public works department - home - lane county · pdf filepublic works department lane county,...

Public Works Department Lane County, Oregon

PHASE I STORMWATER UTILITY

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Program Description

January, 2012

FCS GROUP 7525 166th Avenue NE, Suite D-215

Redmond, WA 98052 T: 425.867.1802 | F: 425.867.1937

Redmond Town Center 7525 166th Ave. NE., Suite D-215 Redmond, Washington 98052 T: 425.867.1802 F: 425.867.1937

225 Bush Street Suite 1825 San Francisco, California 94104 T: 415.445.8947 F: 415.398.1601

4380 SW Macadam Avenue Suite 220 Portland, OR 97239 T:503.841.6543 F: 503.841.6573

FCS GROUP

Solutions-Oriented Consulting

January 23, 2012

Daniel Hurley, Senior Engineer Associate Lane County Waste Management Division 3100 E. 17th Avenue Eugene, OR 97403

Subject: Program Definition Report

Dear Mr. Hurley:

Attached is our final program definition report. We want to thank you for the assistance and cooperation in helping us gather data and in setting up the interview sessions with the various stakeholder groups. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 867-1802 extension 225.

Sincerely,

John Ghilarducci Principal

Lane County Public Works Department Phase I Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study-Program Description January, 2012 page i

www.fcsgroup.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER II: ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 2 Strengths ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Weaknesses ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Opportunities .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Challenges/Threats ................................................................................................................................... 3

Current Level of Services .......................................................................................................................... 3

Stormwater Fee .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Improvements ............................................................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER III: CURRENT PROGRAMS & PLANS ............................................................................. 5 The Current and Future Regulatory Environment ................................................................................. 5

Surface Water Discharge Regulations ............................................................................................... 5

Future Surface Water Discharge Regulations ............................................................................... 6

Subsurface Water Discharge Regulations ......................................................................................... 7

Future Subsurface Stormwater Discharge Regulation................................................................. 8

The Current Program ................................................................................................................................. 9

Key Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 12

Stormwater Management Program Funding ................................................................................. 12

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Compliance ........................................................................ 13

CHAPTER IV: PROGRAM COMPARISONS ................................................................................. 15 Program Descriptions .............................................................................................................................. 15

Stormwater Management Activities .................................................................................................... 16

Stormwater Finance ................................................................................................................................ 17

Rogue Valley Sewer Services ................................................................................................................. 19

Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX A- BMP CATEGORY DEFINITIONS ......................................................................... A-1

Lane County Public Works Department Phase I Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study-Program Description January, 2012 page 1

www.fcsgroup.com

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Lane County currently manages its stormwater services through its Public Works Department, and stormwater services are funded by the Road Fund. Recent funding reductions and more stringent state and federal stormwater management regulations prompted the Board of County Commissioners to approve funding for a Phase 1 Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study. The purpose of this study is to consider options concerning funding mechanisms that can address the shortfalls facing the County, including the formation of a stormwater utility. The study will provide the Board of County Commissioners with an analysis of the various options and with recommendations for determining the most appropriate course of action given the County’s unique challenges and long-term needs. This Phase 1 Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study provides the County with an opportunity to review its options from different perspectives concerning funding, regulatory requirements, and public acceptance challenges. Lane County is one of the largest Oregon counties covering 4,722 square miles, and its citizens represent a diversity of interests that include both urban centers as well as rural areas.

This program description provides the first step in addressing the feasibility of a stormwater utility. The program description includes an organizational assessment of the current program based on input received from a wide variety of stakeholders, a description of the current program, a comparison with other Oregon county stormwater programs, and key issues. As part of developing this program description we did the following:

Conducted a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) organizational analysis to assess the existing stormwater program based on interviews with key stakeholders,

Reviewed Lane County’s 2011 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit renewal application and other related documents,

Identified current stormwater expenditures, and

Researched and compared Lane County’s stormwater services with three other comparable jurisdictions.

We want to acknowledge the assistance we received from the Public Works Department staff, especially Dan Hurley, in gathering data and organizing the stakeholder interviews.


www.fcsgroup.com

CHAPTER II: ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS To provide an overall assessment of the County’s stormwater program, key stakeholders were interviewed to obtain their perspectives about the County’s stormwater program. The interviews asked the stakeholders about the program’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, challenges, and threats as well as any opinions about a stormwater fee. Stakeholder groups represented County Commissioners, County staff, city representatives, environmental and community organizations, and homebuilders. The following specific stakeholder groups were interviewed.

The Lane County Board of Commissioners

The County Administrator

Cities of Eugene & Springfield

Cities of Creswell and Cottage Grove

The Junction City and River Road Water Control Districts

Department of Environmental Quality Representatives

Lane County Public Works and Stormwater Staff

River Road and Santa Clara Community Organizations

Clearwater Coalition (McKenzie)

Homebuilders Association

The Middle Fork, Coast Fork, Long Tom, McKenzie & Siuslaw Watershed Councils

Sierra Club Many Rivers

Oregon Clean Water Action Project

The stakeholders consisted of a variety of representatives that are either involved with the County’s stormwater program or with water quality and environmental issues. Based on the interviews, there were two general observations about their awareness of the County’s program and involvement with the County.

Except for the River Road/Santa Clara stakeholders, most of the environmental, watershed, and development stakeholders generally did not deal with or were not familiar with the County’s stormwater program. In several cases, some stakeholders in the County’s urban growth areas for Eugene or Springfield believed that they were already paying a fee for stormwater.

In addition to County staff, those most familiar with the County’s stormwater program were the County Commissioners, staff from Lane County cities, and staff from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Because several of the stakeholder groups have not been involved with or were not aware of the County’s program, comments about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, challenges, and threats were not uniform or consistent for all groups. As a result, the following summarizes the main comments made during the interviews and do not always represent a consensus of all groups.

STRENGTHS A number of stakeholders believed that the County’s staff is a strength of the program. Comment

examples included the following:


www.fcsgroup.com

The people and their resourcefulness, getting things done despite limited resources,

The people and the diversity of their knowledge,

Knowledgeable and ability to gain an understanding on the issues,

Technical strength in engineering,

Committed, quality people with institutional knowledge, and

Dedicated and hard working.

The coordination and partnering with watershed councils and the intergovernmental agreements with Eugene and Springfield.

WEAKNESSES The limited funding, resources, and staff for the County’s stormwater program.

No operational infrastructure, but works within a matrix management style.

No previous planning or strategic planning. More reactive than proactive planning.

Need to work with rural areas and small cities.

A variety of program concerns and issues related to habitat issues, flooding, riparian buffer zone, total maximum daily loads, stream coverage, use of bioswales, enforcement, and use of existing data.

OPPORTUNITIES Increase partnership and coordination opportunities by working with cities, watershed councils,

water control districts, and other stakeholders.

Replace aging and problem infrastructure. Some prefer more use of natural and low impact solutions.

CHALLENGES/THREATS Obtaining additional funding and staffing given the current economic climate.

Replacing aging infrastructure and building new infrastructure.

Responding to a changing regulatory environment with additional requirements coming in the future.

Developing a cost effective stormwater program with good policy, data, and science.

Moving from water quantity to water quality issues.

CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICES In general, the County is doing the best it can with limited staff.

Some are satisfied with County services, while some believe that services could be expanded.


www.fcsgroup.com

STORMWATER FEE Cities in Lane County have stormwater fees and system development charges. Such fees are a

tool to help get the County going.

A fee should go to voters.

Any fee needs to be related to tangible problems and issues, such as aging infrastructure.

There should be a separate fee for urban and rural residents.

Drywell costs should be paid by ratepayers to spread the costs.

Some stakeholders will not support a fee for curb and gutter infrastructure.

IMPROVEMENTS Show County collaboration on underground injection controls (UIC) and talk about cooperation

and working together. County should show ownership on inspection and enforcement of private facilities.

Hold infrastructure costs down.

Education and outreach are needed to demonstrate problems and solutions should be based on facts, not perceptions.

Promote green infrastructure and low impact development standards countywide not just in the urban growth boundary (UGB) area and use new ways to control stormwater such as bioswales.

Need an enforceable basin plan and a new scientific, hydrological study for River Road and Santa Clara basin.


www.fcsgroup.com

CHAPTER III: CURRENT PROGRAMS & PLANS Lane County initiated its formal stormwater program in response to two federal acts, the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The CWA regulates discharges of urban stormwater to surface waters, and the SDWA regulates the discharges of urban stormwater to the subsurface or groundwater (i.e., through drywells). To comply with federal regulations, the County is required to submit for approval a stormwater management plan (SWMP) to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Lane County prepared its initial plan in March 2003 and received its Phase II permit in January, 2007. The permit covers the County areas inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) that are not covered by the City of Eugene’s Phase I NPDES permit. Its permit expires on December 31, 2011 and the County submitted a revised SWMP to DEQ in June, 2011.

THE CURRENT AND FUTURE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Because stormwater can affect the water quality of both surface water and ground water, the regulations are also divided into two categories. In the early 1990s, the Federal Clean Water Act required municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 to apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for their stormwater discharges. In Oregon, this program was delegated to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. As a result, DEQ directed jurisdictions in six Oregon urban areas to apply for and obtain a Phase I municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) NPDES stormwater permit. The City of Eugene was one of the six Phase I permittees in Oregon. In December 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted rules to implement “Phase II” of the stormwater program. Phase II expanded the stormwater permitting program to include smaller communities located in U.S. census-defined urban areas. Lane County was included as one of the smaller jurisdictions required to obtain a Phase II NPDES stormwater permit for the urbanized area within the Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary.

Surface Water Discharge Regulations The original MS4 NPDES stormwater permits contained requirements for municipalities to perform a review and mapping of their stormwater systems and conduct outfall inventories. Based on the results of this review, jurisdictions were then required to develop a stormwater management plan. The SWMPs are required to include categories of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable”. For the Phase II permits, BMPs are required to address each of six minimum control measures, which include the following:

public education and outreach,

public participation/involvement,

detection and elimination of illicit discharges,

construction site runoff control,

post-construction runoff control, and

pollution prevention/good housekeeping.


www.fcsgroup.com

Future Surface Water Discharge Regulations As previously mentioned, DEQ is in the process of issuing a renewed MS4 NPDES stormwater permit to Lane County when the County’s current Phase II permit expires on December 31, 2011. Since the County’s current permit was issued (in 2007), EPA has commissioned reports, guidance documents and rule making initiatives that have been prompting DEQ to update and revise some of the MS4 NPDES permit conditions. Specifically, EPA issued an MS4 Permit Improvement Guide in 2010. DEQ has been using this guide to refine permit language for the Phase I permits and intends to do the same for the Phase II permits. Anticipated new elements of the Phase II permit include the following:

Enhancing requirements to include more specificity with respect to measurable goals in order to make the permit more clear and enforceable.

Including more prescriptive detailed activities in the permit.

Requiring a process for conducting adaptive management activities.

Requiring retrofits to address water quality from existing developed areas.

Requiring tracking of information associated with water quality facilities to prepare for quantitative pollutant loads benchmark modeling.

Requiring public education and public involvement activities that are more targeted at specific audiences and assessing the effectiveness of these activities.

Improving upon existing illicit discharge detection and elimination programs.

Requiring information related to where, when, and how erosion control inspections are conducted.

Requiring more stringent standards for new development (moving in direction of low impact development requirements).

Requiring better mapping and tracking of maintenance activities.

One of the other recent and significant EPA commissioned studies was issued by the National Research Council. The report was titled Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. EPA commissioned this report in 2006 to evaluate the effectiveness and success of the MS4 NPDES program. In essence, the report describes how urban stormwater management historically has not been adequate to reduce urban water quality problems related to runoff. The report also includes suggestions for improving the programs. As a result, EPA initiated a rule-making process to revise the stormwater rules and address recommendations in the report. Areas of focus in the rule-making process include the following:

Expanding the areas subject to MS4 NPDES permits.

Establishing specific requirements to control stormwater discharges from new and re-development.

Developing a consistent set of stormwater requirements for all Phase I and Phase II jurisdictions (as opposed to jurisdictions developing their own individual programs).

Requiring Phase I and Phase II jurisdictions to address stormwater discharges in areas of existing development through retrofits.

Exploring options for establishing specific requirements for transportation facilities.

The draft rule is expected in December of 2011 and the final rule is anticipated in November 2012. Therefore, some new requirements related to the above focus areas are anticipated for inclusion in the County’s next issuance of their permit (anticipated in 2017).


www.fcsgroup.com

The other Clean Water Act program related to urban stormwater discharges is the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program. DEQ has responsibility for developing water quality standards that protect beneficial uses of rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Once standards are established, the state (DEQ) monitors water quality and reviews available data and information to determine if these standards are being met and water is protected. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to develop a list of water bodies that do not meet the water quality standards. The (303d) list serves as a guide for developing and implementing watershed pollution reduction plans to achieve water quality standards and protect beneficial uses. These watershed pollution reduction plans are referred to as TMDLs. With respect to Lane County, several tributaries within Lane County’s jurisdiction eventually drain to the Willamette River, and the Willamette River has an established TMDL for bacteria, mercury, and temperature. The County has submitted and obtained DEQ approval on their TMDL implementation plans.

Based on the information in this section, the County can anticipate that its MS4 NPDES permit requirements will continue to be refined and enhanced by the regulatory agencies in order to continually reduce pollutant loads in receiving waters until receiving waters are compliant with water quality standards. In addition, rather than having somewhat general requirements, more specificity is likely to be added to its permit in order to enhance clarity and make it easier to enforce. Therefore, liability issues and risks associated with non-compliance are likely to increase.

Subsurface Water Discharge Regulations Infiltration of stormwater runoff has become an increasingly attractive management practice for stormwater because it prevents impacts to surface waters and surface water quality. As a result, DEQ is concerned that stormwater disposal in underground systems will become more highly utilized to the detriment of subsurface water quality.

Congress enacted groundwater protection rules in 1974 under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The EPA administers these rules under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 144 -148. In Oregon, the EPA has delegated the regulation of groundwater protection rules to the DEQ. The DEQ regulates this program for the EPA under the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 44. DEQ promulgated new state rules in 2001 to clarify requirements related to implementation of the SDWA. One of DEQ’s intents in promulgating the new underground injection control (UIC) rules was to see that all stormwater management entities exercise the same care with respect to stormwater discharged to the ground as they do with stormwater discharged to surface waters under the NPDES permitting program.

The 2001 UIC rules require stormwater management entities to evaluate the quality of water disposed in all facilities that have a “subsurface fluid distribution system”, such as dry wells/sumps and infiltration trenches. Stormwater management entities that use subsurface disposal are also required to develop comprehensive stormwater management plans that address: 1) the need for and effectiveness of stormwater pretreatment before injection; 2) spill prevention and control measures designed to minimize immediate harm to underlying aquifers; 3) systematic monitoring and record keeping; and, 4) system performance evaluation. DEQ representatives have noted that there are long-standing regulations against groundwater contamination, and that the 2001 UIC rules were designed to assist stormwater managers in complying with these regulations.

As part of the process to prepare for implementation of the new UIC rules, DEQ required UIC systems (i.e., drywells) to be registered with DEQ by December 31, 1999 (with amnesty for public systems until December 31, 2000). Stormwater UICs are prohibited unless they can be shown to meet criteria for being regarded as “exempt”, “authorized by rule”, or “authorized by a permit”. These three categories of allowable stormwater UICs are described in more detail as follows:

Category 1: Exempt – Stormwater UICs that are exempt include single residential roof drains and footing drains receiving only rainwater.


www.fcsgroup.com

Category 2: Authorized by Rule – Municipalities may apply to have stormwater UICs “rule authorized” if the following criteria are met:

No other waste is mixed with the stormwater.

Stormwater runoff is minimized.

No other disposal option is appropriate. An appropriate method shall protect groundwater quality and may consider management of surface water quality and watershed health issues.

No domestic drinking water supply wells are present within 500 feet.

No public drinking water supply wells are present within 500 feet or the 2 year time-of-travel whichever is more protective.

No soil or groundwater contamination is present.

The wells are not deeper than 100 feet and they do not discharge into groundwater or below the highest seasonal groundwater level.

A confinement barrier or a natural or engineered filtration medium is present between the base of the injection system and the highest seasonal groundwater level and prevents contaminants from reaching groundwater, or the owner or operator implements best management practices that prevent drainage into the injection system in the event of an accidental spill. (DEQ has suggested that they would like to see 10 feet of separation between the bottom of the drywell and the high groundwater).

Design and operation prevents accidental or illicit disposal and temporary blocking is available.

Category 3: Authorized by Permit - Municipalities may apply to have their stormwater UICs covered by a water pollution control facilities (WPCF) permit. If UICs are not exempt or cannot be “rule authorized”, the permit would provide a mechanism for the municipality to work with DEQ to develop a plan for these UICs, which could include retrofitting the UICs so that they meet “rule authorization” criteria or developing a plan for decommissioning UICs that cannot be rule authorized. A WPCF permit would likely include significant requirements for monitoring.

Future Subsurface Stormwater Discharge Regulation To date, only one WPCF permit has been issued by DEQ to address municipal stormwater UICs in Oregon. This permit was issued to the City of Portland. A draft permit was also issued to Multnomah County and the City of Gresham (2011). Both Multnomah County and Gresham had significant comments on the permit. Lane County and the City of Eugene have both applied for a WPCF permit, but have not received a draft permit.

As a result of the comments received from Gresham and Multnomah County and other supporting information supplied by other jurisdictions, DEQ recently decided to re-evaluate the draft permit conditions. In a December 13, 2011 e-mail to the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA), DEQ stated that based on the comments received and a collective evaluation of the data and risk-based screening models provided by Portland, Gresham, Clackamas County, Bend and Redmond, DEQ intends to make substantive changes to the WPCF permit template for UICs. DEQ stated that they will first send a revised draft permit to Multnomah County for another applicant review period. After Multnomah County has reviewed and commented on the draft permit, DEQ will post it for public review and comment. At present, all permit issuance is on hold. DEQ stated that the changes they are currently evaluating for the permit are a result of the comments received, their internal review of groundwater protectiveness screening models prepared by Portland, Gresham, Clackamas County, Bend and Redmond, and reassessment of the stormwater data analysis conducted by Kennedy-Jenks that was prepared for ACWA. DEQ is assessing and evaluating revisions to several conditions that were in the draft permit template including but not limited to the following:


www.fcsgroup.com

effluent limits

the common parameters

monitoring requirements

reassessing “wet feet” UIC conditions with respect to groundwater endangerment

retrofit UICs and other corrective actions.

DEQ’s estimated deadline to complete the assessment and permit template revisions is January 31, 2012. By that time, they will redraft Multnomah County’s WPCF permit and restart the process of issuing permits to the other applicants with the target of issuing all permits currently in the backlog by June 30, 2013. How this will impact the County and requirements to decommission UICs is currently unclear. From the River Road Santa Clara basin plan, the costs were estimated at approximately twenty million dollars to decommission all UICs in the River Road Santa Clara basin. Lane County’s estimate of its portion of these costs is approximately $10.5 million.

THE CURRENT PROGRAM Lane County's original SWMP was developed for its NPDES Phase II Permit application in 2003. The goal of the original SWMP was to use a basin-wide approach to meet the requirements of the Phase II permit by partnering with the adjoining Cities of Eugene and Springfield utilizing the "Rely on Another Entity" option available under the Phase II permit. The intent of this approach was to help standardize some of the various agency regulations for meeting the requirements of the NPDES permits in both the Phase I and Phase II communities and to reduce the need for duplicate programs between the County and the two cities. Lane County plans to continue this approach through its second permit cycle as outlined in its proposed revisions to be considered during the permitting renewal process.

Lane County and the City of Eugene entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for NPDES Services on May 21. 2004. That IGA was amended four times between 2004 and 2011 and expired on November 30, 2011. Lane County and the City of Eugene recently implemented a new IGA to establish new service agreements and align BMPs with the City's new SWMP.

Lane County and the City of Springfield entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement for NPDES Services on July 30, 2010. That agreement will expire on July 30, 2013, but may need to be amended prior to this date to reflect changes in the new NPDES Phase II permits forthcoming for Lane County and the City of Springfield.

Because Lane County follows the approach of “Rely on Another Entity”, many of the best management practices identified in the County’s SWMP rely on either the City of Eugene or the City of Springfield as the lead agency with the County acting as a partner in the effort. Exhibit 1 shows the best management practices from the 2011 SWMP and which agency has the lead responsibility for the practice.


www.fcsgroup.com

Exhibit 1 Responsibilities for Best Management Practices

Since 2004 when the County first submitted its SWMP to DEQ for approval, the County and the two cities have generally expanded the number of best management practices that they have used to guide their programs. Although the County’s 2004 and 2011 plans are slightly different, Exhibit 2 identifies the services that Lane County provides based on the six minimum control measures and provides a comparison of the activities between the 2004 and the 2011 SWMP. The descriptions of the activities can be found in Appendix A.

Best Management Practice Lane County Eugene SpringfieldStormwater Education

Outreach Efforts with Regional Partners

Stormwater Education School workshops

Stormwater Educational Portfolios

Storm Drain Marking Program

Household Hazardous Waste Program

Pet Waste Education Program

Website Development

Educational Volunteer Program

Public Involvement/Participation

Coordination with Watershed Councils

Advisory Committees

Public Notice Management of Illicit Discharges to the Municipal SW System

Spill Response

Illicit Discharge Reporting Hotline and Tracking System

Illicit Discharge Response and Enforcement

Outfall Inventory and Mapping

Illicit Discharge Response

Nuisance Abatement Program

Storm Drain Mapping & GIS Database

Staff Training

Erosion Prevention & Construction Site Management

Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations

City Staff Erosion Control Training

Inspection and Enforcement

Stormwater Development Standards

Springfield Development Code Standards and Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual Post Construction Stormwater System Maintenance Inspections and Compliance

Annual Adoption of ODOT's BMP Manual

Construction Standard Documents

Inspections on Public Construction Projects

Employee Training Stormwater System Maintenance

Municpal Facility Stormwater Protection Plans

Prevent Leaks and Spills from Municipal Vehicles and Equipment

Integrated Vegetation Management Program

Street Sweeping and Leaf Pick-up Programs

Post

-C

onst

ruct

ion

Runo

ff C

ontro

lPo

llutio

n Pr

even

tion

and

Goo

d H

ouse

keep

ing

Responsible/Lead AgencyPu

blic

Edu

catio

n an

d O

utre

ach

Publ

ic

Parti

cipa

tion

and

Invo

lvem

ent

Illic

it D

isch

arge

Det

ectio

n an

d El

imin

atio

n

Con

stru

ctio

n Si

te R

unof

f C

ontro

l


www.fcsgroup.com

Exhibit 2 Comparison of SWMP 2004 and 2011 Activities

From an operational perspective, the County generally implements best management practices through its road maintenance and engineering activities in the County’s Public Works Department. Over the last four fiscal years, most of the County’s costs have been for culvert replacement and installation followed by ditch maintenance, street sweeping, winter sanding and sweeping, leaf removal, culvert cleaning, and catch basin cleaning. Exhibit 3 shows stormwater related activities and the expenditures for the past four fiscal years.

SWMP Year 2004 2011BMP Category

Educational materials

Inter-agency cooperation

Services

Staff training



Listening to public input

ServicesSignage

Volunteer programsInspections and testing

Investigation

Mapping

Ordinance

PreventionPublic educationPublic reporting of illicit discharge

Removal

Response to citizens

Staff training

Education

Enforcement

Ordinance

Planning

EducationEnforcement

Ordinance

Planning

Design standards

Erosion preventionFlood managementLandscape management

Municipal facilities

RemovalRoad maintenanceRoad maintenance manual

Stormwater system improvementStormwater system maintenance

Street sweeping

Staff training

Publ

ic

Educ

atio

n an

d O

utre

ach

Publ

ic P

artic

ipat

ion

and

Invo

lvem

ent

Illic

it D

isch

arge

Det

ectio

n an

d El

imin

atio

n

Con

stru

ctio

n Si

te R

unof

f C

ontro

l

Post

-C

onst

ruct

ion

Runo

ff C

ontro

lPo

llutio

n Pr

even

tion

and

Goo

d H

ouse

keep

ing


www.fcsgroup.com

Exhibit 3 Stormwater Related Expenditures FY 2008 – FY 2011

KEY ISSUES Lane County’s stormwater program has two major challenges that it is currently addressing. The first and foremost is the decrease in revenues available to support the County’s stormwater management program. The second issue involves the County’s compliance regarding its drywells and underground injection control program. The potential solutions for the County’s compliance will further add to the financial challenges that the County already faces.

Stormwater Management Program Funding The County is facing considerable shortfalls in its County Road Fund which provides the support for the County’s stormwater management programs. If the programs are impacted by reductions in the County Road Fund, the County will need to prioritize the implementation of the BMPs and programs in its SWMP.

The County faces elimination of federal Secure Rural Schools (SRS) funds in 2012 and beyond. Consequently, it must now explore options for managing decreased funding and potential cuts. In preparing for 2012 and beyond, the County acknowledges the uncertainty it faces from the elimination of SRS funds and from flat revenue from the state gas tax. Compared to the average of the last five years of the Road Fund, the County is forecasting about a 30% reduction in revenue for the next five years starting in FY 2012-2013. Exhibit 4 shows the County forecast for the Road Fund.

Activity FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Total PercentCulvert Replace & Installation 1,363,388$ 1,672,058$ 1,317,091$ 1,065,475$ 5,418,013$ 38.47%Ditch Maintenance 693,263 712,717 741,500 728,357 2,875,837 20.42%Street Sweeping 567,011 409,015 423,622 457,634 1,857,281 13.19%Winter Sanding & Sweeping 236,635 436,216 119,078 271,526 1,063,455 7.55%Leaf Removal Programs 95,454 129,869 146,489 186,108 557,921 3.96%Culvert Cleaning 101,262 101,478 106,383 138,167 447,289 3.18%Catch Basin Cleaning 64,346 120,117 106,435 134,233 425,131 3.02%Environmental Review/Compliance 44,673 57,159 71,946 144,670 318,448 2.26%Applications for Other Agency Permits 49,453 52,420 102,639 95,423 299,935 2.13%NPDES 31,057 35,733 81,764 98,997 247,551 1.76%Santa Clara Storm Basin Plan 6,186 42,844 75,459 6,309 130,798 0.93%Dead Animal Removal 32,432 33,263 28,884 34,318 128,896 0.92%Seeding & Mulching 14,807 25,130 35,211 12,318 87,466 0.62%TMDL-Willamette Watershed 16,573 35,140 4,194 55,907 0.40%Storm Sewer Cleaning 15,767 9,745 8,287 11,127 44,927 0.32%Bridge Cleaning 30,570 10,918 760 1,024 43,271 0.31%Vactor Facility--Charges by Rd Fund 4,348 8,283 9,095 6,910 28,635 0.20%Underground Inj Cont Mgt 1,387 10,570 11,447 1,448 24,851 0.18%Stormwater Revenue Analysis 15,480 15,480 0.11%Drainage Permits 2,604 2,087 5,658 2,699 13,048 0.09%Grand Total 3,354,641$ 3,886,194$ 3,426,888$ 3,416,416$ 14,084,139$ 100.00%


www.fcsgroup.com

Exhibit 4 Road Fund Revenue Trends and Forecasts

Because of these future revenue projections, Phase I of the Stormwater Utility Feasibility study will address various funding options that can help support the County’s stormwater management programs.

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Compliance None of the County’s public drywells meet the criteria for being exempt, and it appears unlikely that any of the drywells in the basin will meet criteria for rule authorization based criteria related to the depth of the wells and seasonal groundwater level. Through the River Road Santa Clara stormwater basin planning, an evaluation of the County drywells with respect to high groundwater and the presence of a filtration medium between the drywell bottom and the high groundwater level was conducted. Seasonal high groundwater levels were found to be close to the surface (i.e., approximately 8 feet deep on average). Based on this evaluation, there are several drywells that are expected to be discharging directly to high groundwater, and there were not any drywells where the minimum required separation distance of 10 feet was expected between the bottom of the drywell and the high groundwater level. Consequently, it is likely that most or all of the County drywells will need to be covered by a permit and evaluated with respect to the need for decommissioning.

The County has applied for a WPCF permit with DEQ, and a plan to decommission drywells is anticipated to be a requirement by DEQ for the permit. However, DEQ is still working on formalizing permit conditions, and as previously discussed in the section on future regulations, DEQ is also assessing and evaluating revisions concerning WPCF permits. As stated previously, the County’s estimate to decommission all its UICs in the River Road Santa Clara basin is $10.5 million, but the County believes that the costs will likely be higher. The following are pictures related to the UIC systems.

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Milli

ons

Fiscal Year

Road Fund Revenue Trend

Federal Timber Receipts

Other Revenue

State Highway Fund

Source: County staff


www.fcsgroup.com


www.fcsgroup.com

CHAPTER IV: PROGRAM COMPARISONS To understand what other counties are doing regarding stormwater management and funding, a general survey of other county programs was conducted. With input from the County staff, two Oregon programs were selected that are comparable to Lane County’s current program: Marion and Multnomah counties. In addition, two county service districts that are currently providing stormwater management services were also selected: Clackamas County Service District #1 (CCSD #1) and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMACC). The Rogue Valley Sewer Services District was also contacted about how it supported its stormwater program.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS The comparison jurisdictions except for Marion County are slightly different than Lane County because they are Phase I permittees instead of Phase II permittees. However, program comparisons were able to be made by reviewing each county’s stormwater management plan (SWMP). The following describes each program.

Marion County is responsible for the management of stormwater in the 9,103 acres of urbanized area around Salem, Keizer, and Turner. Land uses in this area include agricultural, commercial, and residential. Residential uses include single-family, multi-family, and rural residences. Of the four comparable programs selected for this study, Marion County is the only county that is like Lane County, a Phase II MS4 permittee (permit number 102905). Marion County is currently in the process of renewing its MS4 permit. This process involves State review of an updated stormwater management plan. However, an updated SWMP has not yet been completed. The SWMP used for this study was completed in 2004 and is still in effect.

Multnomah County is responsible for the management of stormwater in several discrete urban pockets and in 28 miles of road and bridge right-of-ways. Like Lane County, Multnomah County has underground injection controls (UICs) and is seeking a permit through the State’s UIC Program. Multnomah County is a Phase I MS4 permittee (permit number 103004).

CCSD #1 is a county service district formed under ORS Chapter 451 to provide both wastewater and stormwater services in various parts of Clackamas County (including some that are incorporated). Under its MS4 permit, it is responsible for the management of stormwater in unincorporated areas of Clackamas County that lie within Metro’s urban growth boundary. CCSD #1 is a Phase I MS4 co-permittee with Clackamas County (permit number 101348).

SWMACC is a county service district formed under ORS Chapter 451 to provide stormwater services in the City of Rivergrove and the unincorporated portions of Clackamas County that drain into the Tualatin River. Under its MS4 permit, it is responsible for the management of stormwater in areas within its borders that lie within Metro’s urban growth boundary. SWMACC is a Phase I MS4 co-permittee with Clackamas County (permit number 101348).


www.fcsgroup.com

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES The activities of a stormwater management program are defined in each jurisdiction’s SWMP when it is seeking or renewing an MS4 permit. As used here, “activities” are synonymous with the “best management practices” (BMPs) that are listed in a SWMP.

To compare the stormwater management activities of the four programs, each county’s current SWMP was reviewed. In Clackamas County, stormwater (or surface water) management is provided by the two county service districts. Each district has its own SWMP, and we included both in our comparisons. For Lane County, we used the 2011 revision of its SWMP.

As previously mentioned, jurisdictions seeking or renewing a Phase II MS4 permit must organize their BMPs around the following six minimum control measures (MCMs):

Public education and outreach Public participation/involvement Illicit discharge detection and elimination Construction site runoff control Post-construction runoff control Pollution prevention/good housekeeping

Of the counties being compared, Lane and Marion counties are Phase II permittees. Their SWMPs are organized around these six MCMs. By contrast, Clackamas and Multnomah counties are Phase I permittees. The BMPs in their SWMPs are not organized around MCMs.

In spite of the inclusion of Phase I permittees in the comparison, the six MCMs are still a useful organizing principle. In Exhibit 5, MCMs serve as the top level of organization. The second level of organization is a set of categories that were created to provide some comparability. Individual BMPs were sometimes too specific to have meaning outside the jurisdiction. For example, one of Marion County’s BMPs is the “City of Salem Water Quality Education Program.” This BMP was placed in the category of “Inter-Agency Cooperation.” This category, in turn, is part of “Public Participation and Involvement,” one of the MCMs. Appendix A provides an explanation of the different categories.

BMPs can vary widely in their cost and level of effort. For that reason, a count of BMPs in each category was not provided. Counting BMPs could lead to a false sense of precision about how much more one program is doing than another in any given category. Rather, the following exhibit provides check marks to indicate which categories are covered in each program’s SWMP.


www.fcsgroup.com

Exhibit 5 Comparison of Program Activities among Jurisdictions

STORMWATER FINANCE The following exhibit summarizes the operating budget and primary revenue sources for the comparable programs.

SWMP Year 2006 2006 2011 2004 2011

BMP Category

Clackamas County Service

District #1

Surface Water

Management Agency of

Clackamas County Lane County

Marion County

Multnomah County



Services

Staff training



Listening to public input

Services

Signage

Volunteer programs

Inspections and testing

Investigation

Mapping

Ordinance

Prevention

Public education

Public reporting of illicit discharge

Removal

Response to citizens

Staff training

Education

Enforcement

Ordinance

Planning

Education

Enforcement

Ordinance

Planning

Design standards

Erosion prevention

Flood management

Landscape management

Municipal facilities

Removal

Road maintenance

Road maintenance manual

Stormwater system improvement

Stormwater system maintenance

Street sweeping

Pollu

tion

Prev

entio

n an

d G

ood

Hou

seke

epin

g

Publ

ic

Educ

atio

n an

d O

utre

ach

Publ

ic P

artic

ipat

ion

and

Invo

lvem

ent

Illic

it D

isch

arge

Det

ectio

n an

d El

imin

atio

n

Con

stru

ctio

n Si

te R

unof

f C

ontro

l

Post

-C

onst

ruct

ion

Runo

ff C

ontro

l


www.fcsgroup.com

Exhibit 6 Annual Operating Budgets

Marion County organizes its stormwater program into two functions: administration and operations. The administration function is responsible for educational outreach, permit writing, annual reports, and general permit administration. This function is funded by the County’s Environmental Services Fund. All but one of the revenue streams for this enterprise fund is dedicated to solid waste. However, by ordinance, revenue from the sale of electricity (generated by the Waste-to-Energy Facility) may fund other programs outside of solid waste. The annual cost of the administration function is approximately $70,000. The operations function is responsible for system maintenance, catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, and system improvement projects. This function is funded by distributions from the State Highway Fund (SHF) and by a $0.60 fee added to each month’s water and sewer bill of accounts in the East Salem Service District. The annual cost of this function is approximately $81,000, about $54,000 of which is covered by the monthly fee. The County’s total stormwater cost of $151,000 per year is comparatively low, but so is its service area. The County’s total stormwater management area is 9,103 acres, but most of the stormwater infrastructure for which Marion County is responsible is located in the 3,576 acres of the East Salem Service District. This acreage is smaller than the River Road Santa Clara basin (8,657 acres) in Lane County. Besides the smaller size of its service area, the low cost of the County’s stormwater program also reflects the limited revenue generated by the East Salem Service District fee to support the stormwater program.

In Multnomah County, stormwater management is embedded in the Road Services program. This program is funded by distributions from the SHF and a county gas tax. According to a draft of the County’s annual stormwater compliance report for fiscal year 2010-11, the budget for stormwater management in fiscal year 2011-12 (excluding bridge engineering) is $916,501. According to the Road Services Manager, permit requirements for UICs may add some costs to the stormwater program, but probably not to an extent that would require an additional source of revenue. Only when a UIC permit is issued will the County will have a clear understanding of the fiscal impact, and the permitting process is not yet complete.

CCSD #1 and SWMACC are the stormwater utilities for unincorporated Clackamas County. CCSD #1’s management area covers about 13,100 acres, while SWMACC’s management area is much smaller at 869 acres. They recover their costs through user charges. User charges are billed at a rate of $6.00 per month per ESU in CCSD #1 and $4.00 per month per ESU in SWMACC. One ESU represents one single-family residence or 2,500 square feet of impervious surface. Residential customers in CCSD#1 are billed for both surface water management and sanitary sewer services every 2 months. Residential customers in SWMACC are billed for surface water management service every 6 months.

The fiscal year 2011-12 budget document for the two districts provides functional detail on the operating expenses and staffing of both districts. The Exhibit 7 summarizes this information:

Description

Clackamas County Service

District #1

Surface Water

Management Agency of

Clackamas County

Marion County

Multnomah County

Budget Annual operating expenditures 4,150,690$ 270,822$ 151,000$ 916,501$ Road-related monies from State Highway Fund

Road-related monies from local gas tax

User charges for stormwater

User charges for solid waste

Primary Revenue Sources


www.fcsgroup.com

Exhibit 7 CCSD #1 and SWMACC Budgets

The functional categories used in this table represent the programs and activities of the service districts managed by Clackamas County’s Department of Water Environment Services. Except for SWMACC, these districts include both stormwater and wastewater utilities, and almost all of the County’s water quality staff are supported by the wastewater funds. The technical services category primarily relates to development services provided by the agencies.

ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES As part of the comparisons, the County requested information on Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS). This agency is a sanitary authority formed under ORS Chapter 450 to provide both wastewater and stormwater services in various parts of Jackson County (including some that are incorporated). RVSS is one of three Phase II MS4 permittees in Jackson County (permit number 102899). The other two are the cities of Medford and Ashland.

Jackson County itself has neither an MS4 permit nor a separate stormwater program. However, the County does implement stormwater BMPs related to road maintenance and municipal operations.

Like CCSD #1 and SWMACC, RVSS recovers its costs through user charges. RVSS charges customers in both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of its permit area at a monthly rate of $1.00 per equivalent service unit (ESU). An ESU is a single-family residence or 3,000 square feet of impervious surface. In fiscal year 2011-12, RVSS expects to earn $270,000 in monthly stormwater fees.

In addition, RVSS is a collection agent for the cities of Phoenix and Talent, which each charge a stormwater fee of $1.50 per ESU on top of the one charged by RVSS. The two cities use this fee to recover the cost of their storm drain maintenance.

Clackamas County Service District #1

Surface Water Management

Agency of Clackamas County

Description Budget FTE

Employees Budget FTE

Employees Sources

Beginning fund balance 3,099,367$ 116,057$ Service charges 3,725,375 172,540 Interest 15,496 580 Miscellaneous 160,000 15,000

Total sources 7,000,238$ 304,177$ Uses

Business and financial services 206,199$ 0.77 47,974$ 0.20Administration 370,097 0.37 53,433 0.01Capacity management 31,546 0.30 - 0.00Maintenance services 1,100,702 7.39 71 0.00Water quality services 3,522 0.04 - 0.00Environmental monitoring 419,356 1.66 84,483 0.25Technical and development services 2,019,268 9.72 84,861 0.00Transfers for debt service 379,052 Contingency 415,069 27,082 Ending fund balance 2,055,427 6,273

Total uses 7,000,238$ 20.25 304,177$ 0.46


www.fcsgroup.com

SUMMARY Overall, the comparisons with other jurisdictions show that there are some slight differences. There are some differences between the program activities that are emphasized and how they are funded. Because the purpose of the survey was limited to providing an overview of the programs, a detailed evaluation of each program was not performed. Differences among programs can be caused by different funding and resource levels as well as different infrastructure, programs, and financial and program policies and priorities. The following summarizes these differences.

The county service districts surveyed are less focused on public involvement and in post construction runoff control than are county governments.

Marion County has few activities except for road maintenance in the pollution prevention and good housekeeping category, but has more activities than others in post construction runoff control.

The costs of a county-level stormwater program vary considerably from one county to another. This variation can reflect differences in the physical characteristics and the sizes of the stormwater management areas. More often, however, the variation reflects the availability of revenue and, specifically, the extent to which a program must rely on road-related funding.

All counties use funding from the State Highway Fund to support stormwater activities, but Marion also collects a small fee from the East Salem Service District.

Among the stormwater programs we surveyed, service district fees for stormwater range from $1 to $6 per month for a single-family home. For another comparison, the League of Oregon Cities conducted a survey in 2009 of the rates charged by city stormwater programs and found that they ranged from $0.75 (Philomath) to $11.77 (Sherwood) per month for a single-family home.

Lane County Public Works Department Phase I Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study-Program Description January, 2012

www.fcsgroup.com

APPENDIX A- BMP CATEGORY DEFINITIONS

Lane County Public Works Department Phase I Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study-Program Description January, 2012 page A-1

www.fcsgroup.com

BMP Category Definitions

BMP Category DefinitionEducational materials Booklets, newsletters, pamphlets, and websitesInter-agency cooperation Coordination and participation with events and meetings of cities and districtsServices Public service programs like household hazardous waste collectionStaff training Educational efforts directed at county employeesEducational materials Booklets, newsletters, pamphlets, websitesInter-agency cooperation Coordination and participation with events and meetings of cities and districtsListening to public input Facilitating and following up on public inputServices Public service programs like Adopt a StreamSignage Marking of storm drainsVolunteer programs Organizing volunteers to perform water quality work like stream cleaning or water testingInspections and testing Inspecting stormwater infrastructure and testing water qualityInvestigation Follow-up on illegal discharge or dumping that has been discovered or reportedMapping Utilizing GIS to manage the stormwater system more effectivelyOrdinance Drafting and adopting an ordinance to address illicit dischargePrevention Regulation of cross-connections and onsite sewage disposal systemsPublic education Education on proper disposal of toxic substances like used oilPublic reporting of illicit discharge Soliciation and facilitation of public reports of illicit dischargeRemoval Removal of debris and spills that could impact storm sewerResponse to citizens Follow-up on citizen complaints about water quality or stormwater infrastructureStaff training Training field personnel about illicit dischargesEducation Educational programs for construction site operators and/or public works staffEnforcement Inspections and, when necessary, follow-upOrdinance Drafting and adopting an ordinance to address construction site runoffPlanning Plan review and permitting procedures that address construction site runoffEducation Development of BMPs for post-construction runoff controlEnforcement Post-construction runoff control monitoring programOrdinance Drafting and adopting an ordinance to address post-construction runoffPlanning Development standards and review procedures that address post-construction runoffDesign standards Stormwater-related requirements for new developments or capital projectsErosion prevention Prevention of erosion from road maintenance activitiesFlood management Assessing impact of flood management projects on water qualityLandscape management Conducting landscape or vegetation management activitiesMunicipal facilities Stormwater protection plan for municipal facilitiesRemoval Removal of litter and road wasteRoad maintenance Minimizing stormwater impacts from road maintenance activitiesRoad maintenance manual Adoption and implementation of road maintenance standardsStormwater system improvement Retrofitting existing facilities for improved water qualityStormwater system maintenance Inspection and maintenance of stormwater infrastructureStreet sweeping Street sweeping

Pollu

tion

Prev

entio

n an

d G

ood

Hou

seke

epin

g

Publ

ic

Educ

atio

n an

d O

utre

ach

Publ

ic P

artic

ipat

ion

and

Invo

lvem

ent

Illic

it D

isch

arge

Det

ectio

n an

d El

imin

atio

n

Con

stru

ctio

n Si

te R

unof

f C

ontro

l

Post

-C

onst

ruct

ion

Runo

ff C

ontro

l