New Search
Map <br />An updated map of recommended water quality protected waterways is provided as Attachment A. <br />High Level Ordinance <br />See Attachment C for a draft ordinance outline from the City Attorney. In implementing water quality <br />protections, it will be very important to construct the code language to be as compatible as possible with <br />existing code language (in particular Goal 5), and as simply as possible to ease implementation concerns, <br />while still meeting water quality protection objectives. <br />Enforcement Strategy <br />Adoption of open waterway protection measures would necessitate enforcement of City Code provisions <br />and Administrative Rules (AR's). Staff recommendation (incorporating input from POS Division staff <br />likely to be responsible for enforcement) is to adopt the ordinance first, not concurrently with AR's. Once <br />the ordinance is adopted, staff would begin work on an administrative rule specifically for water quality- <br />protected waterways. Following is ahigh-level enforcement strategy, including staffing needs. <br />Staffing needs related to enforcement would depend upon two main factors: <br />Factor 1. The enforcement approach that Public Works decides to take. The enforcement approach <br />could range from a complaint driven approach (similar to PDD's approach to enforcement <br />waterside setback provisions in west Eugene and apparently also for the recently adopted Goa15 <br />protection measures) to a more pro-active inspection and enforcement approach; and <br />Factor 2. How the ordinance and administrative rules were written -the ordinance and AR's could <br />focus primarily on no dumping/filling/piping/encroaching upon the waterways with limited <br />regulation in the setback areas (except that building in the setback is prohibited), or the ordinance <br />and AR's could also include provisions specifically describing how the setback area must be <br />managed or used. <br />Ranging from the low end approach to the high end approach, it is .estimated that acomplaint-driven <br />enforcement approach, coupled with a no dumping/filling/piping/encroaching ordinance with basic <br />setback requirements (low end) would require 0.1 FTE to enforce, although it may be more initially (0.3 to <br />0.5 FTE) as the program is being established. Amore pro-active enforcement approach (high end), <br />including periodic inspections and follow up enforcement, coupled with more specific ordinance <br />provisions related to management of the setback area would require 0.3 FTE to enforce, and may also be <br />higher initially as the program is established (up to 0.5 FTE). <br />With respect to enforcement responsibility, theoretically there are a number of possible options for where <br />the lead could reside, including POS, PWE, and possibly PDD. Enforcement responsibilities, <br />theoretically, maybe incorporated into existing programs, such as the open waterway inspection program, <br />the erosion and sediment control program, or PDD's Goal S program. More discussion would be <br />beneficial on this topic, however at this point the Parks and Open Space Division, Natural Resources <br />Section, maybe the most logical lead since they have the responsibility for managing the open waterway <br />system, have the necessary technical, operational and enforcement expertise, and already conduct periodic <br />inspections of the city-managed portions of the open waterway system. Retaining enforcement <br />responsibilities within PW would ensure that the water quality protections are enforced by staff with <br />knowledge and understanding of stormwater program goals, objectives, and interrelationships. <br />3/28/06 (Page 8 updated 4/4/06) 10 <br />