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…