HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2000-064 Interlocal Agreement with several Eastern Washington cities regarding Department of Ecology stormwater management mandatRESOLUTION NO. R-2000- 64
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute an interlocal agreement
with several eastern Washington cities for the purpose of
creating a common position and understanding with the
Washington State Department of Ecology regarding stormwater
management mandates.
WHEREAS, the State of Washington, Department of Ecology ("Ecology") has
developed rules, regulations and standards related to urban area storm water run-off
for Western Washington, and
WHEREAS, Ecology is in the process of drafting rules, regulations and
standards for urban storm water run-off for Eastern Washington, and
WHEREAS, Ecology's draft urban area storm water run-off rules, regulations
and standards for Eastern Washington do not recognize any difference between
Eastern Washington and Western Washington relating to climate, topography, soil,
etc., and
WHEREAS, Ecology's draft urban area storm water run-off rules, regulations
and standards are substantially more stringent than federal rules, regulations and
standards, and
WHEREAS, the Parties to the attached proposed agreement are the Cities of
Wenatchee, Ellensburg, Moses Lake, Pullman, West Richland, Kennewick, Pasco,
Richland, Walla Walla and Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have concerns regarding the applicability of rules,
regulations and standards developed by the Ecology for urban area storm water run-
off developed for Western Washington to Eastern Washington, as well as the
magnitude of capital investment, operation and maintenance costs related to the
benefits to be obtained, and
WHEREAS, the issues raised by Ecology's proposed rules, regulations and
standards are complex and beyond the technical capabilities of each of the Parties
individually,
WHEREAS, the Parties have concerns relating to funding which would be
necessary to satisfy Ecology's draft requirements for urban area storm water run-off,
management and
WHEREAS, the Parties are public agencies as defined in RCW 39.34.020, who
wish to enter into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the
City of Yakima to create a common position and understanding among the Parties
to the proposed agreement and with the Washington State Department of Ecology
regarding stormwater management mandates; now, therefore
Page 1 of 2
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The City Manager is authorized to execute the attached Interlocal Agreement
among the Cities of Wenatchee, Ellensburg, Moses Lake, Pullman, West Richland,
Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, Walla Walla and Yakima.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 6th day of June 2000.
ATTEST:
/271 /Zx
ry Place, Mayor
City Clerk
C: \ word \ public works \ stormwater \ res auth.doc Last printed 6/1/00 8:12 AM
Page 2 of 2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF WENATCHEE,
ELLENSB URG, MOSES LAKE, PULLMAN,
WEST RICHLAND, KENNEWICK, PASCO,
RICHLAND, WALLA WALLA, AND YAKIMA
This Interlocal Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this date by and between the
City of Wenatchee ("Wenatchee"), the City of Ellensburg ("Ellensburg"), the City of Moses
Lake ("Moses Lake"), the City of Pullman ("Pullman"), the City of West Richland ("West
Richland"), the City of Kennewick ("Kennewick"), the City of Pasco ("Pasco"), the City of
Richland ("Richland"), the City of Walla Walla ("Walla Walla") and the City of Yakima
("Yakima"), all Municipal corporations of the State of Washington, referred to herein
collectively as the "Parties".
WHEREAS, the Parties are public agencies as defined in RCW 39.34.020, who wish to
enter into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW; and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington, Department of Ecology has developed rules,
regulations and standards related to urban area storm water run-off for Western Washington, and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington, Department of Ecology is in the process of
drafting rules, regulations and standards for urban storm water run-off for Eastern Washington,
and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology urban area storm water run-
off rules, regulations and standards for Eastern Washington do not recognize any difference
between Eastern Washington and Western Washington relating to climate, topography, soil, etc.,
and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology draft urban area storm water
run-off rules, regulations and standards are substantially more stringent than federal rules,
regulations and standards, and
WHEREAS, the Parties have concerns regarding the applicability of rules, regulations
and standards developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology for urban area storm
water run-off developed for Western Washington to Eastern Washington, as well as the
magnitude of capital investment, operation and maintenance costs related to the benefits to be
obtained, and
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 1.
WHEREAS, the Parties have concerns relating to funding the Washington State
Department of Ecology requirements as relate to urban area storm water run-off, and
WHEREAS, the issues raised by the Washington State Department of Ecology rules,
regulations and standards are complex and beyond the technical capabilities of each of the
Parties individually,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set out herein, the
Parties agree as set out below:
I. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
The general intent and purpose of this Agreement is as follows:
A. For the Parties working together to retain the services of a consultant to review
the proposed Washington State Department of Ecology rules, regulations and
standards relating to urban area storm water run-off and prepare a report regarding
the consultant's findings, conclusions and recommendations, and arrange for
payment to the consultant.
B. To create an advisory committee with equal representation by each of the Parties
to select and negotiate a contract with a consultant and to gain an understanding
of the proposed Washington State Department of Ecology urban storm water run-
off rules, regulations and standards, and collectively respond to the proposed rules
and regulations.
C. To establish the City of Wenatchee as the lead agency for purposes of signing a
contract with and paying the retained consultant, and providing for billing each
party its proportionate share of the costs of the consultant.
II. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT (PARTIES)
Parties shall perform the following:
A. Designate a representative to act on behalf of the individual party and be a
member of the advisory committee consisting of one member from each of the
Parties.
B. Pay its proportionate share of the costs of the consultant retained by the
committee to study the draft rules, regulations and standards developed by the
Washington State Department of Ecology for urban stow' water run-off, and other
responsibilities designated by the committee.
C. Such other obligations as established by the advisory committee.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 2.
III. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT (WENATCHEE)
Wenatchee agrees to perform the following:
A. Acting on behalf of the advisory committee and the Parties, contract with and pay
the consultant's invoices and bill the Parties their proportionate share of the
invoice.
B. Maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting
procedures and practices sufficient to establish the proportionate share of each
Party's costs. Each Party's proportionate share of the costs of the consultant shall
be based upon the Parties 1999 population (as is shown on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth), rounded to the nearest
full one -thousandth person in relationship to the total population of all parties.
Each Party's proportionate share of the costs shall not exceed $0.10 per capita,
per year.
IV. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT (ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
A. The advisory committee shall establish its own rules, regulations and procedures.
Each Party will cover all expenses for its individual committee member.
B. The committee shall be responsible for selecting a consultant pursuant to rules
established by the committee and determine the scope of the consultant's work.
C. The committee will meet on a regular basis for the purpose of gaining an
understanding of the proposed Washington State Department of Ecology urban
area storm water run-off rules, regulations and standards, assessing the applicable
and economic affect of the rules, regulations and standards, and keeping the
legislative body of each Party informed, with the goal to have the final
Washington State Department of Ecology rules, regulations and standards be
economically feasible, reasonable and practical in addressing realistic
environmental concerns related to urban storm water run-off.
V. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective upon filing the executed Agreement with the
appropriate county auditor pursuant to RCW 39.34.040.
Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement upon giving sixty (60) days written notice
to the other Parties and payment of its prorated share of the costs incurred up to the date the
withdrawal becomes effective.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 3
Parties.
This Agreement shall terminate on March 31, 2004, unless extended by agreement of the
VI. ADMINISTRATION
The City of Wenatchee Director of Public Works shall be the liaison between the Parties
and the consultant for the duration of this Agreement. Wenatchee will establish and maintain
adequate books, records, documents and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices
sufficient to satisfy each individual Party for billing purposes.
VII. PROJECT RECORDS
The State Auditor, and any other authorized or designated representative of a public
agency with a need to do so in the regular administration of its business, shall have full access to
and right to examine, during normal business hours and as often as allowed by law, all records
with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. Such representative(s) shall be permitted
to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all
contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, and other matters covered by this Agreement. All
documents, papers, accounting records, and other materials pertaining to the specified services
shall be retained for three (3) years from the date of completion of each service to facilitate any
audits or inspections, or each individual City's respective record retention period if greater than
three (3) years. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the records, along with
supporting documentation, shall be retained until all litigation, claim, or audit finding has been
resolved even though such litigation, claim, or audit continues past the three (3) year retention
period.
VIII. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS
The parties, other than Wenatchee, shall indemnify, defend and hold Wenatchee and all
of its agents, employees, officers, and board members harmless from and against any and all
claims, losses, actions, damages or liability, or any portion thereof (collectively "Damages"), to
persons or properties arising out of or in connection with Wenatchee's performance of the duties
and obligations of Wenatchee described in this Agreement which have been approved by or
assigned to Wenatchee by the advisory committee, except to the extent such Damages were
caused or created solely by Wenatchee.
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Parties and
gives no right to any other person or entity. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result
of this Agreement.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 4.
IX. AMENDMENTS
The parties may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of this Agreement. Any
such changes that are recommended and approved by the advisory committee and further
approved by the Parties must be incorporated herein by a written amendment to this Agreement.
It is mutually agreed and understood that no alteration or variation of the terms of this
Agreement shall be valid, unless made in writing, and signed by the Parties hereto, and any oral
understandings or agreements not incorporated herein shall not be binding on any Party.
X. SEVERABILITY
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed so as to require the commission of any act
contrary to law, and if there is any conflict between any provisions of this Agreement and any
statute law, public regulation, or ordinance, the latter shall prevail, but in such event, the
provisions of this Agreement affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary
to bring it within legal requirements.
XI. ATTORNEY'S FEES
In the event it is necessary for any Party to utilize the services of any attorney to enforce
any of the teems of this Agreement, such enforcing Party, if substantially prevailing, shall be
entitled to compensation of its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of litigation
regarding the tends of this Agreement, the substantially prevailing Party shall be entitled, in
addition to other further relief, to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
XII. EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE
This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed to be an original, having identical legal statements, representation, warranties,
covenants, and agreements and other supporting materials contained and/or mentioned herein.
XIII. ASSIGNMENT
Wenatchee shall not assign or transfer any duty or obligation required under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of all other Parties.
XIV. ARBITRATION
In the event the Parties cannot agree on any matter set out in this Agreement and if the
method of resolution of the disagreement is not set out in the rules and procedures established by
the advisory committee, the Parties shall promptly consult each other and attempt to resolve the
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 5
XIII. ASSIGNMENT
Wenatchee shall not assign or transfer any duty or obligation required under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of all other Parties.
XIV. ARBITRATION
In the event the Parties cannot agree on any matter set out in this Agreement and if the
method of resolution of the disagreement is not set out in the rules and procedures established by
the advisory committee, the Parties shall promptly consult each other and attempt to resolve the
dispute. In the event the Parties cannot agree on a resolution of the dispute, the same shall be
settled by arbitration pursuant to RCW Chapter 7.04, et seg. except as herein modified. Such
arbitration shall be before one disinterested arbitrator, if one can be agreed upon, otherwise by
one disinterested arbitrator appointed by the most senior judge of the Chelan County Superior
Court, and the judicial appointment shall be binding and final. The decision of the arbitrator shall
be final, conclusive and binding on the Parties and a judgment may be obtained in any court
having jurisdiction.
XV. GOVERNING LAW
In the event any Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to
enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, each Party hereto agrees that any such
action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington situated in Chelan
County, and each Party submits to jurisdiction in Chelan County Superior Court and hereby
accepts the issuing and service of process by registered mail.
DATED THIS day of , 2000.
CITY OF WENATCHEE, a Municipal corporation
ATTEST:
By:
By:
GARY L. SCHOESSLER, Mayor
DEE INGLE, City Clerk
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 6.
•
•
dispute. In the event the Parties cannot agree on a resolution of the dispute, the same shall be
settled by arbitration pursuant to RCW Chapter 7.04, et seq. except as herein modified. Such
arbitration shall be before one disinterested arbitrator, if one can be agreed upon, otherwise by
one disinterested arbitrator appointed by the most senior judge of the Chelan County Superior
Court, and the judicial appointment shall be binding and final. The decision of the arbitrator
shall be final, conclusive and binding on the Parties and a judgment may be obtained in any court
having jurisdiction.
XV. GOVERNING LAW
In the event any Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to
enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, each Party hereto agrees that any such
action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington situated in Chelan
County, and each Party submits to jurisdiction in Chelan County Superior Court and hereby
accepts the issuing and service of process by registered mail.
DATED THIS day of , 2000.
ATTEST:
By:
CITY OF WENATCHEE, a Municipal corporation
By:
DEE INGLE, City Clerk
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 6.
Mayor
CITY OF ELLENSBURG, a Municipal corporation
By:
Title:
ATTEST:
By:
Title:
ATTEST:
By:
CITY OF MOSES LAKE, a Municipal corporation
By:
Title:
ATTEST:
By:
Title:
CITY OF PULLMAN, a Municipal corporation
By:
Title:
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 7.
Title:
CITY OF WEST RICHLAND, a Municipal
c• •• •ration
By:
ATTEST:
By:
Title:
CITY OF KENNEWICK, a Municipal corporation
Title: MAYOR
ATTEST:
Title:Valerie..J. Laf le. ,)City Clerk
ATTEST:
By:
CITY OF PASCO, a Municipal corporation
By:
Title:
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 8
CITY OF RICHLAND, a Municipal corporation
By: 66/ G /
Title: 4 G-1-1,ti.
ATTEST:
By:
ATTEST:
By:
CITY OF WALLA WALLA, a Municipal
corporation
By:
Title.
ATTEST:
By: 6LhuL,/,.—
M iTuL
Kammy
. Hill, City Clerk
c)CJJt„
Title: Chuck. Fulton, Acting City Manager
CITY OF YAKIMA, a Municipal corporation
By:
Title: Richard A. Zan, City Managor
City Contract No. 2000-50
Resolution No. R-2000-64
Title: Karen S . Roberts , C i ty t O ;erk-
F\LINDAC\CITY\DOCUMENTS\INTERLOACAL AGMT BETWEEN CITIES 040600 (6017-35)
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 9
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. % 3
For Meeting Of 6/6/00
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing City Manager and City Clerk to Execute an
Interlocal Agreement Between Certain Municipalities of Eastern
Washington for the Purpose of Creating a Common Position and
Understanding with the Washington State Department of Ecology
Regarding Stormwater Management Mandates
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Waarvick, Public Works Director
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Chris Waarvick/576-6411
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Staff respectfully requests City Council approval of the attached resolution authorizing the
execution of the attached interlocal Agreement between the Cities of Wenatchee, Ellensburg,
Moses Lake, Pullman, West Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, Walla Walla and Yakima.
The purpose of this agreement is to create a common front of eastern Washington
communities faced with significant unfunded mandates associated with Washington State
Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Stormwater Guidance Manual and EPA's Phase II
Stormwater requirements -- which Ecology is also the lead agency because of their primacy
with respect to Clean Water Act compliance responsibilities in the State.
(...Continued on next page...)
Resolution X Ordinance Contract _Other (Specify) Interlocal Agreement. Attachments
Funding Source Street Fund Unappropriated Reserves
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
-' City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends that City Council approve the
attached resolution and direct staff to return to City Council with an appropriation ordinance
within the Street Fund to support the financial contribution necessary for this cooperative
effort.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
agenda-sw interlocal
5/31/00 cw
Staff has provided City Council numerous briefing documents and analyses on these matters
over the last 12 months. Certain staff members have attended workshops and are engaged
with Ecology on Technical Advisory and policy committees. The Public Works Director has
participated in an emerging federation of Public Works officials from eastern Washington
concerned about the impacts of the Guidance document and Ecology's anticipated
Phase
l� Stormwater regulations. �n nrrlor for our
interpretation and implementation of EPA' Phase n � o mwa e In
voice to be heard clearly over the current headlong advance in western Washington of
requirements and activities which may not make sense in eastern Washington, staff
recommends the City of Yakima enter into this interlocal agreement representing nearly
300,000 residents. A part of the interlocal agreement speaks to committment of the Signitory
cities for a $0.10 per capita per year asessment. $30,000 would then be available for
professional consulting services necessary to create and defend our positions. Yakima's
share per year would be approximately $6,500. If addditional efforts are found to be
necessary, staff will return to Council for the appropriate approvals. This would apply to all
the parties to the agreement.
ent.
Ecology is finalizing the publishing schedule of the final draft of the Stormwater Guidance
document. Eastern Washington communities have expressed the desire for a separate
schedule from that of western Washington or the Puget Sound area. Ecology had initially
proposed separate schedules but recently revised that offer so that only Sections I. (Minimal
Technical Standards), III (Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Controls), and V (Runoff Treatment
Best Management Practices) be delayed. These three sections have significant impacts on
local governments. Sections II (Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention) and IV
(Source Control Best Management Practices) would be published in final draft this summer
for the whole state. These sections have significant impact on the private sector including the
construction industry. Ecology has asked for feedback on this proposal. A complete'',
separate Guidance document for eastern Washington is the preferred alternative. It appears
at this moment that Ecology will separate eastern Washington from the rest of the state in its
publishing schedule for the Gudiance Document.
Notwithstanding the issues surrounding the Guidance document, EPA's Phase II Stormwater
requirements are forthcoming -- and Ecology is responsible for the statewide implementation
of the rules. This means that the City of Yakima would have an additional National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) similar to
its wastewater NPDES permit. This will happen by the year 2003. The city would be best
positioned to have its plan to comply with the General Permit in the year 2002. The first
permit cycle (normally 5 years) would likely give the City time to "ramp up" its implementation
activities within that first permit cycle. To that end, a draft implementation report (dated March
23, 2000) is attached which staff requested HDR Engineering, Inc. to prepare.
To prepare for this eventuality, staff recommends that during the year 2001 budget process,
Council consider creating a Stormwater fund with minimal start up resources for technical
and legal activities necessary to begin preparation for Phase II compliance. Very quickly the
extent of City efforts to comply with Phase II requirements will include adoption of a
stormwater management plan, establishing basic maintenance tasks, monitoring schedules,
Codes, Planning and Engineering efforts, permit administration, and implementation of a
capital construction plan. City Council will need to deliberate and determine an ongoing
funding mechanism -- i.e., Stormwater Utility creation or similar framework for affording
could be discussed fully Year 2001 budge'
compliance. These matters c�uw more �ur through the . _ __ _
development process.
agenda-sw interlocal
5/31/00 cw
One matter of significant importance is the desire of certain western Washington communities
(King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties and the Targe cites within) to incorporate Endangered
Species Act (ESA) requirements within the General Permits under Phase II implementation.
Ecology has been advised recently by the Public Works officials referenced above that this is
not currently acceptable. NPDES Phase II General Permits should not include ESA
provisions at this time. It is the belief of the Public Works officials that this would create
untimely and unnecessary exposure to additional legal risk for communities within the
remedies found under the Clean Water Act for citizen suits regarding NPDES permit
compliance. Commingling these two Acts (ESA and CWA) is not recommended. City
Council recently recieved an Information Transmittal discussing this matter more fully.
agenda-sw interlocal
5/31/00 cw
STATE REPRESENTATIVE_
12111 DISTRICT
CLYDE BALLARD
REPUBLICAN SPEAKER OF
THE 1-IOUSE
April 19, 2000
Mr. Tom Fitzsimmons, Director
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Dear Tom:
State of
Washington
House of
Representatives
RULES
C0-ClIAIR IAN
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 2000
MAYOR'S OFFICE
Please find enclosed a copy of a letter we received from the city of Wenatchee regarding the
Department of Ecology's proposed statewide adoption of a new Stormwater Guidance Manual.
The city is concerned that the proposed manual is incompatible with eastern and central
Washington's weather conditions, environmental conditions, geological and soil conditions, and
existing practices of stormwater disposal.
The letter also states that it is unclear as to why the department is rushing forward to adopt a
statewide manual in light of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed transition
of the Phase II Stormwater Regulations over the next 3 to 8 years.
We would appreciate it if you could respond to the city's concerns and provide us with a copy of
the response as well. We hope the department will take the city's comments into consideration
and work with them and other communities in eastern Washington in developing a stormwater
manual.
Please do not hesitate to contact either of us if you have any questions.
With Warmest Regards,
CLYDE BALLARD LINDA EVANS PARLETTE
Speaker of the House 12TH District Representative
cc: Senator George Sellar
V Mayor Gary Schoessler, City of Wenatchee
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE: 3rd FLR. LEGISLATIVE_ BUILDING, 1'O 13()X 406(8), OLYMPIA, \VA 3)8504-)188) • (360) 786-73199
TOLL-FREE LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE. I-8(0-362-(;(%%) TDD- 1-8(88635-9093
DISTRICT OFFICE: 23 S. WENATCI IEE AVENUE, SUITE 18, WENAI'CI IEE, \VA 98801 • (50))) ((64-1274
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAI'EI(
MEMORANDUM
06539-047-002-01
TO: Chris Waarvick, City of Yakima
FROM: Tony Krutsch
Cc: HDR File
DATE: March 23, 2000
SUBJECT: Stormwater Impacts
EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations
EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations
EPA's Phase II Storm Water Regulations will require the City of Yakima (and Yakima County)
to establish a storm water management program that would reduce the quantity of pollutants that
storm water picks up and carries into storm water systems to the "maximum extent possible
(MEP)" during storm events. Common pollutants which are of concern include oil and grease
from roadways and parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, sediment from
construction sites, animal feces from grassed areas, detergents from community car washing
events, and carelessly discarded trash such as cigarette butts, paper products, and plastics. If
these pollutants are discharged to waterways, they can impair surface water which may impact
recreational use, contaminate drinking water supplies, and interfere with habitat for aquatic life
and other wildlife. If these pollutants are discharged to dry -wells, they may impair groundwater
which could impact the use of the groundwater as a potential source of a drinking water supply,
or as a supplemental source of surface water flow.
The EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations are developed around the implementation of
approved "best management practices (BMP's)" which are considered to comply with the
technical standard of MEP. There are six (6) required program elements that are expected to
result in significant reduction of pollutants discharged in storm water. The six program elements
are considered to be "minimum control measures" and are described as follows:
• public education and outreach
• public involvement and participation
• illicit discharge detection and elimination
• construction site storm water runoff control
• post -construction storm water management
• pollution prevention, or "good housekeeping" for municipal oeprations
O•\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
1
If we ignore the requirements that the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) could have
on the implementation of the EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations for the moment, we can
gain some perspective as to the impacts that the Phase II Regulations would have on the City of
Yakima. This is my perspective based on a narrative effluent limitation that requires
implementation of BMP's.
The following provides a brief description of the "minimum control measures (MCM)" and then
a discussion as to how I see the measure impacting Yakima. I've included some "Fact Sheets"
published by EPA for each of these MCM's as an appendix to this memorandum.
1. Public Education and Outreach. Distributing educational materials and performing
outreach to inform citizens about the impacts polluted storm water runoff discharges can
have on water quality.
Yakima Impacts. This MCM is likely an extension of activities that the City currently
has underway. A public relations specialist would be responsible for:
distribution of water quality information relating to the impacts of stormwater (mail -
outs and handouts). There is a lot of this information available about over -watering,
fertilization, animal feces, pesticides, dumping oil into storm sewers, etc. that can be
used.
• making presentations at schools in the area which can include material handouts and
likely some visual graphics that present the "water cycle".
• making presentations to community groups. Likely the same handouts and graphics
as for the schools.
• making presentations to the homebuilders, industrial groups, neighborhood groups, or
basically anyone that will listen. Again the same handouts and graphics.
• organization of volunteer groups to perform community projects relating to water
quality such as: distributing pamphlets door-to-door; stenciling catch basins; cleaning
up drainage ditches; cleaning along creeks/rivers; neighborhood cleanup projects
(leaves, animal feces, etc); planting trees along creeks/rivers;
For the first 3 to 5 years, the level of involvement of the public relations specialist for
storm water would be at least full-time. Even after the 5 -year period, the minimum level
of involvement would be at least 3/4 time. For purposes of this discussion, I suggest one
full-time public relations specialist who would be one of the first employees hired.
2. Public Participation/Involvement. Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in
program development and implementation, including effectively publicizing public
hearings and/or encouraging citizen representatives on a storm water management panel.
O.\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
2
Yakima Impacts. I've actually included the citizen participation/involvement MCM in
my discussion above. Other items included here would be to develop articles that could
be published in the newspaper on community activities, and preparation of public notices.
The citizen representation issue is addressed through the volunteer groups.
In my opinion, these activities would not increase staffing above the full-time public
relations specialist identified previously.
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination. Developing and implementing a plan to
detect and eliminate illicit discharges to the storm sewer system (includes developing a
system map and informing the community about hazards associated with illegal
discharges and improper disposal of waste).
Yakima Impacts. This MCM requires field investigation, sampling, and testing. It
would be possible to utilize community volunteers to some extent, but the likelihood is
that the City would need to staff this program. Illicit discharges can generally be
identified as waste flows from residential, commercial, and/or industrial sources that
should be discharged to the sanitary sewer instead of the storm sewer. These could
include cooling water that comes into contact with a contaminate; hard surfaced areas
where products are stored that are purposely washed -off, or are washed -off as the result of
storm events to a stomi dram; local community car wash events where the wash water
flows to a storm sewer/drain; a sanitary sewer interconnected accidentally to the storm
sewer/drain; and a host of individual property owner activities such as washing their
vehicle in their driveway, excessive lawn watering, discharge of sump drains, etc.
In my opinion, this activity will require two full-time positions responsible for
investigation and sampling, and working with community volunteers on investigations.
The sampling means testing and would likely add a Ih time laboratory technician.
4. Construction Site Runoff Control. Developing, implementing, and enforcing an erosion
and sediment control program for construction activities that disturb 1 or more acres of
land (controls could include silt fences and temporary storm water detention ponds).
Yakima Impacts. This is probably one of the more controversial MCM's in that it
requires the construction industry to comply with added provisions. The City will need to
adopt a menu of standards that apply to construction sites. It is my opinion that WDOE's
proposed approach far exceeds the intent of the EPA Phase 11 Storm Water Regulations,
and the identified needs of the Central and Eastern Washington area.
The menu of Construction Site Runoff Control would be adopted as Design Standards.
Both the "Drainage Criteria and Design Manual" by HDR in 1994, and the WDOE
"Stormwater Management Manual" could be used as resource documents in developing a
simplified menu of standards to be applied for Yakima.
O:\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
3
The menu would be developed in cooperation with the construction industry rather than
applied as a mandated government regulation. This cooperative effort would also be
supportive of the "Public Participation/Involvement" MCM described previously.
This MCM also requires a permitting and inspection process to ensure compliance, and of
course, implementation of penalties for non-compliance. The review and permitting
requirements could be incorporated with other plan review responsibilities currently
performed by the City. The review and permitting will likely require the dedication of a
'/a time person. The field inspection activities could also likely be incorporated into on-
site building or site inspection responsibilities of existing staff. Increased responsibilities
are likely to add the equivalent of a 'h time person. Finally, the enforcement
responsibilities will likely require notifications, consent orders, penalty orders,
publication in local newspaper, etc. This activity is also anticipated to result in a t time
person.
5. Post -Construction Runoff Control. Developing, implementing, and enforcing a program
to address discharges of post -construction storm water runoff from new development and
redevelopment areas. Applicable controls could include preventative actions such as
protecting sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands) or the use of structural BMPs such as grassed
swales or porous pavement.
Yakima Impacts. Here again, in my opinion this MCM can be developed in a much
simpler format than currently proposed by WDOE. The "Drainage Criteria and Design
Manual" and the WDOE "Stormwater Management Manual" could be used as a resource
document. This is also the area where the Endangered and Threatened Species issue will
result in the greatest impact.
Requirements of this MCM include both Non -Structural BMPs and Structural BMPs.
Some practical BMPs in each of these categories are as follows:
Non -Structural BMPs
— buffer strips
- riparian zone preservation
- minimize site disturbance
- minimize impervious areas
- source controls
- land use planning
• Structural BMPs
- storage/detention
— oil separators
— catchbasin design
- dry -well construction
- natural site infiltration
O\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
4
The Post -Construction Runoff Control MCM will include "design criteria" for calculating
stotniwater runoff, flow control, street drainage, storm inlets, etc. The City could update
the "Drainage Criteria and Design Manual" to reflect practices specific to Yakima, and
create another opportunity for the "Public Participation/Involvement" MCM.
Review and permitting of non-structural and structural BMP's, compliance with "design
criteria", working with industrial and commercial land owners on source control, and
other Post -Construction Runoff Control MCM's would likely require the equivalent of
one full-time position.
This MCM includes certain capital costs. To provide for riparian zone preservation, and
to incorporate the "design criteria" into existing storm drainage system facilities, the City
will need to purchase property (or the development rights to properties). Reconstruction
of existing storm drain discharges to surface water with infiltration ponds/sediment
ponds, grassy swales, etc. would also require capital. The "Comprehensive Storm Water
Management Plan" included $3.7 million in purchase of lands and construction of "water
quality ponds" to treat runoff from existing outfalls. Protection of the riparian zone could
easily add $2.0 million for purchase of properties. Enhancement of surface waters which
would improve habitat to comply with the Endangered Species Act could increase capital
expenditures by $3.0 to $5.0 million, even with volunteer group participation in water
quality restoration projects. The equivalent annual debt service cost for $10.0 million is
approximately $1.0 million per year for 20 years at 8 percent interest.
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping. Developing and implementing a program
with the goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. The
program must include municipal staff training on pollution prevention measures and
techniques (e.g., regular street sweeping, reduction in the use of pesticides or street salt,
or frequent catch -basin cleaning).
Yakima Impacts. Let me begin by saying that, in my opinion, this MCM could be as
intense as we want to make it. The goal would be established by the City of Yakima
based on local conditions. The EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations are designed to
reduce the quantity of pollutants to the "maximum extent possible", not eliminate them
entirely as may be inferred form the WDOE regulations.
Individual elements of Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping may consist of the
following:
• Street Sweeping. For purposes of this discussion, I would anticipate sweeping of
residential areas on a "quarterly basis", and commercial and industrial areas on a
"monthly basis". With 1 vacuum sweeper and 2 employees, the program would
include 16 hours per day, 5 days per week.
• Catch basin cleaning/Dry-well cleaning. I would anticipate that catch basins may
require yearly cleaning with dry -wells cleaned every 8 to 10 years. For the purpose of
O\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
5
this discussion, cleaning catch basins once per year and dry -wells every 4 to 5 years
would require 1 vacuum flush truck and 2 employees. The program would include 8
hours per day, 5 days per week.
• Sedimentation basin/ditch cleaning. Maintenance activities include removal of
sediments; grass maintenance; removal of brush, weeds, and other restrictions; and
monitoring of private storm water facilities to ensure there proper operation. For
purpose of this discussion, I would anticipate the equivalent of 1 full-time employee,
with the addition of 4 part-time (4-month/summer) employees for this activity.
Equipment includes mowers and grass trimming equipment.
Storm drainage cleaning. A preventative maintenance program for storm drains
would include jet cleaning, roof removal, and repairs and rehabilitation as may be
needed. A cycle of once every 5 -years may be appropriate. TV inspection would also
be a part of the preventative maintenance program probably on a 10 -year cycle.
Staffing would consist of 2 full-time employees for jet cleaning etc., and 2 full-time
employees for TV inspection, etc.
7. Program Administration. Although not directly described in the EPA Phase II Storm
Water Regulations, the administration, management, and ancillary costs of the Program
Administration need to be considered. A full-time program manager would be
responsible for coordination and management of the program. Duties and responsibilities
include regulations; budgeting; reporting; participation in public presentations and public
involvement programs; maintaining City ordinances; participation in Watershed/Basin
planning; working with commercial and industrial customers; customer response issues;
council presentations; coordination with other City activities; and other duties. A full-
time clerical staff employee would also be required for phone; letters; reports; filing; and
other duties. Ancillary costs include the cost of the WDOE General Permit; fees and
charges of finance, engineering, public works, managers office, fleet maintenance etc.;
and the assessments/charges of the stormwater utility against public facilities.
Guidelines for Development of Costs
I've utilized the following guidelines in developing costs of the Stormwater Program on the City
of Yakima.
Staffing Costs
• Salary - $20/hr; 30% benefits; 39% for overheads (office space, supplies, computers,
etc.). EQUALS $75,000/year/employee.
Equipment Costs (8% interest rate)
• Service Van - $25,000, 5 -years
• Service Vehicle - $20,000, 5 -years
O:\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
6
• Street Sweeper (Vacuum) - $140,000, 5 -years
• Vacuum/Flush Truck - $250,000, 7 -years
• TV Van - $180,000, 7 -years
• Mowers - Tractor ($70,000); Mower ($8,000); Tractor: 5 -years; Mower: 3 -years
• Monitoring - $8,000/station, 3 -years
• Sampling - $7,000/station, 3 -years
Maintenance Costs
• Root foaming - $3/foot
• Testing - $200/test (minimum)
Cost Impacts of a Stormwater Utility
The following Table summarizes the cost impacts of a Stormwater Utility as described in this
memorandum on the City of Yakima.
CITY OF YAKIMA
STORMWATER PROGRAM COSTS
Activity
Staffing
Annual
Labor Cost
Equipment
Annual
Equipment
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
Public Education and Outreach
1 FT
$75,000
Vehicle (1)
$5,000
$80,000
Public Participation/Involvement
-
-
-
-
-
Illicit Discharge Detection and
2 5 FT
$187,500
Service Van (1)
$6,300
$225,400
Elimination
Monitoring (2)
$6,200
Sampling (2)
$5,400
Testing (100)
$20,000
Construction Site Runoff Control
1.5 FT
$112,500
Vehicle (1)
$5,000
$117,500
Post -Construction Runoff Control1
FT
$75,000
Vehicle (1)
SW Capital ($3.7M)
$5,000
$370,000
$1,080,000
ESA Capital ($6.3M)
$630,000
Pollution Prevention/Good
Vacuum Sweep (1)
$35,000
Housekeeping
Vacuum Truck (1)
$48,000
Street Sweeping
2 FT
$150,000
Vehicle (2)
$10,000
Catch basin/Dry-well
2 FT
$150,000
Mower (1)
$3,100
$942,100
Sedimentation/Ditch
1 FT; 4 PT
$125,000
Tractor (1)
$17,500
Vacuum Truck (1)
$48,000
Storm drain PM
4 FT
$300,000
TV Van (1)
$34,500
Root foaming
--
--
Contract
$21,000
Program Administration
2 FT
$150,000
Vehicle (1)
Ancillary
_
$5,000
$780,000
$935,000
TOTALS
17 FT; 4 PT
$1,325,000
--
$2,055,000
$3,380,000
The annual costs of $3,380,000, inclusive of the $1.0 million in capital amortization (Stormwater
- $370,000; ESA - $630,000), is higher than included in the City of Yakima comments to WDOE
dated February 11, 2000 (approximately $1.5 million), but is similar to the proportional costs that
was included in the 1993 "Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan" with the addition of
(MAMMA \StormwaterEPA Phase 11 Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
7
the ESA debt service cost. The current estimate of annual costs includes increased staffing (from
10 to 17); the amortization of all equipment; and ancillary costs that was not fully identified in
the February 11 evaluation. The $1.0 million in capital cost amortization of $10.0 million is also
higher than identified in the February 11 evaluation and incorporates Endangered and Threatened
Species mitigation.
Implementation
The implementation of the stormwater management program is expected to occur over a 4 to 5
year period. The following identifies the staffing and activities which may occur.
Year 1
Staffing:
Program Manager
Public Relation Specialist
Clerical Assistant
Activities:
Initiate Public Education and Outreach
Initiate Public Participation/Involvement
— Develop Design Criteria Manual
— Develop Construction Site Runoff Control
Develop Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Plan
Develop Capital Improvement Projects
Submit Grant/Loan Applications
Year 2
Staffing:
Illicit Discharge Staffing (2.5)
Construction Site Runoff Control Staffing (1.5)
Post -Construction Runoff Control Staffing (1)
Street Sweeping (2)
Activities:
Continue Year 1
Initiate Volunteer Program
Adopt Stormwater Utility
Initiate Illicit Discharge Detection Program
Initiate Design Criteria Standards
Initiate Construction Site Control Program
Initiate Post -Construction Runoff Control Program
Identify properties to be purchased for "water quality ponds"
Initiate Street Sweeping Program
O•\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase 11 Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
8
Year 3
Staffing:
Catchbasin/Dry-well Staffing (2)
Activities:
Continue Year 1 and Year 2
Purchase properties for "water quality ponds"
Initiate "water quality pond" construction
Initiate CatchbasinfDry-well Program
Identify properties to be purchased for "riparian habitat"
Year 4
Staffing:
Sedimentation/Ditch Staffing (1 plus 4)
Storm Drain PM (Cleaning) Staffing (2)
Activities:
Continue Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3
Purchase properties for "riparian habitat"
Initiate volunteer "riparian habitat" restoration projects
Initiate Sedimentation/Ditch Program
Initiate Storm Drain PM Program (Cleaning)
Year 5
Staffing:
Storm Drain PM (TV inspection) Staffing (2)
Activities:
Continue Year 1 through Year 4
Initiate Storm Drain PM Program (TV inspection)
Initiate Root foaming
Initiate capital "riparian habitat" restoration projects
Based on this 5 year implementation schedule, yearly costs for the stormwater management
program would be as shown in the following schedule.
O•\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
9
CITY OF YAKIMA
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Activity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Public Education and Outreach
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
Public Participation/Involvement
--
--
--
--
--
Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination
--
$225,400
$225,400
$225,400
$225,400
Construction Site Runoff Control
--
$117,500
$117,500
$117,500
$117,500
Post Construction Runoff
Control
--
$80,000
$450,000
$550,000
$1,080,000
Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping
--
$185,000
$383,000
$736,600
$942,100
Program Administration
$155,000
$155,000
$155,000
$155,000
$155,000
Ancillary Costs
$65,000
$236,000
$395,000
$522,000
$780,000
TOTAL
$300,000
$1,078,900
$1,805,900
$2,386,500
$3,380,000
O•\YAKIMA\Stormwater\EPA Phase II Storm Water Regulations memo.doc
10
EPA
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Fact Sheet Series
Overview
1.0 - Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule Overview
Small MS4 Program
2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water
Program Overview
2.1- Who's Covered? Designation
and Waivers of Regulated Small
MS4s
2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition
and Description
Minimum Control Measures
2.3 - Public Education and
Outreach Minimum Control
Measure
2.4 - Public Participation/
Involvement Minimum Control
Measure
2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control
Measure
2.6 - Construction Site Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.7 - Post•Construction Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping Minimum Control
Measure
2.9 - Permitting and Reporting:
The Process and Requirements
2.10 - Federal and State -Owned
MS4s: Program Implementation
Construction Program
3.0 - Construction Program
Overview
Industrial "No Exposure"
4.0 - Conditional No Exposure
Exemption for Industrial Activity
United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection (4203)
Agency
EPA 833-F-99-005
April 1999
Fact Sheet 2.3
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Public Education and Outreach
Minimum Control Measure
This fact sheet is based on the Storm Water Phase 11 Proposed Rule. Therefore, the information provided herein is subject to
change upon publication of the final Phase 11 rule in November 1999 A revised series of fact sheets will be provided at that
time. A comprehensive list of the current fact sheets is in the text box at left.
This fact sheet profiles the proposed Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure, one
of six measures an owner or operator of a Phase II -regulated small municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) would be required to include in its storm water management program to meet the
conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet
outlines the Phase II Proposed Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy
them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 owner or operator would have a great deal of
flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements.
Why Is Public Education and Outreach Necessary?
/laving an informed and knowledgeable community is crucial to the success of a storm water
management problem since it helps to ensure the following:
• Greater support for the storm water management program as the public gains a greater
understanding of the reasons why the program is necessary and important. Public support is
particularly beneficial when owners/operators of small MS4s attempt to institute new funding
initiatives for the program or seek volunteers to help implement the program; and
• Greater compliance with the storm water management program as the public becomes aware
of the personal responsibilities expected of them and others in the community, including the
individual actions they can take to protect or improve the quality of area waters.
What Is EPA Proposing?
Under the proposed rule, to satisfy this minimum control measure, the owner or operator of a
regulated small MS4 would need to:
❑ Develop and implement a public education and outreach program to distribute educational
materials to the community, or conduct equivalent outreach activities, about the detrimental
effects of storm water discharges on local waterbodies and the steps that can be taken to
reduce storm water pollution; and
❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this
minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the
program actions/activities), and measurable goals are suggested below.
What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure?
here are three main action areas that are important when implementing a successful public
education and outreach program:
Fact Sheet 2.3 — Public Education and Outreach Minimum Control Measure
Page 2
0 Forming Partnerships
Owners or operators of regulated small MS4s would be
encouraged to enter into partnerships with other governmental
entities to fulfill this minimum control measure's requirements. It
is generally more cost-effective to use an existing program, or to
develop a new regional or state-wide education program, than to
have numerous owners/operators developing their own local
programs. Owners/operators would be encouraged to also look to
non-governmental organizations (e.g., environmental, civic, and
industrial organizations) for assistance, since many already have
educational materials and perform outreach activities.
® Using Educational Materials and Strategies
Owners or operators of regulated small MS4s could use storm
water educational information provided by their State, Tribe, EPA
Region, or environmental, public interest, or trade organizations
instead of developing their own materials. Owners/operators
should strive to make their materials and activities relevant to
local situations and issues, and incorporate a variety of strategies
to ensure maximum coverage. Some examples include:
• Brochures or fact sheets for general public and specific
audiences;
• Recreational guides to educate groups such as golfers,
hikers, paddlers, climbers, fishermen, and campers;
• Alternative information sources, such as web sites,
bumper stickers, refrigerator magnets, posters for bus and
subway stops, and restaurant placemats;
• A library of educational materials for community and
school groups;
• Volunteer citizen educators to staff a public education
task force;
• Speaking engagements for community groups;
• Event participation with educational displays at home
shows and community festivals;
• Educational programs for school-age children;
• Storm drain stenciling of storm drains with messages
such as "Do Not Dump - Drains Directly to Lake;"
• Storm water hotlines for information and for citizen
reporting of polluters;
• Economic incentives to citizens and businesses
(e.g., rebates to homeowners purchasing mulching
lawnmowers or biodegradable lawn products);
• Tributary signage to increase public awareness of local
water resources; and
• Watershed and beach cleanups involving students and
community groups.
® Reaching Diverse Audiences
The public education program should use a mix of appropriate
local strategies to inform a variety of audiences and communities,
including minority and disadvantaged communities, as well as
children. Printing posters and brochures in more than one
language or posting large warning signs (e.g., cautioning against
fishing or swimming) near storm sewer outfalls would help to
reach audiences that are less likely to read standard materials.
Some materials or outreach programs should also be directed
toward specific groups of commercial, industrial, and institutional
entities likely to have significant storm water impacts. For
example, information should be provided to restaurants on the
effects of grease clogging storm drains and to auto garages on the
effects of dumping used oil into storm drains.
What Would Be Appropriate Measurable Goals?
Measurable goals, which would be required for each minimum
control measure, are meant to help gauge permit compliance
and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the
BMPs, would greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of
the owner/operator and the area served by its small MS4. The
measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach
that would fully address the requirements and intent of the
minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this
minimum measure could include the following measurable goals:
Target Date Activity
1 year Brochures developed (bilingual, if appropriate)
and distributed in water utility bills; a storm water
hotline in place; volunteer educators trained.
2 years A web site created; school curricula developed;
every storm drain stenciled.
3 years A certain percentage of restaurants certifying to no
longer dumping grease and other pollutants down
storm sewer drains.
4 years A certain percentage reduction in litter or animal
waste detected in discharges.
For Additional Information
Contact
gar U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
• Phone : 202 260-5816
• E-mail: SW2@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Reference Documents
rc� Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet
Series.
• Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center at
202 260-7786 or at waterpubs@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Far Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule, published on
Jan. 9, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 1536).
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
&EPA
Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule
Fact Sheet Series
Overview
1.0 - Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule Overview
Small MS4 Program
2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water
Program Overview
2.1- Who's Covered? Designation
and Waivers of Regulated Small
MS4s
2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition
and Description
Minimum Control Measures
2.3 - Public Education and
Outreach Minimum Control
Measure
2.4 - Public Participation/
Involvement Minimum Control
Measure
2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control
Measure
2.6 - Construction Site Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.7 - Post -Construction Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping Minimum Control
Measure
2.9 - Permitting and Reporting:
The Process and Requirements
2.10 - Federal and State -Owned
MS4s: Program Implementation
Construction Program
3.0 - Construction Program
Overview
Industrial "No Exposure"
4.0 - Conditional No Exposure
Exemption for Industrial Activity
United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection (4203)
Agency
EPA 833-F-99-006
April 1999
Fact Sheet 2.4
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Public Participation/Involvement
Minimum Control Measure
This fact sheet is based on the Storm Water Phase 11 Proposed Rule. Therefore, the information provided herein is subject to
change upon publication of the final Phase 11 rule in November 1999. A revised series of fact sheets will be provided at that
time. A comprehensive list of the current fact sheets is in the text box at left.
This fact sheet profiles the proposed Public Participation/Involvement minimum control measure, one
of six measures the owner or operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) would be required to include in its storm water management program to meet the
conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet
outlines the Phase II Proposed Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy
them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 owner or operator would have a great deal of
flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements.
Why Is Public Participation and Involvement Necessary?
EPA believes that the public can provide valuable input and assistance to a regulated small MS4's
municipal storm water management program and, therefore, suggests that the public be given
opportunities to play an active role in both the development and implementation of the program.
Having an active and involved community is crucial to the success of a storm water management
program because it allows for:
• Broader public support since citizens who participate in the development and decision
making process are partially responsible for the program and, therefore, may be Less likely to
raise legal challenges to the program and more likely to take an active role in its
implementation;
• Shorter implementation schedules due to fewer obstacles in the form of public and legal
challenges and increased sources in the form of citizen volunteers;
A broader base of expertise and economic benefits since the community can be a valuable,
and free, intellectual resource; and
• A conduit to other programs as citizens involved in the storm water program development
process provide important cross -connections and relationships with other community and
government programs. This benefit is particularly valuable when trying to implement a storm
water program on a watershed basis, as encouraged by EPA.
What Is EPA Proposing?
Under the proposed rule, to satisfy this minimum control measure, the owner or operator of a
regulated small MS4 would need to:
❑ Comply with applicable State, Tribal, and local public notice requirements; and
❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this
minimum control measure. Some implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program
actions and activities), and measurable goals are suggested below.
Fact Sheet 2.4 — Public Participation/Involvement Minimum Control Measure
Page 2
What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and
Implementing This Measure?
wners or operators of regulated small MS4s should include
the public in developing, implementing, and reviewing their
storm water management programs. The public participation
process should make every effort to reach out and engage all
economic and ethnic groups. EPA recognizes that there are
challenges associated with public involvement. Nevertheless,
EPA strongly believes that these challenges can be addressed
through an aggressive and inclusive program. Challenges and
example practices that can help ensure successful participation are
discussed below.
Implementation Challenges
The best way to handle common notification and recruitment
challenges is to know the audience and think creatively about how
to gain its attention and interest. Traditional methods of soliciting
public input are not always successful in generating interest, and
subsequent involvement, in all sectors of the community. For
example, municipalities often only use advertising in local
newspapers to announce public meetings and other opportunities
for public involvement. Since there may be large sectors of the
population who do not read the local press, the audience reached
may be limited. Therefore, alternative advertising methods
should be used whenever possible, including radio or television
spots, postings at bus or subway stops, announcements in
neighborhood newsletters, announcements at civic organization
meetings, distribution of flyers, mass mailings, door-to-door
visits, telephone notifications, and multilingual announcements.
These efforts, of course, are tied closely to the efforts for the
public education and outreach minimum control measure (see
Fact Sheet 2.3).
In addition, advertising and soliciting for help could and should
be targeted at specific population sectors, including ethnic,
minority, and low-income communities; academia and educational
institutions; neighborhood and community groups; outdoor
recreation groups; and business and industry. The goal is to
involve a diverse cross-section of people who could offer a
multitude of concerns, ideas, and connections during the process.
Possible Practices (BMPs)
There are a variety of practices that could be incorporated into a
public participation and involvement program, such as:
• Public meetings/citizen panels allow citizens to discuss
various viewpoints and provide input concerning appropriate
storm water management policies and BMPs;
Volunteer water quality monitoring gives citizens first-hand
knowledge of the quality of local water bodies and provides a
cost-effective means of collecting water quality data;
• Volunteer educators/speakers who can conduct workshops,
encourage public participation, and staff special events;
• Storm drain stenciling is an important and simple activity
that concerned citizens, especially students, can do;
Community clean-ups along local waterways, beaches, and
around storm drains;
• Citizen watch groups can aid local enforcement authorities in
the identification of polluters; and
• "Adopt A Storm Drain" programs encourage individuals or
groups to keep storm drains free of debris and to monitor
what is entering local waterways through storm drains.
What Would Be Appropriate Measurable Goals?
Measurable goals, which would be required for each minimum
control measure, are meant to help gauge permit compliance
and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the
BMPs, would greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of
the owner/operator and the area served by its small MS4. The
measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach
that would fully address the requirements and intent of the
minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this
minimum measure could include the following measurable goals:
Taruet Date Activity
1 year Notice of a public meeting in several different
print media and bilingual flyers; citizen panel
established; volunteers organized to locate
outfalls/illicit discharges and stencil drains.
2 years Final recommendations of the citizen panel; radio
spots promoting program and participation.
3 years A certain percentage of the community
participating in community clean-ups.
4 years Citizen watch groups established in a certain
percentage of neighborhoods; outreach to every
different population sector completed.
For Additional Information
Contact
ew U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
• Phone : 202 260-5816
• E-mail: SW2@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Reference Documents
ow Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet
Series.
• Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center at
202 260-7786 or at waterpubs@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
or Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule, published on
Jan. 9, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 1536).
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
gl EPA
vw.
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Fact Sheet Series
Overview
1.0 - Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule Overview
Small MS4 Program
2.0 -Small MS4 Storm Water
Program Overview
2.1- Who's Covered? Designation
and Waivers of Regulated Small
MS4s
2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition
and Description
Minimum Control Measures
2.3 - Public Education and
Outreach Minimum Control
Measure
2.4 - Public Participation/
Involvement Minimum Control
Measure
2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control
Measure
2.6 - Construction Site Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.7 - Post -Construction Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping Minimum Control
Measure
2.9 - Permitting and Reporting:
The Process and Requirements
2.10 - Federal and State -Owned
MS4s: Program Implementation
Construction Program
3.0 - Construction Program
Overview
Industrial "No Exposure"
4.0 - Conditional No Exposure
Exemption for Industrial Activity
United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection (4203)
Agency
EPA 833-F-99-007
April 1999
Fact Sheet 2.5
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control Measure
This fact sheet is based on the Storm Water Phase 11 Proposed Rule. Therefore, the information provided herein is subject to
change upon publication of the final Phase 11 rule in November 1999. A revised series offact sheets will be provided at that
time. A comprehensive list of the current fact sheets is in the text box at left.
This fact sheet profiles the proposed Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination minimum control
measure, one of six measures the owner or operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate
storm sewer system (MS4) would be required to include its storm water management program to meet
the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact
sheet outlines the Phase II Proposed Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to
satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 owner or operator would have a great
deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements.
What Is An "Illicit Discharge"?
Federal regulations define an illicit discharge as "...any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed
entirely of storm water..." with some exceptions. These exceptions include discharges from
NPDES-permitted industrial sources and discharges from fire -fighting activities. Illicit discharges
(see Table 1) are considered "illicit" because MS4s are not designed to accept, process, or discharge
such non -storm water wastes.
Why Are Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Efforts Necessary?
Discharges from MS4s often include wastes and
I./wastewater from non -storm water sources. A study
conducted in 1987 in Sacramento, California, found that
almost one-half of the water discharged from a local MS4
was not directly attributable to precipitation runoff. A
significant portion of these dry weather flows were from
illicit and/or inappropriate discharges and connections to
the MS4.
Illicit discharges enter the system through either direct
connections (e.g., wastewater piping either mistakenly or
deliberately connected to the storm drains) or indirect
connections (e.g., infiltration into the MS4 from cracked
sanitary systems, spills collected by drain outlets, or paint
or used oil dumped directly into a drain). The result is
untreated discharges that contribute high levels of
pollutants, including heavy metals, toxics, oil and grease, solvents, nutrients, viruses, and bacteria to
receiving waterbodies. Pollutant levels from these illicit discharges have been shown in EPA studies
to be high enough to significantly degrade receiving water quality and threaten aquatic, wildlife, and
human health.
Table 1
Sources of
Illicit Discharges
Sanitary wastewater
Effluent from septic tanks
Car wash wastewaters
Improper oil disposal
Radiator flushing disposal
Sump pump discharges
Laundry wastewaters
Spills from roadway accidents
Improper disposal of auto and
household toxics
Fact Sheet 2.5 — Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure
Page 2
What Is EPA Proposing?
Recognizing the adverse effects illicit discharges can have on
receiving waters, the proposed rule would require an owner
or operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop and implement
an illicit discharge detection and elimination program. This
program would need to include the following:
❑ A storm sewer system map showing the location of
major pipes, outfalls, and topography. In addition, if
such data exist, the map needs to show the areas of
concentrated activities that are likely to be sources of
pollution;
❑ Through an ordinance, order, or similar means, a
prohibition (to the extent allowable under State,
Tribal, or local law) on illicit discharges into the MS4,
and appropriate enforcement procedures and actions;
❑ A plan to detect and address illicit discharges,
including illegal dumping, into the MS4;
❑ The education of public employees, businesses, and
the general public about the hazards associated with
illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste; and
❑ The determination of appropriate best management
practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this
minimum control measure. Some program
implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program
actions/activities), and measurable goals are suggested
below.
Would This Measure Need to Address All Illicit
Discharges?
No. The illicit discharge detection and elimination program
would not need to address the following categories of non -
storm water discharges or flows unless the owner or operator of
the regulated small MS4 identifies them as significant
contributors of pollutants to its MS4:
• Water line flushing;
• Landscape irrigation;
• Diverted stream flows;
• Rising ground waters;
• Uncontaminated ground water infiltration;
• Uncontaminated pumped ground water;
• Discharges from potable water sources;
• Foundation drains;
• Air conditioning condensation;
• Irrigation water;
• Springs;
• Water from crawl space pumps;
• Footing drains;
Lawn watering;
Individual residential car washing;
Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; and
Street wash water.
What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and
Implementing This Measure?
he objective of the illicit discharge detection and elimination
1 minimum control measure is to have regulated small MS4
owners and operators gain a thorough awareness of their systems.
This awareness allows them to determine the types and sources of
illicit discharges entering their system, and establish the legal,
technical, and educational means to attempt to eliminate these
discharges. Permittees could meet these objectives in a variety of
ways depending on their individual needs and abilities, but some
general guidance for each requirement is provided below.
The Map
The storm sewer system map is meant to demonstrate a basic
awareness of the intake and discharge areas of the system. It is
needed to help determine the extent of discharged dry weather
flows, the possible sources of the dry weather flows, and the
particular waterbodies these flows may be affecting. Since the
location of the major pipes and outfalls could be indicated on an
existing topographical map, a new map would not need to be
created specifically for this purpose as long as the information is
clearly presented on the existing map. The permittee would be
allowed to choose the type and size of map that best fits its needs.
EPA recommends collecting all existing information on outfall
locations (e.g., review city records, drainage maps, storm drain
maps), and then conducting field surveys to verify locations. It
probably will be necessary to walk (i.e., wade through small
receiving waters or use a boat for larger waters) the streambanks
and shorelines for visual observation. It may take more than one
trip to locate all outfalls.
Legal Prohibition and Enforcement
EPA recognizes that some permittees may have limited authority
under State or Tribal law to establish and enforce an ordinance, or
similar means, prohibiting illicit discharges. In such a case, the
permittee would be encouraged to obtain the necessary authority,
if at all possible. Otherwise, the NPDES permitting authority
would assume the responsibility for implementation of this
component of the minimum measure, yet the permittee would
remain u1 imately responsible for the quality of its MS4
discharge. Model ordinances, including examples of amendments
to local codes or existing ordinances, will be provided in the
Phase H storm water guidance for regulated small MS4s, which is
part of EPA's planned implementation "tool box" for the final
rule (see Fact Sheet 1.0).
Fact Sheet 2.5 — Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure
The Plan
The plan to detect and address illicit discharges is the central
component of this minimum control measure. The plan would be
shaped by several factors, including the permittee's available
resources, size of staff, and degree and character of its illicit
discharges. EPA envisions a plan similar to the one
recommended for use in meeting Michigan's general storm water
NPDES permit for small MS4s. As guidance only, the four steps
of a recommended plan are outlined below:
O Locate Problem Areas
EPA recommends that priority areas be identified for detailed
screening of the system based on the likelihood of illicit
connections (e.g., areas with older sanitary sewer lines).
Some methods that could be used to locate problem areas
include: public complaints and other input; visual screening;
water sampling from manholes and outfalls during dry
weather; and use of infrared and thermal photography.
® Find the Source
Once a problem area or discharge is found, additional efforts
usually would be necessary to determine the source of the
problem. Some methods that could be used to find the source
of the illicit discharge include: dye -testing buildings in
problem areas; dye- or smoke -testing buildings at the time of
sale; tracing the discharge upstream in the storm sewer;
employing a certification program that shows that buildings
have been checked for illicit connections; implementing an
inspection program of existing septic systems; and using
video to inspect the storm sewers.
O Remove/Correct Illicit Connections
Once the source is identified, the offending discharger would
need to be notified and directed to correct the problem.
Education efforts and working with the discharger can be
effective in resolving the problem before taking legal action.
O Document Actions Taken
As a final step, all actions taken under the plan should be
documented. Doing so would illustrate that progress is being
made to eliminate illicit connections and discharges.
Documented actions should be included in the required
annual reports and include information such as: the number
of outfalls screened; any complaints received and corrected;
the number of discharges and quantities of flow eliminated;
and the number of dye or smoke tests conducted.
Page 3
Educational Outreach
Educational outreach to public employees, businesses, property
owners, the general community, and elected officials would be
necessary to inform them of what they could do to detect and
eliminate illicit discharges, but it would also help to gain support
for the permittee's storm water program. The educational
outreach efforts should, at a minimum, include:
Providing training programs for public employees;
Developing informative brochures, and guidances for
specific audiences (e.g., carpet cleaning businesses) and
school curricula;
• Designing a program to publicize and facilitate public
reporting of illicit discharges;
• Coordinating volunteers for locating, and visually
inspecting, outfalls or to stencil storm drains; and
• Initiating recycling programs for commonly dumped
wastes, such as motor oil, antifreeze, and pesticides.
What Would Be Appropriate Measurable Goals?
Measurable goals, which would be required for each minimum
control measure, are meant to help gauge permit compliance
and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the
BMPs, would greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of
the owner/operator and the area served by its small MS4. The
measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach
that would fully address the requirements and intent of the
minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this
minimum measure could include the following measurable goals:
Target Date Activity
1 year Sewer system map completed; recycling
program for household hazardous waste in
place.
Ordinance in place; training for public
employees completed; a certain percentage of
sources of illicit discharges determined.
A certain percentage of: illicit discharges
determined; illicit discharges eliminated; and
households participating in quarterly household
hazardous waste special collection days.
Most illicit discharge sources determined and
eliminated.
2 years
3 years
4 years
The educational outreach measurable goals for this minimum
control measure could be combined with the measurable goals for
the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure (see
Fact Sheet 2.3).
Fact Sheet 2.5 — Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 4
For Additional Information
Contact
U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
• Phone : 202 260-5816
• E-mail: SW2@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Reference Documents
' Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet Series.
• Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center at
202 260-7786 or at waterpubs@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Ea' Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule, published on Jan.
9, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 1536).
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Sources
Maryland Department of the Environment, Water
Management Administration. 1997. Dry Weather Flow
and Illicit Discharges in Maryland Storm Drain Systems.
Baltimore, Maryland.
U.S. EPA Office of Water. 1993. Investigation of
Inappropriate Pollutant Entries into Storm Drainage
Systems: A User's Guide. EPA/600/R-92/238.
Washington, D.C.
Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather
Demonstration Project. 1997. Guidance for Preparing a
Program for the Elimination of Illicit Discharges.
Wayne County, Michigan.
EPA
Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule
Fact Sheet Series
Overview
1.0 - Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule Overview
Small MS4 Program
2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water
Program Overview
2.1- Who's Covered? Designation
and Waivers of Regulated Small
MS4s
2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition
and Description
Minimum Control Measures
2.3 - Public Education and
Outreach Minimum Control
Measure
2.4 - Public Participation/
Involvement Minimum Control
Measure
2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control
Measure
2.6 - Construction Site Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.7 - Post -Construction Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping Minimum Control
Measure
2.9 - Permitting and Reporting:
The Process and Requirements
2.10 - Federal and State -Owned
MS4s: Program Implementation
Construction Program
3.0 - Construction Program
Overview
Industrial "No Exposure"
4.0 - Conditional No Exposure
Exemption for Industrial Activity
United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection (4203)
Agency
EPA 833-F-99-008
April 1999
Fact Sheet 2.6
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Construction Site Runoff Control
Minimum Control Measure
This fact sheet is based on the Storm Water Phase 1I Proposed Rule. Therefore, the information provided herein is subject to
change upon publication of the final Phase II rule in November 1999. A revised series offact sheers will be provided at that
time. A comprehensive list of the current fact sheets is in the text box at left.
This fact sheet profiles the proposed Construction Site Runoff Control minimum control measure, one
of six measures that the owner or operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4) would be required to include in its storm water management program to meet the
conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet
outlines the Phase II Proposed Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy
them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 owner or operator would have a great deal of
flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements.
Why Is The Control of Construction Site Runoff Necessary?
Polluted storm water runoff from construction sites often flows to MS4s and ultimately is
discharged into local rivers and streams. Of the pollutants listed in Table 1, sediment is usuall
the main pollutant of concern. Sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20
times greater than those of agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000
times greater than those of forest lands. During a short period of
time, construction sites can contribute more sediment to streams
than can be deposited naturally during several decades. The
resulting siltation, and the contribution of other pollutants from
construction sites, can cause physical, chemical, and biological
harm to our nation's waters. For example, excess sediment can
quickly fill rivers and lakes, requiring dredging and destroying
aquatic habitats.
Y
What Is EPA Proposing?
rr he Phase II Proposed Rule would require an owner or
1 operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement, and
enforce a program to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to
their MS4 from construction activities that result in a land
disturbance of greater than or equal to 1 acre. The small MS4
owner or operator would be required to:
❑ Have an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism
requiring the implementation of proper erosion and sediment controls, and controls for other
wastes, on applicable construction sites;
Table 1
Pollutants
Commonly Discharged
From Construction Sites
Sediment
Solid and sanitary wastes
Phosphorous (fertilizer)
Nitrogen (fertilizer)
Pesticides
Oil and grease
Concrete truck washout
Construction chemicals
Construction debris
❑ Conduct pre -construction review of construction site plans;
❑ Conduct regular inspections during construction;
❑ Have penalties for non-compliance (established in the ordinance or other regulatory
mechanism);
Fact Sheet 2.6 — Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure
Page 2
CI Establish procedures for the receipt and consideration of
information submitted by the public; and
CI Determine the appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control
measure. Suggested BMPs (i.e., the program actions/
activities) and measurable goals are presented below.
What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and
Implementing This Measure?
Further explanation and guidance for each proposed component
of a regulated small MS4's construction program is provided
below.
Regulatory Mechanism
Through the development of an ordinance or other regulatory
mechanism, the small MS4 owner/operator would need to
establish a construction program that requires controls for
polluted runoff from construction sites with a land disturbance of
greater than or equal to 1 acre. In recognition of varying
limitations on regulatory legal authority, the small MS4 owner/
operator would be required to satisfy this minimum control
measure only to the maximum extent practicable and allowable
under State or Tribal law. If an owner/operator is unable to
establish an enforceable construction program due to a lack of
legal authority, and is unsuccessful in trying to obtain the
necessary authority, the NPDES permitting authority would then
assume responsibility.
EPA intends to develop a model ordinance that a small MS4
owner/operator could use as a basis for their construction
program. Alternatively, amendments to existing erosion and
sediment control programs, or other ordinances, could also
provide the basis for the program.
Site Plan Review
The small MS4 owner/operator would be required to include in
their construction program requirements for the implementation
of appropriate BMPs on construction sites to control erosion and
sediment, as well as various other wastes. To determine if a
construction site is in compliance with such provisions, the small
MS4 owner/operator would need to review the site plans
submitted by the construction site owner/operator before ground
is broken.
Site plan review aids in compliance and enforcement efforts since
it alerts the small MS4 owner/operator early in the process to the
planned use or non-use of proper BMPs and provides a way to
track new construction activ;ties. The tracking of sites is useful
not only for the small MS4 owner/operator's recordkeeping and
reporting purposes, which would be required activities under their
NPDES storm water permit (see Fact Sheet 2.9), but also for
members of the public interested in ensuring that the sites are in
compliance.
Inspections and Penalties
Once construction commences, the BMPs should be in place and
the small MS4 owner/operator's enforcement activities should
begin. To ensure that the BMPs are properly installed, the small
MS4 owner/operator would be required to perform regular
inspections during construction and have penalties in place to
deter infractions. Inspections would give the MS4 owner/
operator an opportunity to provide additional guidance and
education, issue warnings, or assess penalties. To conserve staff
resources, one possible option for small MS4 owners/operators
could be to have these inspections performed by the same
inspector that visits the sites to check compliance with health and
safety building codes.
Information Submitted by the Public
A final requirement of the proposed small MS4 program for
construction activity would be the development of procedures for
the receipt and consideration of public inquiries, concerns, and
information submitted regarding local construction activities.
This provision is intended to further reinforce the public
participation component of the small MS4 storm water program
(see Fact Sheet 2.4) and to recognize the crucial role that the
public can play in identifying instances of noncompliance.
The small MS4 owner/operator would be required only to
consider the information submitted, and may not need to follow-
up and respond to every complaint or concern. Although some
sort of enforcement action or reply would not be required, the
small MS4 owner or operator would need to be able to
demonstrate acknowledgment and consideration of the
information submitted. A simple tracking process in which
submitted public information, both written and verbal, is recorded
and then given to the construction site inspector for possible
follow-up would suffice.
What Would Be Appropriate Measurable Goals?
Measurable goals, which would be required for each minimum
control measure, are meant to help gauge permit compliance
and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the
BMPs, would greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of
the owner/operator and the area served by its small MS4. The
measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach
that would fully address the requirements and intent of the
minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this
minimum measure could include the following measurable goals:
Tareet Date Activity
1 year Ordinance or other regulatory mechanism in
place; procedu*es for information submitted by
the public in place.
2 years Procedure for regular inspections implemented;
a certain percentage rate of compliance
achieved.
Fact Sheet 2.6 — Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure
Page 3
3 years Maximum compliance with ordinance;
improved clarity and reduced sedimentation of
local waterbodies.
4 years Increased numbers of sensitive aquatic
organisms in local waterbodies.
Are Construction Sites Already Covered Under the
NPDES Storm Water Program?
Yes. EPA's existing Phase I NPDES storm water program
requires owners or operators of construction activities that
disturb 5 or more acres to obtain a NPDES construction storm
water general permit. Permit requirements include the submission
of a Notice of Intent and the development of a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a
site description and measures and controls to prevent or minimize
pollutants in storm water discharges. The proposed Phase II rule
similarly would regulate discharges from smaller construction
sites disturbing equal to or greater than 1 acre and less than 5
acres (see Fact Sheet 3.0 for information on the proposed Phase II
construction program).
Even though, as proposed, all construction sites that disturb more
than 1 acre would be covered nationally by an NPDES storm
water general permit, the construction site runoff control
minimum measure for the small MS4 program was proposed to
induce more localized site regulation and enforcement efforts, and
to enable owners/operators of regulated small MS4s to more
effectively control construction site discharges into their MS4s.
To aid owners or operators of regulated construction sites in their
efforts to comply with both local requirements and their NPDES
permit, the proposed Phase II rule includes a provision that would
allow the NPDES permitting authority to reference a "qualifying
State, Tribal or local program" (e.g., a regulated small MS4's
storm water program) in the NPDES general permit for
construction. This would mean that if a construction site is
located in an area covered by a qualifying local program, then the
construction site operator's compliance with the local program
could constitute compliance with their NPDES permit.
The ability to reference other programs in the NPDES permit is
intended to reduce confusion between overlapping and similar
requirements, while still providing for both local and national
regulatory coverage of the construction site. It is important to
note that the provision allowing NPDES permitting authorities to
reference other programs would have no impact on, or direct
relation to, the small MS4 owner/operator's responsibilities under
the construction site runoff control minimum measure profiled in
this fact sheet.
For Additional Information
Contact
ea' U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
• Phone : 202 260-5816
• E-mail: SW2@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Reference Documents
e' Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet
Series.
• Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center
at 202 260-7786 or at waterpubs@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
uar Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule, published on
Jan. 9, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 1536).
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
CEPA
Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule
Fact Sheet Series
Overview
1.0 - Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule Overview
Small MS4 Program
2.0 - Small MS4 Storni Water
Program Overview
2.1- Who's Covered? Designation
and Waivers of Regulated Small
MS4s
2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition
and Description
Minimum Control Measures
2.3 - Public Education and
Outreach Minimum Control
Measure
2.4 - Public Participation/
Involvement Minimum Control
Measure
2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control
Measure
2.6 - Construction Site Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.7 - Post -Construction Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping Minimum Control
Measure
2.9 - Permitting and Reporting:
The Process and Requirements
2.10 - Federal and State -Owned
MS4s: Program Implementation
Construction Program
3.0 - Construction Program
Overview
Industrial "No Exposure"
4.0 - Conditional No Exposure
Exemption for Industrial Activity
United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection (4203)
Agency
EPA 833-F-99-009
April 1999
Fact Sheet 2.7
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Post -Construction Runoff Control
Minimum Control Measure
This fact sheet is based on the Storm Water Phase 11 Proposed Rule. Therefore, the information provided herein is subject to
change upon publication of the final Phase 11 rule in November 1999. A revised series of fact sheets will be provided at that
time. A comprehensive list of the current fact sheets is in the text box at left.
This fact sheet profiles the proposed Post -Construction Runoff Control minimum control measure,
one of six measures that the owner or operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4) would be required to include in its storm water management program in order to
meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This
fact sheet outlines the Phase II Proposed Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how
to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 owner or operator would have a
great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements.
Why Is The Control of Post -Construction Runoff Necessary?
post -construction storm water management in areas undergoing new development or redevelopment
is necessary because runoff from these areas has been shown to significantly effect receiving
waterbodies. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program study (Final Report of the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, 1983), and more recent studies indicate that prior
planning and design for the minimization of pollutants in post -construction storm water discharges is
the most cost-effective approach to storm water quality management.
There are generally two forms of substantial impacts of post -construction runoff. The first is caused
by an increase in the type and quantity of pollutants in storm water runoff. As runoff flows over areas
altered by development, it picks up harmful sediment and chemicals such as oil and grease, pesticides,
heavy metals, and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus). These pollutants often become
suspended in runoff and are carried to receiving waters, such as lakes, ponds, and streams. Once
deposited, these pollutants can enter the food chain through small aquatic life, eventually entering the
tissues of fish and humans. The second kind of post -construction runoff impact occurs by increasing
the quantity of water delivered to the waterbody during storms. Increased impervious surfaces
interrupt the natural cycle of gradual percolation of water through vegetation and soil. Instead, water
is collected from surfaces such as asphalt and concrete and routed to drainage systems where large
volumes of runoff quickly flow to the nearest receiving water. The effects of this process include
streambank scouring and downstream flooding, which often lead to a loss of aquatic life and damage
to property.
What Is EPA Proposing?
The Phase II Proposed Rule would require an owner or operator of a regulated small MS4 to
develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in post -construction runoff to
their MS4 from new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance of
greater than or equal to 1 acre. The small MS4 owner or operator would be required to:
CI Have a plan to implement structural and/or non-structural best management practices (BMPs)
and ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of such BMPs;
Fact Sheet 2.7 — Post -Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure
❑ Ensure that controls are in place that would prevent or
minimize water quality impacts; and
❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control
measure.
What Would Be Considered a "Redevelopment"
Project?
The term "redevelopment" is intended to refer to alterations of
a property that change the "footprint" of a site or building in
such a way that the disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre
of land results. The term is not intended to include such activities
as exterior remodeling. To account for the various types of
redevelopment projects, the proposed rule contains enough
flexibility to allow post -construction controls for redevelopment
to be different than those for new development.
What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and
Implementing This Measure?
This section includes some sample non-structural and structural
BMPs that could be used to satisfy the requirements of the
post -construction runoff control minimum measure. Because the
proposed requirements of this measure are closely tied to the
requirements of the construction site runoff control minimum
measure (see Fact Sheet 2.6), EPA recommends that small MS4
owners or operators develop and implement these two measures
in tandem. Sample BMPs follow.
❑ Non -Structural BMPs
• Planning and Procedures. Runoff problems can be
addressed efficiently with sound planning procedures.
Master Plans, Comprehensive Plans, and zoning ordinances
can promote improved water quality by guiding the growth of
a community away from sensitive areas and by restricting
certain types of growth (industrial, for example) to areas that
can support it without compromising water quality.
• Site -Based Local Controls. These controls can include
buffer strip and riparian zone preservation, minimization of
disturbance and imperviousness, and maximization of open
space.
❑ Structural BMPs
• Storage Practices. Storage or detention BMPs control storm
water by gathering runoff in wet ponds, dry basins, or
multichamber catch basins and slowly releasing it to
receiving waters or drainage systems. These practices both
control storm water volume and settle out particulates for
pollutant removal.
Page 2
• Infiltration Practices. Infiltration BMPs are designed to
facilitate the infiltration of runoff through the soil to ground
water, and, thereby, result in reduced storm water quantity
and reduced mobilization of pollutants. Examples include
infiltration basins/trenches, dry wells, and porous pavement.
• Vegetative Practices. Vegetative BMPs are landscaping
features that, with optimal design and good soil conditions,
enhance pollutant removal, maintain/improve natural site
hydrology, promote healthier habitats, and increase aesthetic
appeal. Examples include grassy swales, filter strips,
artificial wetlands, and rain gardens.
What Would Be Appropriate Measurable Goals?
Measurable goals, which would be required for each minimum
control measure, are meant to help gauge permit compliance
and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the
BMPs, would greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of
the owner/operator and the area served by its small MS4. The
measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach
that would fully address the requirements and intent of the
minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this
minimum measure could include the following goals:
Target Date Activity
1 year Strategies developed that include structural
and/or non-structural BMPs.
2 years Strategies codified by use of ordinance or other
regulatory mechanism.
3 years Reduced percent of new impervious surfaces
associated with new development projects.
4 years Improved clarity and reduced sedimentation of
local waterbodies.
For Additional Information
Contact
car U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
• Phone : 202 260-5816
• E-mail: SW2@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Reference Documents
Ea' Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet
Series.
• Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center at
202 260-7786 or at waterpubs@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
car Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule, published on
Jan. 9, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 1536).
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
EPA
Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule
Fact Sheet Series
Overview
1.0 — Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule Overview
Small MS4 Program
2.0 — Small MS4 Storm Water
Program Overview
2.1— Who's Covered? Designation
and Waivers of Regulated Small
MS4s
2.2 — Urbanized Areas: Definition
and Description
Minimum Control Measures
2.3 — Public Education and
Outreach Minimum Control
Measure
2.4 — Public Participation/
Involvement Minimum Control
Measure
2.5 — Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control
Measure
2.6 — Construction Site Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.7 — Post -Construction Runoff
Control Minimum Control Measure
2.8 — Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping Minimum Control
Measure
2.9 — Permitting and Reporting:
The Process and Requirements
2.10 — Federal and State Owned
MS4s: Program Implementation
Construction Program
3.0 — Construction Program
Overview
Industrial "No Exposure"
4.0 — Conditional No Exposure
Exemption for industrial Activity
United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection (4203)
Agency
EPA 833-F-99-010
April 1999
Fact Sheet 2.8
Storm Water Phase 11
Proposed Rule
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
Minimum Control Measure
This fact sheet is based on the Storm Water Phase 11 Proposed Rule. Therefore, the information provided herein is subject to
change upon publication of the final Phase 11 rule in November 1999. A revised series of fact sheets will be provided at that
time. A comprehensive list of the current fact sheets is in the text box at left.
This fact sheet profiles the proposed Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal
Operations minimum control measure, one of six measures the owner or operator of a Phase II
regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) would be required to include in its
storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Proposed Rule
requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in
mind that the small MS4 owner or operator would have a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly
how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements.
Why Is Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Necessary?
The Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for municipal operations minimum control measure
is a key element of the proposed regulated small MS4 storm water management program. This
measure would require that the small MS4 owner or operator examine and subsequently alter their
own actions to help ensure a reduction in the amount and type of pollution that (1) collects on streets.
parking lots, open spaces, and storage and vehicle maintenance areas and is discharged into local
waterways; and (2) results from actions such as environmentally damaging land development and
flood management practices or poor maintenance of storm sewer systems.
While this measure is meant primarily to accomplish the goal of improving or protecting the quality of
receiving waters by altering the performance of municipal or facility operations, it also can result in a
cost savings for the small MS4 owner or operator, since proper and timely maintenance of storm
sewer systems can help avoid repair costs from damage caused by age and neglect.
What Is EPA Proposing?
Recognizing the benefits of pollution prevention practices, the proposed rule would require an
owner or operator of a regulated small MS4 to:
❑ Develop and implement an operation and maintenance program with the ultimate goal of
preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations into the storm sewer
system;
❑ Include employee training on how to incorporate pollution prevention/good housekeeping
techniques into municipal operations such as maintenance of parks and open spaces, fleets,
buildings, and storm water systems, as well as land develc,pment planning. To minimize
duplication of effort and conserve resources, the MS4 owner or operator could use training
materials that are available from EPA, their State or Tribe, or relevant organizations;
❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this
minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the
program actions/activities), and measurable goals are suggested below.
Fact Sheet 2.8 — Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Minimum Control Measure
Page 2
What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and
Implementing This Measure?
The intent of this control measure is to ensure that existing
municipal or facility operations are performed in the most
appropriate way as to minimize contamination of storm water
discharges.
EPA encourages the small MS4 owner/operator to consider the
following components when developing their program for this
measure:
• Maintenance activities, maintenance schedules, and
long-term inspection procedures for structural and non-
structural controls to reduce floatables and other
pollutants discharged from the separate storm sewers;
• Controls for reducing or eliminating the discharge of
pollutants from areas such asroads and parking lots,
maintenance and storage yards (including salt/sand
storage and snow disposal areas), and waste transfer
stations. These controls should include programs that
promote recycling (to reduce litter), minimize pesticide
use, and ensure the proper disposal of animal waste;
•
Procedures for the proper disposal of waste removed
from the separate storm sewer systems and the areas
listed in the bullet above, including dredge spoil,
accumulated sediments, floatables, and other debris; and
• Ways to ensure that new flood management projects
assess the impacts on water quality and examine
existing projects for incorporation of additional water
quality protection devices or practices. EPA encourages
coordination with flood control managers for the purpose
of identifying and addressing environmental impacts
from such projects.
The effective performance of this control measure hinges on the
proper maintenance of the BMPs used, particularly for the first
two bullets above. For example, structural controls, such as
grates on outfalls to capture floatables necessitate that the outfalls
be cleaned out regularly, while non-structural controls, such as
training materials and recycling programs, need to be updated
periodically.
What Would Be Appropriate Measurable Goals?
Measurable goals, which would be required for each minimum
control measure, are meant to help gauge permit compliance
and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the
BMPs, would greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of
the owner/operator and the area served by its small MS4. The
measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach
that would fully address the requirements and intent of the
minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this
minimum measure could include the following measurable goals:
Target Date Activity
1 year Pollution prevention plan (the new BMPs and
revised procedures) completed; employee
training materials gathered or developed;
procedures in place for catch basin cleaning
after each storm and regular street sweeping
2 years Training for appropriate employees completed;
recycling program fully implemented
3 years Some pollution prevention BMPs incorporated
into master plan; a certain percentage reduction
in pesticide and sand/salt use; maintenance
schedule for BMPs established
4 years A certain percentage reduction in floatables
discharged; a certain compliance rate with
maintenance schedules for BMPs; controls in
place for all municipal/facility areas of concern
For Additional Information
Contact
vs' U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
• Phone : 202 260-5816
• E-mail: SW2@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
Reference Documents
t Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet
Series.
• Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center at
202 260-7786 or at waterpubs@epa.gov
• Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw2.htm
agr Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule, published on
Jan. 9, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 1536).
• Intemet: www.epa.gov/owm/swLhtm
City of Wenatchee ID:509-664-5986
FEB 14'01 15:15 No.016 P.02
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Dick McKinley, City of Walla Walla FROM : Ruta Jones, City of Wenatchee
Bob Alberts, City of Pasco
Bob Hanunond, City of Kennewick
Stan Arlt, City of Richland DATE: January 19, 2001
Dennis Wright, City of West Richland
Chris Waarvick, City of Yakima
John Akers, City of Ellensburg
Gerry McFaul, City of Moses Lake
Mark Workman, City of Pullman
RE Interlocal Agreement Between the Cities of Wenatchee, Ellensburg, Moses Lake,
Pullman, West Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, Walla Walla and Yakima
Gentlemen:
We are in the process of obtaining one signed original of the above-mentioned Interlocal Agreement,
1 would assume this will go rather quickly as all of the entities (with the exception of Walla Walla) have
already approved and signed the interlocal Agreement earlier this year, Once the original is signed by all
participants we will then provide each entity with a certified copy of the Interlocal Agreement.
I will start this process with Dick McKinley of Walla Walla as his days are numbered at Walla Walla
before he moves on to Bellingham. Dick, if you would then forward the original on to Bob Alberts for
signature and then Bob would forward it on to Bob Hammond and continue the process down the line
according to how everyone is listed above.
Jim Ajax would like for each person listed above to send me a copy of this transmittal putting your initials
by your name and stating when you forwarded the Agreement. This way we will be able to track where it
is at anytime.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (509) 664-3364.
Thank you for all your help and cooperation.
Dick McKinley
,4, Bob Alberts
mtm,xendRoy-Cross
Stan Arlt
Dennis Wright
Chris Waarvick (
John Akers
Gerry McFaul
Enclosure
to Bob Alberts, Pasco
to I by - a ;Kennewick
to sm Stan Arlt, Richland
to Dennis Wright, West Richland
to Chris Waarvick, Yakima
to John Akers, Ellensburg
to Gerry McFaul, Moses Lake
to Mark Workman, Pullman
Date: J
Date: clot
Date;; 3/tiz/af
Date: > i'Z Oi
Date:.;
Date: ,5//6,4/
Date:
Date:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-5
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK OF THE
CITY OF WALLA WALLA TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITI Ii.S OF WENATCHEE, ELLENSBURG, MOSES LAKE, PULLMAN, WEST
RICHLAND, KENNEWICK, PASCO, RICHLAND, AND YAKIMA REGARDING
REV I I- W OF PROPOSED RULES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS RELA 1'LD TO
STORM WATER RUN-OFF AND TO EXECUTE AMENDMENTS THERETO
WHEREAS, chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes political
subdivisions to enter into intergovernmental agreements, and
WHEREAS, the City of Walla Walla has been presented with an interlocal agreement
to permit the parties to jointly retain a consultant to review rules, regulations, and standards
proposed by the Washington Department of Ecology regarding storm water run-off, and
WHEREAS, the Walla Walla City Council has considered this matter during a
regularly and duly called public meeting of said Council, has given careful review and
consideration to the matter, and finds that the common benefit of the citizens of Walla Walla
and the best interests of the City of Walla Walla and good government of the City of Walla
Walla will be served by passage of this resolution;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Walla Walla do resolve as
follows:
Section 1: The terms of a certain "Interlocal Agreement between the Cities of
Wenatchee, Ellensburg, Moses Lake, Pullman, WestRichland, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland,
Walla Walla, and Yakima" are hereby accepted and the City Manager of the City of Walla
Walla is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said interlocal agreement
on behalf of the City of Walla Walla.
Section 2: That the City Manager of the City of Walla Walla is hereby authorized and
empowered to execute amendments to the interlocal agreement authorized by section 1 of
this resolution on the following conditions: (a) the content of any amendment executed by
the Walla Walla City Manager shall comply with the Washington Interlocal Cooperation
Act, Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, (b) no amendment executed by the
Walla Walla City Manager shall relieve the City of Walla Walla from compliance with
enactments of the Walla Walla City Council or any other obligation or responsibility
imposed by law except that to the extent of actual and timely performance thereof by a joint
board or other legal or administrative entity created by an interlocal agreement, such
1
performance may be offered in satisfaction of the obligationor responsibility, (c) any
amendment executed by the City Manager shall b e reported to the Walla Walla City Council
at the first meeting of the Walla Walla City Council following execution of the amendment,
and (d) any amendment executed by the City Manager must provide that it may be revoked
and terminated by the Walla Walla City Council at the meeting that it is first reported to the
Walla Walla City Council.
Section 3: The Walla Walla City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest and
file, if necessary, a copy of the interlocal agreement executed in accordance with section 1
of this resolution, and, unless revoked and terminated by the Walla Walla City Council at the
meeting that it is first reported to the Walla Walla City Council, any amendment to the
interlocal agreement executed and reported in accordance with section 2 of this resolution
as required by Section 39 34.040 of the Revised Code of Washington and prior to its entry
in force.
Section 4: If any portion of this resolution shall be determined to be invalid or
ineffective by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall be severable from the remainder, the
validity and effectiveness of which shall be unaffected.
Section 5: This resolution shall become effective m the manner provided by law
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Walla Walla, Washington, this 1L.th
day of February
Attest:
, 2001.
yor
ved as to form
City Attorney
2
