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 Goa15), 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 a high-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 Goa15 program. More discussion would be <br /> beneficial on this topic, however at this point the Parks.: and Open Space Division, Natural Resources <br /> Section, may be 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 /> <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 10 <br /> <br />