Better Design Better Outcomes by Sanjay Kapoor

Cover Image: Wallpaper Abyss – Alpha Coders, “Raindrops Keep Falling”

February 2014 Citation: Kapoor, S. (2014). Better Design, Better Outcomes: Applying Lean design to stormwater regulation. Seattle, WA: Washington Business Alliance.

Acknowledgments V. 1.0

This report is the result of a collaboration between regulators, enforcers of regulations, and compliers. It builds on the expertise of a wide array of professionals in the arena of stormwater management and regulation. The WA Business Alliance is responsible for the content of this report, and would like to thank the people and organizations who lent their support to its creation. We thank the following individuals for lending their expertise and time in informing the development of this report’s content: Kevin Burrell, Executive Director ECOSS Michael Grady, Chief, WA Transportation Branch NOAA Pat Jablonski, Environmental Engineer Nucor Steel Bill Moore, PDS Section Manager, WQ Program WA State Department of Ecology Adam Rosen, Property Manager Alco Investment Company Larry Schaffner, Stormwater Program Coordinator & Policy Advisor WA State Department of Transportation

Bob Duffner, Sustainability Manager Port of Seattle Mark Isaacson, Division Director King County, DNRP—WLRD Margaret McCauley, Stormwater Permit Administrator EPA Region 10 Brian Penttila, Chemical Engineer PPRC Susan Saffery City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities

We would like to thank The Russell Family Foundation for their generous grant, which made this Phase I study possible. Through their work and support, they are helping to resolve our state’s most critical issues. Our thanks and appreciation to Joanna Sylwester, for her legal research and for writing the Legal Landscape appendix of the document. Finally, thanks to Mass Ingenuity for lending their workshop facilitation talents.

©2014 Washington Business Alliance Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Abstract Better Design, Better Outcomes uses Lean techniques (e.g., value stream mapping) to guide the design of processes underlying stormwater regulation. Examining regulation in this manner helps government ease the burden on business and helps business ease the burden on government, as they become partners in the common quest of improved water quality.

Content Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Approach ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Case study ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Multiple definitions of water quality ............................................................................................................. 5 Many governments ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Many requirements........................................................................................................................................ 5 Complier perspective missing ........................................................................................................................ 6 Variations of the same process ...................................................................................................................... 7 Obsolete public engagement process ............................................................................................................ 7 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 “one water” .................................................................................................................................................... 8 “better design” ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Public involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Step 1: Build the business case ................................................................................................................ 16 Step 2: Develop a pilot ............................................................................................................................. 16 Step 3: Implement the change ................................................................................................................. 16 Intelligent processes .................................................................................................................................... 17 Determine ownership .............................................................................................................................. 17 Map the process ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Collect the data ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Improve the process................................................................................................................................. 18 Simplification of systems: Data management strategy ............................................................................... 19 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 “better design” ............................................................................................................................................. 21 “one water” .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 A: Lean Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Value......................................................................................................................................................... 24 i

Value Stream ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Faster, Cheaper, Better ............................................................................................................................ 25 B: Process Maps ........................................................................................................................................... 26 â&#x20AC;&#x153;better designâ&#x20AC;? ......................................................................................................................................... 26 Construction Permit ................................................................................................................................. 28 Operating Permit ...................................................................................................................................... 30 C: Low Impact Development Cost Comparison ............................................................................................ 32 D: Legal Landscape ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Federal Legislation ................................................................................................................................... 33 State Legislation ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................ 38 References........................................................................................................................................................ 41 Photo Credits .................................................................................................................................................... 42 References........................................................................................................................................................ 45

Executive Summary Pollution from stormwater runoff is an increasing problem in Washington State and continues to impact already stressed ecosystems. According to Jay Manning, former director of the Washington Department of Ecology and chief of staff to the governor, “Stormwater runoff is the number one environmental issue Washington State faces.”

 avoiding stormwater discharge through Low Impact Development (LID) techniques; and  cost-benefit analyses that capture all costs, including those typically externalized, using natural capital accounting.

With an initial focus on the stormwater permitting process, the Washington Business Alliance convened a group of experts familiar with different parts of this process to collectively explore it. Participants included regulators from government agencies (federal, state, and local), municipalities and businesses, and consultants involved in negotiating the process. We employed Lean techniques, as well as leveraged accounting methods that capture total cost. Our recommendations come in two parts: 1. An improved permitting process that would require  reorientation and reengineering of the regulatory process around the outcome of better water quality;  a “complier-centric” process;  a lead agency that functions as a single point of contact and process owner;  a single point of fee collection, reducing the complier’s administrative and financial burden;  mapping and sharing of the end-end process with “vital few” metrics; and  an information-sharing dashboard that balances privacy with public transparency. 2. A “better design” phase, to eliminate the need for permitting, by making available expertise on

The content of this report, while benefiting greatly from the expertise of the individuals listed in the Acknowledgments, is solely a product of the Washington Business Alliance. These experts participated as individuals and provided the benefit of their expertise and wisdom, for which we are very grateful. We are optimistic that this application of Lean concepts married with principles of total accounting is well suited to combat challenges not only in the area of stormwater regulation but in other domains as well.

Introduction The Clean Water Act (CWA) has been the law of the land for four decades. But in spite of the enactment of the CWA and the subsequent Water Quality Act (WQA), the waters of Puget Sound and its tributaries continue to be polluted, threatening both aquatic life and the communities that depend on it. In part, this is due to the fact that when regulations were established, the laws targeted point source pollution (a single, identifiable source of pollution), whereas the nature and source of pollution today is non-point (a source of pollution that issues from widely distributed or pervasive environmental elements). Non-point pollution is entwined in the very way in which we live. Effectively dealing with diffused pollution as well as legacy pollutant impacts requires a reexamination of the existing regulatory framework.

culminate in what we might call “regulatory spaghetti.” While it is true that stormwater runoff is a complicated issue, the Washington Business Alliance believes that this regulatory spaghetti compounds the problem, and there is currently no consistent, publicly available framework to help businesses and other stakeholders negotiate the regulation process efficiently. To investigate, we used Lean techniques, which we believed would lend themselves especially well to the problem.

Key Lean Terms  Lean production: Pioneered by Toyota in the 1980s, Lean production typically requires half the human effort, half the manufacturing space and capital investment for a given amount of

Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things.” —Peter Drucker

capacity, and a fraction of the development and lead time of mass production systems.  Lean thinking: The process to guide managers through a Lean transformation includes the following five steps:

However, there is another factor at play: the efficiency of the regulations themselves. Regulations are set at the federal level, standards are determined at the state level, and implementation occurs at the federal, state, county, and city levels; this vertical multijurisdictional situation results in inherent fragmentation, requiring elaborate coordination. The system is also fragmented horizontally, with multiple agencies having to work together to effectively provide guidance and oversight as well as implement solutions. It is no surprise that multiple regulations, with different mandates and intents, administered by different agencies,

1. Specify value. 2. Identify the value stream. 3. Make value flow. 4. Allow customer to pull value. 5. Strive to perfection.  Value stream: All of the actions, both value creating and non–value creating, are required to take a product from concept to launch. Pollution challenges from stormwater runoff are See Appendix A: Lean Overview for details. not likely to be addressed solely through streamlining regulation. However, they can be

Better Design, Better Outcomes

addressed through collaboration between all stakeholders: the regulators who must protect the water quality and the compliers who operate those businesses. We in the Washington Business Alliance believed it was important to build a foundation of goodwill and trust by starting from the common ground of the importance of water quality, and examining regulation first with the intent of focusing on efficiency. We believe it will be easier for regulators and compliers to work on the more challenging aspects of stormwater runoff once a solid foundation has been created.

Approach Regulations are designed, enforced, and complied with; then, through compliance, they yield the intended outcomes—at least, that is the theory. We decided to examine to what extent this was true. Consistent with the Lean concept of a value stream, we convened a group of experts along the regulatory value stream to participate in a series of workshops to collectively explore the end-end regulatory process or value stream. These experts included 

individuals from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology, and the National Oceanic and



Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who participate in or influence the design of regulations; enforcers such as NOAA, the Washington Department of Ecology, King County, and the City of Seattle; compliers such as the Washington Department of Transportation, King County, the City of Seattle, and businesses of different sizes (NUCOR Steel and Alaskan Copper & Metals); and the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle and the Pollution Prevention Resource Center, consultants who help the entities comply.

Together we looked at the regulatory process of stormwater permitting for a hypothetical large and newly developed industrial facility. We explored the permitting process over the course of five half-day workshops. The underlying guiding belief was that looking at the value stream of regulation (i.e., the end-end process) would help us understand the context of the value stream of water quality and enable us to collectively see where improvements could be made.

Figure 1: The Regulatory Value Stream

Case study To structure our discussion, we created a fictitious case study that was deliberately complex. Our intent was not to mirror reality but to expose as many of the potential challenges of the existing system as we could. Our hypothetical case described the following situation: An out-of-town company is looking at multiple sites for a new manufacturing facility. The company will create 5,000 jobs while producing environmentally beneficial products. The company needs to be up and running with this new facility within three years. The facility will be newly constructed, breaking ground on multiple acres. It is located in a brown field site where cleanup is achievable but has not yet been done. The project will require an industrial stormwater permit, and the discharge will be into a waterway that is currently impaired. The receiving water bodies have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for copper. Further, the receiving waters are a habitat for species listed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The project will require a new outfall, and the scale of the project and the facility will have a material impact on local traffic. This is a complex circumstance, indeed. The initial hypothetical case study was chosen specifically

because of this complexity, in order to expose potential issues. The complexity impacted how many processes and permits would be required in the aggregate. The processes we followed are ones that are currently in use.

I wrote a list of what could and couldn’t be changed; the second was surprisingly short …” —Min Kyu Choi, Designer The case study revealed that projects of this magnitude are usually shepherded through the permitting process with special attention from the governor’s office and other entities. In our analysis, however, we have ignored any consideration of special treatment. Special treatment typically involves either setting up an escalated path for the project or providing special attention to facilitate the process and help guide the project to completion. Either way, we see it as evidence in support of the initial premise that improvement opportunities do exist. From a Lean perspective, creating special avenues for projects of a certain scale actually obscures the opportunities to streamline the process.

Better Design, Better Outcomes

Key Findings Multiple definitions of water quality

coherent definition of water quality among the various regulatory frameworks.

Different definitions of water quality are embedded in the system. As knowledge of stormwater continues to evolve, the best way to assess water quality also evolves. Current standards in the Clean Water Act use a framework for beneficial uses to define what constitutes good water quality in terms of physical or toxicological characteristics (e.g., chemistry, temperature, bacteria, chemical concentrations); the framework under the Endangered Species Act utilizes a biological/habitat framework. These are two different perspectives codified through two different laws—the CWA and the ESA—which are within the jurisdiction of two different federal agencies, the EPA and NOAA, respectively. While it is true that in practice the ESA only gets triggered if a “federal nexus” exists, the mere fact that there are different frameworks introduces an element of uncertainty in terms of the complier’s expectations of applicable regulations.

Many governments

Not only does this uncertainty create confusion for the complier; government may also appear cumbersome and uncoordinated in administering these regulatory frameworks. Different perspectives (e.g., toxics, human health, impacted species, disruption of navigation, recreation, and so on) are all facets of how water quality is defined or impacted, and this multifaceted definition is important in ensuring that our actions result in the protection and improvement of all aspects of water quality. However, to institutionalize these different facets into separate regulatory jurisdictions fosters and exacerbates fragmentation, making it even more difficult to move to a universally integrated,

The multiple jurisdictions mentioned above also manifest as what we call “many governments,” which can prove challenging for the complier.

If you serve too many masters, you'll soon suffer.” —Homer In our hypothetical case, this was most evident when we identified all the stakeholders while mapping the current state process framework. We identified three levels of government stakeholders (local, state, and federal), but each of those levels contained multiple agencies, all of which had separate water quality mandates. In such cases, the complier may find itself in the uncomfortable position of having to determine which regulations apply when multiple regulatory masters are to be served, and how various efforts of compliance cohere. While the complier should be responsible for the pollution in their discharges, when the regulatory expectations from the various regulators do not cohere the burden of aligning the expectations can shift onto the complier instead of the regulating agencies, where it belongs. If we change the framework so that water quality is the single master being served, rather than multiple agencies, it is possible to develop alignment among the regulatory frameworks.

Many requirements Compounding the impression of “many governments” is the existence of numerous related regulatory requirements.

adjustments that would improve the whole system. (In addition, complier expectations and obligations for businesses are different from those for municipalities.) The only meaningful way to capture an all-inclusive end-end process is to see what it looks like through the eyes of the complier. Note that by “end-end process” we mean everything that must be done to make the business operational, including the process of stormwater discharge permitting. Figure 2: Regulatory Fragmentation

For example, in Washington State we have both the State Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act processes. Various regulatory requirements may often seem disconnected. They focus on what the regulations dictate, and while this is important and necessary as a practical matter, including a description of the beneficial outcomes achieved through compliance with regulations/procedures would help compliers see the value (or at least the intent) of each regulation. The fact that multiple perspectives are necessary for a richer, more holistic understanding of water quality is, unfortunately, easily dismissed as a nuance. This “richness” of water quality is apparent only when we take into account the many ways in which regulations attempt to manage water quality, which is most evident in more complex (and less typical) projects.

Complier perspective missing For compliers, the journey is not complete until they have successfully received all the necessary permits and approvals to make their facility operational (that is, they have obtained their license to operate). While we found several existing process maps that showed how to comply with some of the regulations, we did not find any map that captured all of the involved regulatory processes. The absence of an allinclusive map limits the ability to identify process 6

In our workshops, we focused on the water quality value stream—that is, all the steps that impact water quality. This is not just about stormwater permitting, the mainstay of permits, or the improvement of a part of the process. It is about the broader process of all water quality efforts. Certainly, macro- and micro-level improvements can both have positive effects. But if process improvement steps are made at the macro level, the impact is far more profound than it would be if improvement occurred at the micro level alone.

Optimizing components in isolation tends to pessimize the whole system … “You can actually make a system less efficient while making each of its parts more efficient.” —Amory Lovins

The macro-level view is best apprehended through the eyes of the complier, since the complier is closest to impacting water quality directly. This “complier-centric” view (analogous to a “customer-centric” view) not only allows us to see the whole process but also creates an empathetic foundation for a common goal of improved water quality—a foundation on which Better Design, Better Outcomes

both regulator and regulated can work together to see and improve the entire system.

Variations of the same process

to solicit public engagement in this manner is limited, and the impact on permitting cycle time is significant.

Because of the jurisdictional fragmentation discussed above, there is no singular overall process owner, and there are variations of the same process. While some of the lack of standardization reflects the complexity of the issues at hand, our workshops have confirmed that there is indeed process variance. Because of the problems this creates, additional processes should be created to account for those variances, at an additional cost. Differences undermine the ability of the complier to learn from the examples of others, which increases the cost for the complier. In the aggregate, variance introduces greater cost, whether that cost is borne by a regulator or a complier. Thus, enacting systemwide standardization, allowing room for variance and scalability, is the best way to proceed.

Obsolete public engagement process Many of the permitting processes require public input. However, the process through which this input is solicited is both ineffective and obsolete. The existing process requires public notices to be placed in newspapers, at a time when the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use ofâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and even the existence ofâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;newspapers is waning. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, daily newspaper readership has declined about 30 percent in the past twenty years.1

According to a study by the Pew Research Center, daily newspaper readership has declined about 30 percent in the past twenty years. While the intention of public engagement is laudable, legislation has not kept pace with either context or technology in this instance. The ability 7

Solutions “one water” To address the challenges of many requirements and many governments, we would like to propose a solution that we call the “one water” approach.

move toward a singular understanding and a definition that protects humans and other inhabitants of our world, based on best available science. This singularity will also minimize the duplication of process steps and information. Figure 4 (below) shows one way in which the permitting requirements could be presented, so that complexity appears not only accessible but also united toward water quality outcomes.

Figure 3: Regulatory Fragmentation

As highlighted above, the regulatory framework currently appears to compliers as complex in its seeming disconnectedness, featuring numerous embedded processes, permits, and authorizations based on various jurisdictions and legislation. This fragmentation reflects in part the fact that water quality itself is a legitimately complex issue, impacting both humans and other species. But this fact becomes lost in the apparent cumbersome nature of the regulations. Our recommendation is to re-present compliance with numerous permits as striving for water quality in totality: “one water.” Focusing on water quality outcomes and not getting caught up in jurisdictional domains allows us to set the stage for serving one master—protecting and improving water quality—while lowering transactional costs in the process. While it is appropriate to ask what we mean by “water quality,” our belief is that through working together, agencies with different definitions will

Figure 4: "one water"

We recognize that collapsing the myriad of permitting requirements through legislative changes will be challenging, and we are not recommending that step at this time.

It is well for the heart to be naive and the mind not to be.” —Anatole France Still, we believe that it is possible to align the Better Design, Better Outcomes

various permits underneath the process step of “one water,” which would assemble the numerous requirements into one whole in the same way branches of a tree are connected through the trunk. This idea has been put in practice in a limited manner with the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA). JARPA is a single application through which an applicant may apply for select multiple permits. What we are suggesting is aligned with the intention behind JARPA, and extends to all possible permits associated with stormwater discharges. In the different agencies coming together to create a singular permit (or application), the relevant agencies will learn from each other and reconcile any potential differences in their diverse perspectives so that the system appears to the complier as one coherent pursuit of water quality.

considerations that need to be examined in a subsequent study.

Multi-Agency Permitting (MAP) Teams The Washington State Department of Transportation created multi-agency permitting teams across five agencies, working out of the same office, to improve cycle times and predictability, through  better coordination;  greater accessibility; and  proactive issue resolution. The department found that cycle times improved as a result of this process.

This whole would have the following characteristics: 

SPOC (single point of contact): One agency is assigned the lead role, with other agencies actively participating. The lead agency is responsible for the prompt coordination of participating agencies. This approach rightly places the responsibility of the coordination of regulatory matters with government, without imposing the burden on the complier. Not only is this intuitively coherent, it is also likely to result in lower costs in both time and money in the aggregate. Further, this approach is not merely a theoretical suggestion but has already been accomplished by the Washington State Department of Transportation through their use of multi-agency permitting (MAP) teams (see sidebar at right).2 There is some question of who the lead agency would be and whether it would have the resource capability to take on this role. These are valid



Single, scalable fee: The idea of a single point of collection for fees reflects the intention of the singular pursuit of water quality. Recognizing that numerous permits underlie the successful permitting of a big project, the fees will and should vary based on the complexity of the project—but there is one bill for it. Operationally, for the lead agency to be the single point of fee collection would require that this agency carry a greater operational burden. However, in the aggregate, through shouldering this additional burden the lead agency will 9

simultaneously provide relief to permittees, reducing the burden. Furthermore, tracking the total costs associated with permitting is made easier with this approach and enhances the ability to make prudent decisions based on comprehensive data, including financial data.

recommendation: designing and operating facilities that result in no discharge to surface or ground, eliminating the need for a permit altogether.

The “one water” approach affords several benefits, many of which were taken from the experience of the Washington State Department of Transportation’s MAP teams. These benefits include  



 

lower transactional costs for the complier with greater net efficiency; one source of relevant information with the complier’s project at the core of that perspective—a “customer-centric” view; a foundation of cross-functional knowledge from which to assess what constitutes high water quality; the proactive identification of issues and rapid coordination in their resolution, due to co-located teams; a tight feedback loop to improve the intelligence of the system as a whole; and the showcasing of intelligent regulation as focused on improving design and outcomes as opposed to merely the process and compliance elements.

While we believe that there is always an opportunity to provide a service more efficiently (in this case the service of a stormwater permit), we should not assume that a stormwater permit is an absolute necessity. This brings us to our next

Better Design, Better Outcomes

“better design” After examining the current end-end process through our initial workshops, the group set its sights on designing a better system. We discussed elements of a better process, a permit development strategy, and a robust toolbox. In the course of these discussions, a significant insight came from Bill Moore of the Washington Department of Ecology: “If we are applying for a stormwater permit, we have already failed. Permits are actually a permission to pollute.” Revolutionary!

If we are applying for a stormwater permit, we have already failed. Permits are actually a permission to pollute.

The goal of the “better design” phase recommended by the Washington Business Alliance is to avoid the need for a permit by eliminating a discharge. In the current process, the designated starting point presumes that a permit is necessary. As a prerequisite to the permitting process, an entity must offer a site design, which is close to final. But it is this very degree of finalization and the underlying inflexibility that forecloses the opportunity to redesign the site in a way that will avoid discharges. So why not create a point in the process where the complier is overtly confronted with the question of whether to pursue avoidance through better design, or bear the regulatory burden of the permit?

We recognized that while we should strive to improve the permitting process, we had made a default assumption: that a permit is always needed.

Figure 5: Current Process

The fact that a permit could be avoided has not previously been highlighted as part of the process. Why not shine the light on the possibility of avoiding the permit altogether? If elimination is not possible, we can explore the opportunity to fully mitigate any harms from such a discharge to the maximum extent practicable. But in our workshops, getting rid of the obligation itself was worth exploring. This led to the development of a phase that would occur before applying for a stormwater permit, called “better design.”

Figure 6: Proposed Process

The contrast between Figures 5 and 6 (at left and above) captures the essence of the change we are recommending: a second decision point after a permit is determined to be needed. At this step, the candidate permittee would decide whether it wanted to pursue site and building design changes to avoid pollution discharge (and 11

thereby eliminate the need for a permit) or keep the same design and continue through the permitting process. Changing the process in this manner institutionalizes the idea that a permit is not a necessary burden to be borne. This change is predicated on the belief that we can avoid stormwater discharge altogether through improved design using Low Impact Development (LID) techniques (see sidebar below), an idea supported by many leading architects.

geology of the site limits the effective application of these solutions. Understandably, LID researchers and leading architects believe these limitations can be overcome. Rather than wade into a debate about the specifics of this particular controversy, the Washington Business Alliance believes that creating a system of collaboration to wrestle with these problems together will help us continue to improve the solutions we devise.

Low Impact Development According to the EPA, “LID is an approach to land development (or re-development) that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing effective imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treat stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. There are many practices that have been used to adhere to these principles such as bio retention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. By implementing LID principles and practices, water can be managed in a way that reduces the impact of built areas and promotes the natural movement of water within an ecosystem or watershed. Applied on a broad scale, LID can maintain or restore a watershed's hydrologic and ecological functions.” It should be noted, however, that there is debate about whether it is possible to eliminate discharges in all circumstances in a cost-effective manner. In some instances, it is believed that the

Another concern is that the “better design” phase will cost more. But a study done by the EPA in 2007 (see Appendix C: Low Impact Development Cost Comparison) suggests that while there are a few sites where LID techniques may cost more, for the vast majority they result in cost savings. In the aggregate, LID techniques are 19 percent cheaper than conventional development, resulting in significant savings. One of the bestknown examples of this kind of development, the ten-acre green roof on Ford’s River Rouge plant, cost the company $15 million, compared to the estimated $50 million for treatment costs to Better Design, Better Outcomes

meet water quality standards—a savings of 70 percent.3

Natural Capital Accounting

LID techniques are 19 percent cheaper than conventional development. The tenacre green roof on Ford’s River Rouge plant, for example, cost the company $15 million, compared to the estimated $50 million for treatment costs.

According to a World Bank brief on natural

A third concern is that “better design” will take more time. This is true only insofar as we are already fully committed to a design and then need to rework it. With the opportunity for early input on design, there should be no additional time required—and, of course, it should result in a “better design,” meeting both business needs and environmental benefits.

over‐exploiting fisheries or degrading water

We would like to highlight the following key elements of this “better design” phase: 1. Expertise to help avoid discharge: We recommend the creation of a review forum with expertise from governmental agencies, stormwater experts, environmental economists, and architects. This provides the complier not just with the choice of whether they want to explore alternate site design to avoid a permit, but with the necessary expertise as well. It suggests that “we will help you find a better way, for you and for us.” 2. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA): We recommend that a cost-benefit analysis be used to support what-if analysis of design iterations. For both costs and benefits, we further recommend that natural capital accounting be included (see sidebar on right).4

capital accounting, “GDP looks at only one part of economic performance—income—but says nothing about wealth and assets that underlie this income. For example, when a country exploits its minerals, it is actually depleting wealth. The same holds true for resources. These declining assets are invisible in GDP and so, are not measured. “Wealth accounting, including natural capital accounting, is needed to sustain growth. Long‐term development is a process of accumulation and sound management of a portfolio of assets—manufactured capital, natural capital, and human and social capital. As Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has noted, a private company is judged by both its income and balance sheet, but most countries only compile an income statement (GDP) and know very little about the national balance sheet.” Table 1: CBA (below) illustrates the information that a high-level cost-benefit analysis might entail.

Cost Type Permit fees

Permit time

n days

Business value of time

$m/day

Total cost of permit

$x + ($m * n)

“better design” cost

Environmental value

Table 1: CBA

If $y < $x + ($m * n), then without regard to externalities, permit avoidance through “better design” is the smarter economic decision to make. If, however, the cost to design differently ($y) is greater than the total permit cost, then we need to look at two factors: how much greater, and how much environmental value ($z) is created, whether in avoided costs or improved water quality? As long as ($y + $z) < ($x + ($m * n)), it remains economically rational to incur the cost ($y). The only question is who bears that cost—the complier or society? Of course, a robust CBA must undergird the analysis, but the basic argument is as described.

Characteristics of Natural Capital Accounting According to Solutions Journal, a recent case study on water utilities “illustrates three important points: 1. Natural capital tends to provide benefits over a very long period of time (centuries or longer), whereas man-made capital

Including the discipline of natural capital accounting makes externalized costs transparent and thereby encourages compliers to make cost-benefit decisions mindful of costs that are traditionally externalized (see sidebar on natural capital accounting from Solutions Journal, on left).5 We want to recognize a concern that behavioral economists have noted: when market norms are mixed with social norms, bad things can happen. In this instance the “bad things” might include the creation of markets to trade public assets and the monetization of these assets, which puts us atop the slippery slope of the privatization of public assets. In the extreme, this means that clean water and clean air become privately owned commodities rather than basic rights all humans should enjoy. The Washington Business Alliance recognizes and appreciates this concern. We must proceed with caution, alert to the challenges that lie ahead. It is our view that using these valuation techniques is necessary to mitigate the externalization of costs—we consider this “economically rational” behavior.

provides benefits in the near term (years to decades). 2. Natural capital appreciates in value over a long period of time due, in part, to increased scarcity, whereas built capital depreciates relatively rapidly. 3. Investments in natural capital with the goal of sustainability can be far better investments over the long term than investments with shorter, but less sustainable benefit flows.”

3. Recognition award: For entities that are able to avoid a permit through design changes, we recommend the presentation of what could be called the Pollution Prevention Partner Award. This would serve as a positive acknowledgment of their efforts and also would create a reputational benefit for the business. 4. Case studies: We also recommend case studies, which would be available in an easily accessible format to guide future projects. These studies should range from Better Design, Better Outcomes

projects of the scale of Ford’s River Rouge green roof project to the utilization of stormwater in industrial processes as done by Cadman Concrete and the resulting protection of the Lower Duwamish Waterway. These not only provide tangible examples of how to leverage “better design” but also provide a forum to celebrate actions that make these entities good citizens and bolster their reputation. In summary, the “better design” phase 



makes available and accessible the talents of a wide-ranging group of experts to guide the potential permittees on their projects; helps us make economically rational decisions after considering both internalized and externalized costs; and through discharge avoidance, exempts projects from needing to be permitted; this also obviates a concern about the standards changing and the potential impacts of increasingly stringent regulations.

Public involvement



There are other recommendations that may be smaller in scope and fall under the umbrella of continuous improvement.



In the current permitting process, for which the Department of Ecology has responsibility, the public involvement steps are relatively ineffective and in dire need of revision. Notices are placed in newspapers, and then there is a significant waiting period (usually more than thirty-seven days) for comments to come in from the public6—this at a time when newspapers are going digital or disappearing and social media is becoming the platform through which to better engage the public.

Estimate soft costs, such as lost productivity. Develop an estimate of the improvement opportunity.

Step 2: Develop a pilot  



  

Develop a social media public involvement prototype. Set up a Facebook page and a Twitter account with appropriate conversation hashtag markers (e.g., #voiceofpeople, #landuseaction, and so on). Identify a resource to monitor social media presence. (A student intern might be an excellent option because of students’ short-term availability and the generation’s fluency with social media.) Launch pilot for three months and use short commercials to attract the public to Facebook and Twitter. Measure public involvement based on metrics. Analyze results. Make adjustments.

Step 3: Implement the change Recognizing that opportunities for public engagement are fundamental to democracy, we need a way to engage the public in a robust manner at a level that exceeds the current one, with an eye to improving cycle time and utilizing current technology.



The Washington Business Alliance proposes the following road map to more effective and efficient public involvement:

Step 1: Build the business case   

Identify the metrics that measure effective public involvement. Conduct analysis of the previous three years (i.e., level of public engagement). Estimate hard costs, such as newspaper notices, signage, and so on.

 



If the results of social media engagement are compelling, develop a plan for a robust and more effective alternative to the current process. Finalize the business case, including documenting the return on investment (for both regulators and compliers) of the old and new ways by determining the investment of soft and hard costs for a return of public engagement. Identify legislative changes needed. Develop a plan to ramp up the new system while ramping down the old. Ensure that measurements are in place so that improvement can be demonstrated over time. Initiate legislative change process.

Better Design, Better Outcomes

Intelligent processes There are four main steps in the design of intelligent processes: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Determine ownership. Map the process. Collect the data. Improve the process.

Determine ownership It is important that we designate the process owner—that is, the entity that owns the process. The process owner is then responsible for describing and improving on the process.

Map the process Map the entire process/value stream a business owner may have to go through to get the permits needed to be operational. While we have mapped out the value stream for our hypothetical project, we started with building permits; a business owner must perform several additional steps prior to the building permitting process. Questions were raised about whether the current state map created by the Washington Business Alliance reflects the typical project for which permits are issued. To clarify: our focus for this project has been to define the end-end value stream, and the permitting process is a part of this. To try to streamline the permitting process on the basis of this value stream map will be less than fruitful. For that effort, we would further collect a metric on the use of a particular step. Metric Value Effectiveness Overlap Effort Duration Cost Use

Collect the data Data has the potential to provide systems with the intelligence needed to improve. Quite often this is lacking, and this effort was no exception. The project leaders developed a set of data they believe would be valuable in guiding continuous improvement of the system. During the course of our project, the Washington Business Alliance attempted to collect this data, but were unable to glean more than a handful of measurements.

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” —Albert Einstein Recognizing that there is a cost to building a data infrastructure, we are strong proponents of the “vital few” principle. That said, we strongly believe that it is beneficial for agencies to institute a minimal set of metrics that can guide them toward self-improvement. The transactional cost of tracking these metrics is minimal, while the value can be significant. We believe that it is important for the various agencies to map their own parts of the process and collect data on the metrics, including those listed in Table 2, below.

Description Does it improve water quality? How well does it fulfill its intent? Does it duplicate other steps? What is the number of full-time equivalent hours/days required to do the work? What is the calendar time required to do the work? What is the processing cost? How often is the process step required?

Possible Values High/Medium/Low High/Medium/Low High/Medium/Low # # $ %

Table 2: Metrics for Intelligent Processes

Improve the process Using the metrics provided in the section above, simplification would be beneficial and straightforward. This would include 



Lean PDCA Cycle The Lean Lexicon defines PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) as “an improvement cycle based

eliminating or minimizing low-value process steps—i.e., those that do not improve water quality; redesigning those steps that may have high value but are deemed to be ineffective in their implementation; and eliminating duplicative process steps.

on the scientific method of proposing a change in a process, implementing the change, measuring the results, and taking appropriate action.”

Without at least a simple layer of data to guide us, it would be hard to improve processes. An excellent approach to guide improvements is Lean’s Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) cycle (see sidebar at right).

Better Design, Better Outcomes

Simplification of systems: Data management strategy Another manifestation of simplification involves the collection of information: both what is being collected and when. Then we must ask whether the information is being captured at a point in the process where it is likely to be most accurate, and whether it is being captured once and then reused throughout the system. That is, we must apply principles of good data management.

to a customer-centric view of data architecture. In the same way that a customer-centric design helps businesses to better serve their customers, a complier-centric view will enable government agencies to better help compliers during the permitting process. They can be more effective in their role of ensuring compliance, and more efficient in the use of their own resources.

Based on this, we can develop an informationsharing platform accessible by multiple agencies. It should be built around the project the business or complier is seeking the permit for, not the work activities of the various agencies. Such a data platform should have the following characteristics: 1. All data across all agencies should be able to be cross-referenced. 2. Data types should be standardized to allow easy aggregation among multiple data sources. 3. Data should be formatted to enable it to be easily used by existing popular public domain applications. 4. Data should be consistent across city, county, state, and federal agencies. 5. There should be no redundancy of data across these governmental agencies. 6. There should be respect for the anonymity of private data. This approach not only allows a uniform and consistent view of the project, it also minimizes the duplication of effort for both compliers and regulating agencies. The minimization of redundancies preempts the need for reconciliation. The approach also enables realtime information as the processes continue to evolve. Anchoring the information from the perspective of the permit applicants is analogous

Complier-centricity should be thought of as collaborating toward the common objective of better water quality, not surrendering.

Conclusion In this effort, we employed the unusual strategy of applying Lean methods to the value stream of water quality, specifically in the arena of stormwater discharges. Water quality, not the permit, is the driving value. This approach is fundamentally different from many of the other Lean efforts undertaken by the state. Regulations become just one part of this value stream, and improved water quality of stormwater discharges is the end goal.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Margaret Mead

This approach was revealing in many ways. Some highlights are: 1. People working on these matters are incredibly bright and thoughtful. 2. We must be alert to and question biases embedded in the process as default perspectives (e.g., a permit is a necessity). 3. Aspects of regulations are obsolete (e.g., the public notice as a mechanism for public engagement no longer works efficiently), and we must find a robust

substitute before we do away with the old. 4. The already complex nature of water quality is rendered even more complex by the potential multitude of regulations enforced by various agencies. 5. The multiplicity of agencies and different levels of government institutionalizes the fragmentation in achieving value. 6. By excluding economic considerations as part of the process, we legitimize externalization of costs and facilitate a myopic economic view. Through this project, we have developed a framework with the following key characteristics: 1. Value in a value stream can be any environmental and societal good. 2. The end-end value stream helps us understand how effectively we are achieving value. 3. The value stream is a construct that can unite stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;that is, we are all working toward that value. 4. Economic rationality entails including externalized costs. This framework becomes the basis for the theory of change for the work to be implemented in subsequent phases.

Better Design, Better Outcomes

Next Steps While we have identified several key opportunities for further work to realize the necessary change, there are two major focus areas: the “better design” phase, and the “one water” permit.

“better design” The proposed scope for this phase, leading to the implementation of “better design,” includes the following steps: 1. Develop a detailed operating model on the “better design” phase, including a. participant engagement; b. schedule; c. costs; and d. operating policies and procedures. 2. Develop potential revenue models. 3. Use baseline performance metrics. 4. Gain commitment for pilot participation. 5. Gain commitments for pilot funding. 6. Implement the pilot. 7. Monitor performance and adjust design if necessary. 8. Make final recommendation.

2. Design a detailed strategy to allow the “one water” construct to be created without impinging on existing regulatory requirements. 3. Develop a detailed operating model. 4. Garner participation on the operating model. 5. Develop an operating budget. 6. Use baseline performance metrics. 7. Gain commitments for pilot participation. 8. Gain commitments for pilot funding. 9. Implement the pilot. 10. Monitor performance and adjust. Should the pilot prove to be successful, the following steps will realize the “one water” approach: 1. Design legislative changes. 2. Implement legislative changes.

Following this would be a subsequent phase of “better design” that would involve the following steps: 1. Prepare recommended state. 2. Transition to recommended state. 3. Conclude pilot.

“one water” For the “one water” permit effort, we propose the following steps: 1. Undertake a detailed analysis of impacted regulations.

There are other steps we need to take that entail both the dissemination of the work done here as well as prerequisites to the “better design” or “one water” initiatives: 1. Engage with the various agencies to urge them to capture the “vital few” metrics. 2. Engage with the state chief information officer to discuss the elements of the data management strategy.

Better Design, Better Outcomes

page left intentionally blank

Appendices A: Lean Overview A short overview of Lean might be helpful. The term "Lean" was coined to describe Toyota's business model during the late 1980s by a research team headed by Jim Womack, PhD, at MIT's International Motor Vehicle Program.7 The core idea behind Lean is to maximize customer value while minimizing waste. Simply, Lean means creating more customer value with fewer resources. The ultimate goal is to provide perfect value through a perfect value creation process that has zero waste. To accomplish this, Lean thinking changes the focus ... from optimizing separate technologies, assets, and vertical departments to optimizing the flow of products and services through entire value streams that flow horizontally across technologies, assets, and departments to customers. Eliminating waste along entire value streams, instead of at isolated points, creates processes that need less human effort, less space, less capital, and less time to make products and services at far less costs and with much fewer defects, compared with traditional business systems.8 There are five principles of Lean thinking:9 1. Specify value: This is the critical starting point in Lean thinking. It is defined by the end customer and is meaningful in the context of a specific product (good or

service); it is why the producer exists in the eyes of the end customer. 2. Identify the value stream: The value stream is the set of all the specific actions

Specify value

Perfection

Pull

Identify the Value Stream

Flow

Figure 7: Five Principles of Lean

required to bring a specific product (good or service, or both) to the customer. 3. Flow: Once the value stream has been mapped, the remaining steps flow toward the customer. 4. Pull: The customer is allowed to pull value. 5. Perfection: Once the four principles above are in place, strive to perfect the process, and opportunities for improvement continue to present themselves. Some key concepts are highlighted below.

Value Often, Lean thinking is associated with the elimination of systemic waste. While this is true, Better Design, Better Outcomes

it is not the whole story: eliminating waste is easy; the challenge lies in seeing it. And we cannot see waste unless we know what value is. Waste is all that is not value or value creating. Value is the anchoring point of any Lean enterprise. Traditionally, â&#x20AC;&#x153;valueâ&#x20AC;? in Lean is specified as customer value. In employing principles of Lean for this particular project, we extend the idea of value beyond the customer. Value in our example is environmental valueâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;specifically, water quality.

Value Stream A value stream is the sequence of activities to design, produce, and provide a good or service. As the name suggests, it is about mapping the

path that value takes as it flows from its source to its terminus. Value streams look at all the activities that will be necessary, irrespective of the organizational boundaries of any particular organization. The benefit of this technique is that it allows insight into the entirety of how value is created: we see value (or waste) as it is created from start to finish.

Faster, Cheaper, Better Efficiency efforts are usually considered to benefit by being either faster, cheaper, or better. However, Lean thinking is anchored in value flowing without impediment. It dispels the notion that the three characteristics are peers of each other, and reveals a hierarchy between them. We must first focus on better; if we do that, faster and cheaper will come.

B: Process Maps â&#x20AC;&#x153;better designâ&#x20AC;?

Better Design, Better Outcomes

Construction Permit

Better Design, Better Outcomes

Operating Permit

Better Design, Better Outcomes

C: Low Impact Development Cost Comparison Based on a study by the EPA,10 the table below lists the comparative costs between Low Impact Development and conventional development.

Project

Cost Conventional

LID

Change Adaptability

2nd Avenue SEA Street (WA)

$868,803

$651,548

25%

Retrofit

Auburn Hills Subdivision (WI)

$2,360,385

$1,598,989

32%

New

Bellingham City Hall (WA)

$27,600

$5,600

80%

Retrofit

Bellingham Bloedel Donovan Park (WA)

$52,800

$12,800

76%

Retrofit

$4,620,600

$3,942,100

15%

New

Garden Valley (WA)

$324,400

$260,700

20%

New

Kensington Estates (WA)

$765,700

$1,502,900

-96%

New

$1,654,021

$1,149,552

30%

New

$12,510

$9,099

27%

New

Prairie Glen Subdivision (WI)

$1,004,848

$599,536

40%

New

Somerset (MD)

$2,456,843

$1,671,461

32%

New

Gap Creek Subdivision (AR)

Laurel Springs Subdivision (WI) Mill Creek Subdivision (IL)

Better Design, Better Outcomes

D: Legal Landscape The U.S. Congress began dealing with growing concerns over our nation’s environment by enacting laws that identified and addressed distinct environmental issues. Concerns about human consumption of water resulted in the Clean Water Act; concerns about the environment as a whole resulted in the National Environmental Policy Act; and concerns about species health manifested in the Endangered Species Act. In one way or another, these laws come into play when a project produces a stormwater discharge to state or federal waters.

Clean Water Act (CWA)—33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 There are several ways that a business discharging stormwater may trigger the Clean Water Act. The CWA is the primary source of national legislation protecting water quality. The purpose of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.”11 To accomplish that objective, the CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants and aims to attain a usable level of water quality.

The State of Washington took these laws and made them specific to the state’s particular circumstances, such as our proximity to the ocean, our large amount of annual rainfall, and the public’s unique and pervasive interest in protecting the environment. This resulted in state laws with similar goals: the State Environmental Protection Act, which regulates the environmental impacts of government decisions; the Water Pollution Control Act, which maintains the state’s water quality standards; the Hydraulic Project Code, which protects marine and freshwater habitats; and the Growth Management Act, which regulates the environmental impact of urban development. Each of these laws has provisions triggered by stormwater production.

To regulate the discharge of pollutants and define water quality standards, the CWA sets a core set of minimum regulatory requirements. Predominantly, the CWA requires businesses that dispose of waste material into “waters of the United States” to obtain a permit allowing them to do so. This is called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and it is managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CWA also delegates authority to states, including Washington, to issue these permits.

Federal Legislation In many ways, the federal laws have delegated regulatory authority to the State of Washington to implement the regulations listed below. However, if a project has a “federal nexus”—that is, it either involves federal funds or the authority is specifically reserved for the federal agencies (such as the case for wetlands under the Clean Water Act)—then the authority resides in federal agencies and not the state.

The parameters set forth in the CWA establish a floor of standards that allow states and the EPA to use in defining more detailed regulations. The CWA directs the EPA to set pollution limits in two ways: first, to determine how businesses are polluting; and second, to regulate where they are polluting. The CWA addresses the how of water pollution with the NPDES. To obtain a permit, the CWA requires states or the EPA to establish effluent limitations, or standards intended to represent points of economically achievable pollution reduction efforts on an industry-by-industry basis.12 These effluent limitations are, in essence,

the technology-based regulations of the CWA. The EPA first identifies discharges (such as stormwater flows and pollutants), then determines technologies or practices used to prevent or treat the discharge, and lastly examines the economic feasibility of pollutionreduction technology in the particular industry. Using this information, the EPA then sets regulatory requirements. The CWA addresses the where of water pollution by identifying particularly vulnerable water bodies and setting toxicologically based, numerical standards for these bodies of water. Once a lake, stream, or wetland is identified, it is placed on the national 303(d) list so that the EPA can develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for pollutants. The TMDL sets the maximum amount of a pollutant that the body of water can receive and still meet the numerical water quality standard. The purpose of this portion of the CWA is to identify particularly vulnerable water bodies and prioritize anti-pollution efforts. The CWA also regulates a number of more detailed where questions. For example, businesses seeking to discharge dredged or fill material (in other words, excavation or deposition of material in wetlands) must receive a 404 permit. The regulation of dredge and fill material is jointly administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.13 The purpose of this specialized system is to highlight the unique concerns in wetland areas such as erosion or shoreline stabilization, and to acknowledge that no discharge should be permitted if there is a practical alternative. The CWA thus establishes a specialized process to encourage avoidance, minimization, or, at the very least, mitigation of harmful impacts.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The National Environmental Policy Act is a broad environmental policy that aims “to use all practicable means and measures … to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.”14 It specifies requirements for federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their actions (such as funding projects, issuing permits for private actions, and making federal land management decisions) and identify alternatives to this impact. These requirements make up the “NEPA process.”15 Private individuals get involved in this process when they require a federal permit (such as a building or stormwater permit). The NEPA process begins with an environmental evaluation that progresses to three levels. First, if a project meets certain predetermined criteria (such as administrative procedures), that project is categorically excluded from NEPA regulations. More likely is that, for private projects, a “lead” federal agency will be designated and will begin the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether or not the federal action (i.e., the issuance of a permit) would have an impact on the environment. If not, the lead agency issues a finding of no significant impact. Finally, if the EA determines that there is the potential for harm, the lead agency prepares a detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives with interagency input. This is known as the environmental impact statement (EIS).16 Once these steps are completed, the EIS is submitted for public review and comment. Upon its completion, the federal agency integrates comments into a record of decision, which addresses how the findings were incorporated into the agency’s decision on how to act.

Better Design, Better Outcomes

Endangered Species Act (ESA) The Endangered Species Act identifies threatened species and enacts measures that purpose to prevent the extinction of threatened fauna, and recuperate habitat by removing threatening conditions. These threatening conditions include critical habitat concerns in water bodies.17 Authority to regulate under the ESA is largely delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to handle freshwater species, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to handle marine species.

protected species. Section 7 of the ESA mandates that federal agencies undergo a consultation; for example, when the Washington Department of Transportation (which receives federal funds) or the Army Corps of Engineers issues a federal wetlands permit (reserved as federally controlled under the CWA), these agencies must undergo a Section 7 consultation. This consultation results in a biological opinion, which dictates whether the federal action is likely to harm any species or habitat and, if so, lists the reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize this impact.

The ESA imposes obligations on federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not jeopardizing

State Legislation State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)—RCW 43.21C Washington State has determined that the protection of the environment is a priority. To this end, the state passed the State Environmental Protection Act, which has four purposes: 1. To encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment. 2. To promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere. 3. To stimulate the health and welfare of human beings. 4. To enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and nation.18 This language, in essence, purports to identify and account for the environmental impact of any project. In practice, SEPA sets forth a review process that businesses go through with the Washington Department of Ecology to determine how that business will affect the environment. The process involves completing an environmental checklist, identifying whether or not a business or project will have any adverse environmental impacts (called a determination of non-significance), and, if so, identifying mitigation efforts through an environmental impact statement. During this process, businesses are responsible for identifying the environmental impacts of their proposed project design (such as recognizing stormwater runoff concerns). This includes identifying what permits will be needed, thus triggering permits set forth in other federal and state acts (such as a stormwater discharge permit

under the Clean Water Act or Water Pollution Control Act). Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA)— RCW 90.48 Businesses that produce stormwater in their construction or industrial activity must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit under the Clean Water Act. In Washington, businesses go to the state rather than the federal government to obtain this permit. After the CWA delegated authority to the State of Washington to issue stormwater permits, the state enhanced the CWA standards to suit Washington’s specific needs in the WPCA. The purpose of the act is to “maintain the highest possible [water quality] standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health … protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state.”19 The law addresses both sets of stormwater standards for businesses and gives authority to the Department of Ecology to adapt and monitor these standards. Businesses have the responsibility to “use all known available and reasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state of Washington.”20 The act gives the Department of Ecology the authority to issue permits to businesses and to set certain requirements that businesses must meet. These requirements, known as effluent limitations or standards of performance, can be technological and toxicological water quality– based standards that the department deems required to achieve discharge reduction. Growth Management Act (GMA) Washington passed the Growth Management Act to manage the growth of Washington’s counties and integrate environmental concerns into Better Design, Better Outcomes

county land use plans. The environmental planning goals specifically address water quality and require local governments to incorporate considerations of corrective mitigation measures for stormwater into their land use plans. Hydraulic Code—RCW 77.55 Businesses that operate along shorelines, river banks, or estuarine wetlands are required to obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hydraulic projects—identified as those that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of the state’s waters—have adverse effects on Washington’s fish and shellfish resources.21 Prior to applying for a stormwater permit, businesses undertaking a hydraulic project must obtain an additional permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.22 The department will determine whether the project will cause harmful effects to fish and wildlife, transmit those findings to local government, and allow the business an opportunity to avoid these adverse effects using other mechanisms.23 The department may then issue a permit containing provisions on the “adequacy” of the business’s protection efforts.24 This permit will describe measures to protect fish life from adverse effects, such as scouring or erosion of the bed of the water body, resulting from the direct hydraulic impacts of the discharge.25

Glossary 303(d) list: The list of impaired and threatened waters (stream/river segments, lakes) that the Clean Water Act requires all states to submit for EPA approval every two years. “better design”: A phase preceding stormwater permitting to explore how a permit could be avoided through better site design. brown field site: A site that has had previous development on it and may have some design constraints from the previous development. complier: The entity that has to comply with regulations. complier-centric: A strategy that focuses on the complier of regulations with the intent of helping them achieve compliance without compromising the outcome the regulation is intended to achieve. cost-benefit analysis (CBA): An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of different alternatives in order to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs. data management strategy: An approach to storing and sharing information in a manner that maximizes access and quality of information without compromising privacy needs . determination of non-significance: A finding in which the likely environmental impact of a project is determined to not meet the threshold of a material impact. end-end process: Defines the ends of a process as expansively as possible so that duplication and contradictory process steps are not obscured by artificially circumscribing the process. environmental assessment (EA): An assessment of the possible impacts that a proposed project may have on the environment. environmental impact statement (EIS): A document required by the National Environmental Policy Act for certain actions “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” externality: A side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey. federal nexus: When a project involves federal funding, federal permit or approval, use of federal lands, or a federal program. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA): an application multiple regulatory agencies have created to streamline regulations that can be used to apply for more than one permit at a time. Lean: A production practice that considers the expenditure of resources for any goal other than the creation of value for the end customer to be wasteful, and thus a target for elimination. Lean production: Pioneered by Toyota in the 1980s, Lean production typically requires half the human effort, half the manufacturing space and capital investment for a given amount of capacity, and a fraction of the development and lead time of mass production systems.

Better Design, Better Outcomes:

Lean thinking: The process to guide managers through a Lean transformation includes the following five steps: (i) specify value; (ii) identify the value stream; (iii) make value flow; (iv) allow customer to pull value; (v) strive to perfection. Low Impact Development (LID): A land planning and engineering design approach to managing stormwater runoff. LID emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features to protect water quality. multi-agency permitting (MAP): Cross-functional teams with members from multiple agencies all needed to get a particular project permitted. natural capital: Natural capital refers to the elements of nature that produce value (directly and indirectly) to people, such as the stock of forests, rivers, land, minerals, and oceans. It includes the living aspects of nature (such as fish stocks) as well as the non-living aspects (such as minerals and energy resources). natural capital accounting: The process of calculating the total stocks and flows of natural resources and services in a given ecosystem or region. Accounting for such goods may occur in physical or monetary terms. nonâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;point source pollution: A source of pollution that issues from widely distributed or pervasive environmental elements. â&#x20AC;&#x153;one waterâ&#x20AC;?: A name we have given to a process that could allow us to integrate the many facets of water quality into one whole. point source pollution: A single, identifiable source of pollution. Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA): An iterative four-step management method used in business for the control and continuous improvement of processes and products. point source: A localized and stationary pollution source. process owner: The person who has the ultimate responsibility for the performance of a process in realizing its objectives measured by key process indicators, and who has the authority and ability to make necessary changes. regulator: A person or body that supervises a particular industry or business activity. Section 404: A section of the CWA that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Section 7: Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when any action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes (such as through a permit) may affect a listed endangered or threatened species. single point of contact (SPOC): A person or department serving as the coordinator or focal point of information concerning an activity or program. stormwater: Surface water in abnormal quantity resulting from heavy falls of rain or snow. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A regulatory term in the U.S. Clean Water Act, describing a value of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards.

value stream: A Lean manufacturing technique used to document, analyze and improve the flow of information or materials required to produce a product or service for a customer. â&#x20AC;&#x153;vital fewâ&#x20AC;?: Derives from the Pareto principle, which states that, for many events, roughly 80 percent of the effects come from 20 percent of the causes.

Better Design, Better Outcomes:

References 1

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, “Newspapers: By the Numbers,” November 28, 2013, retrieved from http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/newspapersbuilding-digital-revenues-proves-painfullyslow/newspapers-by-the-numbers/. 2 T. Drochak, “Using a Multi-Agency Permitting Team (MAP Team): Multi-Agency Solutions to Permitting Transportation Projects,” PowerPoint presentation provided by Cameron Kukes, WS DOT, 2009. 3 William McDonough + Partners, “Ford Rouge Center Landscape Master Plan,” retrieved from http://www.mcdonoughpartners.com/projects/view/f ord_rouge_center_landscape_master_plan. 4 World Bank Brief, “Natural Capital Accounting,” June 30, 2012, retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/bri ef/environmental-economics-natural-capitalaccounting. 5 Solutions Journal, “How Water Utilities Can Spearhead Natural Capital Accounting,” January, 2012, retrieved from http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1018 6 RCW 90.48.170, “Waste Disposal Permits Required of Counties, Municipalities and Public Corporations,” retrieved from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.48.1 70. 7 Lean Enterprise Institute, “What is Lean?,” August 4, 2013, retrieved from http://www.Lean.org/whatsLean/. 8 Ibid. 9 J. Womack and D. Jones, Lean Thinking (New York, NY: Free Press, 2003).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Reducing Stormwater Costs Through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices,” 2007, retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/2008_0 1_02_NPS_lid_costs07uments_reducingstormwaterco sts-2.pdf. 11 Section 101. 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Frequent Questions,” retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/questi ons_index.cfm#updated. 13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clean Water Act Section 404, retrieved from http://www.fwos.gov/habitatconservation/cwa.htm. 14 NEPA 42 USC § 4321–4347. 15 Council on Environmental Quality, “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,” 40 C.F.R. Parts 500–508. The NEPA process is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 508. 16 National Environmental Policy Act, “Basic Information,” retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html. 17 Section 4. 18 RCW 43.21C.010. 19 RCW 90.48.010. 20 Ibid. 21 RCW 77.55.011. 22 This applies only to those businesses that are not in areas covered by the municipal stormwater permit— that is, where stormwater runoff is collected in municipal separate storm sewers. 23 RCW 77.55.161. 24 RCW 77.55.021. 25 RCW 77.55.161.

Photo Credits COVER Unknown / Wallpaper Abyss

page 1 Craig Huxtable / Flickr

page 7, 10, 21, 22 Sanjay Kapoor

pages 12, 15 Center for Urban Waters, Tacoma, WA

page 16 Marcus Donner/Reuters

page 19 Canned Muffins /Flickr

Design and layout

Washington Business Alliance 2401 Elliott Avenue Suite 375 Seattle, WA 98121