|
Attachment A
<br />Staff Response to Public Testimony and City Council
<br />
<br />12
<br />Topic/Issue Staff Response (June 18, 2008)
<br />I. Proposal
<br />
<br />A. Why is a setback needed? (T) Several of our local area waterways are impaired, meaning that they do not meet water quality standards for certain pollutants including turbidity, dissolved
<br />oxygen,
<br />GA
<br /> temperature, mercury and bacteria. The federal Clean Water Act requires that these waterways be brought back into compliance with water quality standards.
<br /> Statewide planning Goal 6 requires that local comprehensive plans and implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
<br />3
<br />water pollution. As stated in the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Willamette Basin TMDL Water Quality Management Plan, “water quality
<br />improvement requires a comprehensive watershed approach to solving pollution problems. This takes into account the cumulative effects all activities in a watershed
<br />have on overall water quality. To solve water quality problems in a stream, river, lake or estuary, we need to consider the cumulative impact from all upstream sources
<br />including groundwater. Eight management strategies have been identified by the Center for Watershed Protection in Maryland for watershed protection and
<br />restoration. ODEQ believes that the strategies are equally applicable for watershed protection and restoration in Oregon. The eight strategies are: 1) Land Use
<br />Planning; 2) Land Conservation; 3) Aquatic Buffers; 4) Better Site Design; 5) Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control; 6) Stormwater Best Management Practices; 7)
<br />Non-Stormwater Discharges; and 8) Watershed Stewardship Programs.” The proposed /WQ Waterway setbacks are needed to fill gaps in protections on certain
<br />waterways with a significant relationship to those that are water quality impaired.
<br />
<br />Consistent with a watershed approach, the City conducts 23 best management practices, or BMPs, under its municipal stormwater permit with the aim of protecting and
<br />improving water quality. Examples of BMPs include: stormwater development standards (water quality design standards for new development), erosion prevention and
<br />construction site management program, stormwater education and volunteer activities, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, piped system retrofits for water quality,
<br />and stream rehabilitation capital projects. See the web site for the full list of 23 BMPs: www.eugene-or.gov/PW > Stormwater > National Pollution Discharge
<br />Elimination System > Best Management Practices. These BMPs represent complimentary strategies in the City’s watershed based approach to water quality protection
<br />and improvement.
<br />
<br />Many waterways that have important water quality functions under Statewide Planning Goal 6 are also significant Goal 5 resources. For waterways that have been
<br />identified as significant resources under Statewide Planning Goal 5, a significant amount of water quality protection is incidentally provided by the Goal 5 /WR
<br />Conservation Overlay Zone. Waterways that have an important water quality function but that do not have this incidental protection are the subject of the proposed
<br />/WQ ordinance. This proposal, complimented by Goal 5 protections, will help “hold-the-line” on water quality in our local area waterways. This proposal addresses an
<br />important missing element of the City’s watershed approach to water quality protection, which is partially, but not entirely, addressed by Goal 5 natural resources
<br />setbacks. Without these protections, future uses and activities within and adjacent to these waterways would very likely increase pollutant loads including sediment,
<br />thermal pollution, bacteria, and other urban pollutants.
<br />
<br />B. What other options were considered? (20, CC);
<br />As described in response to I.A. above, this proposal addresses an important missing element of the City’s watershed, system-based approach to water quality
<br />MC
<br /> protection. From a historical perspective, alternative approaches to waterway protection initiated by the stormwater program have included: the Open Waterways
<br /> ordinance (“no-pipe, no fill”) which was adopted by City Council in 2000 and affected all waterways but is no longer in effect; the 75-ft setback proposal presented in
<br /> June 2006 for approximately 90 miles of waterways which was modified to become the current proposal; and the current proposal which basically fills the gaps in
<br /> protections on the original set of 90 miles and recognizes the incidental water quality protections that the Goal 5 protections have. The drivers for each of these
<br /> proposals have been local adopted policy in the form of the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSWMP), and federal water quality regulations.
<br />
<br /> As for alternatives measures which would take the place of any waterway protection proposal, the Public Works (PW) Stormwater Policy team (which is comprised of
<br /> the PW Director and PW Division Managers) has considered at several times over the last 10 years whether to proceed with waterway protections or not. The opinion
<br /> from the Policy team has been, and still is, that there is still a significant water quality protection benefit to be gained from a waterway protection proposal, and that the
<br /> other program measures (BMPs) – described in I.A would not directly address the lack of protection on these “gap” waterways. In other words, preventing adverse
<br /> water quality impacts from future uses and activities within and adjacent to these waterways is much more effectively addressed by prevention and protection than by,
<br /> for example, more frequent street sweeping, installation of additional downstream structural treatment devices, or construction of future stream rehabilitation projects
<br /> once these waterways begin to erode.
<br />Specific options recommended (12, 13, 20, 21, CC), such as:
<br />MC
<br />?Banning certain chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers – “do the
<br />State law prevents the City from regulating the private use of pesticides (which include herbicides by definition). The stormwater education program
<br />
<br />obvious”) on properties near waterways (12)
<br />provides information to homeowners on alternatives to chemical usage and the benefits of using native vegetation. Staff also conducts business
<br />
<br />
<br />1
<br /> Parenthetical code means: T(initials) = Verbal testimony provided at public hearing; CC(initials) = City Council comment; XX = Number (from 1-23) corresponding to testimony submitted
<br />to City Council (see 6/18/08 Council AIS for references to all testimony).
<br />2
<br /> For additional information in response to Planning Commission testimony, see Staff Response to Topics Raised by Planning Commission and Public Testimony Through February 19, 2008 –
<br />Provided in Supplemental Information Binders at CMO
<br />3
<br /> Willamette Basin TMDL (ODEQ, September 2006), page 14-43.
<br />WQ Protected Waterways Attachment A to June 18, 2008 AIS (page 1 of 6)
<br />
|