As the service provider for SAM, we aim to provide credible and transparent accountability for expenditures of permittee funds to implement SAM with oversight by the PRO-C. In our role as the SAM service provider, we:
- Track revenue and expenditures.
- Report cash flows quarterly.
- Contract for SAM projects.
- Maintain transparency via websites.
- Attend SWG and PRO-C meetings.
- Run deliverable-based agreements for SAM projects.
Approved deliverables are authorized for payment. All SAM pooled resources from municipal stormwater permittees are held in private/local accounts. Only authorized expenditures can pull from these accounts.
Pooled resources oversight committee (PRO-C)
The PRO-C is a formal subgroup of the SWG, PRO-C Charter, that provides oversight on SAM projects' scopes, schedules, budgets, and SAM contracting decisions. The PRO-C is comprised of local government representatives (permittees) and other stakeholders (non-permittees such as state or federal government). They have regular meetings to provide transparency and accountability in spending the funds contributed by municipal stormwater permittees in Western Washington. The PRO-C meets as needed, generally four to five times per year and is organized by the SAM coordinator. The PRO-C and Ecology used a report card approach to evaluate each other's performance on SAM implementation twice during the 2013-2019 permit term: 2016 SAM Implementation Report Card and 2019 SAM Implmentation Report Card.
SAM funding
Who is included in the cost sharing program?
In 2013, permittees notified their permit managers in writing which S8.B and S8.C permit condition option they chose. The vast majority of permittees opted to pool monitoring moneys to launch this new program, SAM. (At the time the program was called RSMP — regional stormwater monitoring program).
Other resources are also contributed to the program:
- USGS — $20,000 analyzed nearshore sediment samples for microplastics
- Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife — analyzed mussel tissue samples for microplastics and contaminants of emerging concern
- Ecology — donates lead staff, meeting expenses, and technical services to ensure SAM's overall success
- USGS — $60,000 of co-op funds to conduct enhanced flow data recording using pressure transducers at 15 small streams sites
- USGS — $50,000 of co-op funds to conduct comparisons between small stream data and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) data in the Puget Sound region in 2015
- Washington State Department of Agriculture — $53,000 analyzed 75 stream sediment samples for an additional 100 pesticides, and a report
- Penn Cove Shellfish — donated mussels for both rounds of mussel monitoring study in urban nearshore environments
- City of Redmond — donates project management task on the Paired Basin Watershed study
Projects costs and expected completion dates
SAM Contracted Expenditures by Project - Updated March 2019
| Status and trends in receiving waters |
Total costs |
Completion date |
| Small Puget Lowland Streams |
$2,121,019 |
June 2018 |
| Puget Sound nearshore sediment chemistry |
$322,606 |
Dec. 2017 |
| Contaminants in marine mussels |
$269,030;
$285,693
$279,858 |
Round 1 June 2017
Round 2 June 2019
Round 3 June 2020 |
| Puget Sound bacteria data compilation and summary |
$17,193 |
June 2017 |
| Effectiveness studies |
Total costs |
Completion date |
| Catch basin inspection and maintenance |
$260,305 |
May 2019 |
| Paired urban watershed restoration |
$1,775,755 |
Jun. 2020 |
| Regional retrofit study in Federal Way |
$660,109 |
Jan. 2019 |
| Stormwater source control at small businesses |
$179,336 |
Sep. 2017 |
| LID bioretention hydrology performance - pre2012 manual |
$562,852 |
Dec. 2018 |
| LID bioretention hydrology performance - post2012 manual |
$526,026 |
Dec. 2019 |
| Bioretention reduction of toxicity to salmon |
$149,099 |
Dec. 2016 |
| Field test of plants and fungi on bioretention performance |
$424,920 |
July 2020 |
| LID Retrofit of Hwy 99 at Echo Lake |
$308,255 |
March 2018 |
| Rain Garden and bioretention protocol and survey |
$175,000 |
March 2019 |
| PCB reduction by bioretention soil mix |
$191,955 |
Dec. 2020 |
| Bioretention blend alternatives |
$388,450 |
Jan. 2020 |
| Individual tree hydrology |
$379,495 |
Dec. 2021 |
| Longevity of bioretention toxicity prevention |
$396,076 |
Sept. 2020 |
| Oyster shell catch basin effectiveness |
$273,605 |
April 2022 |
| Mulch choices for bioretention |
$191,497 |
April 2022 |
| Hydrologic control options for bioretention |
$214,480 |
April 2022 |
| Source Identification |
Total costs |
Completion date |
| IDDE data compilation and analysis |
$114,078 |
Sept. 2017 |
| ICID manual update |
$174,000 |
Aug. 2020 |
| Regional spill hotline scoping |
$175,840 |
Dec. 2020 |
| Small business perspectives on source control |
|
|
| SAM program administration |
Total costs |
Completion date |
| Total for 2013-2019 permit and extension |
$890,000 |
July 2019 |
When do each year's payments occur?
We typically invoice permittees in May for payments due in August of each year. Receipts are available for download from PARIS. For 2019, invoices went out in July and payments are due December 1, 2019.
Where can you send your payment?
Please send your payment to the address listed on the invoice. If this document is not available, use the information on our make a payment webpage.