Page 1 of 12
2/1/2022 9:37 AM
https://emailwsu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/laurie_larson-pugh_wsu_edu/Documents/Desktop/WW 2024 Permit reissuance Ad Hoc/White Papers/2021_1215_All_Comments_Annual_Report_Ad_Hoc_Committee.docx
General Concerns and Comments – Annual Report Ad Hoc Committee
AR Q
Issues / Rational
Desired Outcome
Comments / Permit Language
Propose AR language
Overall
Does the question provide information that Ecology or
the permittee can use / build on?
Examples:
PII 44 – Why is this question still being asked/what
does it actually tell you about permit implementation /
performance?
Questions provide information that Ecology or the
permittee can use / build on.
Please be thoughtful around asking numbers.
When asking for numbers, Ecology meet the objectives
identified in their Response to comments list of
objectives. E.g., “Gather meaningful quantitative
information statewide.”
2019 Response to comments Starting pdf pg. 200
Ecology’s goal is to get comparable answers that help
gauge compliance across jurisdictions. Ecology applies
the following list of objectives when developing the
draft Annual Report appendices:
Track the compliance status of Permittees.
Gather information to improve Permits.
Identify needs for technical assistance.
Identify successful outcomes of program for the
public.
Help Permittees coordinate internally.
Gather meaningful quantitative information statewide.
Eliminate questions where possible if they do not meet
the “Ecology objectives list” – See Comments Column.
Overall
Question that might create Negative response even
though permittee is fully complying.
Examples:
1. Phase II Q 61. Could imply noncompliance if
alternative approach used and permittee answers
“no” to question.
2. Phase II Q 63.
Pose question in a way that avoids “No” as an answer
indicating full compliance.
1. Add an “approved schedule” option to the yes/no
options.
2. Eliminate question (not in Phase I). Permit does
not actually require that we inspect ALL so if keep,
revise so that can answer yes (if inspect at least
95% of facilities)
61. Annually inspected stormwater treatment
and flow control BMPs/facilities regulated
by the Permittee per S5.C.7.b.i(b).
61a. If using reduced inspection frequency for
the first time during this permit cycle, attach
documentation per S5.C.7.b.i(b).
61. Annually inspected stormwater treatment and
flow control BMPs/facilities regulated by the
Permittee per S5.C.7.b.i(b) completing the 95% or
required inspection criteria or using an
appropriate alternative approach?
63. Annually inspected all municipally owned or
operated stormwater treatment and flow
control BMPs/facilities, completing the 95% or
required inspection criteria or using an
appropriate alternative approach? (S5.C.7.c.i)
Phase II Q
4 / 4a
Creates confusion for responder and for external
reviewers.
Negative wording is awkward and potentially
confusing.
Update Annual Report questions to create a clear
understanding of compliance.
Can the question be a simple yes / no?
Make question more direct
“.. describe internal coordination strategies to
ensure permit compliance”
Page 2 of 12
2/1/2022 9:37 AM
https://emailwsu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/laurie_larson-pugh_wsu_edu/Documents/Desktop/WW 2024 Permit reissuance Ad Hoc/White Papers/2021_1215_All_Comments_Annual_Report_Ad_Hoc_Committee.docx
AR Q
Issues / Rational
Desired Outcome
Comments / Permit Language
Propose AR language
AR Q
Issues / Rational
Desired Outcome
Comments / Permit Language
Propose AR language
Or have a simple demonstration of compliance
question?
Make question more direct, something like” describe
internal coordination strategies to ensure permit
compliance”
Or combined 4 and 4a. Just describe how
permittee complied.
Or just answer “yes” and leave off description if
description doesn’t add value.
And / Or strike “eliminate barriers” (recast in
positive e.g., “facilitate”)
S9. A.
3/31 doesn’t allow internal jurisdiction enough review
time of Annual Report, attachments and the
Stormwater Management Plan.
Annual Report date moved to 5/31.
S9.A. No later than March 31 of each year ….
Data collection from across the jurisdiction can extend
into February.
Upper management / council review can take up to 4
weeks.
S9. A. No later than Mayrch 31 of each year beginning
in 20250
PI 47
PII 78
Annual report question adds requirements to the
permit requirements.
Because the question was not anticipated, information
may not be collected for the reporting period.
Review permit conditions and associated AR questions
to ensure that questions are consistent with stated
requirements.
Line up question with permit requirements.
For reference – Phase II Q78. Attach a list of
inspections, per S5.C.8.b.iii, organized by the business
category, noting the number of times each business
was inspected and if enforcement actions were taken.
78. Attach a list of inspections, per S5.C.8.b.iii,
organized by the business category, noting the number
of times each business was inspected and if
enforcement actions were taken.
Change to:
78. Attach a list of inspections, per S5.C.8.b.iii,
noting the number of times each business was
inspected and if enforcement actions were taken.
PI – for reference:
47. Attach a list of inspections, per S5.C.8.b.iii,
organized by the business category, noting the
number of times each business was inspected, and
if enforcement actions were taken.
Ph I Q5
Ph 1 Q13
Ph II Q30
Questions that require a one-time response should be
eliminated from the online form once completed.
One and done. Creates confusion if kept in question
later Annual Report.
Eliminate question if a required submittal indicate that
work was completed.
Remove question from AR when Deadline passed.
Add “previously submitted” or “not yet required”
answer option.
PI 5. Collected outfall size and material in accordance
with S5.C.2.b.i? (Required to begin no later than
January 1, 2020)
5a. Attach a spreadsheet that lists the known outfalls’
size and material(s). (Begin reporting March 31, 2021)
PII 30. Started mapping outfall size and material in
accordance with S5.C.4.b.i? (Required no later than
January 1, 2020)
30a. Attach a spreadsheet that lists the known outfalls’
size and material(s).
P1 13. Submitted draft enforceable requirements,
technical standards, and manual to meet site and
subdivision-scale requirements of S5.C.5.a to Ecology
no later than July 1, 2020. (S5.C.5.b.iii)
Examples
PI 5. And 5a. – Eliminate Question 5. And Question PII
30.
P1 13
Eliminate question or add a “previously submitted”
option.
Change language to:
Implemented an ordinance or other enforceable
mechanism to effectively address runoff from new
development, redevelopment, and construction
sites per the requirements of S5.C.5.b.iv.
Page 3 of 12
2/1/2022 9:37 AM
https://emailwsu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/laurie_larson-pugh_wsu_edu/Documents/Desktop/WW 2024 Permit reissuance Ad Hoc/White Papers/2021_1215_All_Comments_Annual_Report_Ad_Hoc_Committee.docx
MS4 Mapping and Documentation Comments
AR Q
Issues
Desired Outcome
Comments / Permit Language
Propose AR language
Ph 1 Q5
Ph II Q30
Deadline met, remove question to prevent confusion.
Add to list per S5.C.a. and strike as stand-alone
question
5. Collected outfall size and material in accordance
with S5.C.2.b.i? (Required to begin no later than
January 1, 2020)
30. Started mapping outfall size and material in
accordance with S5.C.4.b.i? (Required no later than
January 1, 2020)
5. Collected outfall size and material in accordance
with S5.C.2.b.i? (Required to begin no later than
January 1, 2020)
30. Started mapping outfall size and material in
accordance with S5.C.4.b.i? (Required no later than
January 1, 2020)
Ph I Q5a
Ph II Q30a
What is the value of this report? How is it used?
Minor changes create confusion and audit issues.
Permit question doesn’t line up with Annual Report
Questions.
1. Request once per permit cycle instead of annually.
2. Align Annual Report requirement with permit
language. See Outfall Ad Hoc group for
recommendations.
This information is available via “electronic map”
required by the permit per request by Ecology (PI S5.
C2.d. / P II S5. C4.d.
From 2019 Response to Comments
Q. 5.a – Why is it necessary for Permittees to submit a
spreadsheet of outfall data, vs another format of
submittal?
Response to range of comments
Ecology is requesting this format of submittal for ease
of review.
See Outfall Ad Hoc group for recommendations.
Ph I Q6
Ph II Q31
Replying N/A to this question creates concerns for
external reviewers.
Clarity in interpreting and responding to the question
6. Completed mapping of known connections from the
MS4 to a privately owned stormwater system
S5.C.2.b.ii? (Required no later than August 1, 2023)
31. Completed mapping connections to private storm
sewers in accordance with S5.C.4.b.ii? (Required no
later than August 1, 2023)
Eliminate “completed” and revise to say “maintained”.
Eliminate question since permit requires maintenance.
PI Q6 / PII Q31. Mapped known connections from the
MS4 to a privately owned stormwater system
S5.C.2.b.ii? (Completion required no later than August
1, 2023).
Ph I Q7
Ph II Q32
Replying N/A to this question creates concerns for
external reviewers.
Clarity in interpreting and responding to the question
7. Counties only: Mapped conveyances as described in
S5.C.2.a.v for 50% of areas outside the urban/higher
density rural sub-basins, as described in S5.C.2.b.iii?
(Required by December 31, 2023)
32. Developed an electronic format for map, with fully
described mapping standards in accordance with
S5.C.4.c? (Required no later than August 1, 2021)
Eliminate questions that are complete in the following
year.
Page 4 of 12
2/1/2022 9:37 AM
https://emailwsu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/laurie_larson-pugh_wsu_edu/Documents/Desktop/WW 2024 Permit reissuance Ad Hoc/White Papers/2021_1215_All_Comments_Annual_Report_Ad_Hoc_Committee.docx
Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites
AR Q
Issues / Rationale
Desired Outcome
Comments / Existing Permit Lang
Propose AR language
Ph 1 Q13
One and done questions create confusion in later
Annual Reports.
Options:
Align Phase I and II requirements and AR questions.
Replace with PII Q43.
Eliminate question for annual reporting in AR 2021 and
beyond.
Add option “Requirement previously met”.
Submitted draft enforceable requirements, technical
standards, and manual to meet site and subdivision-
scale requirements of S5.C.5.a to Ecology no later than
July 1, 2020. (S5.C.5.b.iii)
Submitted draft enforceable requirements, technical
standards, and manual to meet site and subdivision-
scale requirements of S5.C.5.a to Ecology no later than
July 1, 2020. (S5.C.5.b.iii)
Remove “one and done” questions consistently.
Change language to:
Implemented an ordinance or other enforceable
mechanism to effectively address runoff from new
development, redevelopment, and construction
sites per the requirements of S5.C.5.b.iv.
Ph II Q43
Clarity. Discern the difference between 43 and 44.
Change to “continue to implement”.
Implemented an ordinance or other enforceable
mechanism to effectively address runoff from new
development, redevelopment, and construction sites
per the requirements of S5.C.6.b.i-iii.
“Continued to implement” ordinance or other
enforceable mechanism to effectively address runoff
from new development, redevelopment, and
construction sites per the requirements of S5.C.6.b.i-
iii.
Ph II Q44
One and done questions create confusion in later
Annual Reports.
The confusing aspect of 43 and 44 is that they appear
to be asking a question aimed at determining
compliance with the exact same permit condition and
that there seems to be an unstated distinction in how
or whether new permittees versus previous permittee
should answer. Aside from this, both of these
questions would only be answered once during the
permit cycle.
Reduce number of questions with a simple
response of what was done.
Avoiding “no” responses when in compliance.
Create clarity.
PHI: Adopted or updated, and made effective, the
Ecology-approved enforceable requirements, technical
standards, and manual to meet site and subdivision-
scale requirements of S5.C.5.a no later than July 1,
2021? (S5.C.5.b.iv)
PHII: Revised ordinance or other enforceable
mechanism to effectively address runoff from new
development, redevelopment, and construction sites
per the requirements of S5.C.6.b.i-iii. (Required no
later than June 30, 2022)
Only ask question in year the requirement is due. Or
see edits proposed for Q44a. restate to ask for code
citation, only, including date of adoption.
Remove Question 44 if you restate 44a as proposed.
See next line / Question 44a.
PII 44a
Does the response to this question provide
information that Ecology or the permittee can
use/build on?
What does it actually tell you about permit
implementation / performance
Reduce the number of questions
Provide information on permit implementation /
performance
44. Revised ordinance or other enforceable mechanism to
effectively address runoff from new development,
redevelopment, and construction sites per the requirements
of S5.C.6.b.i-iii. (Required no later than June 30, 2022)
44a. Cite code reference in Comments field.
Convert both questions into a single question:
Cite code reference in Comments field where
ordinances or other enforceable mechanisms to
effectively address runoff from new development,
redevelopment, and construction sites per the
requirements of S5.C.6.b.i-iii. were updated.
ï‚  Adopted by June 30, 2022. [Y/N] Date of adoption: _______________
Page 5 of 12
2/1/2022 9:37 AM
https://emailwsu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/laurie_larson-pugh_wsu_edu/Documents/Desktop/WW 2024 Permit reissuance Ad Hoc/White Papers/2021_1215_All_Comments_Annual_Report_Ad_Hoc_Committee.docx
AR Q
Issues / Rationale
Desired Outcome
Comments / Existing Permit Lang
Propose AR language
P I 18
Ph II Q 48
Create consistency between Phase I & II annual report
questions.
The order of questions 48 and 48a often require a “no”
answer.
Clarity to facilitate permit compliance.
48a If no, inspected prior to clearing and construction,
all construction sites meeting the minimum thresholds
(S5.C.6.c.ii)?
Make consistent with Phase I permit which states
Q 18. Inspected, prior to clearing and construction,
permitted development sites per S5.C.5.b.vi(b)?
Q 48 Inspected prior to clearing and construction, all
construction sites meeting the minimum thresholds
permitted development sites per S5.C.6.c.ii?
Q 48a
If no, inspected, prior to clearing and construction,
permitted development sites per S5.C.6.c.ii, that have
a high potential for sediment transport as determined
through plan review based on definitions and
requirements in Appendix 7 …
Ph I Q 20
Ph II Q 49b
Coordinate with SWM group.
Question difficult for fully developed jurisdictions.
Changes could result in additional requirements.
Inspected stormwater treatment and flow control
BMPs/facilities and catch basins in…