2022 Preliminary Drafts for the Municipal Stormwater General Permits and Stormwater Management Manuals (SWMMs)

44 Results

Sort:

Comment From: City of Renton (Kristina Lowthian)

12/02/22 @ 8:04 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Olympia (Jeremy Graham)

12/02/22 @ 6:27 PM
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft MSGP and SWMMs.
Attachments:

Comment From: Washington Environmental Counc... (Mindy Roberts)

12/02/22 @ 5:47 PM
Please see attached file.
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Everett (Cindy Cullen)

12/02/22 @ 5:29 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

12/02/22 @ 5:24 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Thurston County (Larry Schaffner)

12/02/22 @ 4:59 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Yakima County (Regional Stormw... (Jack Wells)

12/02/22 @ 4:56 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: WA State Department of Transpo... (Garrett Starks)

12/02/22 @ 4:17 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these preliminary drafts. Please see attached pdf for WSDOT's comments.
Attachments:

Comment From: Skagit County PDS (Andrew Wargo)

12/02/22 @ 4:16 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Puget Soundkeeper (Katelyn Kinn)

12/02/22 @ 3:30 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Pierce County

12/02/22 @ 3:24 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Seattle (Nathan Hart)

12/02/22 @ 3:07 PM
Please find attached the City of Seattle's comments on Ecology's preliminary draft Permit and SWMMWW language. Seattle welcomes any discussions with Ecology on the comments made and looks forward to continued collaboration with Ecology on all aspect...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Lower Columbia Fish Recovery B... (Steve Manlow)

12/02/22 @ 2:39 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the October 2022 Preliminary Drafts for the Municipal Stormwater General Permits and Stormwater Management Manuals (SWMMs). The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) is the regional recovery organizati...↓

Climate Change Impacts on Stormwater Management
The proposed new section on climate change impacts to stormwater management is necessary as we continue to experience more severe flooding events in the winter, and lower stream flows in the summer, which further stress salmon and steelhead populations. Table 1-1.1 (Future Hydrologic Projections) notes not just expected changes in rainfall but increased winter streamflow and decreased summer streamflow conditions, with the following draft text acknowledging the importance of hourly rainfall and flashiness information for stormwater management. Maintaining existing and expanding stream gauge stations to provide watershed-specific information is a critical part of successful management responses to climate change. Southwest Washington rivers have limited stream gauge and temperature data today to capture the variability in flow and thermal regimes across stream orders and resulting from development and climate change. Ecology is the state agency best situated to protect and expand this essential data set, and we encourage the department to develop budget proposals that account for streamflow and temperature data needs, which are identified the WRIA 25/26, 27/28, and 29A Watershed Management Plans Expanded monitoring will not only provide more accurate environmental data for stormwater management, but support restoration project design and habitat capacity estimates for recovering salmon and steelhead. This fits well with many of the climate change mitigation recommendations in the preliminary draft, especially maintaining and increasing natural ecosystem areas.

Stormwater Pollutants and Their Adverse Impacts
This section includes a placeholder for pollutants from tires and other rubber products (including 6PPD-q). This new section will improve alignment with stormwater management and salmon and steelhead recovery. In southwest Washington, stormwater permit areas overlap with ESA-listed salmon and steelhead populations in the Lower Cowlitz, Coweeman, North Fork Lewis, East Fork Lewis, Salmon Creek, and Washougal watersheds. Many of these watersheds are rapidly urbanizing. Coho salmon are especially likely to be harmed by stormwater runoff, and important populations are found in all of these watersheds. In fact, the only coho salmon populations that have reduced extinction risks from very high to moderate - low today are found in the Lower Cowlitz, Coweeman, and Salmon Creek watersheds. The Salmon Creek population especially is a success story: originally designated a low priority for recovery because much of the watershed drained developed lands in the City of Vancouver, this population has some of the highest abundances in southwest Washington today. Salmon Creek coho salmon will likely continue to be important to species-scale recovery along with Lower Cowlitz and Coweeman River populations, and additional protections from stormwater are critical to continued success.

Preliminary Draft Fact Sheet: Tree Retention
This fact sheet identifies future permit language updates to identify tree canopy goals to support water quality, and associated reporting by permittees regarding canopy cover status and changes over time. We support tracking and implementing tree canopy coverage goals into stormwater management guidance because of the important habitat and hydrology benefits forests provide salmon and steelhead. The benefits of tree canopy coverage are more expansive than just riparian habitat and hydrology though: mature forests and riparian corridors provide important public health, stormwater, and wildlife resources, especially in light of climate change impacts to streamflow patterns and temperatures. The broader significance of tracking and restoring tree canopy points to the importance of identifying consistent and centralized data sources and reporting efforts beyond just stormwater permittees reporting to Ecology. The LCFRB has struggled to fund and consistently report on riparian and watershed-scale tree canopy coverage because datasets are either too coarse to effectively assess fine-scale riparian conditions (e.g. National Land Cover Database), too expensive to acquire regularly with our relatively small budget (e.g. field measurements as identified in the Lower Columbia Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring program), or incomplete for the full region (e.g. High Resolution Change Detection). This is not a unique struggle, and Ecology has the opportunity to provide important data and reporting to multiple communities across Washington State through its tree retention update.

Canopy coverage reporting should be based on science-based standards for riparian corridor habitat functions. Washington Department of Natural Resources and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife both provide riparian habitat information based on site potential tree height, a scientific standard for habitat function. Although urban areas typically support more narrow and disconnected riparian areas, starting with site potential tree height defined habitat areas will place habitat functions at the forefront of decision making. This will also expand the benefits of riparian habitat beyond just stormwater management needs, supporting positive public health, wildlife, and salmon recovery outcomes.
We ask that Ecology consider the following when incorporating tree canopy reporting into the updated SWMMs:
•Provide state level land cover data in partnership with other state agencies at fine-scales to support consistent and accurate watershed and riparian-scale reporting; and
•rely on existing science-based standards for riparian habitat definitions (site potential tree height) to support broader ecosystem benefits beyond just stormwater management.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this important permit update. Effective stormwater management is a critical component of protecting and restoring salmon and steelhead habitat as southwest Washington urban areas continue to grow and develop and climate change increases the severity of stream flow and temperature regimes. We are excited to continue partnering with Ecology and stormwater permittees to support watershed health and salmon recovery goals in the lower Columbia River. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 425-1553 or via email at smanlow@lcfrb.gen.wa.us.
No attachments

Comment From: Washington Military Department (Timmie-Ann Maturan-Lee)

12/02/22 @ 2:13 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Snohomish County (Bill Leif)

12/02/22 @ 2:10 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Pasco (Michael Henao)

12/02/22 @ 2:06 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Tacoma (Merita Trohimovich)

12/02/22 @ 1:57 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Spokane County (Christa Riley)

12/02/22 @ 1:43 PM
These comments are submitted by Spokane County on behalf of the many municipal departments these changes would affect. For this process, the Stormwater Utility reviewed the information provided by Ecology and distributed applicable sections of the pr...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Wenatchee

12/02/22 @ 11:56 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Port of Seattle (Jane Dewell)

12/02/22 @ 11:42 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Kirkland (Rachel Konrady)

12/02/22 @ 11:38 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: King County (Lou Leet)

12/02/22 @ 11:09 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Clark County (Clark County )

12/02/22 @ 1:00 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Kent (Laura Haren)

12/01/22 @ 6:41 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Woodinville (Leah Mikulsky)

12/01/22 @ 5:56 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Bothell (Janet Geer)

12/01/22 @ 5:42 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Di...

12/01/22 @ 4:25 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe (Sissi Bruch)

12/01/22 @ 3:49 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Sumner (Robert Wright)

12/01/22 @ 2:13 PM
MS4 Permit: Sweeping The City of Sumner currently sweeps well above and beyond the levels proposed in the permit. As propsed, we oppose the level of documentation that would be required. While AADT of busier roads has been collected in the past, bein...↓

MS4 Permit: Tree Retention City of Sumner has been a Tree City USA for over 20 years and understands the value of urban forests. The language as proposed is vague and makes unclear what the requirement is. What methods of existing canopy cover is acceptable (random samples like iTree canopy, GIS aerial surveys, etc.). How often is documentation supposed to occur? Improving tree canopy takes time and results implemented from the permit requirement likely wouldn't be realized for several permit cycles.
No attachments

Comment From: City of Everett (Dana Zlateff)

12/01/22 @ 1:56 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Sammamish (Stephanie Sullivan)

12/01/22 @ 11:07 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: RE Sources (Kirsten McDade)

12/01/22 @ 10:41 AM
Please see attached comment letter.
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Spokane Valley (Adam Jackson)

12/01/22 @ 9:19 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Redmond (Anne Dettelbach)

11/28/22 @ 11:36 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Spokane Ponderos (Mike Petersen)

11/22/22 @ 4:25 PM
Spokane Ponderosa, a 501c3 non-profit organization, would like to provide comments and an update to the Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington. We would like to see Ponderosa pine (Pinus Ponderosa) t added to Zone 1 in Bioretention Swale BMP's. Not...↓

Note that the SMMEW also says this:
Bioretention BMPs are:
l Shallow landscaped depressions with a designed soil mix and plants adapted to the local
climate and soil moisture conditions that receive stormwater runoff from small contributing
areas;
2 Designed to mimic natural forested conditions, where healthy soil structure and vegetation
promote the infiltration, storage, filtration, and slow release of stormwater flows;...

Figure 5.3 shows a hardwood tree in a bioretention swale, we would like to see Ponderosa pine added since they are appropriate.

Ponderosa pine are also drought resistant and should be included in the tree list that currently only has hardwood trees, grasses and other plants that need watering in the summer. This would help cities increase their urban canopy, provide shading once the trees matured, and improve air quality in cities in eastern Washington.

Spokane Ponderosa has also found that adding biochar when seedlings are planted helps the trees retain moisture for their first few years. In addition, studies have found that biochar can trap contaminents (see attachments) and biochar should be considered as a soil additive in bioretention swales.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Mike Petersen for Spokane Ponderosa
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Maple Valley (Halley Kimball)

11/08/22 @ 9:59 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Federal Way (Kevin Du)

11/07/22 @ 4:08 PM
I believe the permits proposed implementation of a street sweeping program should have minimum requirements for the equipment or type of street sweeper used. As seen in street sweeping effectiveness studies, certain sweep trucks are more efficient at...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/07/22 @ 3:18 PM
Many open channel conveyance ditch systems that have not been formally water-typed and for which fish use has not been determined will designate as a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-031 based on size alone do to having a channel bank-full width of 2ft o...↓
No attachments

Comment From: City of Shoreline (Zachary Richardson)

11/02/22 @ 9:20 AM
See attached memo; unformatted text copied below as well:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the early draft of the SWMMWW update for 2024. Our comment pertains not to a new or revised provision of the manual, but to something we be...↓
Shoreline is developing quickly with the approach of the 2024 light rail station openings, which corresponds with a major re-zone effort within the City to developed density hubs around the transit centers resulting from the new stations. Small plats, previously the bread and butter of the City's development, are becoming more scarce and large, multi-level, multi-family projects are becoming the predominant project type we are reviewing for compliance with Appendix A and SWMMWW. Typically, these projects include zero-lot-line construction with sub-grade garage spaces, and require pumping their stormwater in order to discharge to the City MS4 and receiving waters.
In reviewing these projects, staff have continued to implement the full provisions of each minimum requirements, without forgiveness for the impacts of a pumped discharge. However, pumps typically either sit idle (zero discharge) or discharge at the pump maximum flow rates instantly. Even if a costly variable-speed pump is used, the lower thresholds of the requirements (50% of 2-year and 2-year storms) are still smaller than most controllers can throttle the flow too. We routinely hear from designers that it is nearly impossible to meet the exact Flow Control (MR #7) standard as written and still provide a safe amount of overflow control or fail safes for pump failures.
It has been done successfully on a few occasions by utilizing a system of 4 small pumps or providing an additional stilling basin to help 're-mitigate' the pumped discharge. However, such small pumps create additional concern for managing flows in the event of extreme storm events, failed detention, and/or failed pumps. And the urban nature of these developments rarely affords enough room for another large diameter stilling basin at an elevated level. Neither option has been ideal.
We find, in our discussion with designers struggling to meet these requirements, that our interpretation is apparently stricter than most; with the general suggestion being that most jurisdictions have no concern for flow rates downstream of the detention system control structure, or that they prohibit pumped discharges all together. If true, the receiving waters are experiencing peaks flow rates at the maximum pump discharge rates, and are not receiving the benefit of matching peaks or durations per the Flow Control requirement (MR #7), nor the low-flow control per the LID requirement (MR #5).
City of Shoreline staff are of the opinion that the lack of direction around how to manage and treat pumped discharges in the context of meeting the minimum requirements has led to varied local interpretations that have resulted in, unintentional negative receiving water impacts, unintentional inequitable application of drainage standards across jurisdictions, and unintentional barriers to certain development types which are critical to regional housing efforts.
Accordingly, the City of Shoreline would like to request that Ecology consider and include new, additional, direction in the SWMMWW update to help ensure the minimum requirements are universally applied to pumped discharges per Ecology's intent. Even if Ecology decides that detention prior to a pumped discharge meets the intent of the minimum requirements without additional need (and designers have suggested peak-averaging may lead to this conclusion), simply adding a line to this effect would be a significant help to local reviewers.
We thank you again for the opportunity to comment and be included in SWMMWW development so early in the process. We appreciate the collaborative approach and look forward to the final results!
Attachments:

Comment From: Eric Dightman

10/25/22 @ 1:34 PM
Please give strong consideration to removing permeable pavement (PP) from your manual. I believe the permeable pavement is neither permeable nor pavement. I direct this comment toward asphalt and portland cement concrete permeable pavements. The v...↓

A better alternative to PP would be to construct the same storage layer in the subgrade required by PP. Except the subgrade would then be paved with standard ACP or PCP. Runoff from these surfaces could be directed to a pre-settling or water quality feature before discharging to the storage layer beneath the pavement.

Thank you for considering my comment.
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/19/22 @ 12:28 PM
The SWMMWW currently defines crushed gravel as an impervious surface. Contrary to this definition, the SWMMWW defines paving over gravel as a new impervious surface. During large rain events a significantly quantity of fine sediment often enters sto...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/19/22 @ 12:27 PM
The proposed update in the road related projects threshold to now also include replaced hard surfaces in the evaluation should be considered impractical. This is especially the case when considering the current pavement maintenance definition which i...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/19/22 @ 12:26 PM
The proposed update in runoff treatment threshold from the current 5,000sf of PGIS to 2,000sf of PGIS will disproportionally impact development of individual single family residential (SFR) housing not associated with a plat and would result in a ver...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Steven Keith

10/18/22 @ 1:32 PM
When reviewing plan submittals from developers there are a few topics that meet a lot of resistance that I believe require more guidance and stress throughout the manual. For what it's worth, I think the manual is clear enough however, developers sti...↓
1. PGPS: many developers refused to classify their pervious surfacing as pollution generating and will not provide substantive evidence that land management will provide a "non-pollution generating" pervious surface.
2. Guidance for small detention systems (aka "0.5-inch orifice guidance"): developers seem to struggle showing that they are following this guidance and occasionally are resistant to meet the 3-foot live storage requirement. The claim is that they are unable to meet the stream duration standard with 3-feet of live storage. In one case the developer provided models with 6-foot detention tanks (5.5 feet live storage) and orifices under 0.5 inches, meeting the standard, but design plans with 0.5-inch orifices. To my understanding, this would result in an unacceptable flow rate release and demonstrates a lack of understanding the requirement/guidance. For presentation, I typically request that three models are provided: 1. auto size that shows orifice is less than 0.5 inches 2. upsize orifice to 0.5 inches (remove and or adjust upper orifices) 3. reduce facility size until the 100-year WSEL ~= 3 feet. Further description might be required and a comment on how the information should be presented could be helpful to designers.
3. Design of flow control system overflow risers: design submittals rarely include discussion / information pertaining to the design of the overflow riser. To my understanding they must be designed assuming the control orifices are clogged. This can be done with the WSDOT nomograph or a model with the orifices removed. Further stress on this design element may be required
The following are general comments I have pertaining to the guidance provided in the SWMMWW:
4. Permeable pavements are commonly skirted around by designers without geotechnical reports, especially on smaller projects where the MR 5 BMP could create a benefit to its basin. Typically, jurisdictions do not want to maintain smaller sections of permeable pavements (generally sidewalks) but there are no provisions to make this argument. Ecology should make it clearer that a geotech report is/is not required (or if the NRCS soils report may be used for MR 5 BMPs), if permeable pavements may be disregarded due to maintenance concerns, or if permeable pavements may be disregarded where it would result in a small section of dis-similar pavements (maintenance efforts and aesthetics). As it currently stands, some projects are specifically scoped around avoiding flow control and runoff treatment thresholds and weak/unsupported arguments against the feasibility of permeable pavements. This begs the question, "why do we have MR #5 if the unintended goal is to avoid these BMPs to the maximum extent feasible?".
5. Projects that result in PGIS / new impervious surfaces just under thresholds should be recorded and tracked by the authority having jurisdiction and regionally treated or planned to be treated VIA retrofit projects (perhaps it is, however, I am unaware of any such concept). While I am sure it is a relatively small proportion of the overall discharge of untreated (FC/WQ) water I believe that it is also not insubstantial when considered cumulatively. See the scoping comment in Item #4: The unintended goal of some projects is to avoid triggers and BMPs. This could be considered as knowingly creating illicit discharges. It would then be the responsibility of the AHJ to track and treat cumulative effects throughout that jurisdiction. I am unsure of the method/mechanism to enforce such a requirement but believe that it is worth considering.
6. Wetlands protection: confusion comes up regarding the "direct or indirect" discharge to a wetland language. Designers use quantifiable measures such as the 1/4-mile TDA distance or "up to one mile" offsite analysis distance to Identify wetlands that fall under MR 8's requirements. To my understanding and based on conversations with ecology, this is not typically the case as wetlands further downstream may require protection. For example, a project discharges to a critical wetland 1.5 miles downstream but is contained within a manmade conveyance system for that 1.5-mile distance. I am not aware of an explicit requirement to identify the receiving water so there could be circumstances where "maintaining the natural drainage pattern" is presumed if a project connects to an existing stormwater network. This theoretical project would have performed a downstream analysis of "up to one mile" and have never identified the receiving water as a critical wetland.
Some basin reports throughout the greater Seattle area (King to Snohomish County) allude to degrading wetland conditions/habitats, flooding, and increased pollutants. Further care and investigation may be required to truly protect these waters. The other comments above are related to wetlands protection: If PGPS is not properly identified and its treatment enforced, there will be increased pollutant loading on natural systems. If permeable pavements are not installed where they are technically feasible, we will not benefit from the cumulative effect of such BMPs required under MR 5. If cumulative impacts from projects under the current thresholds are not tracked and mitigated, there could be minor localized impacts throughout jurisdictions (some studies suggest that minor concentrations of certain pollutants result in relatively large impacts) and minor impacts to the greater basin. If receiving waters and wetlands are not properly identified, they cannot be protected.
No attachments