Local jurisdictions have the best
understandings of local stormwater problems and priorities, but don’t have enough resources to solve
all these issues. Such an outcome would:
a. Facilitate and reward the solutions that align with jurisdictions / permittees goals to
solve these issues.
b. Leverages work being done outside of C.5. Development and Redevelopment
c. Be clearly communicated in the Permit and facilitate clear and accountable compliance.
The current Phase I Permit S5.C.7 framework, while not perfect, allows for flexibility and an achievable
level of effort. Based upon the outcome of the Structural Stormwater Control Science Review and
Synthesis, it appears there is no scientifically based definitive answer for an appropriate metric to
measure activities for Section S5.C.7 of the Phase I Permit. Further, it seems that there is a lack of
scientific basis for making major changes in the current S5.C.7 framework. In consideration of this, the
following would be appropriate and recommended:
Ecology should consider additional scientific basis for changes to the S5.C.7 framework, beyond the
‘water quality benefits’ of individual SSCs.
It’s understandable that until there is additional information, the current multiple metrics provided in
the Phase I Permit’s S5.C7 framework will remain an imprecise, broad brush accounting of SSC
environmental benefits due to the scientific limits of quantifying these benefits (as described in TAC
white paper). The concern is that the point system has become a driver of priorities for SSC projects,
and this may not result in the most beneficial projects for each unique basin and receiving water. That
being said, the current use of multiple metrics acknowledges the inherent differences in the way each
SSC project type needs to be considered for WQ benefit measurement. The range and diversity of SSC
project types and metrics facilitates flexibility for local programs.
Incremental refinements to the current Phase I Permit S5.C.7 framework should only be made as
necessary, based on science and/or clear water quality goals and justification.
The following is intended to capture information from the SSC 2024 Ad-Hoc subgroup discussions for
consideration during the PAC discussions. This information came from group discussion in addition to
individual participant contributions.
Concerns/Questions:
Concerned with how arbitrary the point system is.
How do we account for a property with multiple SSC efforts occurring over time? For example: if
we purchase a property (SSC #5 Property Acquisition), then remove impervious (SSC #10 Removal
of impervious surfaces), followed by restoration of forest cover (SCC #8 Restoration of forest
cover).
Add clarity in this section to specify if projects implemented through other regulatory
requirements (i.e., Industrial SW permits, etc.) are eligible for credit
Consider a better way to value enhanced treatment projects
Does the current point application push projects to less developed/rural areas or more
developed/urban areas?
If added to the Phase II Permit, there needs to be more scalability in point requirements given the
large variability in size (geographic scope and ratepayer base), staffing, and budgets between
these permittees. Considerations for the unique nature of Phase II county permits which only
govern a portion of their jurisdiction should be addressed.
Preservation and Conservation (Rural/Habitat/Acquisitions) seems historically better resourced
than Restoration (Urban, MS4 runoff). When SSC credits are conflated across Preservation,
Conservation, and Restoration, urban runoff appears to take on a lower priority. This is likely due
to perceived costs, but has Salmon survival implications (triage of urban runoff) and Equity and
Social Justice implications (environmental justice/historically underfunded communities). How
can we reflect this reality through how various projects are rewarded in the SSC point system?
Land management appears to be more cost effective/politically supported than investing in built
assets to directly mitigate MS4 Runoff from existing development.
Will jurisdictions get credit for doing SSC projects prior to reissuance of the Permit? Maybe within
established agreement with Ecology or recent projects.
Could permittees get credit for incentives and support of private redevelopment of existing
developed parcels/TODs?
Credit for removal of impervious surface should not be contingent upon restrictions to future
development. Any future installation of impervious surface would be required to install
stormwater controls per development standards, yielding a net benefit vs. existing untreated
impervious. Restricting future development will greatly curtail the use of this SSC.
Why does the point system, plus past project cost information from the Phase 1 permittees (35
projects), yielded a range of $4000/point and $839,000/point?
General Comments for further discussion in the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC):
• The SSC Ad Hoc topic group recommends minimal change until the Permit(s) articulate a
clear goal for defining level of effort expectations for the SSC requirement.
• The SSC Ad Hoc topic group recommends that the PAC consider adjusting multipliers as a
way to ensure they reflect actions that result in WQ improvements. The examples below
illustrate adjustments to consider:
o When comparing other SSC project types, the basis for the Incentive Factor assignments
become even more uncertain. How to value flow control versus treatment? How to
value other project types relative to each other?
o The same number of points are awarded to a one-acre roadway project that provides
enhanced treatment whether the roadway is a rarely travelled rural roadway or a highly
travel arterial in an industrialized urban area. Although both projects receive the same
points, the industrial roadway project most likely has a greater environmental benefit
but is also likely to cost significantly more. A stormwater manager faced with limited
funding may be forced to prioritize the rarely travelled rural roadway project to get
points to meet the Phase I Permit’s S5.C.7 requirements.
o Rewarding projects that address 6PPDE-q through the SSC point multipliers based on
criteria to target areas where treatment is triggered.
The difference in cost (Dollars per point variance) between types of projects should be
considered by the PAC.
• Orient focus more on stormwater program-related priorities outcomes achieved rather
than credit for activity categories. For example, for Phase IIs this would allow
actions/investments to support priorities identified in SMAP efforts and comp planning,
providing a more context sensitive approach that reflects variation among permit’s land
use characteristics, water resource and non-riverine flooding challenges, etc.
• Some (many?) members of the The SSC Ad Hoc topic group are supportive of the
development of a Regional SW retrofit fund, possibly through a method such as that set
forth by the Regional Priorities and Incentives Ad Hoc subgroup, as long as there are
meaningful protections in place to opt in or out (i.e., doesn’t include punitive measures
and allows permittees to focus on local values and needs). We recommend this idea be
discussed further in the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
o Example questions to be discussed:
â–ª How do regional SW retrofit priorities get set?
â–ª How are the proportional funding contributions/credits calculated?
â–ª How are costs associated with ongoing operations and maintenance
allocated?
â–ª What legal constraints may exist for some jurisdictions in funding
projects sited outside their jurisdictional boundary, including projects
benefiting receiving waters beyond their jurisdictional boundary.
â–ª How would SSC point credits be allocated?
• Maintenance requirements for ensuring SSC projects continue to provide intended
benefit:
o Recommendations:
• Recommendations for annual reporting requirements for SSC:
Phase I comments:
• If the SSC program points needed for compliance are going up, we may want to consider
more enhanced maintenance options.
• Some jurisdictions purchased HE sweepers for SSC. Concerned introducing a sweeping
Permit requirement under O&M will reduce opportunities to achieve SSC points through
these actions; will the sweeping requirements only be a portion of the permit areas so
anything above and beyond would still be eligible to accumulate SSC points?
(Coordinate with O&M) More flexibility in handling obstructions and tracking would be
helpful (state objectives and not specify methods).
• Pipe flushing points questionable, will those change (coordinate with O&M)
• Are there specific BMPs that merit their point allocation to be dramatically increased?
While a review and overhaul of the whole point system may be too big of a task,
refinements to the some (e.g., land acquisition) might be an achievable exercise
• The PAC should discuss what a reasonable total number of points that will demonstrably
improve water quality could entail.
• SSC-type requirements coming from other directions.. (e.g., TMDL, etc.) retrofits should
get credit regardless of the underlying driver
• Will implementing SMAP actions in the next Phase II permit be eligible for points should
the SSC become a Phase II permit requirement. If so, will points have multiplier in SMAP
priority basins? For regional cooperation?
• Summarized categories of questions = point totals, multipliers, and what projects get
credit

2022 Ad Hoc Committee on Overlapping Regulations White Paper

Summary: Ad Hoc regulation overlap, reglatory coordination; UIC rule and the permit, MS4 mapping and documentation regulations, point of compliance and geographic area of permit coverage, NPDES permits overlap, MS4 and MCTA overlap

WHITE PAPER
2024 NPDES Stormwater General Permit Reissuance Ad Hoc Committee – Overlapping
Regulations
Background
Catalyzed by the 2018 Ad Hoc Process, the Washington State Department of Ecology requested
an Ad Hoc Process for the 2024 Permit Reissuance. The Ad Hoc Process is meant to provide
Ecology with a series of white papers that provide suggestions on Permit changes.
The Overlapping Regulations Ad Hoc Committee was made up of the following committee
members:
Name
Jurisdiction/Affiliation
Lori Blair
Boeing
Dana Zlateff
City of Everett
Scott McQuary
City of Redmond
Stephanie Sullivan
City of Sammamish
Royce Young
City of DuPont
Andrew Wargo
Skagit County Planning and Development Services
Jenna Friebel
Skagit Drainage and Irrigation District Consortium
Jeremy P. Graham
City of Olympia
Kenneth Burkart
City of Tacoma|Environmental Services Department
Jane Dewell
Port of Seattle
Tarah Erickson
Boeing
Heather Griffin
City of Everett
Elsa Pond
WSDOT
Bill Leif
Snohomish County Conservation and Natural
Cory Olson
Snohomish County Conservation and Natural
Timmie Maturan-Lee
Washington Military Department
Garrett Starks
WSDOT
Michelle Perdue
Kitsap County
The Ad Hoc Committee participated in a series of 5 meetings with follow-up email
communication to develop this White Paper. The Ad Hoc Committee came to a consensus to
focus on the following Issues/Concerns/Suggestion.
2024 NPDES Stormwater General Permit Reissuance Ad Hoc Committee – Overlapping
Regulations
Issue 1: Ecology coordination with other Agency Staff, Regulators, and Agencies
The Municipal Stormwater Permit requires permittees to navigate directly with multiple
Department of Ecology programs including TMDL (Water Cleanup Plan) staff, Spills/ERTS staff,
Construction inspection staff, Water Quality Program staff, and MTCA staff, etc. It seems many
of these programs aren’t directly aware of the rules and laws that govern outside of their own
programs and disciplines.
In addition, Permittees get different answers to issues and concerns depending on which State
Agency or Ecology Program is involved. The answer or reasoning received by one Permittee
may be in conflict with another state regulation or Permit requirement.
Suggestion to address Issue 1:
Ecology coordinate among other agencies and department staff to discuss state and
federal regulations and how they relate and or conflict with each other.
Ecology develop an interdisciplinary team that would include permit writers, managers,
TMDL, spills/ERTS, construction, MTCA and water quality program staff. Consider
hosting a meeting with stakeholders to develop a list of gaps and issues that Ecology and
Permittees could begin discussing and addressing.
Ecology provide guidance on overlapping regulations and how they relate to the
Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Issue 2: UIC Rule and the Permit
Issue 2.1 UIC rule
The Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit) lacks clarity on interface between UIC
program and Permit.
An email was received from the Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (Mary Shaleen
Hansen) in June 2021, that informed Permittees:
If the Permittee uses UIC wells to manage your stormwater, then they must be included in either
your Stormwater Management Program (SWMP), required by a Phase I or Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit), or you must use one of the following approaches or a combination of
approaches:
A separate SWMP created for your UIC wells; or
A stormwater site plan for the area served by each municipal UIC well,
as described in our 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume 1-
4.4, at 2019SWMMWW – Meeting the Non-Endangerment Standard (wa.gov) or the 2019
Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington, Chapter 5.6.4.
2024 NPDES Stormwater General Permit Reissuance Ad Hoc Committee – Overlapping
Regulations
There is no mention of UICs in the Permit, and as a result, responsibility of Permittee is unclear.
Ecology has provided trainings and may have a specific intention related to UIC and Permit, but
if it’s not clear in the Permit and the Permittee is left to interpret the intent, many problems
can result.
Suggestion to address Issue 2.1:
Ecology provide clarity related to UIC Rule the Permittee responsibility within the Permit
on how these overlap.
Ecology specifically state how the Permit interacts with other regulatory programs.
Ecology incorporate elements of Doug Howie PowerPoint presentation related to
distinction between MS4 Permit and UIC into guidance for Permittees.
Issue 2.2 UIC related to developers
The requirements and sequencing of approvals are unclear for developers installing a UIC as
part of a development project regarding Ecology’s UIC program and a City’s review under the
Permit Minimum Requirements.
Suggestion to address Issue 2.2
Ecology provide guidance on overlapping requirements and sequencing of approvals for
developers using UIC's to comply, wholly or partially, with Permit Minimum
Requirements.
Issue 3: MS4 Mapping and Documentation
The definition of receiving water in the Permit is ‘…naturally and/or reconstructed naturally
occurring surface water bodies, such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and
marine waters, or groundwater, to which an MS4 discharges.’
In some cased, there are Secondary Permittee’s such as a Drainage District, where their MS4 is
also considered a receiving water and therefore the boundary of the Permit is unclear.
Suggestion to address Issue 3:
Ecology clarify how the Permittees address mapping MS4 and receiving water in the
above situation. If Ecology elects to convene an Interdisciplinary Team (see issue 1
above), this topic is recommended to be included.
Ecology clarify point of Permit compliance when receiving water is also a permittees’
MS4, especially in relation to S4.F.
Ecology provide specific mapping guidance as an Appendix to the Permit.
2024 NPDES Stormwater General Permit Reissuance Ad Hoc Committee – Overlapping
Regulations
Issue 4: MS4 Point of Compliance and Geographic Area of Permit Coverage
The Permit is applicable to owners and operators of the MS4 and the geographic area of Permit
coverage is listed in S1.A. A Permittees is only responsible for point source discharges from its
MS4, however, in Permit language and Ecology staff interpretations and communications there
have been conflicts. Some sections of the Permit clearly specify “discharge to MS4”, where
other sections of the Permit lack this language.
In addition, clarification is needed in use of geographic area and MS4, as an example S5.A.1:
The Permittees SWMP shall be implemented throughout the geographic areas subject to this
Permits as described in S1.A. It is unclear if the SWMP is applied to the entire geographic area
or the geographic area that is directly connected to the MS4. There may be areas of a
jurisdiction that enters the receiving waters directly with no MS4 connection.
Suggestion to address Issue 4:
Ecology clarify Permit requirements tied to MS4 discharge area, whether strictly MS4 or
larger geographic area.
Ecology ensure consistent interpretation among Permit Coordinators with Permittees
across the region.
Issue 5: Source Control Permit Requirements
The Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, Industrial Stormwater General Permit, and
Secondary Permittees have various obligations related to source control. It is not clear how and
if responsibilities should be shared between overlapping areas and between Secondary
Permittees.
Solution to address Issue 5:
Ecology clarify how source control requirements are blended or enforced with industrial
Permit holders; i.e., is there opportunity between the Permittees to achieve source
control goals without duplicating efforts.
Ecology clarify Permit obligations on industrial and construction sites in relation to
source control BMP implementation and enforcement when those sites also have
Industrial and Construction Stormwater general permits coverage.
Ecology develop guidance on source control coordination, Ecology involvement, and
enforcement regarding overlapping Permit coverage.
Issue 6: Various Permits and role of Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit
Issue 6.1 Construction General Permit
Projects with a Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSGP) may be authorized under that
permit to discharge elevated turbidity runoff to a municipal permit drainage system (MS4)
where that same higher turbidity discharge could violate the turbidity state surface water
2024 NPDES Stormwater General Permit Reissuance Ad Hoc Committee – Overlapping
Regulations
quality standard (WAC 173-201A-210(1)(e)) a municipal permittee must comply with (S4.B). The
CSGP turbidity compliance thresholds are delineated as; < 25 NTU = compliant, 25-250 NTU =
take action to address problems and note in monthly report, > 250 NTU = take action & report
to ECY within 24hrs. Take for example a construction site discharging 250 NTU runoff into an
MS4 and reports it to Ecology 23 hours after discovery. During this time the turbid construction
runoff could be causing a surface WQ violation downstream as it discharges from the municipal
permittee’s MS4 into the receiving water. This same scenario can also occur at less than 25 NTU
if the receiving water background NTU level was low compared to the MS4 discharge NTUs. In
this scenario the municipal permittee might not ever know about their municipal permit
violation that could technically be considered a compliant discharge on the part of the
construction permittee. Ideally, the CSGP permit would state that CSGP permittees must report
high turbidity (and other) discharge concerns directly to the MS4 receiving the discharge. All
municipal permittees are required to have a phone number (hotline) that is set up to receive
reports related to illicit discharges. If there is language in the current permit that can clarify this
permit compliance overlap then it would help to make it more prominent in future updates.
Solution to address Issue 6.1:
Ecology clarify language in future CSGP to require notifying the MS4 Permittee when
turbidity exceedance occurs.
Ecology clarify the Municipal Permit responsibilities regarding connectivity between
various Ecology issued permits.
Ecology clarify if Permit section ‘S5.C.5(c)(i)(l) Non-stormwater discharges authorized by
another NPDES or state waste discharge permit’ applies to the CSGP.
Issue 6.2 Industrial Permit and Stormwater Treatment
The Industrial Stormwater General Permit holder may need to construct stormwater treatment
facilities to meet their Permit requirements, but in some instances that treatment may not
fulfill Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements.
Solution to address Issue 6.2:
Ecology clarify in both the Industrial Stormwater General Permit and Municipal
Stormwater Permit that one Permit does not necessarily fulfill compliance with the
other Permit.
Ecology clarify how discharges authorized by one NPDES or state waste discharge permit
applies to the Industrial Stormwater General Permit.
Ecology define what stormwater BMPs (flow control and water quality) meet Industrial
Permit discharge needs and Permittee Minimum Requirements for redevelopment
and/or development triggers. Recommend Ecology SWMMWW BMPS are defined that
intend to meet both Industrial and MS4 Permit objectives where applicable.
Issue 7: MTCA and Permit Compliance
2024 NPDES Stormwater General Permit Reissuance Ad Hoc Committee – Overlapping
Regulations
There is inconsistency between Ecology MTCA and WQ groups regarding interpretation of
guidance related to NPDES Permits. This includes confusion on how MTCA actions intersect
with Phase II Municipal Permit obligations. Typically, local permits (which address stormwater
Permit requirements) are procedurally exempt as part of MTCA process. Thus how are
compliance related programmatic tracking and inspections, required by Phase II Municipal
Permit, adhered to when this process is circumvented? No language in the Phase II Municipal
Permit currently addresses MTCA.
It is also important to understand where MTCA-type projects end and re-development and
development begins. The exemption to local permits under RCW 70.105D.090 only applies to
remedial actions. However, there are often Agreed Orders that require stormwater facility and
capping to meet remediation goals to not disturb the site in future, although these could be
considered new or re-development projects.
Solution to address Issue 7:
Ecology provide clarification on how MTCA applies to the Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Ecology staff coordinate and develop guidance on how the Permit and MTCA related
requirements interact.
Ecology establish clear guidance on how the Municipal Stormwater Permit and MTCA
substantive requirements are complied with, especially in cases where local permits are
“exempt”.

2022 TMDL Ad Hoc Committee White Paper for MS4 reissuance

Summary: Ad Hoc TMDLs, TMDL standardization, variability in WRIA requirements, TMDL intersection with MS4

2024 Western Washington Municipal Stormwater General Permit Reissuance
Ad Hoc White Paper: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
The TMDL Ad Hoc Committee convened in October 2021 and met five times to prepare this white paper.
The paper strives to provide thoughtful input to Ecology to help inform development of the reissuance
of the 2024 Permits.
The TMDL Ad Hoc Committee members include:
Name
Jurisdiction/Affiliation
Amanda Royal
City of Bothell
Dana Zlateff
City of Everett
Paul Marrinan
City of Puyallup
Ken Gill
City of Shelton
Aislin Gallagher
Kitsap County
Tim Hagan
Pierce County
Larry Schaffner
Thurston County
Elsa Pond
WSDOT
Jenna Friebel
Skagit Drainage and Irrigation District Consortium
Eleanor Hines
North Sound Bay Keeper
The TMDL Ad Hoc group believes improving foundational clarity in process, as well gaining clarity as to
Ecology staff’s various roles and responsibilities in these processes will provide mutual benefits and
improve long-term outcomes. This white paper categorizes four themes and provides recommendations
for each.
Standardize and Documentation Process(es)
Processes surrounding development and deployment of Washington State’s Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) and associated water quality cleanup plans remain largely unknown to the regulated
community. Our experiences reveal that Ecology employs a decentralized approach, whereby their
regional offices administer many of these related programs independently. Perhaps this explains why
MS4 Permit-related Appendix 2 actions can vary substantially from WRIA-to-WRIA and jurisdiction-to-
jurisdiction regardless of whether the pollutants arise from similar situations/settings. The Ad Hoc group
requests Ecology to address the following:
a. Standardize, document, and convey Ecology’s process for selecting applicable water quality
cleanup plan actions for inclusion into MS4 Permit Appendix 2 required actions.
b. Provide guidelines (i.e., fact sheets, templates, BMP menus) for TMDL writers with the aim of
standardizing, by MS4 cause/effect types, actions for inclusion in TMDL water quality cleanup
plans and consideration for Appendix 2.
c. Provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement and involvement to help inform TMDL and
water cleanup plan development priorities, especially those where MS4 discharges have been
identified as a pollutant source.
d. Provide opportunities for MS4 Permittees and stakeholders engagement and involvement in the
development of the MS4 Permit’s TMDL-related obligations in advance of the release of the
MS4 permit public review draft.
e. Establish a policy which sets the timeframe for Ecology response for TMDL-related documents
submitted by Permittees for Ecology’s review and approval by which the absence of an Ecology
response within that specified timeframe results in the submittal’s presumed approval.
Clarify ongoing TMDL-related programmatic obligations that don’t sunset (e.g., operations &
maintenance) vs. those that are more discrete in time and space with a specific endpoint (e.g.,
installing a prescribed stormwater capital facilities project). This information has value for
informing Permittee’s planning, program development, and budgeting in deploying these
actions.
g. Post-Permit issuance, convey the process for Permittees to engage Ecology staff on existing
TMDL-relate obligations during the current permit cycle, including the applicable Ecology point
of contact(s).
h. Document and communicate the approach MS4 Permittees should take to translate fecal
coliform-related MS4 permit obligations to E. coli.
Establish guidance and end targets on when an Appendix 2 action can stop end vs. those
considered ongoing in nature which is critical for permittee program planning and funding
decisions.
Roles and Responsibilities
Communicating clear roles and responsibilities for Ecology staff would mitigate some of the continuity
challenges created by staff turnover and the inherent case-by-case nature of TMDL development and
implementation.
Clarify and communicating roles and responsibilities within Ecology from TMDL prioritization
through development, permitting, implementation, and effectiveness evaluation.
Unsubstantiated Variability in Appendix 2 Actions
Some Appendix 2 requirements unjustifiably vary from WRIA to WRIA for identical or very similar
circumstances. Not only can the level of effort often vary for the same pollutant parameter sources, but
the Appendix 2 actions also can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the TMDL’s WRIA.
k. Include consistent Appendix 2 actions for like causes/effects situations (i.e., pollutants and their
sources) as described in the TMDL’s water quality cleanup plan.
The proportionality of the permittees’ Appendix 2 actions should take into consideration the
Permittee’s MS4 contributing area relative to the water quality implementation plan’s identified
MS4-related sources.
m. To avoid redundancy, only actions that go beyond the MS4 Permit’s existing S5 program
requirements should be candidates for inclusion in Appendix 2.
TMDL MS4 Nexus
While some Appendix 2 actions focus on MS4 discharge-related sources within the Permittee’s control,
other actions do not have such a nexus (e.g., receiving water monitoring regardless of MS4 source
contributions).
n. Ecology MS4 Permit staff, in collaboration with TMDL writers, should work closely in
determining the appropriateness of the TMDL-related obligations considered for inclusion in the
MS4 Permit.
o. Appendix 2 actions need to: 1) have an established tie to the permittee’s MS4 ownership and
operational responsibilities; and 2) address the Permittee’s MS4 discharge(s) impact(s) on the
TMDL’s water body impairment.
p. Only consider TMDL monitoring-related requirements for inclusion in Appendix 2 in instances
where MS4-related discharges were identified as causing or contributing to the waterbody’s
impairment in the TMDL’s water quality cleanup plan.1
1 For example, it’s appropriate to consider the inclusion of source tracing-type monitoring in instances where the
pollutant source discharging from the MS4 was unknown at the time of the water quality plan’s development.
However, characterization, status & trends, and TMDL cleanup effectiveness monitoring should occur at the
discretion of the Permittee when they determine it’s in their interest to help support Ecology’s Environmental
Assessment Program’s roles and responsibilities in these areas.

2022 Stormwater Management Action Plans Ad Hoc Committee White Paper

Summary: SMAP action plan, 2024 Permit SMAP, Ad Hoc Committee Comments SMAP, Action Planning 2024 ideas

Ad Hoc Committee on Stormwater Management Action Planning
in the 2024 NPDES MS4 Permit
Final Report to Ecology February 2022
Background
In October 2021, the Ad Hoc Committee on Stormwater Management Action Plan
(SMAP) requirements in the NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
permit was formed. The Committee met monthly through January 2022 and consisted of
29 participants representing six Phase I permittees, fifteen Phase II permittees, one
secondary permittee, and two other interested parties, all of whom voluntarily joined to
provide their input and recommendations. The co-leads for the Committee were Janet
Geer, City of Bothell, and Bill Leif, Snohomish County.
The main purpose of the Committee was to prepare ideas and recommendations for the
Department of Ecology (Ecology) regarding the SMAP requirements in the Phase I and
II MS4 permits that will be reissued in 2024. Committee discussions were focused
primarily on the SMAP requirements, but also included the broader stormwater planning
requirements originally set forth in the 2013 Phase I permit, as well as the relationship
between stormwater planning in general and the Structural Stormwater Controls (SSC)
program. The SSC program requirements as set forth in the 2019 Phase I permit are of
significant interest to this Committee because it is anticipated that Ecology will add this
program to the 2024 Phase II permit.
Two guiding principles for the discussions were to find as much agreement as possible,
and to focus on ideas that seem implementable by Ecology in the MS4 permits.
However, another principle was to draw out and discuss ideas that don’t fit easily in the
existing permit and/or challenge the status quo, and members were encouraged to
present topics and viewpoints that did not “fit in the mold.”
The first meeting was centered on gathering thoughts and ideas. These ideas from our
notes were placed into potential themes for additional discussion and an initial survey
was sent to capture the level of desire to discuss at the second meeting. All themes
were then discussed and a series of statements were created. These statements were
placed into a second survey so participants could provide their level of agreement prior
to our final meeting. All statements were discussed at the final meeting along with a
draft report for review.
This report has the following sections:
1. Sets of themes and statements that emerged from committee discussions, each
with introductory information followed by specific recommendations for the MS4
permit. For each recommendation, committee members were given an
anonymous survey in which to express their level of agreement. This method
allowed the Committee to focus on crafting clear recommendation statements,
without being overly constrained by trying to achieve group agreement on any
statement, or having to combine or overlap contradictory ideas into a single
recommendation.
2. Additional ideas and recommendations that any individual Committee member
wanted to include in the report. The committee was not surveyed to determine
level of agreement.
Section 1: Themes and recommendations with level of agreement among
Committee members
Theme 1. Options for compliance
The planning requirement should include options for compliance, from which a
permittee could choose the option that best serves its city or county. The options should
not be too prescriptive. Smaller jurisdictions may not be able to complete a new plan
and implement a previous plan at the same time, which could force them to move on
when they have viable projects that could be completed to greater water quality benefit.
Alternatively, larger jurisdictions should have the flexibility to plan and implement in
multiple watershed basins at the same time as needed.
Recommendation 1a
Stormwater planning options should include but not be limited to:
ï‚· performing a further analysis of a 2013 permit Stormwater Study to determine the
applicability of the results to other watersheds in the jurisdiction;
ï‚· conduct further analysis for their original watershed basin area;
ï‚· apply existing planning to a new basin;
ï‚· complete a new watershed basin planning effort.
# responses = 15
*The strongly disagree respondent was confused about the statement and thought this
statement wouldn’t allow them to implement what they had planned in the current phase
II permit. They stated after the discussion that they would change their response to
agree.
13%
53%
27%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 1b
A permittee should be allowed to propose an option not included in the permit, with
approval by Ecology. This would allow for flexibility within the permit where Ecology and
a permittee agree a different approach may provide greater water quality protection or
improvement. It will also help Ecology to inform the next permit cycle as other options
are provided for consideration.
# responses = 14
Recommendation 1c
The permit should allow flexibility to offset or stagger implementation for permittees
involved in multiple planning efforts with other permittees.
# responses = 15
71%
21%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
60%
40%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 1d
Flexibility to plan only or implement only should be an option.
# responses = 15
27%
33%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Theme 2. MS4 permit planning requirements vs. other regulations such as GMA
The planning requirements should not conflict with other state and federal land use
requirements such as the Shorelines Management Act (SMA) or Growth Management
Act (GMA). The GMA allots a certain population growth to each municipality and
municipalities are required to accommodate that growth. Also, requiring implementation
of aspirational goals in plans gives a disincentive for including these goals if there is a
concern about available resources. This is not a proper approach to planning.
Recommendation 2a
The planning requirements of the stormwater permit should be directed at measures to
respond to effects of population growth, but should not be used to direct where growth
occurs.
# responses = 15
13%
47%
33%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 2b
Recommendations in planning section should be directed towards high-level goals and
actions that encourage sustainable development and inform GMA Comprehensive
Planning. Recommendations should not be directed towards the policies dictated by
Ecology in other state and federal requirements.
# responses = 15
Recommendation 2c
Permittees should be allowed to include all operational and structural programs in the
scope of the stormwater planning requirements.
# responses = 15
40%
47%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
13%
47%
40%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 2d
The scope of the stormwater planning requirement should be limited to planning for the
structural stormwater control program.
# responses = 15
*The strongly agree respondent was confused about the statement and stated after the
discussion that they would change their response.
20%
27%
20%
27%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Theme 3. Required level of plan implementation
Planning level documents are meant to include programs, projects, assessments, and
directives to guide projects, services, and subsequent rate/budget studies for those
projects and services. Many of these projects and programs are contingent on outside
funding sources with their own set of requirements and timelines (grants, loans, bonds,
etc.). These timelines are often not aligned with permit timelines which can make their
implementation difficult within the permitting process. If full implementation is required,
it will be a disincentive for permittees to provide their full level of planning efforts.
Permittees will be forced to create vague, truncated documents that are not
representative of actual planning efforts. They will need to provide a plan that would not
exceed their existing budget without any outside funding or budget increase
considerations. Tax or rate increases are brought to Council and are subject to voter
approval which is completely outside of jurisdiction control. Planning level documents
have to include budget assumptions in order to be complete, but actions are not
implemented if they are not funded.
Recommendation 3a
The permit should not require full implementation of planning documents developed
under the permit.
# responses = 14
14%
64%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 3b
Planning requirements should recognize existing efforts such as capital projects that are
legally obligated for reasons such as bond sales, which typically were the result of
previous planning efforts.
# responses = 14
43%
57%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Theme 4. Consideration of existing and past plans and consequent actions
Each permittee is in a different phase of watershed basin planning and implementation.
Capital project planning can take several years, especially for larger efforts, and many
permittees have activities and projects underway that are not part of future planned
activities. Some jurisdictions have actions they must complete prior to the end of the
current cycle due to funding, opportunities, and constraints. Allowing for credit towards
on-going efforts will prevent permittees from holding off on projects or not taking actions
just to receive credit in the next permit.
Recommendation 4a
Stormwater plans should be allowed to include past, current, and future efforts of
implementation within their planning areas.
# responses = 14
29%
71%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 4b
Stormwater plans should be allowed to acknowledge and take credit for pre-design,
conceptual design, full design and permitting, construction, and monitoring activities as
qualifying towards permit compliance.
# responses = 14
29%
71%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Theme 5. Incentives for stormwater planning and plan implementation
The process in place leads to planning within jurisdictional boundaries even though it
allows cross jurisdictional coordination. Watersheds cross jurisdictional boundaries so
receiving waters could greatly benefit from shared efforts, but these are often slower,
more complicated, and expensive to coordinate. It would be good for Ecology to
promote or figure out a way to incentivize coordination through the SMAP process or
outside of the permit language.
Recommendation 5a
The permit should not require permittees to jointly develop or implement plans, but
should provide incentives to doing so for watersheds containing multiple permittees.
# responses = 14
64%
29%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 5b
Ecology should establish incentives outside of the permit requirements that apply to
interjurisdictional planning or projects that result from such planning.
# responses = 14
Recommendation 5c
The permit should continue to have incentives in the SSC program for projects that
arise from stormwater planning.
# responses = 14
14%
21%
64%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
21%
43%
29%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Theme 6. Equity and environmental justice requirements in NPDES stormwater
planning.
An environmental justice lens for planning projects would make sure we are fixing
issues in all areas that experience stormwater problems. Considerations could be
flooding, development impacts, those that eat fish/swim in water, etc. This said, there
are federal and state requirements in place (tribal grounds for example), so it would be
important to be mindful of existing local, regional, and national requirements.
Recommendation 6a
Stormwater planning requirements of the permit should include tangible actions for
equity and environmental justice that are appropriate for the specific stormwater
planning actions being performed.
# responses = 14
14%
29%
43%
14%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Recommendation 6b
Stormwater planning requirements of the permit should support and interface well with
federal and state requirements in place related to equity / environmental justice
# responses = 14
14%
64%
21%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Theme 7. Promulgating permit requirements through guidance documents
Guidance documents provided are often unhelpful, overreaching, or in conflict with each
other.
Recommendation 7a
a. Do not include any binding permit requirements in guidance documents. Those
documents should contain only non-binding recommendations and information.
# responses = 14
14%
86%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Level of agreement
Section 2: Additional comments from committee members
Comment 1:
The Committee discussions and the theme statements in Section 1 of this report
illuminate the sometimes-confusing relationships between the SMAP requirements and
the Structural Stormwater Control Program (SSC) requirements, and the intended
outcomes of these requirements.
Given that the SSC point system is rudimentary, Ecology should use caution in tying
compliance requirements for SMAP implementation to points achieved in the SSC
program. Such a tie would further incentivize “chasing SSC points” and disincentivize
implementing SMAP elements that are not recognized within the SSC program.
Ecology should consider requiring permittees to develop SMAPs that are directed at
achieving specific outcomes.
Comment 2:
There are some cases in which generally-worded permit requirements provide needed
flexibility. For example, in the case of equity / environmental justice considerations, the
generally-worded requirements in the existing permit allow overburdened communities
and permittees to mutually develop solutions from the bottom up. This can lead to
broader support.
Comment 3:
Ecology tried to require jurisdictions to complete a SMAP basin plan for grant dollars on
a project. We along with a lot of other jurisdictions rely heavily on having grant dollars
and if…

2022 Ad Hoc Subgroup Shared Priorities Across Juridictional Boundaries white paper

Summary: Ad Hoc group for shared priorities, cross jurisdictional boundaries, multi-jurisdiction stormwater priorities, proposed permit incentives, 2024 shared priorities comments

Possible NPDES Incentives for Developing Shared Priorities
1 | P a g e
2022 Ad Hoc Subgroup: Possible Incentives for Developing Shared Priorities Across Jurisdictional
Boundaries – Final – 02/23/22
Guiding Principles and Drivers: Explore how the Permit(s) could offer incentives for permittees who
establish shared stormwater priorities across jurisdictional boundaries. The intention being incenting
jurisdictions to work, coordinate and collaborate across a broader geography with the intention of
achieving environmental improvements and/or establishing regional stormwater management priorities
in a more strategic, focused way than the status quo. And, if the permit is going to ask more of
permittees, partners should be considering how regional capacity building efforts like a partnership-
driven Stormwater Investment Plan could then assist all local jurisdictions meet any new commitments.
Problem Statement: On our own we can each meet NPDES requirements without improving water
quality in Washington State. If it’s generally understood that shared resources and knowledge can lead
to better and more enduring results, how can we use existing regulatory frameworks to incentivize and
normalize greater regional collaboration for enhanced environmental outcomes? What types of
regulatory as well as non-regulatory incentives could be applied to encourage jurisdictions coordinating
on shared priorities across watersheds?
Possible Benefits: Voluntary incentives within the NPDES permit language could help build regional
social infrastructure among permittees that result in new projects and proofs of concepts that, if
successful, could be replicated at a broader scale. Such incentives could also direct regional resources
across the watershed(s) and prioritize work in target basins with the worst stormwater management
challenges and impacts.
Criteria for Further Developing Recommendations Our group sought to elevate criteria for any
recommendations we would put forward. We similarly recommend the Department of Ecology consider
the following for advancing permit language in the next permit. We propose that any new permit
language that promotes regional collaboration:
1. Advance environmental quality/restoration.
2. Promote greater equity/inclusion (i.e., support overburdened communities).
3. Level the playing field/promote regional consistency.
4. Support and advance smaller jurisdictions (i.e., a rising tide lifts all ships).
5. Represent a ‘better way of doing business’ and leverage permittee resources in terms of:
a. Efficiency/timing/sequencing (i.e., desired outcomes happen faster, free up resources
for other activities).
b. Cost-effectiveness (e.g., represent economies of scale, eliminate duplication).
6. Advance and/or leverage other benefits/co-benefits beyond permit goals, such as salmon
recovery or flood risk reduction.
7. Support collaboration with other parties, including non-permittees.
In addition to these specific criteria, we recommend that any concepts considered for inclusion in the
next permit cycle should be true incentives aimed at regional shared priority setting and joint
stormwater management efforts, not absolute requirements. These concepts will likely be new to
permittees and the incentives are intended to be beneficial additions, which support additional regional
Possible NPDES Incentives for Developing Shared Priorities
2 | P a g e
collaboration; we believe the incentives are more likely to be favorably received if permit language is
structured as “allowable and encouraged” over “required.”
Recommended Concepts:
Watershed-based Permits
Members of our group expressed an interest in exploring a return to watershed-based permitting. This
could include opportunities to phase this in via pilot projects in certain watersheds; EPA has examples of
how this has been applied. If such pilot opportunities are an option, those who opt into such a model
could develop and evaluate proofs of concept to test elements of the concept. This approach could be
fully optional and allow for permittees to pilot test concepts without being out of compliance with
existing permit requirements. When applied, similar to current TMDLs, the concept could move the
region to normalizing establishing shared priorities across jurisdictional boundaries.
The following presents our initial analysis of the opportunities and potential concerns with restructuring
individual permits to Watershed/WRIA based permits (S1.A Geographic Area of Permit Coverage):
Opportunities:
First Phase I permits were WRIA Based, so this would not be totally unfamiliar to permittees.
Supports key provisions of the NPDES Permit stormwater rules:
o Flexibility that allows Permittees to first focus their resources on the highest priority
problems (40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)).
o Pollution prevention is emphasized with some provisions requiring eliminating or
controlling pollutants at their source and by requiring Permittees to assess potential
future impacts due to population growth and other factors (40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B) &
(d)(1) (iii)).
o Further expands the PCHB ruling that directed Ecology to require the “permittees to
identify, prior to the next permit cycle or renewal, areas for potential basin or
watershed planning that can incorporate development strategies as a water quality
management tool to protect aquatic resources”.
Does not remove any areas from permit coverage.
Examples of watershed-based permits are available from other EPA regions.
Similar to the organization of Appendix 2 for TMDL, which already includes overlapping language
across watersheds.
May increase coordination across the watershed with other municipalities and with already
established Watershed and Salmon Recovery Plans.
May increase innovation, flexibility and cost efficiencies to focus resources Watershed-wide on
highest priority problems.
Potential for improved integration with the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda.
Concerns from other municipalities to be addressed:
Why would a county or city want 3 permits instead of just 1?
Possible NPDES Incentives for Developing Shared Priorities
3 | P a g e
How would this be applied? How would this work?
Could this lead to more complicated annual reporting?
Interest may depend on the scale of the watershed.
Suggestions for evaluating the use of Watershed/WRIA based permits: To explore this option prior to
the next permit cycle, Ecology could convene a team, seek volunteers and test these concepts prior to
implementation of the next permit cycle. These near-term actions would be outside the permit.
Establish a technical team to:
o Review source literature
o Prepare report with recommendations that advocates for watershed based-permit
Pilot study in one WRIA/watershed that allows for innovation and flexibility.
SMAP Evolution
The evolution of the SMAP requirement could provide an opportunity for permittees to “warm up” to
the idea of a watershed-based permit. This could include the development of an interdisciplinary team
to provide critique and feedback on planning efforts at the basin or watershed-scale and identify
opportunities for coordination across jurisdictional boundaries.
For example, all jurisdictions that contribute stormwater runoff directly or indirectly to the selected high
priority catchment area for a given SMAP would be on the team to help identify and prioritize within
their jurisdiction the stormwater retrofit BMPS locations, land management or development strategies,
or stormwater management actions (i.e., IDDE field screening, source control inspections, enhanced
maintenance, public ed and outreach focus areas) that could generate a significant water quality benefit
for the receiving water of focus. The watershed-scale stormwater plans developed under the 2013
Permit generated costly lists of solutions that were clearly beyond the capacity of any one jurisdiction –
even large ones – to accomplish. Division of these costs and responsibilities among neighboring
jurisdictions would make these aspirational action lists more achievable.
We would want this concept to consider how to support smaller jurisdictions that are wholly within a
small drainage basin. This economy of scale conversation has inherent overlap with the Ad Hoc
discussion on proportionality and scaling of the permit. REF: This would support the Regional Retrofit
Fund, below.
Modifications to Existing Permit Language
There are multiple opportunities to make enhancement to existing permit language that could
encourage or promote additional collaboration and coordination among permittees at a broader (ideally
regional) scale to more effectively and efficiently fulfill the requirements of various permit sections.
Mapping of MS4 systems (Phase I Permit Section S5.C.2/Phase II Permit Section XX) using shared
GIS and asset naming protocols among neighboring jurisdictions is one example of a persistent
issue that has caused challenges for coordination for years. State resources (Ecology,
Washington Stormwater Center (WSC), etc.) could be committed to assist jurisdictions in
Possible NPDES Incentives for Developing Shared Priorities
4 | P a g e
achieving this level of mapping coordination. Such coordination would also support the broader
implementation of coordinated watershed-wide GIS-based stormwater prioritization tools that
are currently in development (e.g., King County, City of Tacoma, etc.).
The Coordination section of the permit (Phase I Permit Section S5.C.3/Phase II Permit Section
XX) is an obvious place in the permit where language could be included to incentivize more
active coordination efforts throughout all the other relevant permit implementation sections.
Public Involvement and Participation in SWMP development, updates, and implementation
(Phase I Permit Section S5.C.4/Phase II Permit Section XX), like the Public Education and
Outreach, represents a challenge for permittees to accomplish meaningful and effective
engagement with community members. There are likely means of collaborating among
neighboring jurisdictions (similar to STORM, SAM, WSC or others) to provide resources,
strategies, trainings, or shared opportunities for engagement (e.g., watershed-scale SMAP
development and implementation) that could provide support and opportunities to boost public
involvement in meaningful ways.
o This could include exploring a watershed approach to identifying and engaging
overburdened communities, which would have the potential to assist all jurisdictions
both in serving those communities and meeting their permit requirements.
Source Control inspections and Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination screening (Phase I
Permit Sections S5.C.9 and S5.C.9/Phase II Permit Sections XX) are already two areas where
stormwater inspection teams often communicate and collaborate across jurisdictional
boundaries. These sections could potentially include language that highlights these activities as
specific areas that count towards coordination.
Regional Retrofit Fund Recommendation
Water quality and flow control projects are currently funded by individual jurisdictions without
knowledge of, or, often, consideration of the regional need. As a result, well-resourced agencies have
been able to construct more structural stormwater improvements within their boundaries – irrespective
of how the benefits measures up against projects in the same watershed or drainage area. This
recommendation is suggesting a better way of distributing resources to tackle the most problematic
stormwater problems and achieve large-scale water quality improvement outcomes.
Related to this, the concept could present the potential to promote Public/Private Partnerships.
Nonprofit or corporate partners with programs for installing green stormwater infrastructure (such as
raingardens, cisterns, and bioswales) operate outside of the municipal NPDES permit structure, though
their work could theoretically accrue points for compliance with Structural Stormwater Controls
requirements if they were to partner with a permittee. It is worth considering if and how these NGO and
other partners might participate in such a system, e.g., if creating a regional retrofit fund through the
permit could making funds available to GSI-focused nonprofits that implement agreed-to retrofit
projects which advance shared watershed priorities. There could be additional (extra-permit)
opportunities to develop alternative funding opportunities (i.e., corporate matching funds or fundraising
events) which resemble the structure of SAM and reduce competition for limited state funds, while
promoting the types of creative partnerships more likely to identify projects with co-benefits, and
catalyze innovation at a regional scale.
Possible NPDES Incentives for Developing Shared Priorities
5 | P a g e
We recommend advancing this concept through the proposed Structural Stormwater Controls Policy
group, and we hope this document can serve to provide some initial thoughts to guide the conversation.
Some items for the SSC Policy group to consider ought to include:
Structure
o If participation for this regional fund were to become a permit requirement it’s
recommended that it sit within the Structural Stormwater Controls section of the Phase
I and Phase II permit.
o The Regional Retrofit Fund could draw on the function and organizational structure of
SAM. The fund would be managed and distributed by a consortium of contributing
agencies (like SAM) or an impartial third party (public or private).
o Permit language could use concepts highlighted in S.8 Monitoring and allow for full,
partial, or no participation.
o Determination of contribution amounts would need to be discussed by the SSC policy
group
o The Regional Fund could be created in a way that allows for contributions by Private
agencies and non-profit partners. Contributing entities, along with non-profit and tribal
partners, could be eligible to receive regional funds.
o Regional Fund permittees would establish funding priorities annually, or on a given
permit cycle
Function
o Incentives for participating in this program would be necessary. Some possible ideas
include, but are not limited to:
Permittees that contribute to the regional fund could receive a multiplier on all
projects used to meet compliance with their SSC requirement
Permittees that contribute to the regional fund could receive a portion of the
points on all projects completed with this money – whether in their jurisdiction
or not.
Being able to meet compliance by only contributing funds
o The regional fund would operate as a competitive awarding agency based on estimated
outcomes and regional benefits (TBD by the SSC Policy group)
Additional Items to Consider
o Applicable projects could be focused on a singular parameter of concern and specific to
existing/emerging environmental issues (e.g., 6ppd-q). Focusing efforts like this on one
primary parameter or in targeted watersheds would prioritize available…

2022 Outfall Mapping Ad Hoc Committee White paper for MS4 permit reissuance

Summary: Outfall Mapping ideas, mapping requirements, outfall definition consistency

Please send feedback to:
Maureen Meehan, Pierce County [email protected]
Angela Gallardo, City of Tacoma [email protected]
Concerns/Questions:
Currently tracking size and material, would that be required going forward? (2017 document
says these attributes are optional)
Timeline: As you observe or will special inspections be required to populate material/size for
all outfalls by a given date?
Outfalls digitized from as-builts might not be as precise and field conditions affect precision in
field
possibly different language for outfall in phase 1 permit/WSDOT permit
Why does material matter?
Sometimes difficult to find outfalls based on lat/long
Solutions/Proposed Permit Language:
Continue requirement for all known and accessible outfalls vs timeline to have dataset
complete with size/material
If material/size is required, phase in 2 years after new permit effective date
Use AGO (ArcGIS Online) to share data instead of annual download
Precision based on source of data (digitized vs field collection) and conditions at time of
collection or digitizing
Ecology auto-populate location data (simple Python script)
Potentially add elevation as a recommended (not required field)
Outfall should be defined consistently in all permits.