DOCSLIB.ORG

Efficacy of Military and Community Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Efficacy of Military and Community Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region Efficacy of Military and Community Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region Daniel Cloutier A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning University of Washington 2020 Committee: Robert Freitag Branden Born Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Urban Design and Planning © Copyright 2020 Daniel Cloutier University of Washington Abstract Efficacy of Military and Community Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region Daniel Cloutier Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Robert Freitag Department of Urban Design and Planning Washington State’s Puget Sound region is home to three major military installations that work in partnership with neighboring communities to develop land use plans, policies, and regulations supportive of the U.S. Department of Defense mission and community development goals. This thesis evaluates the efficacy of land use compatibility planning processes employed by cities and counties surrounding Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Naval Base Kitsap, and Naval Station Everett. Findings indicate that these military installations and community partners generally engage in effective compatibility planning; and that enduring relationships, adequate resourcing, and relevant planning tools are significant contributors to compatibility planning efficacy. Based on these findings, this thesis recommends the establishment of structured partnerships, the advancement of localized planning guidance and tools, and advocacy for compatibility program funding as considerations for Puget Sound military installations and civilian communities engaging in compatibility planning. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Question .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Process ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Compatibility Planning in the Puget Sound Region ....................................................... 3 1.4 Existing Compatibility Planning Research ..................................................................... 4 1.5 Document Structure ........................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Compatibility Drivers ..................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Compatibility Processes and Tools ............................................................................... 12 2.3 Compatibility Advocacy ............................................................................................... 20 2.4 Conclusion and Gaps in Research ................................................................................. 25 Chapter 3. Research Methods ....................................................................................................... 26 3.1 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 26 3.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................. 27 3.3 Data Definitions and Collection Procedures ................................................................. 28 3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 29 Chapter 4. Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 45 4.1 Joint Base Lewis-McChord........................................................................................... 46 4.2 Naval Base Kitsap ......................................................................................................... 73 4.3 Naval Station Everett .................................................................................................. 100 Chapter 5. Puget Sound Compatibility Analysis ........................................................................ 116 5.1 Compatibility Planning Process Efficacy ................................................................... 116 5.2 Compatibility Planning Best Practices........................................................................ 117 5.3 Compatibility Planning Challenges ............................................................................ 121 Chapter 6. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 126 6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 127 6.2 Theory Development .................................................................................................. 129 6.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 133 6.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 136 6.5 Further Research ......................................................................................................... 138 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 140 References ................................................................................................................................... 142 Appendix: Stakeholder Interview Questions .............................................................................. 148 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Research Process Diagram ............................................................................. 30 Figure 3.2. Temi Web-Based Transcription Screenshot ................................................... 32 Figure 3.3. Dedoose Project Summary Webpage ............................................................. 33 Figure 3.4. Process Effectiveness Rating Chart (Example) .............................................. 37 Figure 3.5. Compatibility Planning Best Practices (Example) ......................................... 41 Figure 4.1. Study Area Map .............................................................................................. 45 Figure 4.2. Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Pierce County .............................................. 46 Figure 4.3. JBLM Process Effectiveness Rating Chart..................................................... 58 Figure 4.4. JBLM Compatibility Planning Best Practices ................................................ 62 Figure 4.5. JBLM Compatibility Planning Common Challenges ..................................... 67 Figure 4.6. Naval Base Kitsap and Kitsap County ........................................................... 73 Figure 4.7. NBK Process Effectiveness Rating Chart ...................................................... 86 Figure 4.8. NBK Compatibility Planning Best Practices .................................................. 90 Figure 4.9. NBK Compatibility Planning Common Challenges....................................... 95 Figure 4.10. Naval Station Everett and Snohomish County ........................................... 100 Figure 4.11. NSE Process Effectiveness Rating Chart ................................................... 106 Figure 4.12. NSE Compatibility Planning Best Practices............................................... 110 Figure 4.13. NSE Compatibility Planning Common Challenges ................................... 113 Figure 5.1. Puget Sound Region Compatibility Planning Best Practices ....................... 119 Figure 5.2. Puget Sound Region Compatibility Planning Common Challenges ............ 122 i LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Compatibility Planning Analysis Data Inventory (Example) .......................... 31 Table 3.2. Compatibility Recommendation Implementation (Example) .......................... 31 Table 3.3. Compatibility Planning Process Effectiveness Rating Codes.......................... 34 Table 3.4. Dedoose Stakeholder Interview Code Structure .............................................. 35 Table 3.5. Case Study Implementation Status (Example) ................................................ 36 Table 3.6. Individual Stakeholder Process Effectiveness Rating Summary (Example) ... 37 Table 3.7. Combined Stakeholder Process Effectiveness Rating Summary (Example) ... 38 Table 3.8. Stakeholder Best Practices: Frequency of Occurrence (Example) .................. 39 Table 3.9. Stakeholder Challenges/Barriers: Frequency of Occurrence (Example) ........ 40 Table 3.10. Case Study A Efficacy Summary (Example) ................................................ 41 Table 3.11. Case Study Data Comparison (Example) ...................................................... 42 Table 4.1. JBLM Compatibility Planning Analysis Data Inventory ................................. 48 Table 4.2. JBLM JLUS Compatibility Recommendations ............................................... 49 Table 4.3. JBLM Compatibility Recommendation Implementation ................................ 52 Table 4.4. JBLM Compatibility Recommendation Implementation Summary ................ 57 Table 4.5. JBLM Individual Stakeholder Process Effectiveness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan
    Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan April 1997 City of Everett Environmental Protection Agency Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Washington State Department of Ecology Snohomish Estuary Wetlands Integration Plan April 1997 Prepared by: City of Everett Department of Planning and Community Development Paul Roberts, Director Project Team City of Everett Department of Planning and Community Development Stephen Stanley, Project Manager Roland Behee, Geographic Information System Analyst Becky Herbig, Wildlife Biologist Dave Koenig, Manager, Long Range Planning and Community Development Bob Landles, Manager, Land Use Planning Jan Meston, Plan Production Washington State Department of Ecology Tom Hruby, Wetland Ecologist Rick Huey, Environmental Scientist Joanne Polayes-Wien, Environmental Scientist Gail Colburn, Environmental Scientist Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Duane Karna, Fisheries Biologist Linda Storm, Environmental Protection Specialist Funded by EPA Grant Agreement No. G9400112 Between the Washington State Department of Ecology and the City of Everett EPA Grant Agreement No. 05/94/PSEPA Between Department of Ecology and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Cover Photo: South Spencer Island - Joanne Polayes Wien Acknowledgments The development of the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan would not have been possible without an unusual level of support and cooperation between resource agencies and local governments. Due to the foresight of many individuals, this process became a partnership in which jurisdictional politics were set aside so that true land use planning based on the ecosystem rather than political boundaries could take place. We are grateful to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Ecology (DOE) and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority for funding this planning effort, and to Linda Storm of the EPA and Lynn Beaton (formerly of DOE) for their guidance and encouragement during the grant application process and development of the Wetland Integration Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Tsunami Inundation for Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington, from the Seattle Fault
    NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-147 doi:10.7289/V59Z92V0 MODELING TSUNAMI INUNDATION FOR HAZARD MAPPING AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON, FROM THE SEATTLE FAULT C. Chamberlin D. Arcas Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Seattle, WA August 2015 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND Office of Oceanic and ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Atmospheric Research NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-147 doi:10.7289/V59Z92V0 MODELING TSUNAMI INUNDATION FOR HAZARD MAPPING AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON, FROM THE SEATTLE FAULT C. Chamberlin1 and D. Arcas2,3 1 The Climate Corporation, Seattle, WA 2 Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO), University of Washington, Seattle, WA 3 NOAA Center for Tsunami Research (NCTR) / Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), Seattle, WA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory August 2015 UNITED STATES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND Office of Oceanic and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Atmospheric Research Penny Pritzker Kathryn Sullivan Craig McLean Secretary Under Secretary for Oceans Assistant Administrator and Atmosphere/Administrator NOTICE from NOAA Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by NOAA/ OAR. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the tests of such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Contribution No. 3625 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Contribution No. 1833 from Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) Also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) (http://w w w.ntis.gov) TSUNAMI HAZARD MAPPING AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON iii Contents List of Figures v List of Tables v 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Flow at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington
    Prepared in cooperation with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command–Northwest Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Flow at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington Open-File Report 2016–1135 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Flow at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington By Joseph L. Jones, Kenneth H. Johnson, and Lonna M. Frans Prepared in cooperation with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command-Northwest Open-File Report 2016–1135 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Jones, J.L., Johnson, K.H., and Frans, L.M., 2016, Numerical simulation of groundwater flow at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg
    MAJOR GENERAL TIMOTHY J. LOWENBERG The Adjutant General, Washington Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg was appointed Adjutant General of the State of Washington on 13 September 1999. As the Adjutant General, he is commander of all Washington Army and Air National Guard forces and Director of the State’s Emergency Management and Enhanced 911 programs. General Lowenberg also serves as Homeland Security Advisor to the Governor of Washington and as State Administrative Agent for all United States Department of Homeland Security grants awarded to Washington’s state, local, tribal and non-profit agencies and organizations. In addition, he serves as Chair of Homeland Defense and Homeland Security of the Adjutants General Association of the United States; Chair of the Governors Homeland Security Advisors Council (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices); Chair of the Governor’s Domestic Security Sub-committee; and Chair of the Governor's 2010 Winter Olympics Task Force Security Committee. From 2005 through 2008, he served as a founding Tri-Chair of the National Homeland Security Consortium - a coalition of more than two-dozen public and private sector national associations. General Lowenberg is a distinguished graduate of the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. He was commissioned in 1968 concurrent with award of a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Iowa. He earned a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1971 and has served as Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Puget Sound School of Law and Seattle University School of Law from 1973 to present.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development Appendix
    Technical Appendices Economic Development Appendix Table of Contents City Profile ................................................................................................................. ED Appendix-2 Inventory of the Local and Regional Economy ......................................................... ED Appendix-3 Kitsap County Regional Economy ......................................................................... ED Appendix-4 Naval Base Kitsap .................................................................................................. ED Appendix-5 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan ED Appendix-1 Appendices Appendix Economic Development City Profile The City of Bremerton is the largest city in Kitsap County, only 11 miles across the water from Seattle and just 33 miles northwest of Tacoma off State Highway 16. The Washington State Ferry system conveniently links downtown Bremerton to downtown Seattle, providing unobstructed automobile access, a unique feature, in comparison to other satellite cities around Seattle. State highways tie Bremerton and Port of Bremerton facilities (including the Bremerton National Airport), to Tacoma on the south, and to the Hood Canal Bridge on the north, Puget Sound’s link to the Olympic Peninsula. The table below compares Bremerton statistics with Kitsap County and Washington State. Table EC-1 Bremerton Statistics, Compared with Kitsap County, State of WA Bremerton Kitsap County Washington State Population, 2014 Estimate 38,572 254,183 7,061,530 Population, 2010 37,729 251,133 6,724,540
    [Show full text]
  • 194Th Wing Redesignated by 2Nd Lt
    Fall 2015 194th Wing redesignated By 2nd Lt. Hans Zeiger Wing has become a poor description Wing’s purpose, said Horn. “All of for this composite organization, and what we do is operations,” he said. JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD— doctrinally incorrect,” said Maj. Jes- With the shorter title, “less is The 194th Regional Support Wing se Ruhl, Wing executive officer, in more,” said Horn. “The name re- was redesignated as the 194th Wing remarks at the ceremony. flects a big tent.” in a ceremony at French Theater Even as the 194th has proved its The 252nd Group was the major here on August 8. In the new desig- value to the Guard’s federal mission, forerunner of the 194th Wing, said nation, the 194th will be under the its designation as a “regional sup- Ruhl in a brief description of the U.S. Space Command, while it was port wing” was a point of confusion, Wing’s history. In 1976, the Group previously under the Air Combat said Col. Jeremy Horn, 194th Wing took on a medical detachment at Command. commander. The word “support” Camp Murray to support the “The term Regional Support doesn’t adequately describe the (CONTINUED on PAGE 8) In this issue: Airmen lend support at fires Exercise Ever- and civilians from Incident green Tremor Management Teams as they Commander’s served in various roles in the Corner: “What’s fight against wildfires in Northern and Central Wash- in a Name?” ington. Operation Husky Air National Guardsmen Airborne have been supporting fire- fighting efforts and incident Airman Perez- commanders in seven differ- Resop recognized ent locations, including the as services Air- Okanogan Complex, which man of the Year has now become the largest wildfire in state history.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • Kitsap County Veterans Memorials and Museums
    Kitsap County Veterans Memorials and Museums UPDATED 9 August 2015 Written and researched by Marion T, (Mick) Hersey, Historical Memorial Preservationist Layout assistance and editing by Leif Bentsen I would like to cordially invite you to view the Memorials and Museums to Veterans throughout Kitsap County. Over the past 5 years I have led groups in refurbishing and cleaning up a lot of these sites. When I started this project in 2010 I did not realize there were so many memorials and museums in our county, the current count is over 100, (This is counting all Boardwalk plaques as 1 even though there are over 300). The 2 of the newest memorials in 2014 were in honor of John D. (Bud) Hawk. At the Veteran’s Day Service a portion of Illahee RD in front of Brownsville Elementary was named “John (Bud) Hawk Memorial DR” and discussion took place to honor him with a Elementary School. The new Elementary school in Jackson Park is now called “The John D. “Bud” Hawk Elementary School at Jackson Park”. We also welcomed an addition to Evergreen Park, the 9-11 Memorial. On the Boardwalk we dedicated and placed a Memorial stone to those that perished from Washington State on the USS Frank E. Evans. So we are expanding our listing with these Memorials, Honorariums and Museums. This year in 2015, the crew of the USS Bremerton came to town and the plaque in honor of their Submarine was added to the Memorial at Hal’s Corner. Memorials were also added as they were located at the VFW in honor of their member who was a Medal of Honor Recipient and in Port Orchard, the Clayton Playground which is named after Michael Clayton.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulalip Tribes V. Suquamish Tribe
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TULALIP TRIBES, No. 13-35773 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos. v. 2:05-sp-00004- RSM SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, 2:70-cv-09213- Defendant-Appellee, RSM and OPINION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY; JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE; LOWER ELWHA BAND OF KLALLAMS; PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBE; NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE; SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE; LUMMI NATION; NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE; QUINAULT INDIAN NATION; STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE; PUYALLUP TRIBE; MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE; QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE, Real-parties-in-interest. 2 TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 8, 2014—Seattle, Washington Filed July 27, 2015 Before: Richard A. Paez, Jay S. Bybee, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Paez SUMMARY* Indian Law The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a treaty fishing rights case in which the Tulalip Tribes sought a determination of the scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. The Tulalip Tribes invoked the district court’s continuing jurisdiction as provided by a permanent injunction entered in 1974. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that certain contested areas were not excluded from the Suquamish Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations, as determined by the district court in 1975. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Evaluation
    Metro Everett Plan – Market Evaluation Date April 2016 To Paul Popelka, City of Everett From Leland Consulting Group Introduction The City of Everett’s Planning and Community Development Department engaged Leland Consulting Group (LCG) to conduct this market evaluation as part of the Everett Metro Center Plan and Brownfields Assessment efforts. The focus of LCG’s analysis, and this memorandum, has been to: Estimate a 10- and 20-year forecast of residential and commercial development; Identify metrics that suggest which properties and areas are likely to redevelop; Conduct a preliminary review of the zoning code within the Metro Center, and recommend zoning modifications that could encourage development; and, Provide “big ideas” that could assist with the ongoing success of the Metro Center. Economic Development Context This Metro Center planning effort takes place within the context of several national and international economic trends. The first is the exceptional ongoing strength of the Puget Sound economy; the second is the “downtown rebound” trend that has gained momentum in recent decades. Both are very beneficial to the Everett Metro Center. However, they do not guarantee success on all fronts, since the fortunes of the entire Puget Sound region do not necessarily translate directly to development in central Everett. One excellent source for national and regional perspective on current real estate trends is the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) annual Emerging Trends in Real Estate report. The 2016 report ranks the Seattle region as number four for development and investment prospects among 75 metropolitan markets nationwide—above San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NFS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places NATIONAL Registration Form REGISTER This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts. See Instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the Instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. 1. Name of Property historic name________Adjutant General's Residence___________________________ other names/site number___Building 118___________________________________________ 2. Location street & number Camp Murray D not for publication city, town Tacoma C3 vicinity state Washington code WA county Pierce code 053 zip code 98430 3. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property EH private S building(s) Contributing Noncontributing CH public-local CH district 1 0 buildings HO, public-State D site _ _ sites D public-Federal EH structure _ _ structures [U object _ _ objects 1_ 0_ Total Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously N/A________________ listed in the National Register 0 4. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this S] nomination d request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Permit Fact Sheet, Naval Station Everett MS4, #WAS026620
    NPDES Permit # WAS026620 Naval Station Everett Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Fact Sheet The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposes to Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Municipal Stormwater Discharges to: Naval Station Everett, Washington WAS026620 Public Comment Start Date: September 30, 2019 Public Comment Expiration Date: November 14, 2019 Technical Contact: Misha Vakoc Jenny Molloy 206-553-6650 202-564-1939 [email protected] [email protected] EPA Requests Public Comment on the Proposed Permit The EPA proposes to issue an NPDES permit authorizing the discharge of stormwater from all municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) outfalls owned or operated by Naval Station Everett. Permit requirements are based on Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), and EPA’s Phase II regulations for MS4 discharges, published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999, 64 Fed. Reg. 68722. See also 40 CFR Part 122. The NPDES permit requires the implementation of a comprehensive municipal stormwater management program (SWMP) and outlines the management practices to be used by the Permittee to control pollutants in stormwater discharges. The permit establishes conditions, prohibitions, and management practices for discharges of stormwater from the MS4 owned or operated by Naval Station Everett. Assessment of water quality, through a selected combination of surface water, stormwater discharge, and biological sampling, is also included. Annual reporting is required to provide information on the status of SWMP implementation. This Fact Sheet includes: ▪ information on public comment, public hearing and appeal procedures; ▪ a description of the Naval Station Everett MS4; and ▪ a description of requirements for the SWMP, a schedule of compliance, and other conditions.
    [Show full text]