Laserfiche WebLink
Factor 2: Is the municipal separate storm sewer a significant contributor of pollutants <br />to waters of the United States? <br />• Factor 3: Does the municipal separate storm sewer serve a substantial population or <br />area? <br />• Factor 4: Is the municipal separate storm sewer contiguously located to an already <br />regulated municipal storm sewer? <br />• Factor 5: Is the municipal separate storm sewer physically interconnected to another, <br />already regulated municipal storm sewer? <br />+ Factor 6: Are the water quality impacts of the municipal separate storm sewer already <br />being addressed under other regulations or programs? <br />We have reviewed the Community Development Services "Project" file for plats from: <br />2014 through 2017 and from 2006 through 2013. There are no County plats in <br />Ellensburg's Urban Growth Area from 2014 through 2017. There appear to be less than <br />half a dozen plats from 2006 — 2013. Initial review suggests all have been designed to <br />retain developed runoff onsite. The one plat that appears to be causing concern for <br />Ecology is Black Horse at Whiskey Creek (2006). PW is aware of numerous public <br />complaints that went to Ecology against the plat in 2016117. The plat is approved as a <br />retention proposal — so no offsite discharge. The applicant is required to adhere to <br />Ecology's construction stormwater permit requirements. Enforcement of construction <br />permit requirements fall to the Department of Ecology. PW has worked aggressively <br />with the applicant to manage flood flows that occasionally occur along Bender Road <br />toward the Ellensburg Water Company canal. Designed project improvements will <br />eliminate this flooding. After nearly three years of intensive effort, it appears we are <br />close to solving onsite stormwater disposal concerns associated with the plat. <br />Our response to WADOE is not available at the time of this briefing and will be provided <br />during our study session. We are currently finalizing our data collection efforts and <br />anticipate providing our results to Ecology by the close of business 03-23-2018. Given <br />our initial review of the data set, there is insufficient data supporting WADOE's petition <br />efforts forcing Kittitas County into obtaining an MS4 permit. Any further attempt <br />(WADOE) to secure a permit for Kittitas County during WADOE's 2014 permit <br />reissuance process should be adamantly opposed by the BOCC. Our response to <br />WADOE's nominating criterion appears below for BOCC consideration: <br />Factor 1: Does the municipal separate storm sewer discharge stormwater to impaired <br />or sensitive waters? NO. <br />• Factor 2: Is the municipal separate storm sewer a significant contributor of pollutants <br />to waters of the United States? NO. <br />Factor 3: Does the municipal separate storm sewer serve a substantial population or <br />area? NO. <br />• Factor 4: Is the municipal separate storm sewer contiguously located to an already <br />regulated municipal storm sewer? YES. <br />• Factor 5: Is the municipal separate storm sewer physically interconnected to another, <br />already regulated municipal storm sewer? NO. <br />• Factor 6: Are the water quality impacts of the municipal separate storm sewer already <br />being addressed under other regulations or programs? YES (WADOE 303d list). <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />