With as much rain as falls on us and our property and our reliance upon the health of our aquifers and the Puget Sound, you would think managing stormwater runoff would be among the foremost concerns hereabouts. However, in our area, as well as much of unincorporated Thurston County, the impact of development on runoff and the effects of that runoff on water quality rarely enters our minds. Stormwater pollution can pose serious health risks and significant environmental threats to the quality of freshwater, including our drinking water, and the Puget Sound. The Thurston County Storm and Surface Water Utility provides programs and projects to reduce flooding, erosion and pollution caused by stormwater runoff, while protecting and enhancing aquatic habitat. The Utility is supported by property taxes. As ratepayers to this Utility, we ought to familiarize ourselves with the Storm and Surface Water Advisory Board (SSWAB). This Board provides homeowners with an important means of influencing important local policies.

At their meeting on January 17, 2013, the Advisory Board will brief County Commissioners on new standards for the management of runoff caused by development. There is a real opportunity here for important public comment. That is, provided the public can become informed enough to participate in a meaningful way.

UPDATE: SSWAB will brief the County Commissioners during a meeting of the Commissioners on February 20 at 3:00PM. The meeting is in the Thurston County Courthouse Building, Room 280. The SSWAB will likely recommend the County adopt NPDES standard and the so-called “65/0” development standard. What is NPDES and 65/0? Read on to find out. . .

What is the Storm and Surface Water Advisory Board?

According to the web page for SSWAB:

The Storm and Surface Water Advisory Board reviews issues affecting Thurston County’s Storm and Surface Water Utility, and makes recommendations to the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners. Among other things, the board examines utility rates, construction projects, public-information efforts, staff work plans and stormwater policies. Members are appointed by county commissioners.

SSWAB members are appointed to represent specific areas in the County. Tom Holz is the representative for Eld Inlet. Also near to us, Bob Allison represents the McLane Creek Basin and he is also the current vice-chair for the Board.

What are the Stormwater Rules at Issue?

Federal law requires counties to adopt rules which minimize stormwater pollution under what in Thurston County is called an “NPDES Phase II Permit.” The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is a federal permit system based in the Federal Clean Water Act. To make things more complicated, in our state, the state Department of Ecology develops and administers NPDES municipal stormwater permits in Washington State. In adopting standards to be enforced under the NPDES, the Department of Ecology has landed itself in hot water. Their Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit was appealed by thirteen cities and two counties which refer to themselves as the “Coalition of Washington Governmental Entities”. None of these cities or counties are in the south Sound. This coalition sought to weaken the Department of Ecology’s permit requirements. In a summary prepared for our Board of County Commissioners by Thurston County staff reported:

The Coalition’s notice of appeal asserts Ecology acted “unreasonably, unjustly or unlawfully” in imposing prescriptive and expensive requirements in the permit without considering reasonable alternatives or cost.  The appeal identifies seventeen specific permit conditions or provisions that the Coalition contends will adversely affect the economic health of their communities and impose “economic burdens on Coalition members and their communities.” The permit conditions being appealed include the Low Impact Development (LID) performance standards and its impact on land use planning and compliance with the Growth Management Act, field screening 40% of the stormwater system before 2017 and 12% every year thereafter, inspecting catch basins every two years, required annual fee to Ecology for the monitoring program and various procedural and process elements of the permit.

Appeal such as that made by this coalition are heard by the state Pollution Control Hearings Board.

Other interested groups believe the Department of Ecology’s standards are too weak. In August 2011 The Carnegie Group of Olympia wrote to Governor Gregoire asking that she “intervene to prevent the adoption of a proposed rule that most likely will spell the demise of Puget Sound by failing to protect tributary watersheds.” The Carnegie Group and others have taken issue with Ecology’s standard with respect to how much forest must remain, after development, what portion of the development can be made a “hardened surface” which will cause water to run off, and how much of the water falling on a property may be allowed to run off.

In September 2011 we published a piece entitled “Will Proposed Low Impact Development Standard Protect or Harm Washington State Watersheds?” which details Ecology’s proposals and the calls for higher standards to be adopted.

How Can You Get Involved?

Do a little reading about stormwater runoff, what’s at risk and why it’s management is important, and learn about easy steps you can take to reduce runoff on your property. Click here to read our past pieces regarding stormwater runoff.

Make your opinion about the NPEDS permit known to the Storm and Surface Water Advisory Board. Their meetings and general agenda topics have been added to our Community Calendar. NPDES permit language and a briefing of the County Commissioners is scheduled for the meeting on February 20. Click here for more information regarding the SSWAB meeting schedule.

Rainwater Management in Puget Sound

In August 2008, the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board issued a ruling declaring effectively that the Department of Ecology’s (ECY) storm drainage requirements did not adhere to requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. In response, ECY formed a technical advisory committee to define ‘low impact development’ (LID) and to determine criteria for feasibility of LID. The committee finished its work in summer 2010.

Request for Intervention by Governor Gregoire

In a recent letter to Governor Christine Gregoire, the Carnegie Group of Olympia has expressed its concerns about the pending regulatory direction. “As a result of this overly long process, ECY now proposes to write a perplexing version of ‘low impact development’ into National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permits for municipalities,” wrote Carole Richmond, President.

The letter asks the Governor to intervene to prevent the adoption of a proposed rule that the Carnegie Group believes “will most likely spell the demise of Puget Sound by failing to protect tributary watersheds”.

The letter states that the proposed standard offers no improvement over the existing standard. To provide context and a frame of reference, the letter then summarizes the science of watershed health.

“It is clear that ECY’s proposed standard for low impact development is far too weak and permissive to prevent fatal damage to Puget Sound watersheds . . . it is highly likely that we will lose the rest of the watersheds in the path of development by 2020,” concluded Carole Richmond.

The Carnegie Group makes four recommendations, summarized as follows: acknowledge the characteristics of a healthy watershed; redefine LID; place a moratorium on greenfield developments outside city limits; and require that re-development projects result in a net increase in forest cover.

To download a copy of the letter, click on Department of Ecology’s Proposed Low Impact Development Standard Will Not Protect Watersheds

VIDEO: “Why DOE drainage standards will not protect Puget Sound”, according to Tom Holz

Tom Holz is well-known in Washington State for his tireless efforts in leading change in the field of rainwater management and green infrastructure. Among Canadian practitioners in this field, Tom Holz is a recognized name in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, as he has been invited to speak at a number of Canadian forums over the past two decades. Formerly with the City of Olympia, he is a Past-President of the Carnegie Group. He also served on the LID technical advisory committee.

In the late 1990s, Tom Holz coined the acronym ZID – that is, Zero Impact Designs – to describe an approach that sharply reduce the “effective impervious area” of new development with practices such as eco-roofs, roof gardens, rain barrels, alternative paving surfaces, soil amendments, bioretention, reforestation, and filter-swale systems.

To Learn More:

In March 2011, the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners requested a seminar by Tom Holz on “Why DOE drainage standards will not protect Puget Sound”. The seminar is posted on YouTube. To view Tom Holz, click on the two links below:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxlezjpGXSU (52 minutes)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n5nFD6x7ps (14 minutes)

The first link is about 52 minutes (fast forward to the 4.13 minute mark to get past the set up). The second link is closing and discussion with decision makers and public. “It’s a bit dry so make a bowl of popcorn,” recommends Tom Holz.

To download a copy of the letter of concurrence submitted by Tom Holz, click on Letter to Governor Gregoire about the Future of Puget Sound

The View from British Columbia

Washington State and British Columbia are geographically similar, with a wet coast and a relatively dry interior separated by mountain ranges. On the coast, Washington State’s Puget Sound and British Columbia’s Georgia Basin together comprise the Salish Sea. In terms of how rainwater management in a watershed context has evolved in this shared bio-region, there is a history of cross-border sharing and collaboration. The catalyst for collaboration was the salmon crisis of the 1990s.

What is the Goal?

“On both sides of the border, the salmon is an icon. It is also the early warning system that there is a problem. And so in the 1990s the goal of protecting stream health became a driver for action on both sides of the border. Published in 1996 by the University of Washington, the seminal research findings by Richard Horner and Chris May shook conventional stormwater management wisdom in the Pacific Northwest to its foundation,” recalls Kim Stephens, Executive Director of the Partnership for Water Sustainability in British Columbia.

“Horner and May identified and ranked the four factors that limit stream health. Changes in hydrology is #1; deterioration in water quality is #4. The work of Horner and May is a foundation block for the science-based approach to ‘designing with nature’ that we have embraced in BC. Their work yielded guiding principles, and these are standing the test of time. Viewed from a BC perspective, the legacy of Horner and May is that they provided us with a springboard to reinvent urban hydrology. By staying true to the science, we believe we will achieve the goal of protecting stream health.”

To Learn More:

British Columbia and Washington State had the same understanding of the science in the late 1990s, but then moved along different pathways. To access supporting information on the approach that has been implemented in British Columbia, click on:

• DFO Urban Stormwater Guidelines have evolved into ‘Beyond the Guidebook 2010’
• A Science-Based Road Map for Integrated Rainwater Management (Note: This article elaborates on the Reference Levels for Land Use Planning graphic that is presented below. To download a PDF copy of it, cilck here)
• “Understand How Water Reaches the Stream and Design for Interflow”, urges Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Also, for a philosophical perspective, click on Do you know where you really are in the shifting paradigms of stormwater management?

And finally, for a technical perspective on why it was necessary to “reinvent urban hydrology”, click on Voodoo Hydrology explained by Andy Reese.

Related Stories About Puget Sound on Water Bucket

Washington State Decision Makes Low Impact Development Mandatory — Communities examine the definition of “where feasible” (July 2009)

Washington State: Bold cleanup plan to save Puget Sound gets green light — Key element of Action Agenda is reduction of rainwater runoff by capturing rain where it falls (December 2008)

Stormwater regulation in Puget Sound (Washington State) fails to protect water quality and salmon when it rains — A citizen perspective on why regulation is not working (September 2008)

Setting Soil Standards in King County, Washington, with the Future in Mind — “Healthy Soil = Healthy Homes” — charting a new course for rainwater/stormwater management (September 2008)

Washington State scientists call for changes in land use practices in Puget Sound — End-of-Pipe treatment and detention of rainwater/stormwater runoff discredited (August 2008)

Rainwater Management on Diverging Paths in British Columbia and Washington State? — BC’s Water Sustainability Action Plan introduced to Washington State audience at 2007 cross-border conference (November 2007)

Bill Derry of Washington State issues call for action in Puget Sound — Stormwater specialist outlines 10 point plan for changing land development practices for the better (October 2007)

UPDATES: What do you think about the regulations proposed by the Department of Ecology?

Send your opinion to:
Governor Christine Gregoire
Office of the Governor
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Or you can click here to send an email through the governor’s web page.

If you wish to send a message concurring with the Carnegie Group, here is some suggested text:

“Dear Governor Gregoire: 

Department of Ecology’s proposed regulations for low impact development will not protect watersheds and streams. They will likely spell the end of Puget Sound over the next decade. I concur with the Carnegie Group’s letter to you dated 8 August 2011.”

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners has requested a seminar by Tom Holz on “Why DOE drainage standards will not protect Puget Sound”. The seminar will describe how low impact development is the only path to protect the Sound.

If a healthy Puget Sound is important to you, please help persuade Thurston County to adopt low impact development standards by appearing at the seminar on:

Wednesday, March 30, 2011
4:00 PM
Thurston County Courthouse, Building 1

The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) appears to be on a path to continue using the same standard for development for the next five to eight years that has been used for the last decade. DOE calls it the “flow-duration” standard. It more accurately should be described as the 0/100/100 standard. That is, DOE will require “0%” forest set-aside, will allow “100%” hardened surfaces, and will allow “100%” runoff of precipitation falling on a site. As almost everyone knows, healthy streams are found in watersheds that are 100% forested. Stream channels begin to destabilize following the clearing of about one-third of its watershed. Thus DOE will allow development that will result in exactly the opposite of a healthy watershed.

At this juncture, there is almost no organized public opposition to DOE’s proposal. Your presence at the seminar will help to signal that there is opposition. Please come.