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…