Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
DIR2005-00001
I/Za OoS -- 'oo® � CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION January 7, 2005 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR DEQ NPDES CWS MS4 DISCHARGE PERMIT RENEWAL I. REQUEST The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has determined Clean Water Services (CWS) must obtain a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) from each local jurisdiction in its service district to determine whether the actions to be taken under the Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for CWS's municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) are consistent with the City's land use regulations. II. BACKGROUND Clean Water Services District is authorized by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality under a NPDES permit to operate individual waste treatment facilities (WTFs) as well as a municipal separate storm sewer system and to discharge storm water. The NPDES was issued through a permit renewal process and does not require a LUCS under OAR 340 - 018 -0050 because it does not involve: (i) a permitted source or activity relating to the use of additional property or a physical expansion on the existing property; (ii) a peiu,itted source or activity involving a significant increase in discharge to state waters or into the ground; (iii) a permitted source or activity involving the relocation of an outfall outside of the source property; (iv) a major modification of an air contaminant discharge permit which means any physical change or change of operation of a source that results in a net significant emission rate increase as defined in OAR 340 - 020 - 0225(25). However, as a precautionary matter, pursuant to a petition from interested parties, DEQ is requesting a LUCS for the MS4 portion of the permit. The following findings are provided in response to that request. The MS4 permit covers an area of approximately 75,000 -acres (117 square miles) including 400 miles of storm drains operated by CWS and an additional 570 miles of storm drains operated by cities, including Tigard, within the CWS service area. Approval of the MS4 permit authorizes CWS to operate an MS4 consistent with the Clean Water Act and federal rules. A separate development or right -of -way permit is required for the actual construction and installation of a stormwater facility. As such, approval of an MS4 permit does not directly authorize development. • III. ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THE PERMIT As required by federal law the MS4 permit includes specific minimum control measures for storm water systems including: (i) Structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from runoff from commercial and residential areas. (ii) A program to detect and remove (or require the discharger to the MS4 to obtain a separate NPDES permit for) illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer. (iii) A program to monitor and control pollutants in storm water discharges to municipal systems from municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities, industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of SARA, and industrial facilities that the permittee determines are contributing substantial pollutant loading to the MS4. (iv) Program to implement and maintain structural and non - structural best management practices to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff from construction sites to the MS4. Additionally, the CWS Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) describes the programs used by CWS to comply with the Clean Water Act and federal rules including: 1. public education and outreach, 2. public participation/involvement, • 3. illicit discharge detection and elimination, 4. construction site runoff control, 5. post - construction runoff control, and 6. pollution prevention/good housekeeping. The SWMP includes specific reference to the legal authority to assure ongoing monitoring, management and enforcement as well as a discussion of the fiscal capacity for purposes of implementing the SWMP. In addition, specific best management practices (BMPs) are set out in the SWMP to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). IV. MS4 PERMIT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The following findings evaluate whether the CWS "system and program ", as describe above and allowed under the MS4 permit, is consistent with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The policies and code standards discussed below touch on storm water issues either directly or indirectly and are therefore relevant for purposes of determining compatibility. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Volume Two, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Chapter 3. Natural Features and Open Space CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 2 January 7, 2005 Section 3.4 Natural Areas Policy 3.4.2(a) The city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible. Finding The System and Program, as outlined in the SWMP and in CWS's Design and Construction Standards (adopted by the city of Tigard (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19)), provide protection of the riparian habitat and erosion control to protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.4, Policy 3.4.2(a). Chapter 4. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Section 4.2 Water Quality Policy 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water Services ' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. Ord. 02-15) Finding CWS's Design and Construction Standards were adopted by the city of Tigard (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19). CWS's Design and Construction Standards (R &O 04 -9) cover the administrative and technical requirements for the design and construction of sanitary and surface water management systems which are built as part of residential or commercial development. All new development submittals within the District's boundaries -- including development within cities - -must comply with these standards. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Section 4.2, and Policy 4.2.1. Chapter 7 Public Facilities and Services Section 7.2 Storm Drainage and Wastewater Management Policies 7.2.1 The city shall require as a pre- condition to development that: A. A site development study be submitted for development in areas subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding which shows that the development is safe and will not create adverse off -site impacts: CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 3 January 7, 2005 B. Natural drainage ways be maintained unless submitted studies show that alternative drainage solutions can solve on -site drainage problems and will ensure no adverse off -site impacts, C. All drainage can be handled on -site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off-site impact; D. The 100 year floodplain elevation as established by the 1981 Flood Insurance Study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be protected; and E. Erosion control techniques be included as a part of the site Development plan. Finding The System and Program includes provisions that address the requirement of a service provider letter for all development on sensitive lands, natural resource assessments for developments on sensitive lands, and that Best Management Practices, including erosion control techniques be included as part of site development plans. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7, Section 7.2, and Policy 7.2.1. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 12.02 Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management. Section 12.02.040 Clean Water Services Rules Adopted. Clean Water Services Resolution and Orders No. 91 -47 (excluding Chapter 2) as amended, Construction Standards and Regulations pertaining to the sanitary sewerage and storm and surface water management systems are adopted and shall be in full force and effect as part of this code. (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19) Finding A portion of the System and Program is expressly incorporated into the City of Tigards' Municipal Code under this chapter. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 12.02.040. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards Section 18.725.020 General Provisions A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non point source pollution CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 4 January 7, 2005 control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. Finding The System and Program is currently permitted under a DEQ NPDES permit. This LUCS is being requested by DEQ for consideration in the renewal of the NPDES permit. As the discharge of matter into streams is the responsibility of CWS and CWS standards have been incorporated into Tigard's Development Code, each use, activity or operation within Tigard is subject to compliance with the applicable state and federal regulations. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.725.020(A). Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening Section 18.745.060 Re- vegetation A. When re- vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed Finding The System and Program contain Best Management Practices for revegetation of disturbed areas. These BMP's are incorporated into the Community Development Code through CWS Design and Construction Standards. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.725.060(A). Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands Sections: 18.775.010 Purpose A. Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. C. Implement Clean Water Service (CWS) Design and Construction Standards. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin in accordance with the CWS Design and Construction Standards, as adopted February 7, 2000. D. Implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources within water quality and flood management CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 5 January 7, 2005 areas and to implement the performance standards of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. E. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). The regulations in this chapter are intended to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule pertaining to wetland and riparian corridors. F. Protect public health, safety, and welfare. ' Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community through the regulation of these sensitive land areas. Findin The System and Program are implemented through this section of the Community Development Code to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin. Other provisions of this section are also implemented by adoption of these standards, including the water resources provisions of METRO's Functional Plan, and the Statewide Planning Goal 5. Implementation of the CWS Design and Construction Standards contribute to maintaining the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. These standards help protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.775.010(A, C, D, E, F). - Chapter 18.790 Tree Removal Section: 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. Finding CWS Design and Construction Standards contribute to the preservation of trees on sensitive lands. These trees help control erosion and maintain water quality. Conclusion The System and Program is consistent with the tree removal provision of the Community Development Code Section 18.790.010(A). CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 6 January 7, 2005 Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right -of -way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Finding The CWS Design and Construction Standards are implemented in these provisions of the Community Development Code to ensure proper storm water management. Conclusion The System and Program is consistent with the storm drainage provision of the Community Development Code Section 18.810.100. V. CONCLUSION The Clean Water Services' "system and program" is consistent with the relevant provision of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 7 January 7, 2005 VI. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS The Code does not currently provide a review procedure that is specific to LUCS. The Director has determined that a Director's Interpretation (TDC18.340) shall be used to provide the findings of fact and conclusion of law required by DEQ for each LUCS. This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the Tigard City Council pursuant to T DC 18.340.020.E. and F. ,,, /7 / Hendryx, Community opment Director / Date Notice of this decision was provided to: James J. Nicita, Attorney for the Interested Parties Tualatin Riverkeepers Willamette Riverkeepers Elizabeth Callison Cynthia C. Eardley Barbara Kemper Attorney CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 8 January 7, 2005 Case Activity Listing 4:43:59PM . 59 TIDEMARK Case #: MIS2004 -00019 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC Assigned. Done Updated - Activity , .Description 'Date I ' Date 2 e Date Hold ° Disp To By By ' ` Notes ' MI S1020 Application received 10/28/2004 None DONE CAC 11/29/2004 Request received from Clean Water CAC Services. MIS1030 Case created 11/29/2004 None DONE CAC 11/29/2004 CAC MIS1040 Planner assigned 11/29/2004 None DONE GBP CAC 11/29/2004 CAC MIS2020 Approved 1/11/2005 None DONE GBP PLL 2/10/2005 A Director's Interpretation (dated PLL 1/7/2005) was signed & issued on 1/11/2005 regarding "Land Use Compatibility Statement Findings and Conclusions for DEQ NPDES CWS MS4 Discharge Permit Renewal." _ THIS IS NOT A LAND USE APPLICATION, PLEASE REFER TO THE 2005 DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATIONS FOUND IN THE PLANNING DIVISION'S CENTRAL FILES. Page 1 of 1 CaseActivity rpt Jli AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IG CITY O TIGARD Community (Devet pment Shapang/7 (Better Community 1, Tatricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn /affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Appropnate Box(s) Below} © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: MIS2004- 00019 /CWS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No /Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exbibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B ", and by reference made a part hereof, on January 12, 2005, and deposited in the United States Mail on January 12, 2005, postage prepaid. / / fk w� (Perso at Pr= fare• (Tice) STATE OT OkEGOW ) County of Washington ) ss. City of 'Tigard ) nd Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the day of , 2005. OFFICIAL SEAL SUE ROSS . ", :: NO TARY PUBLIC OREGON COMMISSION NO, 375152 NOTAB LIB OF OREGON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC. 1, 2007 4 / C4,1), MY Coii 'ssion Expires: / 2- I -Joao 7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION January 7, 2005 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR DEQ NPDES CWS MS4 DISCHARGE PERMIT RENEWAL I. REQUEST The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has determined Clean Water Services (CWS) must obtain a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) from each local jurisdiction in its service district to determine whether the actions to be taken under the Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for CWS's municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) are consistent with the City's land use regulations. II. BACKGROUND Clean Water Services District is authorized by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality under a NPDES permit to operate individual waste treatment facilities (WTFs) as well as a municipal separate storm sewer system and to discharge storm water. The NPDES was issued through a permit renewal process and does not require a LUCS under OAR 340 - 018 -0050 because it does not involve: (i) a permitted source or activity relating to the use of additional property or a physical expansion on the existing property; (ii) a permitted source or activity involving a significant increase in discharge to state waters or into the ground; (iii) a permitted source or activity involving the relocation of an outfall outside of the source property; (iv) a major modification of an air contaminant discharge permit which means any physical change or change of operation of a source that results in a net significant emission rate increase as defined in OAR 340 - 020 - 0225(25). However, as a precautionary matter, pursuant to a petition from interested parties, DEQ is requesting a LUCS for the MS4 portion of the permit. The following findings are provided in response to that request. The MS4 permit covers an area of approximately 75,000 -acres (117 square miles) including 400 miles of storm drains operated by CWS and an additional 570 miles of storm drains operated by cities, including Tigard, within the CWS service area. Approval of the MS4 permit authorizes CWS to operate an MS4 consistent with the Clean Water Act and federal rules. A separate development or right -of -way permit is required for the actual construction and installation of a stormwater facility. As such, approval of an MS4 permit does not directly authorize development. III. ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THE PERMIT As required by federal law the MS4 permit includes specific minimum control measures for storm water systems including: (i) Structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from runoff from commercial and residential areas. (ii) A program to detect and remove (or require the discharger to the MS4 to obtain a separate NPDES permit for) illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer. (iii) A program to monitor and control pollutants in storm water discharges to municipal systems from municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities, industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of SARA, and industrial facilities that the permittee determines are contributing substantial pollutant loading to the MS4. (iv) Program to implement and maintain structural and non - structural best management practices to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff from construction sites to the MS4. Additionally, the CWS Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) describes the programs used by CWS to comply with the Clean Water Act and federal rules including: 1. public education and outreach, 2. public participation/involvement, 3. illicit discharge detection and elimination, 4. construction site runoff control, 5. post - construction runoff control, and 6. pollution prevention/good housekeeping. The SWMP includes specific reference to the legal authority to assure ongoing monitoring, management and enforcement as well as a discussion of the fiscal capacity for purposes of implementing the SWMP. In addition, specific best management practices (BMPs) are set out in the SWMP to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). IV. MS4 PERMIT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The following findings evaluate whether the CWS "system and program ", as describe above and allowed under the MS4 permit, is consistent with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The policies and code standards discussed below touch on storm water issues either directly or indirectly and are therefore relevant for purposes of determining compatibility. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Volume Two, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Chapter 3. Natural Features and Open Space CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 2 January 7, 2005 Section 3.4 Natural Areas Policy 3.4.2(a) The city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible. Finding The System and Program, as outlined in the SWMP and in CWS's Design and Construction Standards (adopted by the city of Tigard (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19)), provide protection of the riparian habitat and erosion control to protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.4, Policy 3.4.2(a). Chapter 4. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Section 4.2 Water Quality Policy 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water Services ' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. Ord. 02-15) Finding CWS's Design and Construction Standards were adopted by the city of Tigard (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19). CWS's Design and Construction Standards (R &O 04 -9) cover the administrative and technical requirements for the design and construction of sanitary and surface water management systems which are built as part of residential or commercial development. All new development submittals within the District's boundaries -- including development within cities - -must comply with these standards. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Section 4.2, and Policy 4.2.1. Chapter 7 Public Facilities and Services Section 7.2 Storm Drainage and Wastewater Management Policies 7.2.1 The city shall require as a pre- condition to development that: A. A site development study be submitted for development in areas subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding which shows that the development is safe and will not create adverse off -site impacts: CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 3 January 7, 2005 B. Natural drainage ways be maintained unless submitted studies show that alternative drainage solutions can solve on -site drainage problems and will ensure no adverse off -site impacts; C. All drainage can be handled on -site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off -site impact; D. The 100 year floodplain elevation as established by the 1981 Flood Insurance Study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be protected; and E. Erosion control techniques be included as a part of the site Development plan. Finding The System and Program includes provisions that address the requirement of a service provider letter for all development on sensitive lands, natural resource assessments for developments on sensitive lands, and that Best Management Practices, including erosion control techniques be included as part of site development plans. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7, Section 7.2, and Policy 7.2.1. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 12.02 Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management. Section 12.02.040 Clean Water Services Rules Adopted. Clean Water Services Resolution and Orders No. 91 -47 (excluding Chapter 2) as amended, Construction Standards and Regulations pertaining to the sanitary sewerage and storm and surface water management systems are adopted and shall be in full force and effect as part of this code. (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19) Finding A portion of the System and Program is expressly incorporated into the City of Tigards' Municipal Code under this chapter. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 12.02.040. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards Section 18.725.020 General Provisions A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non point source pollution CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 4 January 7, 2005 control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. Finding The System and Program is currently permitted under a DEQ NPDES permit. This LUCS is being requested by DEQ for consideration in the renewal of the NPDES permit. As the discharge of matter into streams is the responsibility of CWS and CWS standards have been incorporated into Tigard's Development Code, each use, activity or operation within Tigard is subject to compliance with the applicable state and federal regulations. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.725.020(A). Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening Section 18.745.060 Re- vegetation A. When re- vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. Finding The System and Program contain Best Management Practices for revegetation of disturbed areas. These BMP's are incorporated into the Community Development Code through CWS Design and Construction Standards. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.725.060(A). Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands Sections: 18.775.010 Purpose A. Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. C. Implement Clean Water Service (CWS) Design and Construction Standards. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin in accordance with the CWS Design and Construction Standards, as adopted February 7, 2000. D. Implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources within water quality and flood management CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 5 January 7, 2005 areas and to implement the performance standards of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. E. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). The regulations in this chapter are intended to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule pertaining to wetland and riparian corridors. F. Protect public health, safety, and welfare. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community through the regulation of these sensitive land areas. Finding The System and Program are implemented through this section of the Community Development Code to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin. Other provisions of this section are also implemented by adoption of these standards, including the water resources provisions of METRO's Functional Plan, and the Statewide Planning Goal 5. Implementation of the CWS Design and Construction Standards contribute to maintaining the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. These standards help protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Conclusion The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.775.010(A, C, D, E, F). Chapter 18.790 Tree Removal Section: 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. Finding CWS Design and Construction Standards contribute to the preservation of trees on sensitive lands. These trees help control erosion and maintain water quality. Conclusion The System and Program is consistent with the tree removal provision of the Community Development Code Section 18.790.010(A). CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 6 January 7, 2005 Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right -of -way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runofffrom its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Finding The CWS Design and Construction Standards are implemented in these provisions of the Community Development Code to ensure proper storm water management. Conclusion The System and Program is consistent with the storm drainage provision of the Community Development Code Section 18.810.100. V. CONCLUSION The Clean Water Services' "system and program" is consistent with the relevant provision of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 7 January 7, 2005 VI. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS The Code does not currently provide a review procedure that is specific to LUCS. The Director has determined that a Director's Interpretation (TDC18.340) shall be used to provide the findings of fact and conclusion of law required by DEQ for each LUCS. This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the Tigard City Council pursuant to T DC 18.340.020.E. and F. 7 / GI / I1 /OS /Tim Hendryx, Community C.= : opment Director Date Notice of this decision was provided to: James J. Nicita, Attorney for the Interested Parties Tualatin Riverkeepers Willamette Riverkeepers Elizabeth Callison Cynthia C. Eardley Barbara Kemper Attorney CWS LUCS Director's Interpretation 8 January 7, 2005 EXHIBIT B twPos a Sery ce;�~ , r i� ' 3 CEITI�IE � � M IL , 14, ( „ome tr Mail Only, ,CUIV ancesCoverage °,tiFor�delivery informationgv�sti�o�r `�;websde�at vwvw""usps�cpm� `�s H C S) ` Postage $ IJ ;11 p Certified Fee 2 / Postrnark (Endorsement Rs em en t Required) l Fee , _ " Here emt Req / p Restricted Delivery Fee al (Endorsement Required) ru ru Total Postage & Fees vgy ) F S --- ames J. Nicita, Attorney for Interested ..arties;, do Tualatin Riverkeepers, Willamette Riverkeepacs;'Elizabeth Callison, Cynthia C Eardley, & Barbara Kemper, Attorney 1951 Erie St, #11 Klamath Falls OR 97601 Par 3800 Un 2Q0i •, } , ., Re s e_forinsrtigio, sj q W'v:��r"�S', ylRfP�'ti � f �k �t ' +�COMPLIETE THIS'SECTION ON DELIVER,Y Zt� "� � S isamOMPLE "TE msysECTION ' + " oa av�;6 �;� r�t.. �` iv,,,, a. ��r° is: �k "'a'�us����,s�ai'- `�`!'.��•a� tr a�tiG.v�t its ® Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete AcSOnature / 1 n ❑Agent item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. �( J 4 ❑Addressee MI Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. .B (Printed Name) k C.,Date oLDelivery ® Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, / I` J f I/ or on the front if space permits. J 1 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: _ If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No James J. Nicita, Attorney for Interested Parties c/o Tualatin Riverkeepers, Willamette Riverkeepers, Elizabeth Callison, Cynthia C. Eardley, & Barbara Kemper, Attorney 1951 Erie St , #11 Klamath Falls OR 97601 - 3. Service Type Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number 7003 2E60 0001 6431 1485 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1025es- 02- M-1540 " „USosttll Serv M ” ' C'ERTIFIIE MAI' M RE'CEI� � b '0), `M Q. n [ N o I C P ) • For delryery`" nformat(on,,vts t ouF ebsite at ww v usps m £,, ` to r - 4 elx*1 x a " �s k1 * , ` ;zi ;1 t „ Postage $ CI Certified Fee ; , O Return Reciept Fee . Postmark Cl (Endorsement Required) 7 `) c--- a� Here i I� Restricted Delivery Fee r f --D (Endorsement Required) , f ; ` E, Total Postage & Fees . D Sent To C3 Clean Water Services P- Street, Apt. No.; Attn Nora Curtis or PO Box No, 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway City, State, ZIP +a Hillsboro, OR 97123 FS o, QOun 20 EI a ` 4y ,5 IRMPimstr atroi�, 5' ""t ! P gt " a "¢8 �,' ', '�C:W1{ia-r �i +' n'Tlu'ix t.�' +JC, t S '" i ?, . I.w.t. 1.. el-#' . , ,,w, � n . 0.4 , ,a ="4 e,f, y w Wa> F�'r $EiNDER A COMPLErTE THIS SECATION � , , + COMPi - ETE /41S SECTION ONaDEgIVER. & • s s p, 'ggmw,;od . rl,v,:a+ w* zT of;o t kr . , ra ;; ; fpi -1 , c, F)N �r ,..,:�t'. iCI a . Ptia ,g +"; .555,-1,1 t.L al ^�� ,.4t ST. ti a Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. g a �I item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X (' I l r � Agent D Print your name and address on the reverse ` _ ❑ Addressee so that we can return the card to you. eceived by (Punted Name) C. Date of Delivery t Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, k .. - or on the front if space permits. �f7� \. t (� E '2-/ �; 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No Clean Water Services Attn: Nora Curtis 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. Service Type (lid Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7003 2260 0001 6401 1478 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595- 02- M -154o Gary Pagenstecher Notice - LUCS mm —�r ��.. T _ Page 1 From: "Gary Firestone" <garyf @rccb.com> To: <garyp @ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 11/17/2004 4:13:03 PM Subject: Notice - LUCS The attorney for all the various parties to the various cases is James J. Nicita, 230 S 11th Street, #317, Klamath Falls, OR 97601. He should get notice. You should also probably list the following persons and entities c/o Mr. Nicita, unless you have addresses for them. Tualatin Riverkeepers Willamette Riverkeepers Elizabeth Callison Cynthia C. Eardley Barbara Kemper. F Pagenstecher - Change of Address: " LUBA Appeals_ _ Page From: JAMES NICITA <ag8120 @wayne.edu> To: <billkab @gsblaw.com >, <acourtney @perkinscoie.com >, <ralfred @perkinscoie.com> Date: 12/23/2004 12:00:34 PM Subject: Change of Address: MS4 LUBA Appeals Greetings: I am receiving some courtesy copies of land use compatibility statements (LUCS) regarding the MS4 permits under reconsideration. These have been going to my old address on S. 11th St. in Klamath Falls. I thought the time might be right to notify everyone of my new address for future mailings in the MS4 matter. 1951 Erie St #11 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Kindly relay this address to your clients if they are planning to send me a courtesy copy of their LUCS. Please do not use the address that is in the bar directory. James J. Nicita Attorney for Petitioners CC: "Ris, David" <David Ris @ci gresham.or.us >, Knudsen Larry <larry.knudsen @doj.state.or.us >, <chris_gilmore @co.washington.or.us >, <plivingston @schwabe.com >, < sandra .n.duffy @co.multnomah.or.us >, <mikej @co.clackamas.or.us >, <sharonb @rccb.com >, <garyf @rccb.com >, <cbalfour @chbh.com >, <fhammond @chbh.com >, <dpowell @ci.oswego.or.us >, <lee @ci.wilsonville.or us >, "King, Brian" <BKing @SCHWABE.com >, "Pak, Carrie" <Carrie. Pak @ci. gresham.or. us> ! riaganstecher - Fwd: LACS - Land_I " Compatibility Statement for Local Jurisdk" �s __ ___ _L__ Page C From: Jim Hendryx To: Dick Bewersdorff . Date: 10/28/2004 5:06:42 PM Subject: Fwd: LACS - Land Use Compatibility Statement for Local Jurisdictions Would you follow up on this Thank you Jim Hendryx Phone 503 639 -4171 ext. 2443 Direct dial 503 718 -2443 Fax 503 684 -7297 »> "Trudy Hull" <Hulled @CleanWaterServices.org> 10/28/2004 2:32:44 PM »> The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has determined Clean Water Services (District) must obtain a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUGS) from each local jurisdiction in its service territory as part of the NPDES permit process. The District requests your help in developing a LUCS for the NPDES permit. To assist you, the District is convening a meeting on Thursday, November 4 from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. at the District's Field Operations Center. The Center is located at 2025 SW Merlo Court, Beaverton, OR 97005. Chris Gilmore from Washington County will present the LUCS that Washington County is considering Your attendance is appreciated. Trudy A. Hull Administrative Assistant Clean Water Services 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro OR 97123 503/681 -3600 Direct 503/681 -5109 FAX 503/681 -4438 AGENDA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT MEETING CLEAN WATER SERVICES' FIELD OPERATIONS FACILITY NOVEMBER 4, 2004 1:30 P.M. TO 3:00 P.M. I. Introduction by Jen_Linder, y D 3 6 - 26 V- 15 minutes General Counsel for Clean Water Services DEQ LUCS request - What and Why? II. Presentation by Chris Gilmore, 30 minutes Washington County Counsel, and Peter Livingston with Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt How to prepare individual LUCS'. III. Questions and Discussion 45 minutes Z-lh'U ' • « � s / 67-6 G- s7 C ,n1, G‘j‘---( y / is= fr f Drop s lG /"": �o �. C 61 -' 5 C� Z I (A/ C�- e�16 • 09-? - r� (V1 ire - boCi1'ti113 r II I . • - 11„ I, i L P., ,, Critorpii Lili 450z4.4441 1,4 5114frutioesi.e l! e ezi s IV* i 1 04-1 r . s; w fi44-44"/.--11— ( l I* yv'f"ne L I, fJ Pbs r (6"4R> ))' ? l dsc C. A S l.ocs. k /14/444 r; ;; i jys c rgit' , ,h v�4 1 Da , � `,�-,,, 3f w -tS .. t - �, r r -.-. c..s I 1 ; I+ Apc� 1(.x.5 AAA_ miA . 1, ; i C405 - s 7«ask't 7 .14ytp a, /,.0ec.�o i'�r� - - Lv II' / i r°d J / al 4T ceCYsm.xs]il444 dg�, �rt d4) J5 � { , » /U+�14f �+'� �c0„Q (t i r , / � lriLE 9yC,Gf�GY /t/!� / ?/ SG(7J9C. <lt?�Co s I I 600%.,- 4 (JL/D CLt [ �O V- s 7 ark /d/7 4. l ' i - j 1 . cam►- C �=� I,n Los s ICI 8 % 1 4 �wdl.�j 7 G.Z Ybee� i �� ,'' ReZalt4Z.e- e v frt it c., t.4 e 60a,yied ,,,,,,,:i L ti, .!_glie.21 , at • 6,24, 1. -7-ASZ-44: 4/5/tacfrt ,, ,,1 "1/44i-k4,471-4. n4ds v71 . fait ear 6 11« 1. . 6 4 A 7 -'f'a4 's I h� e C / / C44S ch jilj #5414J/114. 'I ' n I• I . II i� .W12.- o ‘ oo l %J a41 1 I;I: ID - CQ ?go — a/6. z)05-c) I i 1 12 ry.4 " 77 ° 71 149 /4 2 t i 1 1441/1 f2, 7 )7 PV901/ (W)9 /1/ '. 'pd/D- 22-K--1(71" ji-farvr7 )-teev _ y r ryriwnenvic47.5 7 k , v, cp ."1 4*vf. ;2 • -gP i s.v21/11 te j r w4f” 4 11- 77"----1,-.4., ,,/ / r® pipar'1 ° S Gary Pagenstecher_ Notice = LUCS Page 1 I From: "Gary Firestone" <garyf @rccb.com> To: <garyp @ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 11/17/2004 4:1303 PM Subject: Notice - LUCS The attorney for all the various parties to the various cases is James J. Nicita, 230 S 11th Street, #317, Klamath Falls, OR 97601. He should get notice. You should also probably list the following persons and entities c/o Mr. Nicita, unless you have addresses for them. Tualatin Riverkeepers Willamette Riverkeepers Elizabeth Callison Cynthia C. Eardley Barbara Kemper. , TUALATIN Riverkeepers _ 16507 SW Roy Rogers Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140 ‘\ \ . ' - . (503) 590 - www.tualatinriverkeepers.org • fax (503) 590 -6702 • www.tualatinverkeepers.org �"'� email info @tualatinriverkeepers.org il_ - M I I � ! ,g oy ; . �_ November 2004 Dear Friend, As the dust settles on the election results, Tualatin Riverkeepers believe we have our work cut out for us in the upcoming years. That is why I am asking for your support today. Please join us and make a difference for clean water, fish and wildlife in our community. Fifteen years ago a small group of people came together to build a strong, independent voice for water resources in our community. Looking back, Tualatin Riverkeepers has accomplished a great deal successfully advocating for public access to the river, expanding regulatory protection of streams, and restoring over 150 areas of critical habitat. Looking forward, we need to redouble our efforts. Your membership forms the backbone of our efforts to ensure that clean water, fish and wildlife are a thriving part of our community. Basic membership of $35 includes: • Quarterly Green Heron Herald newsletter • Free use of TRK canoes on sponsored trips • Discounts on birding classes • Action alerts, workshop, and timely briefings on issues Or, join at $50 or higher and receive a complimentary signed copy of our book, Exploring the Tualatin River Basin, a Nature and Recreation Guide by Tualatin Riverkeepers. OUR 2005 CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN No Rollback on Protection of Public Resources ek Most alarming is the passage of property rights Measure 3 � f 0 n 37 . I t has created widespread confusion about whether „ . = 0 or not land use regulations will be enforced by local - ,.jK - .,�} jurisdictions. These laws are intended to protect public o- : � ` � { 3 , � - resources. z " - Tualatin Riverkeepers intends to step up our k R �I watchdog efforts and empower citizens to ensure ,t : that policy makers do not roll back local protection rr ..si 2 m • , s s . � - � - of our natural resources. ➢ Address the Biggest Source of Pollution Stormwater runoff from the urban landscape is the single most significant source of pollutants discharged to the Tualatin River and its streams. TRK successfully challenged the recently renewed stormwater permits issued by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). These permits were vague and could not assure that water quality would meet state standards within a clear time frame...if ever. DEQ is now reconsidering the stormwater permits and will reissue them in early 2005. Tualatin Riverkeepers will continue to advocate for the strongest level of water quality protection in the municipal stormwater permits. "Tualatin Riverkeepers are an organized, dedicated and effective community organization, focused like a laser on the goal of improving the water quality and overall environmental health of the Tualatin River watershed. I have been repeatedly impressed by their ability to get things done..." Jeffry Gottfried. Ph.D Educational Recreational Adventures Co- founder of Fans of Fanno Creek ➢ Restoring Critical Habitat We are rolling up our sleeves to get things accomplished. TRK has restored over 150 acres of wetland, riparian, * floodplain habitat that supports the most diverse �� f biological populations. Forging new collaborations ` with Metro regional government, local government, and community groups has enabled TRK to make the _ most of limited resources and provide opportunities t for diverse community involvement. Our projects are models of successful restoration and community N stewardship that reach out to involve our diverse community. r ° -., "I want my little boy to see how wonderful it is to plant a tree and see it grow." Maria Felix Vasquez Tualatin Riverkeepers will expand our collaborative community restoration program to restore critical fish and wildlife habitat, develop a youth restoration education program and ensure diverse community participation. "1 live but a stones throw from the Tualatin River and I have spent countless hours on the water. Tualatin Riverkeepers inspire me to do more to make our little corner of the world a better place to live, not only for humans, but for all living things. TRK is a wonderful model for how people can work together locally to get things done. I'm proud to be a member and supporter of TRK." Ron Ellis Gaut Co- founder, Take Back Tigard You can make a difference for clean water, fish and wildlife habitat. Please join us by becoming a member today and help us in this effort to protect, restore and enjoy the Tualatin River Watershed. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Sue Marshall Executive Director P.S. Your tax - exempt donation of membership will help us meet a matching grant from Meyer Memorial Trust and double the value of your contribution for conservation. P.P.S. As an added incentive, if you join at a $50.00 level or higher, we will send you a complimentary r signed copy of our book: Exploring the Tualatin cr �' n River Basin, a Nature and Recreation Guide by 13sr Tualatin Riverkeepers. w 4 _ The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a community -based organization working to protect and restore Oregon's Tualatin River system. The Tualatin Riverkeepers builds watershed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacy. Gary Pagenstecher - Letter from DEQ rer 'ding Dec 17 date for LUCS.pdf _ __ —_ ._ ____ _ Page 11 � > Department of Environmental uali reg ®n p Q ue i ! = 811 SW Sixth Avenue y' Portland, OR 97204-1390 � q '�, Theodore R. Kulongoski Governor 503 - 229 -5696 TTY 503 - 229 -6993 November 22, 2004 Mr. Charles Logue 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro, OR 97123 RE: Land Use Compatibility Statement considerations for MS4 Permit Dear Mr. Logue, As you are aware, on August 9, 2004, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) notified you that we are, pursuant to a petition from interested parties, reconsidering ' certain aspects of the MS4 permit, including the land use issues associated with the permit. Among other issues, our notice indicated that we intend to improve the documentation showing compliance with DEQ's state agency coordination rules. OAR 340, Division 18.'The purpose of this letter is to clarify the specific information we require from the co- permittees. DEQ believes that all co- permittees should provide a detailed Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) from their appropriate planning jurisdictions. We believe that this . documentation will strengthen and improve DEQ's ability to assert that we have fully complied with the land use coordination requirements of our State water quality law. We recognize that some co- permittees believe that a LUGS is not required because these permits are renewals and that there has been no substantial modification or intensification of the permitted activity. OAR 340 - 018- 0050(2)(b). For these co- permittees, DEQ would also expect to see information and analysis demonstrating that requirements of OAR 340- 018 -0050(2)(b) are met. This information will be reviewed and DEQ will make a determination on the issue when the permit decision is made. DEQ continues to believe, however, that the. revised LUCS should be provided in either case so that LUBA will have alternative bases for upholding DEQ's land use determination. DEQ requests that you provide the re" sed LUCS and any information and analysis you wish to supply regarding the applicability of the permit renewal exception by December 17, 2004. If you have any questions about this LUCS issue, please contact Kevin Masterson of my staff at (503) 229 -5615. Sincerely, / ^ n Mar D. Charles Manager, Water Quality Permits and Compliance Section Cc: Larry Knudsen Mike Kortenhof Neil Mullane KevinMasterson DEC,/ * 17L W - E3 Expiration Date: 1/31/09 Permit Numbers: 101141, 101142, 101143, 101144 &MS4 Page 1 of 60 Pages NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WATERSHED -BASED WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT Department of Environmental Quality Northwest Region — Portland Office 2020 SW 4th Ave., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 229 -5263 Issued pursuant to ORS 468B.050 and Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act ISSUED TO: Clean Water Services and Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation (MS4 permit only) 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway 1400 SW Walnut St Hillsboro, OR 97123 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Four individual permits for the operation of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs), one municipal separate storm sewage system (MS4) permit and individual storm water permits for the Durham and Rock Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Tualatin River watershed have been integrated and consolidated into this document. This represents a change in the traditional approach to regulatory management of the watershed by integrating several program elements of the Clean Water Act into a single document along with water quality trading. This combination allows 1) greater coordination of watershed protection and enhancement programs, 2) greater coordination of watershed assessment and monitoring activities, and 3) greater public involvement. FACILITY NAMES AND LOCATIONS: RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION: Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Basin: Willamette 16580 SW 85 Sub - Basin: Tualatin Tigard, Oregon 97224 Receiving Stream: Ash Creek #; Ball Creek #; Beaverton EPA REFERENCE NO: OR- 002811 -8 Creek #; Bronson Creek #; Butternut Creek #; Cedar Creek#; File Number: 90735 Cedar Mill Creek #; Chicken Creek #; Council Creek #; Dairy GeoLoc: 45.4008 - 122.7919 Creek#; Dawson Creek#; Fanno Creek #; Gales Creek #; Hall Treatment System Class: Level IV Creek #; Hedges Creek #; North and South Johnson Creek #; Collection System Class: Level IV Koll Wetland -3 / 4 ; McKay Creek #; Nyberg Creek#; Red Rock Creek#; North and South Rock Creek #; Summer Creek #; Forest Grove Wastewater Treatment Facility Tualatin River#; Willow Creek#; Waible Gulch #. 1345 Fernhill Road County: Washington Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 LLD: 1226500453377 EPA REFERENCE NO: OR - 002016 - File Number: 90745 GeoLoc: 45.5112 - 123.0907 Treatment System Class: Level IV Collection System Class: Level IV * This water body has been designated water quality limited. Hillsboro Wastewater Treatment Facility # Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Wasteload 770 South First Street Allocations and Load Allocations have been established for Hillsboro, Oregon 97120 these water bodies and all water bodies in the sub - basin. The File Number: 90752 TMDLs for the Tualatin sub -basin establish Wasteload GeoLoc: 45.5137 - 122.9897 Allocations for urban storm water and wastewater treatment EPA REFERENCE NO: OR- 002334 -5 facilities. See Tualatin sub -basin TMDL approved by EPA Treatment System Class: Level IV on August 7, 2001. These allocations are addressed in Collection System Class: Level IV Schedules A and D Rock Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility 3235 SW River Road Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 File Number: 90770 GeoLoc: 45.4952 - 122.9452 EPA REFERENCE NO: OR - 002977 - Treatment System Class: Level IV Collection System Class: Level IV Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System File Number: 108014 EPA REFERENCE NO.: ORS108014 File Number: 108014 etc. Page 2 of 60 SOURCES COVERED BY THIS PERMIT: Outfall Outfall Facility Type of Waste Number Location Durham Advanced Wastewater Treated Wastewater D001 Tualatin R.M. 9.2 Treatment Facility D002 Reclaimed Water Reuse Wet weather outfall D003 Tualatin R.M. 9.2 Raw Sewage D004 Lower Tualatin Interceptor Pump Station Emergency Overflows: Location Beaverton 4150 SW Watson, Beaverton D005 Beaverton Creek Ironwood 11275 NW McDaniel, Portland D006 Cedar Mill Creek Sherwood 19035 SW Pacific Hwy, Sherwood D007 Rock Creek South South Bull Mountain 14400 SW Beef Bend Road, Tigard D008 Unnamed Creek Cipole 9400 SW Cipole Road, Tualatin D009 Rock Creek South Nyberg 6500 SW Nyberg Lane, Tualatin DO10 Nyberg Creek Fox Hills 5700 SW Nyberg Lane, Tualatin D011 Nyberg Creek Borland 4855 SW Borland Road, Tualatin DO12 Saum Creek Orchard Hills 4561 SW Natchez, Tualatin DO13 Saum Creek Saum Creek 20455 SW 65` Avenue, Tualatin D014 Saum Creek Pleasant View 15906 SW Dozier Way, Tigard D015 Unnamed Creek Scholls Country Estates 16381 SW Gearin Court, Tigard D016 Unnamed Creek Victoria Woods 22960 SW Miami Place, Tualatin D017 Hedges Creek Sequoia Ridge 5990 SW Port Orford Street, Tualatin DO18 Saum Creek Meyers Farm 16399 SW Bray Lane, Tigard D019 Unnamed Creek Tektronix 3555 SW Hocken Dr, Beaverton D020 Beaverton Creek Other Emergency Overflows: Manhole # 20910 Cedar Hills Boulevard, Beaverton D021 Beaverton Creek Manhole # 20900 SW Watson and Hall Blvd, Beaverton D022 Beaverton Creek Outfall Outfall Facility Type of Waste Number Location Forest Grove Wastewater Treatment Treated Wastewater F001 R.M. 53.8 Facility F002 Reclaimed Water Reuse Pump Station Emergency Overflows: Location Cornelius 802 S Linden Street, Cornelius F003 Council Creek Pine Lodge 198 S First Street, Cornelius F004 Pine Lodge B Street 1527 B Street, Forest Grove F005 Gales Creek Gaston 600 Main Street, Gaston F006 Tualatin River Cedar Street 1083 Cedar Street, Forest Grove F007 Gales Creek Outfall Outfall Facility Type of Waste Number Location Hillsboro Wastewater Treatment Treated Wastewater HOO1A R.M. 42.9 Facility HOO1B R.M. 43.3 H002 Reclaimed water reuse Pump Station Emergency Overflows: Location: North Plains 9035 NW 307 Ave., North Plains H003 McKay Creek Banks 1 Cedar Canyon Road, Banks H004 Dairy Cr W Fork Oak Village 42230 NW Oak Way, Banks H005 Unnamed Creek Water Quality Laboratory 2550 SW Hillsboro Hwy., Hillsboro H006 Unnamed Creek West Union 29785 NW West Union Rd, North Plains H007 McKay Creek Alderbrook 1601 NW 9 Ave., Hillsboro H008 McKay Creek Enschede 529 SE Alder Court, Hillsboro H009 Tualatin River Other Emergency Overflows: Manhole #17168 SW Hobbs Road @ Council Creek HO10 Council Creek File Number: 108014 etc. Page 3 of 60 Outfall Outfall Facili :Kyrie of Waste Number Location Rock Creek Advanced Wastewater Freated Wastewater RO01 R.M. 37.7 Treatment Facility R002 Reclaimed Water Reuse Wet weather Outfall R003 R.M. 37.7 Pump Station Emergency Overflows: Location: Aloha 03 4850 SW 209 Street. Aloha R004 Butternut Crock Broad Oak 6313 SW Broad Street, Aloha R005 Butternut Creek Cross Creek SW 209 and Rosedale, Aloha R006 Cross & Butternut Creek Rock Creek Ranch 4960 NW Salishan Drive, Portland R007 Rock Creek Rock Creek Ranch 03 20410 NW WestUnion Road, Portland R008 Rock Creek Brighton Townhomes 14802 NW Cornell Road, Portland R009 Willow Creek Bendemeer PI 5080 NW Five Oaks Drive, Hillsboro RO l 0 Dawson Creek Bendemeer 0-2 5670 NW live Oaks Drive, Hillsboro RO1 l Dawson Creek Westmark 2050 NW WestUnion Road, Hillsboro R012 McKay Creek Couptry Haven 23585 NW Jacobson Road, Hillsboro R013 McKay Creek 185 6465 SW 185 Aloha R014 Butternut Creek Fir Grove 1505 SF Duke Drive, Hillsboro 8015 Ditch to Tualatin River Facility lVtui�teigal Separate Storm Sewer System (MSA), All existing and new discharges of storm water from the MS4 within the district boundary of Clean Water Services and within the urban growth boundary of Washington County Facility Storm water discharges from the Rock Creek and Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Permit required according to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40.122.26(b)(14)(ix) Issued in response to Application Numbers; 991614. 991615, 991616 and 991617 received December 29, 1997 and as revised on December 18. 2001, and Iv1S4 Application Number, 989200 received on June I, 2000. These permits are issued based on the land use findings in the permit record. :;' y Neil Mullane, Administrator Date Water Quality Program Northwest Region t. File Number: 108014 etc. Page 4 of 60 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES Until this permit expires or is modified or revoked, the permittee is authorized to construct, install, modify, or operate a wastewater collection, treatment, control, and disposal system. The permittee is authorized to discharge to public waters adequately treated wastewaters only from the authorized discharge point or points established in Schedule A. Additionally, the co- permittees are authorized to implement a stormwater management program to reduce the contributions of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable and to discharge stormwater to the waters of the State. These discharges must conform with all the requirements, limitations, and conditions set forth in the attached schedules as follows: Page Schedule A - Waste Discharge Limitations and Controls 5 Schedule B - Minimum Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 14 Schedule C - Compliance Conditions and Schedules 26 S Schedule D - Special Conditions 28 I Schedule E - Pretreatment Activities 44 Schedule F - General Conditions 46 Unless specifically authorized by this permit, by another NPDES or WPCF permit, or by Oregon Administrative Rule, any other direct or indirect discharge to waters of the state is prohibited, including discharge to an underground injection control system. This permit and its related plans serve as the permittee's implementation plan addressing the wasteload allocation requirements of the Tualatin Sub -basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The term "TMDL" refers to the August 2001 Tualatin Sub -basin TMDL and any subsequent modifications or amendments. The term "permittee" shall refer to Clean Water Services. The terms "co- permittee" and "permittees" shall refer to Clean Water Services and Washington County. Gary Pagenstecher -MS4 Permit Findmgp '�c _ _ Page 1 Gels 04=767 r Exhibit "B" Ordinance 633 I b Page 1 of 8 VU�v X MS4 PERMIT FINDINGS Clean Water Services District is authorized by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") permit to operate individual waste treatment facilities ( "WTFs ") as well as a municipal separate storm sewer system ( "MS4 ") and to discharge storm water. The NPDES was issued through a permit renewal process and does not require a LUCS under OAR 340 - 018 -0050 because it does not involve: (i) a permitted source or activity relating to the use of additional property or a physical expansion on the existing property; (ii) a permitted source or activity involving a significant increase in discharge to state waters or into the ground; (iii) a permitted source or activity involving the relocation of an outfall outside of the source property; (iv) a major modification of an air contaminant discharge permit which means any physical change or change of operation of a source that results in a net significant emission rate increase as defined in OAR 340 - 020 - 0225(25). However, as a precautionary matter DEQ is requesting a LUCS for the MS4 portion of the permit. These findings are provided in response to that request. The MS4 permit covers an area of approximately 75,000 -acres (117 square miles) including 400 miles of storm drains operated by CWS and an additional 570 miles of storm drains operated by cities within the CWS service area. Approval of the MS4 permit authorizes CWS to operate an MS4 consistent with the Clean Water Act and federal rules. A separate development or right -of -way permit is required for the actual construction and installation of a stormwater facility. As such, approval of an MS4 permit does not directly authorize development. As required by federal law the MS4 permit includes specific minimum control measures including: (i) Structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from runoff from commercial and residential areas. (ii) A program to detect and remove (or require the discharger to the MS4 to obtain a separate NPDES permit for) illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer. 04 -767 Gary Pagenstecher - MS4 Permit Findings '�c Page 2 04 -767 Exhibit "B" Ordinance 633 Page 2 of 8 (iii) A program to monitor and control pollutants in storm water discharges to municipal systems from municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities, industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of SARA, and industrial facilities that the permittee determines are contributing substantial pollutant loading to the MS4. (iv) Program to implement and maintain structural and non - structural best management practices to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff from construction sites to the MS4. Additionally, the CWS Storm Water Management Plan describes the programs used by CWS to comply with the CWA and federal rules including: 1. public education and outreach, 2. public participation /involvement, 3. illicit discharge detection and elimination, 4. construction site runoff control, 5. post- construction runoff control, and 6. pollution prevention /good housekeeping. The SWMP includes specific reference to the legal authority to assure ongoing monitoring, management and enforcement as well as a discussion of the fiscal capacity for purposes of implementing the SWMP. In addition specific best management practices ("BMPs") are set out in the SWMP to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). These findings evaluate whether the proposed MS4 permit is consistent with the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan and the Community Development Code. The policies and code standards discussed herein touch on storm water issues either directly or indirectly and are therefore relevant for purposes of determining compatibility. I. Urban Comprehensive Framework Plan The service area covered by the MS4 permit includes only those areas located within the existing Urban Services Boundary. The Urban Comprehensive Framework Plan governs uses and development within this area. The following Washington County Plan Policies and Implementing Strategies relate to water quality: "Policy 6, Water Resources: It is the policy of Washington County to support efforts to preserve and improve the quality of water resources." Finding: The storm water protection goals are consistent with the overall goal of Policy 6 04 -767 - - - -- - - -- -- — - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Gary Pagenstecher - MS4 Permit Findings Page 3; 04-767 Exhibit °B" Ordinance 633 Page 3 of 8 to preserve and improve water quality and its implementing strategies. The MS4 permit assures compliance with DEQ water quality standards by employing Best Management Practices or BMPs to the Maximum Extent Practicable. BMPs are methods (both source control and structural) for controlling pollutants carried in stormwater runoff The SWMP discusses the process for selecting and implementing BMPs. The SWMP also includes: (1) implementation of construction and design standards for the public storm sewer system, (2) an overall maintenance program to assure long -term efficiency of the MS4, (3) an education and outreach program with the public to assist in understanding and limiting the impacts from human activities on the quality of storm water entering the system, (4) participation and public involvement including labeling of public storm drains and promoting the formation of citizen and neighborhood groups to clean and maintain existing stream and wetland resources, (5) providing technical guidance to operators of industrial and commercial facilities as well as municipal landfills to control storm water runoff, and (6) preparing an illicit discharge detection and elimination program. "Policy 10, Biological Resources and Natural Areas: It is the policy of Washington County to protect and enhance significant natural areas." Finding: The MS4 permit and associated SWMP are consistent with Policy 10 and its implementing strategies. The MS4 permit and specifically the control measures implemented by and through the SWMP further the intent of Goal 10 to protect significant natural resources by educating the public, controlling storm water runoff through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and through monitoring and assessment of ambient water quality to assure the long -term viability of these important resources. "Policy 14, Managing Growth: It is the policy of Washington County to manage growth on unincorporated lands within the UGB such that public facilities and services are available to support orderly urban development." Finding: The MS4 permit is consistent with Policy 14 and its implementing strategies. The MS4 permit requires design and construction standards as well as BMPs that are in addition to the overall public facility requirements implemented by and through the Community Development Code. The MS4 permit and the SWMP include management and control of potential pollutants from construction site runoff for orderly provision of public services including storm water control. Note that Article V of the Community 04 -767 [Gary Pagenstecher - MS4 Permit Finding 'lc Page 4' o4a67 Exhibit "B" Ordinance 633 Page 4 of 8 Development Code ( "CDC ") which in part implements the overall purpose of Policy 14 requires compliance with the design and construction standards adopted by Clean Water Services. See CDC §501- 8.1(C). The SWMP incorporates and implements these standards as a condition to the MS4 permit. Approval of the MS4 permit and the associated storm water control requirements are consistent with the overall goal of assuring adequate facilities including storm water drainage. The SWMP discusses compliance with the overall design and construction standards and permitting process implemented by Clean Water Services. "POLICY 15, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SERVING GROWTH: It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities and special service districts, and Metro, to insure that facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by the agency or agencies best able to do so in a cost effective and efficient manner." Finding: The MS4 permit is consistent with Policy 15 and its implementing strategies. The implementing strategies under Policy 15 specifically designate Clean Water Services as the urban service provider for storm water management in Washington County. Washington County, by way of an intergovernmental agreement delegates this responsibility to CWS. The MS4 permit and associated SWMP rely on the important role CWS provides in assuring adequate public facilities are in place to provide a cost effective and efficient system for the collection, control and disposal of storm water runoff. "Policy 27, Drainage Management: It is the policy of Washington County that drainage be managed Countywide through a system which coordinates the activities of County agencies, local jurisdictions and special districts, and addresses both the water quality and quantity aspects of drainage management." Finding: The MS4 permit is consistent with Policy 27 and its implementing strategies. The implementing strategies for Policy 27 specifically require coordination with Clean Water Services in the implementation of countywide Surface Water Management and applicable Federal, State and regional requirements related to drainage management. The MS4 permit and associated Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) assure compliance with federal and state law as well as the Surface Water Management Plan ( "SWM Plan "). The SWM Plan is intentionally designed to deal with urban surface water management 04 -767 - - - - - -- - -- ----------- - - - - - - -- LGa Pagenstecher -MS4 Permit Findings -bc __ _- Page 5J 04 -767 Exhibit "B" Ordinance 633 Page5of8 issues, both quality and quantity. The SWM Plan is discussed in the SWMP and is a required component of the MS4 permit. II. Washington County Community Development Code As an initial matter it is worth noting that the MS4 permit does not propose any specific development and that any construction or installation of public storm water facilities as part of a private development project or as part of a public project in the existing right -of -way will require compliance with the standards provided for in the Community Development Code. As such the issuance of the MS4 permit does not directly require compliance any of the standards provided for in the CDC. The following general findings determine whether the MS4 is compatible with CDC and assume that any future development applications operating under the MS4 permit will obtain any necessary permits at that time. A. ARTICLE IV — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - The development standards are provided for under Article IV of the CDC and include the following: "410 GRADING AND DRAINAGE" The County Land Development Division reviews and administers permits for grading activities. The process and standards for issuing grading permits is provided for under Chapter 410. Under this Chapter all grading must occur consistent with Appendix 33 of the Uniform Building Code as well as the design and construction standards adopted and implemented by Clean Water Services. Proposals for a new building or other major improvement require development review through the County land use rules are required to meet grading and erosion requirements as part of the Land Development review process. Proposals to grade soil or materials in excess of 150 cubic yards, or within sensitive areas, are required to submit grading and erosion control plans for processing through the County Building Services Section, part of the Land Development Division. Based on slope gradient and /or stability of the proposed development site, Building Services may ask the applicant to have an Engineered Grading Permit proposal. 04-767 • L Gary Pagenstecher - MS4 Permit Finding 'oc _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Page 6 I 04 -767 Exhibit "B" Ordinance 633 Page 6 of 8 Proposals to grade soil or materials of total volume less than 150 cubic yards are required to provide erosion control measures and are processed through the County Building Services Section. Sensitive areas include flood areas, riparian areas, wetlands, or steep slopes. All erosion control practices are required to conform to the latest CWS Guidance Manual practices. Activities in Washington County associated with agricultural practices or forest practices are exempt from County review by state law. Typically, an erosion and sediment control plan for controlling the adverse impacts of construction and land development will fulfill the intent of this management measure. The plan should include the following elements: Description of predominant soil types; Details of site grading including existing and proposed contours; Design details and locations for structural controls; Provisions to preserve topsoil and limit disturbance; Details of temporary and permanent stabilization measures; and Description of the sequence of construction. Finding: The MS4 permit is consistent with Chapter 410 of the CDC. The MS4 permit does not authorize any grading without a permit and is therefore in compliance with Chapter 410. Any grading activities conducted for purposes of installing or constructing a storm water facility or any component thereof will be required to obtain a permit consistent with the standards outlined above. The SWMP incorporated in the MS4 permit relies on these local land use standards for purposes of assuring compliance with the Clean Water Act. "421 — Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development" Chapter 421 regulates all development within identified flood plain and drainage hazard areas. These areas are identified in "Flood Plain Series, Washington County, Oregon ". It requires that development is "flood proofed" and it also restricts development to that which minimizes the impact of disturbance or alteration of riparian wildlife and vegetated areas. Under Section 421 -7.6 all cut and fill shall be structurally sound and designed to 04 -767 -- - - -- -- — - - - - -- — - - - - - -- — - - - - -- -- - - -- -- -- - - - - -- - -- _ - - - - - -- LGary Pagenstecher = _MS4 Permit - Finding- - 'oc _ _ _ _ _ T _ Page 04 -767 Exhibit "B" Ordinance 633 Page 7 of 8 minimize erosion. All fill below the flood surface elevation shall be accompanied by an equal amount of cut or storage within the boundary of the development site unless the proposed cut and fill is found to be in compliance with an adopted Drainage Master Plan or certain other provisions. Finding: Consistent with the grading standards discussed above, this chapter further implements the overall policy of managing the impacts of disturbance that would otherwise increase the effects from storm water runoff. No development is directly permitted in the flood plain and as such these standards are not specifically applicable to the activities and uses approved by the MS4 permit. Any future activities will be required to comply with this Chapter. In addition the overall goal of the MS4 permit and its associated SWMP is to reduce the impacts from potential pollutants carried in storm water runoff. "422 — Significant Natural Resources" Chapter 422 permits limited and safe development in areas with significant natural resources, while providing for the identification, protection, enhancement and perpetuation of natural sites, features, objects and organisms within the County, here identified for their uniqueness, psychological or scientific value, fish and wildlife habitat, education opportunities or ecological role. The standards restrict most development with riparian corridors, wildlife habitat areas, water areas and wetlands, and water areas and wetlands & fish and wildlife habitat areas. It does allow street crossings, transportation facilities and enhancement of degraded riparian corridors, water areas and wetlands, or water areas and wetlands & fish and wildlife habitat. Finding: The MS4 permit is consistent with Chapter 422. Approval of the MS4 permit is not inconsistent with Chapter 422 of Article IV. The provisions of the MS4, in particular the BMPs, are consistent with the overall goal of protecting significant natural resources including water areas and wetlands identified on the Washington County significant natural resource maps. Approval of the control measures implemented by the MS4 permit add to the existing local regulations protecting these important resources. "423 - ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" All uses and activities must observe compliance with the environmental standards provided for under Chapter 423. The primary focus of this Chapter is to assure compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws. This is required prior to issuance of any development permit. Section 423 -10 specifically requires all development to comply with the "State Department of Environmental Quality Water 04 -767 ------ - - - -- - - - -- --- - - - - -- -- - -- - -- - - -- -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - - -- ---- - - - - - — LE Pagenstecher - MS4 Permit Findino� roc _ - Page j 04 -767 Exhibit °B" Ordinance 633 Page 8 of 8 Quality Standards for all runoff, drainage and waste water." Finding: Chapter 423 assures compliance with DEQ standards governing runoff. As a result issuance of the MS4 permit is consistent with this Chapter and, in fact, issuance of the MS4 permit is necessary for purposes of authoring development permits within the CWS service area consistent with the Clean Water Act. "426 — Erosion Control" The purpose of Chapter 426 is to implement the administrative rules of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality mandating erosion control measures in the Tualatin River and Oswego Lake sub -basin which are to be applied during construction to control and limit soil erosion. The Ordinance requires that any "development" is required to have an Erosion Control Plan. Finding: The MS4 permit is consistent with Chapter 426. As indicated above, local land use regulations are an important part of the overall MS4 permit and are specifically discussed in the SWMP. Nothing in the MS4 permit authorizes new development without complying with Chapter 426. Any new development will be required to provide an Erosion Control permit. The standards discussed under this Chapter and referred to in the SWMP assure adequate precautions are in place to manage on -site construction during the development process consistent with the Washington County Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Book. B. ARTICLE V — PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES This Article requires minimum public facilities and services to offset the impacts from a proposed development project. Drainage is identified as a critical service along with water, sewer, fire protection and access. Under Section 501- 8.1(C) no development shall be approved without adequate drainage and provision for storm water consistent with the "Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management" as required by Clean Water Services. Finding: This Chapter is consistent with and a part of the overall SWMP and as such the MS4 permit is consistent with Article V. As noted above the MS4 permit does not directly authorize "activities and uses" without first obtaining development approval as may be required under the CDC including the �) provision of adequate facilities consistent with Article V. This provision provides an 04 -767 -- - -- - --- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- — - - - - - - -- — Gary Pagenstecher - MS4 Permit Findinc' roc _ _ _ _ Page 9 04 -767 Exhibit "B" Ordinance 633 Page 9 of 8 important link between development permitting and the technical requirements for assuring storm water control as implemented by and through the standards adopted by Clean Water Services. 04-767 Gary Pagnstecher _CC LUCS.draft_11_5 ^m.doc Page 1 CLACKAMAS COUNTY LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) DISCHARGE PERMIT I. PURPOSE Pursuant to the application requirements for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit renewal ( "MS4 Permit "), DEQ has requested a Land use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) to determine whether the Permit is compatible with the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan (Plan). As the Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) implements the Plan, compatibility with the ZDO is also necessary. The subject request is to authorize the County to implement a storm water management program, including the discharge of storm water, to waters of the state. This request does not include specific development activities nor does it contemplate specific improvements. A LUCS statement supporting a permit renewal is required when one has not previously been provided or if the permit modification factors under DEQ Administrative rules apply. The County has an adopted storm water management plan that is administered by Clackamas County Service District No. 1 (CCSD #1) and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMACC). This plan is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff to the maximum extent practicable, protect and maintain the natural functions and values of the area's surface waters and natural resources, and protect, enhance and promote watershed health in our community. The purpose of these findings and conclusions is to confirm this storm water management program is compatible with the applicable provisions of the County Plan and ZDO. ii. FINDINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The following goals and policies of the Plan are applicable to this analysis: Chapter 3 - Natural Resources and Energy; Water Resources Element 11/15/04 1 Gary Pagenstecher - CC LUCS.draft.11.5 n4.doc _ _ __ _ = _ _ _ _ Page 2 Policy 1.0 Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state to the maximum practicable extent through sound water and land management practices. Consideration shall be given to natural, scenic, historic, economic, cultural, and recreational qualities of the rivers and adjacent lands. Policy 2.0 Apply erosion and sediment reduction practices in all river basins to assist in maintaining water quality. Existing riparian vegetation along streams and river banks should be retained to provide fisheries and wildlife habitat, minimize erosion and scouring, retard water velocities, and suppress water temperatures. Chapter 7 — Public Facilities and Services; Storm Drainage Element Policy 19.0 Require all new developments to meet the development standards of the appropriate service provider. Policy 20.0 Require submission of storm drainage, water quality and erosion control plans prior to approval of all new development, and implementation of such plans. Policy 21.0 Require that urban stormwater runoff be minimized by nonstructural controls, where feasible, to maintain the quality and quantity of runoff in natural drainage ways. These areas may be calculated as part of the required open space. Policy 22.0 Require runoff from impervious surfaces to be collected and treated, as required by the appropriate service provider, prior to discharge to a natural drainage way capable of accepting the discharge. Policy 23.0 Require control measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction. The method of retention and control shall be approved by the appropriate service provider. Policy 24.0 Stabilize drainage ways as necessary below drainage and culvert discharge points for a distance sufficient to minimize erosion created by the discharge. Policy 25.0 Determine the responsibility for installation of storm drainage systems prior to final approval of all new developments. Policy 26.0 Coordinate the review of development applications with the appropriate storm drainage service provider to ensure that approval is not granted in the absence of adequate storm drainage facilities or a mechanism to provide them concurrently with development. 11/15/04 2 -- - -- ---- -- - - -- ---------------- Gary Pagenstecher - CC LUCS.draft.11.5.n4.doe Page 31 III. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE: The following provisions of the ZDO are applicable to this analysis: Section 1008 Section 1022 IV. CONCLUSIONS A. Comprehensive Plan: The Planning staff has reviewed the goals, policies and objectives of the Plan and, based upon this review, makes the following conclusions: 1. Policy 1.0 of the Water Resources element of the Natural Resources and Energy Chapter (Chapter 3) of the Plan advocates maintaining rivers and streams in their natural state to the maximum practicable extent through sound water and land management practices. The subject request contemplates the implementation of a storm water management program that is intended to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. Additionally, this program is designed to protect and maintain the natural functions and values of the area's surface waters and natural resources. Management practices of the program include controlling measures for reducing pollutants in storm water runoff and coordination activities for planning development in the County. To conclude, the goals and objectives of the surface water management program promote management practices that help maintain rivers and streams in their natural state. Consequently, these goals and objectives are compatible with Policy 1.0. 2. Policy 2.0 of the Water Resources element of the Natural Resources and Energy Chapter (Chapter 3) of the Plan encourages the County to apply erosion and sediment reduction practices in all river basins to assist in maintaining water quality. The County's storm water management program promotes best management practices to reduce erosion and sediment discharges to river and stream basins. To accomplish this objective, the program advocates best management practices for controlling erosion and reducing sediments to rivers and streams of the County. These practices are an integral element in maintaining water quality. As a result, the program is compatible with Policy 2 of the Plan. 3. Policy 19.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 7) requires all new development meet the 11/15/04 3 1 1 1 Gary Pagenstecher - CC LUCS.draft.11.5 ^4 .doc _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _� Page 4 development standards of the appropriate service provider. The storm water management plan promotes coordinating the best storm water management practices when considering development plans in the County. The best management practices are administered by Clackamas County Service District No. 1 (CCSD #1) and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMACC). The County development review process includes notification and consideration of these agency's practices pursuant to the requirements of the ZDO. Consequently, the request is consistent with Policy 19.0 of the Storm Drainage element of Chapter 7 of the Plan. 4. Policy 20.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities Services Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 7) requires the submission of storm drainage, water quality and erosion control plans prior to approval of all new development, and implementation of such plans. The Clackamas County Service District No. 1 (CCSD #1) and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMACC) participate in the review of these plans to determine and require the best management practices when considering development. The best management practices for storm drainage, water quality and erosion control are authorized by the County's adopted storm water management program. As a result, this request is compatible with Policy 20.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan. 5. Policy 21.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 7) requires urban storm water runoff be minimized by nonstructural controls, where feasible, to maintain the quality and quantity of runoff in natural drainage ways. The County's storm water management program advocates the best management practices when contemplating how to maintain the quality and quantity of runoff in natural drainage ways. Nonstructural controls are included in these management practices. Consequently, the subject storm water management program is 1 compatible with Policy 21.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan 6. Policy 22.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 7) requires runoff from impervious surfaces 1 to be collected and treated, as required by the appropriate service provider, prior to discharge to a natural drainage way capable of accepting the discharge. The subject storm water management plan includes best management practices that prescribe collection and treatment techniques prior to discharging into natural drainage ways. These techniques include a determination of capability prior to discharging into a drainage way. As a result, the subject request is compatible with Policy 22.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan. 11/15/04 4 - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- rGary Pagnstecher_ CC LUCS,draft._11_5 ^'�.doc Page 5 j 7. Policy 23.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 7) requires control measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction. The method of retention and control shall be approved by the appropriate service provider. The subject storm water management plan includes best management practices for minimizing erosion and sedimentation during construction. Additionally, the specific retention and control techniques are managed by applicable service provider pursuant to the County's ZDO. As a result, the subject request is compatible with Policy 23.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan. 8. Policy 24.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 7) requires the stabilization of drainage ways as necessary below drainage and culvert discharge points for a distance sufficient to minimize erosion created by the discharge. The subject storm water management plan includes best management practices when encountering the need to stabilize drainage ways below drainage and culvert discharge points. Additionally, these practices includes a determination the stabilization techniques will be applied to an areas sufficiently downstream to minimize erosion. This is compatible with Policy 24.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan. 9. Policy 25.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 7) requires a determination for the responsibility for installation of storm drainage systems prior to final approval of all new developments. The subject plan includes coordination elements to allow participation in the County's development review process. This process determines the appropriate agency responsible for reviewing and approving the installation of storm drainage systems prior to final approval of all new development. The review and consideration of these systems occurs pursuant to the requirements of the ZDO. This is compatible with Policy 25.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan. 10. Policy 26.0 requires the coordination and review of development applications with the appropriate storm drainage service provider to ensure that approval is not granted in the absence of adequate storm drainage facilities or a mechanism to provide them concurrently with development. The subject storm water management plan provides elements that determine system adequacy when contemplating new development. Additionally, the management plan contains provisions for requiring improvements necessary to attain adequacy. This determination of adequacy and necessary improvements is considered pursuant to the County's ZDO review process. Additionally, this ZDO process includes a determination of the appropriate storm water management provider. As a result, this is compatible with Policy 26.0 of the Storm Drainage Element of the Public Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan 11/15/04 5 — – - -- — -- - -- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - C C Page 6 j B. Zoning And Development Ordinance: The Planning staff has reviewed this request in reference to the applicable provisions of the ZDO and, based upon this review, makes the following conclusions: 1. Section 1008 of the ZDO implements the goals, policies and objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan. This section authorizes the County to require storm water retention and detention facilities when contemplating proposals for development. The section contains provisions that emphasize the need to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff resulting from development utilizing nonstructural controls, where possible. Additionally, this section includes provisions to maintain and improve water quality, prevent or reduce soil erosion, and prevent or reduce structural and environmental damage. The subject storm water management plan advocates and requires best management practices and adequate storm drainage facilities for development. Additionally, the plan provides for the coordination of service providers. Storm drainage requirements for new development are generally implemented through the provisions of this section. As a result, the subject plan is compatible with this section of the ZDO. 2. Section 1022 of the ZDO implements the County's Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and objectives to ensure adequate public facilities are available prior to, or concurrent with, development. The purpose of this section is to ensure that, among other things, adequate surface water management facility infrastructure is available, or can be provided concurrently, with new development or is available within a reasonable period of time following approval of development. The subject storm water management plan contemplates adequacy of service when considering proposals for development. This adequacy determination is consistent with the provisions of Section 1022. As a result, the subject plan is compatible with this section of the ZDO V. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings and conclusions described in the text of this report, the i Planning staff finds the storm water management plan is compatible with the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan and Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance. As a result, the staff recommends approval for the renewal of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit( "MS4 Permit "). 11/15/04 6 1 GaryYPagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc Page 1 / ?g F. Flee376v vt CITY OF MILWAUKIE DRAFT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT FOR MS4 NPDES PERMIT I. INTRODUCTION The City of Milwaukie, as co- permittee, as applied for renewal of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (MS4 Permit) for storm water collection and discharge. The permit would also authorize or require the City to implement a storm water management program. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has asked the City to provide a land use compatibility statement (LUCS) to determine whether the actions to be taken under the permit are consistent with the City's land use regulations. II. ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THE PERMIT The activities covered by the permit and for which this LUCS is issued consist of two categories of actions. The first category consists of the operations and expansion of the stormwater system. The second category consists of efforts to control the amount and quality of the discharge, including monitoring, active actions by the City to improve water quality (e.g. street sweeping), and regulatory actions by the City (adoption and enforcement of regulations by the City applicable to private landowners and developers). III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This section discusses various Comprehensive Plan provisions applicable to the operation and expansion of a municipal stormwater system and a program to protect water quality. The actions authorized or required by the permit are collectively referred to as "the System and Program." CHAPTER 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES OBJECTIVE #2 - NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS Policy 2 Provide protection to important wetland and water body areas through designation of riparian area buffers between natural resources and other urban development activities. Restrict non -water dependent development within the riparian buffer area. Findings: The System and Program provides protection to wetlands and water -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- Gary Pagenstecher MP4LUCS.doc _ — _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Page 2] body areas by channeling stormwater runoff into appropriate areas, limiting the amount of stormwater runoff, and providing measures to improve water quality. Stormwater discharge points are "river - dependent" and therefore may be located within the riparian buffer area. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Objective #2, Policy 2. Policy 3 Maintain and improve water quality of wetlands and water bodies through regulating the placement and design of stormwater drainage facilities. Findings: The System and Program is a municipal stormwater drainage system that regulates the placement and design of stormwater drainage facilicities. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with and furthers Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Objective #2, Policy 3. OBJECTIVE #6 - DRAINAGE AND STREETS Policy 1 The City will promote the construction of a storm drainage system, with highest priority given to the drainage basins suffering the most severe problems identified on an ongoing basis. Findings: The System and Program provides for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the existing storm drainage system, with additional provision for additional development (construction) of the system as needed to respond to additional development or redevelopment. The System includes an emphasis on curing any problems that may be identified. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with and furthers Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Objective #6, Policy 1. Policy 3 New development will be designed to limit storm drainage runoff outside project boundaries, or will provide a storm drainage and collection system within the I Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc_ - -- — _^ ___ _ ___ Page 3 l project. Findings: As part of the System and Program, the City has developed regulations that limit storm drainage runoff from new development and require on- site systems were needed to prevent off -site impacts. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with and furthers Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Objective #6, Policy 3. Policy 4 The City will cooperate with other affected agencies in exploring regional solutions to the storm drainage problem. Findings: The City is a co- permittee with the County and other local governments, and the City's System and Program is coordinated on a regional level. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with and furthers Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Objective #6, Policy 4. Policy 5 The City will restrict development within drainageways to prevent erosion, regulate stormwater runoff, protect water quality, and protect and enhance the use of drainageways as wildlife corridors. Findings: The System and Program include measures to restrict development within and otherwise protect drainageways. The System and Program are not inconsistent with the use of drainageways as wildlife corridors. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with and furthers Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Objective #6, Policy 5. IV. ZONING ORDINANCE Section 19.322.1B It is the intent of this chapter to ensure protection of the functions and values of water quality resource areas at the time of development. Findings: The System and Program provide for protection of the function and values of water quality resource areas by imposing standards relating to stormwater for all development. Indeed, Chapter 19.322 is part of the _Gary Pagerstecher - MP4LUCS.doc Page 4j Program. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with the purpose of protection water quality resource areas function and values. Section 19.322.1E This chapter provides protection for natural resources that have been identified for the purposes that have been identified for the purposes of implementing Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 3. Findings: The System and Program provide protection for both designated natural resources and for other areas. Chapter 19.322 is part of the Program. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with Section 18.322.1E. Section 19.322.4 Activities Permitted Outright The following activities are permitted outright in the water quality resource area and therefore do not require approval under the provisions of this chapter except if they result in direct stormwater discharges to the water quality resource area. A. Stream, wetland, riparian and upland enhancement or restoration projects and developments in compliance with a natural resource management plan or mitigation plan approved by the planning commission. D. The normal maintenance and repair of existing structures, utilities, access, streets, driveways and parking improvements including asphalt overlays. G. Maintenance of public and private storm drainage facilities in accordance with a management plan approved by the planning commission. H. Other activities similar to the above that are determined by the planning director to be consistent with the purpose and policies of this chapter and which have also been found to have no appreciable impact to the water quality resource area. Findings: The System and Program include actions that involve enhancement and restoration, maintenance of drainageways and related facilities, and Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc similar activities. Conclusion: Most actions to be taken pursuant to the System and Programs are outright permitted activities under Section 19.322.4. Section 19.322.6 Activities Permitted Under Type II Review The following activities are allowed in the water quality resource areas subject to approval by the planning director under Section 19.1011.2 Type 11 review and compliance with Section 19.322.10 Development Standards. A. Improvement of existing public utility facilities where: 1. The disturbed portion of the water quality resource area is restored; and 2. Non - native vegetation within the disturbed area is removed from the water quality resource area and replaced with vegetation from the Milwaukie native plant list. B. Any activity allowed under 19.322.4(A) and 19.322.4(B) that increases direct stormwater discharges to the water quality resource area. Findings: The System and Program may involve some activities that are required to obtain Type II Review approval. It is feasible to obtain those approvals because the activities that the System and Program can be designed to meet the standards imposed by this and other relevant sections. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with this provision because any portion of the System and Program requiring a Type II approval may obtain one. This requirement is part of the Program. Section 19.322.7 Activities Permitted Under Minor Quasi - Judicial Review The following activities are allowed within the water quality resource areas subject to approval by the planning commission under 19.1011.3 minor quasi - judicial review and compliance with Section 19.322.10 Development Standards: A. Any activity allowed in the base zone other than those listed in Sections 19.322.4(A) through (C). Gary Pagenstecher _ ___ ___________ Page 6 C. New public or private utility facility construction. E. New stormwater detention, retention or pre- treatment facilities. Findings: The System and Program may involve some activities that are required to obtain Minor Quasi- Judicial Review approval. It is feasible to obtain those approvals because the activities that the System and Program can be designed to meet the standards imposed by this and other relevant sections. Conclusion: Sections 19.322.4, 19.322.6, and 19.322.7 together authorize all activities likely to be engaged in by the System and Program. All activities under the System and Program authorized by the Zoning Ordinance, although some further land use approvals may be required for specific actitivities. It is feasible to obtain those approvals. 19.322.10 Development Standards. 1. Applications for development or land disturbance on properties that contain water quality resource areas shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: A. The water quality resource area shall be restored and maintained in accordance with the mitigation plan and the specifications in Table 2. B. To the extent practicable, existing vegetation shall be protected and left in place. Work areas shall be carefully located and marked to reduce potential damage to the water quality resource area. C. Where existing vegetation has been removed, the site shall be revegetated as soon as practicable. D. Prior to construction, the water quality resource area shall be flagged, fenced or otherwise marked and shall remain undisturbed except as may be allowed by this chapter. Such markings shall be maintained until construction is complete. E. Stormwater pre- treatment facilities: 1. The stormwater pre- treatment facility may encroach a maximum of twenty -five (25) feet into the outside boundary of the water quality resource area of a primary water feature; and - - i Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc _ _ _ , _ ^ Page 7 j 2. The area of encroachment must be replaced by adding an equal area to the water quality resource area on the property. F. Additions, alterations, rehabilitation and replacement of lawful structures. 1. For existing structures, roadways, driveways, accessory uses and development which are nonconforming, this chapter shall apply in addition to the nonconforming use regulations of the city. 2. Additions, alterations, rehabilitation or replacement of existing structures, roadways, driveways, accessory uses and development shall not encroach closer to the protected water feature than the existing structures, roadways, driveways, accessory uses and development. G. Off -site Mitigation. Offsite mitigation shall not be used to meet mitigation requirements of this chapter. H. Site preparation and construction practices shall be followed that prevent drainage of hazardous materials or erosion, pollution or sedimentation to the adjacent water quality resource area. 1. Where practicable, the types, sizes and intensities of lights must be placed so that they do not shine directly into the natural resource locations. J. Where proposed, development of trails, rest points, viewpoints and other facilities for the enjoyment of the resource must be done in such a manner so as to reduce impacts on the natural resource while allowing for the enjoyment of the resource. K. Areas of standing trees, shrubs, and natural vegetation will remain connected or contiguous, particularly along natural drainage courses, except where mitigation is approved, so as to provide a transition between the proposed development and the natural resource, provide opportunity for food, water and cover for animals located within the water quality resource. L. Storm water flows as a result of proposed development within and to natural drainage courses shall not exceed pre - development flows. M. Road crossings of major natural drainage courses will be minimized as - -- - - - - -- — -- Gary Pagenstecher MP4LUCS.doc `_ _ __ __ Page 8 + much as possible. N. The construction phase of the development must be done in such a manner to safeguard the resource portions of the site that have not been approved for development. Findings: These standards are part of the Program and the System and Program are therefore consistent with these standards. All activities undertaken as part of the System and Program will comply with these standards. It is feasible to comply with these standards. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with the standards in Section 19.322.10 because the System and Program do not include any activities that will be conducted contrary to the standards of this section. Because this section is part of the Program, the Program will be conducted to these standards. CHAPTER 16.28 - EROSION CONTROL Section 16.28.010 General policy. A. The policies of this chapter shall apply during construction and until permanent measures are in place following construction as described herein, unless otherwise noted. 8. Temporary and permanent measures for all construction projects shall be required to lessen the adverse effects of erosion and sedimentation. The owner or his /her agent, contractor, or employee, shall properly install, operate and maintain both temporary and permanent works as provided in this section or in an approved plan, to protect the environment during the useful life of the project. These erosion control rules apply to all lands within the City of Milwaukie. C. Nothing in this chapter shall relieve any person from the obligation to comply with the regulations or permits of any federal, state, or local authority. D. Maintenance and repair of existing facilities shall be the responsibility of the owner of record. E. Erosion, sedimentation, and other pollutants reaching the public storm and /or surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, filling, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion shall be prevented. Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc Page 9j F. No visible or measurable erosion shall leave the property during construction or during activity described in (E) above. The owner of the property, together with any person who causes such action from which the visible or measurable erosion occurs, shall be responsible for clean up, fines, and damages. Clean up responsibilities include clean up of creeks, drainage ways, or wetlands impacted by a project. For the purposes of this chapter "visible and measurable erosion" includes, but is not limited to: 1. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding one -half cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge, or as a result of the action of erosion; 2. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment - laden flows; or evidence of onsite erosion such as rivulets or bare soil slopes, where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on the site, and /or; 3. Earth slides, mud flows, earth sloughing, or other earth movement which results in material leaving the property. G. Dust and other particulate matters containing pollutants can settle on property and be carried to waters of the state though rainfall or other means. Dust shall be minimized to the extent practicable, utilizing all measures necessary, including, but not limited to: 1. Sprinkling haul and access roads and other exposed dust - producing areas with water; 2. Establishing temporary vegetative cover; 3. Placing wood chips or other effective mulches on vehicle and pedestrian use areas; 4. Use of covered haul equipment; and /or 5. Prewetting cut and borrow area surfaces. Findings: This section is part of the Program. Any activities that are part of the System and Program will be conducted consistent with these standards. { Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with this section because the System and Program do not include any activities that will be conducted contrary to the standards of this section. Because this section is part of Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc _ ______ __ __ _ _ _ _ Page 101 the Program, the Program will be conducted to these standards. Section 16.28.020 Erosion control permit and erosion control plans-- Applicability -- Conformance. A. Definitions. 1. "Erosion control permit" means the official approval issued by the city that demonstrates compliance with this chapter for activities described in the application form, erosion control plan, and related materials submitted pursuant to this chapter. 2. "Erosion control plan" means all documents, maps, plans and other information specified in Section 16.28.030 and submitted in association with an application for an erosion control permit. B. An erosion control plan that meets the requirements of Section 16.28.030 is required prior to any approval of an erosion control permit. C. An erosion control permit is required as follows: 1. Prior to placement of fill, site clearing, or land disturbances including but not limited to grubbing, clearing or removal of ground vegetation, grading, excavation, or other activities, any of which results in the disturbance or exposure of soils exceeding five hundred square feet. 2. For disturbed areas or exposed soils less than five hundred square feet, where the city has determined that site conditions may result in visible and measurable erosion and where the city has provided written notice of the requirement to obtain an erosion control permit to the property owner. Upon notice by the city, all work shall cease pending approval of an erosion control permit and installation of approved erosion control measures. 3. For any lot designated a Natural Resource Overlay Zone pursuant to Milwaukie Zoning Ordinance Section 322, an erosion control permit shall be required prior to placement of fill, site clearing, or land disturbances including but not limited to grubbing, clearing or removal of ground vegetation, grading, excavation, or other activities, any of which has the potential for, or results in visible and measurable erosion, regardless of the area of disturbance. D. An erosion control permit shall not be issued for activities on lots zoned Natural Resource Overlay, where the site activity has not been authorized, or is not exempt Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc s Page 11 under the provisions of Milwaukie Zoning Ordinance Section 322, Natural Resource Overlay Zone as determined by the Planning Director. This provision does not apply where the erosion control permit is associated with correction of a violation of city code or as necessary for public safety, or the protection of property or water quality. E. Timing. Approval of the erosion control permit is required prior to the following, whichever comes first: 1. Issuance of grading permits, building permits, and approval of construction plans for subdivision; or 2. Placement of fill, site clearing, land disturbances including but not limited to grubbing, clearing or removal of ground vegetation, grading, excavation, or other activities, any of which disturbs or exposes soil. F. Erosion control measures set forth in any approved erosion control plan shall be implemented and maintained on the site until the date set forth in the plan, or the amended date as necessary for the establishment of final landscaping. The city may allow for the removal of erosion control measures at an earlier date if erosion control is assured by established landscaping. Findings: This section is part of the Program. Any activities undertaken as part of the System and Program that require an erosion control permit will obtain an erosion control permit and will comply with the stated erosion control standards. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with Section 16.28.020. Section 16.28.030 Contents of erosion control plan and general requirements. A. Erosion control plans shall include a description of erosion control methods that are adequate to ensure that runoff siltation and pollutants from the grading, site clearing or construction are contained onsite during the period of activity on the site until the final landscaping is sufficiently established to control erosion. Each plan shall contain a date which is the estimated ending date for maintaining erosion control measures. That date may be extended if final landscaping has not been sufficiently established to control erosion. Plan submittal requirements, and recommended erosion control measures, are included in the Clackamas County /City of Milwaukie Technical Guidance Handbook for Erosion/ Sedimentation Control Plans (August 1991) (Guidance Handbook), which is hereby adopted in total as part of this chapter. Copies of the Guidance Handbook are available for a fee at the city public works department. Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc _ _ _ Page 12 B. At a minimum the Erosion Control Plan shall include: 1. The methods and /or facilities to be used to prevent erosion and pollution created from the development both during and after construction (site - specific considerations shall be incorporated); 2. Limits of clearing by flagging boundaries in the field before starting site grading or construction (staging areas shall be included); 3. An analysis of source controls such as detention and storage techniques during construction showing existing contours as an alternative method to control erosion from stormwater runoff; 4. A drainage plan during construction; 5. Existing contours as well as all sensitive areas, creeks, streams, wetlands, open areas and areas of natural riparian vegetation pursuant to Chapter 322; and 6. A description of historic localized flooding problems resulting from surface water runoff, FEMA or flooding problems known to the community or the local jurisdiction. C. A site plan prepared by an Oregon registered engineer shall be required for sites with disturbed area of five acres or greater. D. Additional measures required by Subsection (C) above may include one or more of the following: 1. Limited area cleared at any one time; 2. Additional drainage requirements during construction; 3. Filtering or treatment of runoff; 4. Additional water quality measures; • 5. Additional erosion control to cover portions of the site; 6. Maintaining some existing vegetation adjacent to water features, such as creeks, streams and wetlands or areas of natural riparian vegetation pursuant to Chapter 322; Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc r _ __ __ _ _ _ Page 13 7. Additional facilities to reduce volume and velocity of water runoff; 8. If there are no workable alternatives, limit clearing and grading in some areas between November 1 and April 30; and 9. Additional measures required by the Guidance Handbook. E. All construction activities disturbing five or more acres shall obtain an NPDES erosion control permit for construction activities issued by the City of Milwaukie. Findings: Section 16.28.030 is part of the Program. Any activities under the System and the Program that are required to include an erosion control plan will include an erosion control plan. Any activities under the System and Program will be carried out consistent with the substantive standards of this section. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with Section 16.28.030. Section 16.28.050 Maintenance and amendment of inadequate measures. The applicant shall maintain all facilities required by an approved erosion control plan so as to assure their continued effectiveness during construction or other permitted activity. If the facilities and techniques approved in an erosion control plan are not effective or sufficient as determined by the city' s site inspector, the permittee shall submit a revised plan within three working days of written notification by the city. In cases where erosion is occurring, the city may require the Applicant to' implement interim control measures prior to submittal of a revised erosion control plan and without limiting the city' s right to undertake enforcement measures. Upon approval of the revised plan by the city, the permittee shall immediately implement the revised plan. Findings: Any facilities developed pursuant to the System and Program will be maintained as required by Section 16.28.050. This section is part of the Program. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with Section 16.28.050. Section 16.28.090 Inspection. The erosion control measures shall be installed by the owner or their representative and shall be inspected by the city prior to the start of any excavation work. - - - - - -- - - - - -- FGa Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc Page 1 Findings: Any System and Program activities requiring an inspection will receive an inspection. This provision is part of the Program. Conclusion: The System and Program complies with Section 16.28.090. Section 16.28.100 Deposit of sediment. No person shall drag, drop, track, or otherwise place or deposit, or permit to be deposited, mud, dirt, rock or other such debris upon a public street or into any part of the public storm and surface water system, including natural drainage systems, or any part of a private storm and surface water system which drains or connects to the public storm and surface water system, with the exception of sanding for ice and snow and maintenance such as crack or chip sealing. Any such deposit of material shall be immediately removed using hand labor or mechanical means. No material shall be washed or flushed into the road /street or any part of the storm or surface water system without erosion control measures installed to the satisfaction of the city, and any such action shall be an additional violation. Findings: Any activities carried out under the System and Program will comply with this provision, which is part of the Program. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with Section 16.28.100. Section 16.28.110 Enforcement -- Violation -- Penalty. A. The engineering director or designee shall enforce the provisions of this chapter. B. Beginning or continuing site - clearing, grading or construction activities without an approved erosion control plan required by this chapter constitutes a violation of this chapter. Failure to implement the erosion control measures set forth in the approved erosion control plan constitutes a violation of this chapter. No building shall be certified for occupancy if the property is deemed to be in violation of this chapter. Any person convicted of violating this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars. Each day that such violation exists shall be deemed a separate violation of this chapter. Findings: Nothing in the System or Program would constitute a violation as described in Section 16.28.110. This section is part of the Program. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with Section 16.28.110. V. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS Gary Pagenstecher - MP4LUCS.doc Page 15 1 The Code does not currently provide a procedure that is specific to LUCSes. The System and Program cover every square inch of both public and private property in the City. The Program includes City regulations applicable throughout the City. Therefore, the City concludes that the adoption of this LUCS is a legislative decision. ZO 19.1011.5 provides in relevant part: Legislative actions provide for the establishment and modification of legislative land use policies and plans. This includes, but is not confined to a zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan text amendment, adoption of a neighborhood plan or area design guidelines, or establishment of a plan district. The City interprets this provision as applying to LUCSes for actions that involve city- wide programs. Many aspects of the Program have previously been adopted as legislative actions, and the review of the overall Program as part of the LUCS remains legislative. The City Council further concludes, based on its interpretation of ZO 19.1011.1, 19.1011.2, 19.1011.3 and 19.1011.4 and other provision of the code that the decision approving the LUCS is not a Type I Administative Review, not a Type II Administrative Review, not a Minor Quasi- Judicial Review, and not a Major Quasi - Judicial Review. The City provided notice and hearings consistent with ZO 19.1011.5. VI. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS The City may amend some of its land use provisions that are applicable to the System and Program. However, those provisions are part of the Program, and the Program would therefore remain consistent with applicable use regulations. Because the System is required to be consistent with the Program, the System also would remain consistent with applicable land use regulations. VII. CONCLUSION Nothing in the System and Program is inconsistent with any provision of the City's Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations. $ i 1 ' 1 Gary Pagenstecher -Final cover. pdf Page 1 MS4 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for ufn Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County 155 North First Avenue Suite 270 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 -3072 June 2,2000 Prepared by URS CORPORATION 111 SW Columbia, Suite 900 Portland, O R 97201 52- 09980041 • Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume^+. pdf Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary _ _ _ _.._ ES -1 Section 1 Overview of MS4 Stormveter Management Plan _ 1 -1 1.1 Introduction 1 -1 1.1 1 Purpose of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan 1 -1 1.1.2 Intended Users /Readers 1 -2 1.1.3 Organization of this Document 1 -2 1.1.4 Relationship between the MS4 Permit, this MS4 Storm Water Management Plan, and USA's Surface Water Management Framework 1 -2 1.1.5 General Background of Stormwater Programs in Washington County 1 -3 1.2 Phase 1 Municipal Stormwater Permit Requirements 1 -4 1.3 Other Regulations 1 -4 1.3.1 Clean Water Act: TMDL Requirements 1 -5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act Section 404 Requirements 1 -5 1.3 3 The Endangered Species Act Requirements 1 -6 1.3.4 Oregon Removal /Fill Laws . ............................... ..... 1 -6 1.3.5 Land Use and Land Management Laws. 1 -6 1.4 Stormwater Quality Issues and Historical Background of Stormwater Management Plan 1 -6 1.4.1 Water Quality Concerns in Local Receiving Waters: Current TMDL Constituents. 1 -6 1.4.2 Water Quality Conerns in Local Receiving Waters Potential Expansion of TMDL Constituents 1 -7 1.4.3 Other Urban Pollutants 1 -8 1.4.4 History ........... .. ......1 -9 1.5 Regulatory Roles and Responsibilities 1 -10 1.5.1 General 1 -10 1.5.2. Agencies with MS4 Regulatory Authority 1 -11 Section 2 Program Management _ _ 2 -1 2.1 General 2 -1 2.2 Introduction to Co- permittees and Coverage of MS4 Permit and MS4 Stormwater Management Plan 2 -1 2.2.1 Co- Permittees' Respective Organizations 2 -1 2.2.2 Co- Permittees' Respective Jurisdictions and Missions 2 -5 2.2.3 Co- Permittees' Properties, Facilities, and Activities 2 -7 U \Leg eAStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6 -2 -00 Final DOcume t doc\ 2 -JUN -00\ [Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocumP pdf _ Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.3 Coordination Among Co-Perm tees and Other Program Participants 2 -9 2.4 Selection of BMPs 2 -12 2.4.1 General 2 -12 2.4.2 Initial Process for Identifying /Evaluating /Approving / Implementing BMPs 2 -12 2.4.3 Process for Identifying /Eval uating /Approving New BMPs 2 -13 2.5 Coordination with Other Municipal Entities Outside MS4 Permit Area ..2-16 Section 3 USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Plan _ 3 -1 3.1 General 3 -1 3.2 Legal Authority .......... ...... 3 -1 3.2.1 Basis for USA's Legal Authority 3 -1 3.2.2 USA /City Agreem 3 -2 3.2.3 USA /County Agreement 3 -2 3.2.4 Authority to Control Construction Site Runoff and Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity 3 -3 3.2.5 Authority to Prohibit Illegal Discharges 3 -5 3.2.6 Authority to Control Spills and Dumping 3 -5 3.2.7 Authority to Control Contribution of Pollutants from One Part of the Urban Area to Another . 3 -6 3.2.8 Authority to Require Compliance with Conditions 3 -7 3.2.9 Authority to Carry Out Inspection, Surveillance and Monitoring Procedures 3 -7 3.3 USA's MS4 BMPs and Other Procedures and Program Elements 3 -8 3.4 Non - Stormwater Discharges 3 -11 3.4.1 Chlorinated Water Discharges '3 -11 3.4.2 Groundwater 3 -11 3.4 3 Permitted Industrial Discharges 3 -12 3.4.4 Illicit Connections 3 -12 3.5 Fiscal Resources 3 -12 Section 4 Washington County's MS4 Stormwater Management Program _ 4 -1 4.1 General 4 -1 4.2 Legal Authority 4 -1 4.3 Washington County's MS4 BMPs and Other Procedures and Program Elements 4 -2 4 4 Washington County's Non - Stormwater Discharges 4 -3 4.4.1 Groundwater 4 -3 4.4.2 Permitted Industrial Discharges 4 -3 4.4.3 Illicit Connections 4 -3 4.5 Fiscal Resources ........ 4 -3 U \Leg aAStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6-2.00 Final Document doc\ 2 -JUN -00\ [Gary Pagenstecher 7 "6-2- - 0 - C Final DocumF pdf Page_3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 5 Monitoring, Program Evaluation, and Reporting _5 -1 5.1 General 5 -1 5.2 Monitoring and Studies 5 -1 5.2.1 Monitoring Program for the Current MS4 Permit (1995 to 2000) 5 -2 5.2.2 Proposed Monitoring Program for the Renewed MS4 Permit (2000 to 2005) 5 -2 5.2.3 Program Evaluation /Refin ement Process 5 -3 5.2.4 Other USA Monitoring Programs 5 -3 5.3 Annual Report . 5 -6 5.4 Application for Permit Renewal (Year 2005) 5 -6 Section 6 USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets _ _ _ 6 -1 Section 7 Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets _ _ _..7 -1 Appendix 1 Maps of Co- permittees' Jurisdictions and MS4 Permit Area Appendix 2 Relationship of 1990 BMPs and 2000 BMPs Appendix 3 USA's Surface Water Management Framework List of Tables Table 1 -1 Water Quality Limited Streams in the Tualatin Basin Table 1 -2 Historical Summary Table 3 -1 Authority to Prohibit Illicit Discharges Table 3 -2 Authority to Prohibit Illegal Dumping Table 3 -3 Authority to Enter into Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) Table 3 -4 Authority to Require Compliance with Conditions Table 3 -5 Authority to Carry Out Inspections, Surveillance, and Monitoring Procedures Table 5 -1 BMP Evaluation Methods List of Figures Figure 2 -1 USA Organizational Chart Figure 2 -2 Washington County Organizational Chart Figure A -1 -1 MS4 Permit Area Figure A -1 -2 USA MS4 Areas U 1LeyattStormweterManag amen PIan16 -2 -00 Final Document don\ 2- JUN -00\ Gary Pag-enstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docump ^+.pdf - Page TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure A -1 -3 Washington County MS4 Areas Figure A -1 -4 MS4 NPDES PermitArea — USA & Washington County _ U \Leg a■StormwaterMenag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doc\ 2- JUN -001 iV [Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final m Docuf pdf _- P age 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms BMP Best Management Practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DLID Drainage Local Improvement District DLUT Department of Land Use and Transportation DMA Designated Management Agency DSL Division of State Lands EQC Oregon Environmental Quality Commission ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Equivalent Service Unit IGA Intergovernmental Agreement MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OAR Oregon Administrative Rule OD Oregon Department of Forestry ODOT Oregon Department of Transportatio n SDC System Development Charges SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SWM Surface Water Management SWMP Storm Water Management Plan TIF Traffic Impact Fees TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load UGB Urban Growth Boundary USA Unified Sewerage Agency USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WLA I Wasteload Allocations U \Leg eAStormwa ter Manag ernent Plan 162 - 00 FneI Daument doc\ 2JUN -00\ v Gary Pagenstecher 6 -2 -00 Final Docum� ^t.pdf _ Page 6' Executive Summary ES -1.1 INTRODUCTION The background and the purpose of this document is described in Section 1.1. This Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Stormwater Management Plan was developed by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) of Washington County and Washington County, Oregon. USA and Washington County are Co- permittees in an NPDES stormwater permit that was issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 1995. These entities are applying for a permit renewal and have developed this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan to describe the programs they will use to meet their respective Federal Clean Water Act requirements for municipal separate storm sewer systems. The purpose of this plan is to provide important background information on the Co- permittees, their respective organizations, their respective jurisdictions and responsibilities, and the practices and procedures they use to meet their missions, goals, and objectives, while complying with a variety of other Federal, State, and regional environmental requirements beyond those just governing stormwater control operations. This plan was written to provide information to the following principal audiences: • Regulatory agency personnel within the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon DEQ, to provide for a better understanding of the Co- permittees' respective agencies, and of the practices and procedures the Co- permittees utilize to meet the requirements of the MS4 regulations. This Plan is also intended to provide regulatory agency personnel with an understanding of how these MS4 practices and procedures relate to the Co- permittees' efforts to comply with other Federal, state, and regional environmental requirements as well as their respective internal environmental goals and mission objectives. • Managers and staff of the Co- permittees, to provide for a better understanding of the implementation of the practices and procedures to meet the requirements of the MS4 regulations • Members of the general public, who will also benefit from a better understanding of the Co- permittees, their respective MS4 stormwater management practices and procedures, and how these relate to a broad spectrum of other environmental protection activities that the Co- permittees conduct to meet their own objectives and to comply with other environmental requirements Section 1.1 also provides an overview of stormwater program elements and activities in urban Washington County. USA's Surface Water Management (SWM) program was developed and approved by city and county partners with official operations beginning on July 1, 1990 in response to the establishment of the total phosphorus nonpoint source TMDL. The SWM program has been guided by USA's Surface Water Management Framework, a document that provides policy guidance to a variety of USA programs. As explained in Section 2.2, the area covered by USA's SWM program (referred to herein as USA's "Service District ") is the same as U \Leg at`Stormwa ter Manag ement PI an \62 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-001 ES-1 I Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docuri 't.pdf P 7� Executive Summary the area enclosed within the boundary for USA' s municipal wastewater program, and includes most of the area within the UGB within Washington County. The SWM program was intentionally designed to deal with urban surface water management issues, both quality and quantity. USA's full SWM program is much broader in scope than the stormwater quality programs described in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan, in that it includes many elements that are not directly required by the Clean Water Act. Many of the activities in the SWM program are voluntarily undertaken, because they are recognized as being appropriate and useful aspects of responsible public service and stewardship, even though they extend beyond what is explicitly required by the MS4 regulations Similarly, it is important to note that Washington County's stormwater management program encompasses the entire area of Washington County. ES -1.2 PHASE (MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS In 1990, USEPA issued a set of stormwater regulations that require designated municipal entities to apply for an MS4 NPDES permit. In 1993, USA, Washington County, and ODOT joined as co- applicants and submitted the two -part application required by the MS4 regulations. In 1995, DEQ issued an MS4 permit to these three entities defining the circumstances and conditions under which their respective MS4 systems can discharge to receiving waters. In 1999, ODOT decided to apply for its own statewide stormwater NPDES permit, so USA and Washington County are the Co- permittees whose systems and programs are defined in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. Only those discharges that are specifically defined in the MS4 regulations are covered by the MS4 Permit. These include only stormwater and some non - stormwater discharges that are discharged from the Co- permittees' MS4 systems into waters of the United States. This plan focuses on the procedures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will implement and control the discharges covered by the Phase 1 stormwater regulations. The Phase I stormwater regulations set forth a process by which municipal entities applied for MS4 permits. During that process, the Co- applicants compiled and developed information that described local receiving waters, their respective MS4 systems, their respective organizations, and their respective programs for reducing the pollutants discharged from their MS4 systems. Those programs contained all of the elements required by the MS4 regulations, served as the basis for the 1995 MS4 permit, and have continued to guide their stormwater management activities. In this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan, the BMPs initiated in 1993 -1995, have been redefined to better describe activities that have been found to be practical and effective, or have been merged or grouped together to facilitate program tracking and management. Additional new procedures and BMPs have been added where it was determined that improvements could be made. Those BMPs that were implemented as required but have since been completed have been eliminated. U \Leg at\Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Flnal Document doc \2- JUN -00\ E S-2 LGary_Pagenstecher- _6 -2 -00 Final Docum»nt.pdf - Page 8 Executive Summary ES -1.3 OTHER REGULATIONS Section 1.3 describes the fact that the Co- permittees are subject to a variety of Federal, State, and regional regulations that require them to control water pollutants and protect aquatic habitats The purpose of describing these other regulatory programs is to provide a context for understanding the Co- permittees' overall environmental protection activities, and to draw the distinction between these activities and those driven by or accountable under MS4 regulations. ES -1.4 STORMWATER QUALITY ISSUES AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEQ has listed 31 water segments /reaches in the Tualatin Basin as being "water quality limited." Out of the 31, 17 segments /reaches are urban tributaries, although some of the predominantly rural tributaries have urban land uses also. The beneficial uses did not change in the 1994/1996 303(d) list, but more beneficial uses were linked to criteria than in previous 303(d) lists. To meet the requirements for the MS4 permit application that was submitted in 1993, USA monitored three storms at seven sites. An evaluation of the data from analyzing the samples for a variety of pollutants showed that stormwater in USA's MS4 permit area did not contain significant amounts of the following pollutants: nitrate, cyanide, total phenols, total oil and grease, volatile organic compounds, base neutral/ acid semivolatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium. The data for these pollutants were either non - detects, were significantly below the EPA Table 20 Water Quality Criteria, or there were no Oregon standards and the value was low. ES -1.5 REGULATORY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES During the course of implementing the program described in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan, the Co- permittees will work with a variety of Federal, State, and regional regulatory agencies and will conduct their program activities in ways that comply with a broad spectrum of regulatory requirements. Section 1.5 describes regulatory roles and responsibilities. The Clean Water Act gives USEPA authority and responsibility to perform a variety of functions, including the following: • Conduct research into various water quality issues. • Develop and establish water quality standards. • Develop and promulgate water quality regulations. • Work with states and other agencies to implement water quality regulatory programs and enforce the CWA and CWA- derived regulations. U \Leg AStormwe ter Manag ement Plan \ &2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ ES-3 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Fin Docun .pdf Page 91 Executive Summary In Oregon, DEQ has the authority to implement a variety of CWA- derived programs and enforce the related regulatory requirements. The Co- permittees expect to work with DEQ in the following ways • Complete the forthcoming renewed MS4 Permit and this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan • Annually report the status and the accomplishments of the Co- permittees' respective stormwater management programs. • Discuss the need for program revisions or refinements during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit under an adaptive management process. DEQ, USEPA, and a variety of other Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies have authority over the Co- permittees for reasons other than CWA - derived MS4 requirements. However, MS4 enforcement mechanisms cannot be employed to enforce requirements under these other non -MS4 programs (e.g., treatment plant NPDES permits, TMDL programs, ESA prog rams). ES - 2.1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Section 2 provides information on USA and Washington County, as Co- permittees, and describes how they will manage the programs they conduct to comply with MS4 stormwater regulations. Section 2.2 describes the Co- permittees in terms of their respective jurisdictions, missions, organizations, MS4 program responsibilities, and their separate and shared functions under the MS4 Permit. Section 2.3 describes how the Co- permittees work together and with other municipal entities, the general public, citizen groups, regulatory agencies, and resource management agencies. Section 2.4 describes how the BMPs that were initiated during the initial MS4 permit cycle were selected, how these and other candidate BMPs have been evaluated, and how the BMPs designated for coverage under the renewed MS4 Permit were selected. ES -2.2 INTRODUCTION TO CO -PERNO TIES AND COVERAGE OF MS4 PERMIT AND MS4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN USA and Washington County are separate entities, and they have distinctly different organizations. Section 2.2 describes USA's and Washington County's respective organizations to show how the Co- permittee entities are organized, such that they can efficiently carry out their respective missions and meet their respective legal /political responsibilities. The description covers the following: the co- permittees general organizations, composition of the co- permittees' Board, and internal and external roles and relationships; respective jurisdictions and missions; and relevant properties, facilities and activities. U \Leg a \Stormwa ter Mang ement Plan \ 62-00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00 \ ES-4 Gary_Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Documnnt.pdf _ Page 10 Executive Sum m arll ES 2.3 COORDINATION AMONG CO -PERMITTEES AND OTHER PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Section 2.3 describes how USA and Washington County will coordinate with each other in performing the activities required under the renewed MS4 Permit and how USA and Washington County, individually, will work with the local cities. USA will act as overall program coordinator and will monitor compliance with MS4 Permit requirements for its member cities. As the regional service provider, USA oversees the implementation of many storm and surface water management efforts within its USA District Boundaries. USA develops and adopts the work programs, rules, policies, rates, and charges needed to meet the MS4 regulatory requirements. The 12 member cities also perform the tasks that are described in formal IGAs with USA. To facilitate implementation of this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan, USA, Washington County, and the cities will coordinate work programs and meet to review proposed changes using two standing committees the Washington County Managers Committee and the USA Technical Committee. USA provides training to the County and the cities when new rules are adopted, and is available to assist with program implementation and non - routine circumstances. USA monitors each city's compliance with the terms of its respective IGAs through an annual performance review. The review requires detailed reporting of maintenance work that each city has accomplished. In addition, certain specified non - maintenance practices and procedures are also reviewed to assure that USA's rules are being followed in plan review, erosion control, rates and charges, use of System Development Charges, and requirements for protection of sensitive areas, wetlands, and floodplains. ES -2.4 SELECTION OF BIVVFSS Section 2.4 summarizes the Co- permittees' efforts to identify, evaluate, and select methods for controlling stormwater- related water quality problems. These control methods are referred to as "best management practices" (BMPs). The NPDES Permit Application Regulations for Stormwater Discharges (40 CFR, Part 122.26) define the type and degree of controls that are adequate as follows: "A proposed management program shall include a comprehensive planning process... to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable' using management practices, ... and such other provisions which are appropriate." The MS4 regulations do not explicitly state which particular pollutants should be controlled, the percent reduction that must be achieved, or the quality of stormwater that can be discharged. The Co- permittees have used formal, documented processes to evaluate and select BMPs to include in their respective programs. The participants involved in this process included a broad range of technical, legal, public information, and management personnel representing USA and Washington County. U \ Leg aAStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \62 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN -00\ E S-5 Gary Pagenstecher 7 _6 -2 -00 Final Docurno ^t pdf Page 11 • Executive Summary ES-2.5 COORDINATION WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL ENTITIES OUTSIDE MS4 PERMIT AREA Section 2.5 describes how the Co- permittees will coordinate with other municipal entities that are not named in the MS4 Permit, but which may influence compliance performance. These entities include the City of Po rtland, the City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). ES - 3.1 USA's MS4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Section 3 describes USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Through the program, USA and cooperating agencies will implement a variety of procedures and BMPs that will control the pollutants discharged from USA's portion of the MS4 storm drainage system to the maximum extent practicable The program's goal is to achieve and maintain compliance with MS4 regulations and do so in ways that are compatible with USA's larger mission, its obligations under other regulatory programs, and its agreements with various partner agencies and stakeholders (e.g., Washington County, local cities, other governmental entities, various non- governmental organizations). Section 3.2 provides a summary description of USA's current legal authority and an overview of the IGAs USA has with the cities in Washington County and the cities within it service District Boundaries. Section 3.3 provides a broad overview of the practices and procedures that comprise USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Detailed descriptions of USA's MS4 BMPs are presented in the Fact Sheets provided in Section 6. Section 3.4 describes those discharges within USA's jurisdiction that are deemed to be "non - stormwater discharges." The discussion also explains how USA plans to deal with such discharges to comply with MS4 regulations Section 3.5 provides a summary description of USA's current fiscal resources ES - 3.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY USA is a municipal corporation and county service district established in 1970 underOregon Revised Statutes Chapter 451. USA has management and enforcerrent authority over the stormand surface water programthroughout its service District and with each of its member cities. USA has management authority for storm and surface water management within its District boundaries, whereas the cities have varying degrees of operation and maintenance authority delegated by IGAs. These IGAs are in the processof being updated. Authority to set policies, rules, standards; to set rates; and to define the work program remains USA's responsibilityin urban Washington County within the USA District boundaries,except where that authority has been delegated to the Cities underthe aforementioned USA /City IGAs. U \ Leg e Storm.terManag ement Plan \62 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ E S -6 CGary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum ,-, t.pdf Page 12' Executive Summary • ES -3.3 USA's MS4 BMPS AND OTHER PROCEDURES AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS Section 3.3 provides brief descriptions of the BMPs and other procedures and program elements that USA will implement to meet MS4 requirements. 1. Technology /Engin eering a. Update and maintain maps of the storm drainage system. Throughout the permit period maps will be updated with information about new or existing infrastructure that is discovered through field investigation. b. Review, update, and enforce design and construction standards to protect and improve the quality from new development and redevelopment. c. Identify and construct structural controls via USA planning documents for improving stormwater quality. Subbasin planning process will identify projects to be implemented in accord ance with USA's Capital Improvement Program. d. Implement inspection, enforcement, and permitting programs aimed at preventing soil erosion and controlling sediment, as follows: e. Evaluate and retrofit where feasible, existing drainage structures to produce water quality benefits. 2. Maintenance Maintain the MS4 and elements of the private storm system as allowed in USA's Resolution and Order, including line cleaning and repair; catch basin and water quality manhole maintenance; root control; retention and detention facility maintenance; TV inspection; customer and emergency response; roadside ditch and culvert maintenance; street sweeping; material processing and disposal; creek and stream maintenance; proactive leaf pickup programs; manhole repair; and culvert maintenance. In addition, perform maintenance of the sanitary sewer system in order to reduce overflows and cross - connection s which may harm the storm system. 3. Education and Outreach Educate the public with respect to the relationship between human activities and water quality. a. Proper use and proper disposal of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. b. Clean up and proper disposal of pet waste and impacts of water fowl feeding c. Illicit dumping and yard debris disposal. d. Promote regional /local programs that provide the means for convenient and safe disposal of waste oil, anti- freeze, pesticides, and other household hazardous wastes. U Leg af\Storm. ter Manag ement Plan \62 - 00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00 \ ES-7 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum ^t.pdf Page 13 Executive Summary e. Develop and provide education and guidance on methods to reduce existing effective impermeable area. 4. Public Involvementand Participation Work with property owners, citizen volunteer groups, and the general public to promote public involvement and particip ation in water quality improvement and protection programs and projects. a. Promote storm drain stenciling (inlet labeling) to educate the public on the impacts of pollutant disposal to the storm drain system b Promote the formation of stream and wetland "friends" groups for neighborhood education, stream clean ups, and stream and wetland enhancement projects. c. Promote stewardship among property owners adjacent to streams, wetlands, and surface water management facilities. d. Conduct periodic (every 2 -3 years) public attitude, opinion, and /or awareness surveys on water quality issues e. Work closely with USA Advisory Commission (USAAC) to share information and receive recommendations on water quality improvement and protection policy issues. 5. Technology Development Educate operators of industrial and commercial facilities and municipal landfills regarding design features and "good housekeeping" practices that minimize the discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system. Technical guidance has previously been developed to facilitate this task 6. Source Control Implement a program to detect, investigate, prevent, and eliminate illegal /inapprop riate activities and illicit discharges to the storm drainage system. a. Continue to investigate illicit connections to the stormwater system. b. Continue to notify the appropriate Agency(s) to eliminate illicit connections to the stormwater system. c. Continue collaboration between USA departments when sewage or unknown spills/ illegal dumping occurs. d. Continue to collaborate with member cities and Washington County to identify and eliminate illicit discharges. e. Continue to investigate, document, eliminate, and enforce any illegalfinapprop riate activities that may have an impact to the stormwater system. U \Le al \ Stormwa ter Manag emert Plan \62 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ ES-8 GaryPagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum , -nt.pdf Page_14 Executive Summary f. Continue to investigate and eliminate any reported activities that may have an impact to the stormwater system. g. Continue to investigate incidents of illicit discharges of pollutants such as used motor oil, paint, and toxic materials. h. Continue to incorporate public education and involvement, during water quality investigations. i. Work cooperatively with Agency Inspectors at construction sites. ES -3.4 NON- STORNNVATER DISCHARGES Section 3.4 describes how USA will deal with non - stormwater discharges. ES -3.5 FISCAL RESOURCES The materials that were subrritted to apply for the 1995 MS4 Permit described USA's fiscal resources to support the management practices and procedures used to control pollutants discharged from USA's MS4 system. USA still has adequate fiscal resources to implement the stormwater pollution controls required by the MS4 regulations. USA operates its storm and surface water management activities as a self- sustaining utility enterprise. Funding is provided for operations and maintenance activities through user charges and fees, system development charges (SDCs), interest earnings, and existing fund balances. ES -4.1 WASHINGTON COUNTY's MS4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Section 4 describes Washington County's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Through the program, Washington County and cooperating agencies will implement a variety of procedures and BMPs that will control the pollutants discharged from Washington County's MS4 storm drainage system, to the maximum extent practicable. The program's goal is to achieve and maintain compliance with MS4 regulations and do so in ways that are compatible with Washington County's larger mission, its obligations under other regulatory programs, and its agreements with various partner agencies and stakeholders. Section 4.2 provides a summary description of Washington County's current legal authority and an overview of the IGA the County has with USA Section 4.3 provides a broad overview of the practices and procedures that comprise Washington County's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Detailed descriptions of Washington County's MS4 BMPs are provided in the Fact Sheets in Section 7. Section 4.4 describes those discharges within Washington County's MS4 jurisdiction that are deemed to be "non - stormwater discharges." The discussion also explains how the County plans to deal with such discharges to comply with MS4 regulations. Section 4.5 provides a summary description of Washington County's current fiscal resources. U \ Leg aAStormwaterManag ement Plan \62 -00 Final Document eoc \2- JUN-00\ ES-9 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocumPnt.pdf Page 15 Executive Summary ES -4.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY Washington County is a separate Co- permittee for those portions of the MS4 system that are located outside of USA's service District boundaries. The County had and still has adequate legal authority for the majority of listed required elements, for example. to require a discharger to construct source controls, to deny the discharger the privilege of discharging to the MS4 if the discharger refuses to comply with conditions; and to impose penalties on dischargers who are not complying with the stormwater runoff requirements. Most criteria are enforced in Washington County through the concurrent authority provided to USA for those areas within the jurisdiction of the USA /County IGA. These areas include urban unincorporated Washington County within USA's District boundaries. It is important to note that USEPA provided permit application guidance that stated it was not necessary for each co- applicant to demonstrate each component of legal authority specified in the rules as long as the combined legal authorities of the various municipal co- applicants satisfy the regulatory criteria for appropriate portions of the MS4. Furthermore, as mentioned in the application for the 1995 MS4 permit application, the County reserved the option to consider the de minimis effect of the 2 square -mile area that is not already covered by USA and /or County ordinances. ES -4.3 WASHINGTON COUNTY'S MS4 BMPS AND OTHER PROCEDURES AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS Section 4.3 provides brief descriptions of the BMPs and other procedures and program elements that Washington County will implement to meet MS4 requirements. Washington County will implement the following eight BMPs through this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. 1. Maintain the County's MS4 storm drainage system, and make improvements as needed. 2. Develop a program for vegetative management that includes protection of water quality impacts to the MS4. 3. Support and promote public education and involvement activities related to water quality concerns. 4. Review and modify as needed, storm drainage design standards for new development and redevelopment to ensure that they include consideration of water quality. 5. Develop structural controls for improving stormwater quality. 6. Implement the County's program aimed at erosion and sediment control related to construction sites, both private and public 7. Investigate and eliminate illicit discharges and inform enforcement authorities when illicit discharges are found. U \Leg al\Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 F final Document ooc \2- JUN -00\ ES-10 • • Gary Pagenste - 6- 2- 00_Final Docum� Page 16 Executive Summary 8. Support staff training and education activities relating to water quality concerns. ES -4.4 WASHINGTON COUNTY's NON- STORMWATER DISCHARGES Section 4.4 describes those discharges within Washington County's jurisdiction that are deemed to be "non - stormwater discharges." ES -4.5 FISCAL RESOURCES Washington County will continue to fund the stormwater management program at a level to meet NPDES regulations. Sources of funding are the general fund and the road fund. In accordance with County 2000 policies, the Resources Allocation Strategy essentially describes the method used to determine how various types of County services are to be prioritized and subsequently, how they are to be funded. ES -5.1 MONITORING, PROGRAM EVALUATION, AND REPORTING The Co- permittees will perform a variety of activities, including monitoring, program evaluation, and reporting during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit. Some of these activities will be performed to satisfy specific permit requirements, but others will be performed in the interest of obtaining insights that will help the Co- permittees make wise, effective use of the resources they spend on stormwater management practices and procedures. The Co- permittees plan to review the information developed each year and use what they have learned: to prepare annual reports to DEQ, to make recommendations to staff and management regarding program refinement opportunities, and to request program and /or MS4 Permit revisions, if warranted. Section 5.2 describes the monitoring activities that will be used to meet MS4 Permit requirements. Section 5.3 describes how the Co- permittees will use the results of each year's monitoring and program review findings to update and refine aspects of their respective stormwater management programs. Section 5.4 describes the types of information the Co- permittees expect to provide in their annual reports to DEQ, recognizing that the renewed MS4 Permit will prescribe specific reporting requirements. Section 5 5 describes how the Co- permittees expect to prepare for the permit renewal process that is anticipated to begin in 2005. ES -5.2 MONITORING AND STUDIES Section 5.2 describes monitoring activities that are conducted to meet regulatory requirements and to obtain information for managing and progressively refining the stormwater management program. Proposed Monitoring Program for the Renewed MS4 Permit (2000 to 2005) The following sampling will be conducted during the duration of the renewed MS4 Permit. At least three storms will be sampled and analyzed during each permit year Storms will be selected U \Leg af\Stormwater Manag ement PIZn\6 -2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ ES-11 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum ^nf.pdf _ Page 17 Executive Summary to represent both summer and winter conditions. USA will monitor at least two "instream" sites to obtain flow - proportioned samples during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit. USA will monitor at least two "land use" sites to obtain flow - proportioned samples during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit. Industrial sites are not included, industries are required to self- monitor under their own stormwater permits. BMP Evaluation/Refin ement Process Section 5.3 explains how the Co- permittees plan to evaluate their respective MS4 BMPs and other program procedures. They need such information to gain the insights they will use to periodically revise their policies and procedures, and also for refining the MS4 Stormwater Management Plan overtime. The Co- permittees will trade and evaluate their procedures and BMPs to refine their stormwater management programs annually. These results are intended to show which practices are most successful, to give information that will enable Co- permittees to ensure their BMPs are useful, and to make changes based on the latest technical findings, so that pollutant discharges can be minimized. Other USA Monitoring Programs USA also conducts monitoring programs that are not required by the MS4 Permit. These programs provide support information for evaluating the overall effectiveness of USA's comprehensive SWM program. ES -5.3 ANNUAL REPORT The renewed MS4 Permit will provide a description of the information the Co- permittees need to submit in each year's Annual Report. The Co- permittees plan to follow permit requirements, but they also plan to report information that reflects what they have learned as a result of the adaptive management methods they will have employed each year. The Co- permittees anticipate conducting an annual review of their stormwater quality management programs and making changes as appropriate. The Co- permittees also plan to continue their approach of focussing attention and resources toward practices and procedures that have the highest likelihood of protecting the beneficial uses of the receiving waters from the adverse effects of MS4 discharges. ES -5.4 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL (YEAR 2005) It is expected that some form of guidance will be produced for the renewal application in next permit cycle that will reflect EPA's thinking on the topic in the future When it is produced, that guidance will be followed in the next permit renewal application. ES -6.0 & ES -7.0 U \Leg altStormwa ter Manag ement PI a, 6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ ES-12 Gary Pagenstecher_- . 6 - -00 Final Documpnt.pdf Page 18 Executive Summary Sections 6 and 7 provide detailed descriptions of USA's and Washington County's, respectively, proposed MS4 BMPs. It is expected that the BMPs will be refined as they are implemented and as the annual tracking and evaluation described in Section 5.3 is conducted. The following is a brief description of the elements covered by.each fact sheet: Citation —the regulatory requirement, from40 CFR 122.26 Purpose —a description of the purpose for implementing the BMP, especially addressing whether the BMP acts on and controls relevant pollutants, whether it is called for by the MS4 regulations, how reliable and robust it is. Who —who is responsible (Washington County, USA, cities,, etc.) for implementing the BMP. What —a description of what will be done. When —when it will be performed and completed within the 5 -year permit period. Where —a geographic description of where the BMP applies. Pollutant(s) Addressed —which pollutants the BMP addresses. Performance Measurement — method by which the BMP will be measured. U \Leg aIStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ ES-13 Gary Pagenstecher - 6-2-00 Final Docum ^nt.pdf Page 19 SECTION 0 N E Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 Purpose of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan This Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Stormwater Management Plan was developed by two municipal entities located in Northwestern Oregon: the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) of Washington County and Washington County, Oregon. USA and Washington County are Co- permittees in an NPDES stormwater permit that was issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 1995. These entities are applying for a permit renewal and have developed this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan to describe the programs they will use to meet their respective Federal Clean Water Act requirements for municipal separate storm sewer systems. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) also was listed as a Co- permittee on the 1995 MS4 permit, but ODOT has since applied for its own statewide NPDES stormwater permit. This MS4 Stormwater Management Plan provides important background information on the Co- permittees, their respective organizations, their respective jurisdictions and responsibilities, and the practices and procedures they use to meet their missions, goals, and objectives, while complying with a variety of other Federal, State, and regional environmental requirements beyond those just governing stormwater control operations This MS4 Stormwater Management Plan was prepared to be part of an application for permit renewal. USA and Washington County anticipate that portions of this Plan may be amended, and a final edition will be published as a result of the MS4 permit renewal process. 1.1.2 Intended Users/Readers This MS4 Stormwater Management Plan was written to provide information to three principal audiences, as follows: • Regulatory agency personnel within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Oregon DEQ, to provide for a better understanding of the Co- permittees' respective agencies, and of the practices and procedures the Co- permittees utilize to meet the requirements of the MS4 regulations. This Plan is also intended to provide regulatory agency personnel with an understanding of how these MS4 practices and procedures relate to the Co- permittees' efforts to comply with other Federal, state, and regional environmental requirements as well as their respective internal environmental goals and mission objectives. • Managers and staff of the Co- permittees, to provide for a better understanding of the implementation of the practices and procedures to meet the requirements of the MS4 regulations. • Members of the general public, who will also benefit from a better understanding of the Co- permittees, their respective MS4 stormwater management practices and procedures, and how these relate to a broad spectrum of other environmental protection activities that the Co- permittees conduct to meet their own objectives and to comply with other environmental requirements. U \ Leg eAStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document eoc \2- JUN -00\ 6 -1 Gary_Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum .-nt. df Page 20 SECTION 0 NE Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan 1.1.3 Organization ofthis Document The remainder of Section 1 provides readers with an introduction to the regulatory context within which the Co- permittees must perform stormwater management practices and procedures required by the Federal MS4 regulations. Section 2 provides readers with an introductory description of the Co- permittees and how they will manage their efforts to comply with requirements of the MS4 regulations. Section 3 and Section 4 describe the Co- permittees' respective stormwater management programs Both sections are structured alike; Section 3 describes USA's program; Section 4 describes Washington County's program. Section 5 describes how the Co- permittees will conduct monitoring, program evaluation, and reporting, as those activities pertain to the practices and procedures required by the MS4 regulations. Again, both Co- permittees conduct a variety of monitoring, program evaluation, and reporting activities to meet their own objectives and /or to comply with other Federal, State, or regional environmental requirements. Section 6 and Section 7 provide fact sheets describing USA's and Washington County's MS4 Best Management Practices. The four appendices at the end of this document provide detailed information for reference • Appendix 1 provides maps that show the geographic coverage of the MS4 Permit and the Co- permittees' respective jurisdictions. • Appendix 2 provides a synopsis of the relationship between 1990 BMPs and 2000 BMPs. • Appendix 3 provides a descriptions of USA's Surface Water Management Framework. 1.1.4 Relationship between the MS4 Permit, this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan, and USA's Surface Water Management Framework The purpose of this sub - section is to avoid confusion that could result from a misunderstanding of terms that sound similar. The following are summary definitions: MS4 Permit — This term refers to the NPDES permits that DEQ issues to municipal entities that own and operate certain designated types and sizes of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4). The term applies to the Co- permittees' current MS4 permit (which DEQ issued in 1995) and to the renewed MS4 permit, for which the Co- permittees are submitting a renewal application. MS4 permits are required by USEPA's stormwater regulations (40 CFR 122.26) under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The regulations require municipal permittees to implement MS4 stormwater management programs. MS4 Stormwater Management Plan — This term refers only to this document. This plan describes the Co- permittees; the Co- permittees' respective properties, facilities, and activities that are covered by the MS4 requirements; and the Co- permittees' respective MS4 stormwater U \Leg altStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 6-2 ary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Doc ^ +. pdf Page 2 SECTION 0 NE Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan management programs. The programs consist of the practices and procedures the Co- permittees will implement to comply with applicable MS4 requirements. This document is not explicitly required by any State or Federal regulation. This plan does not cover Washington County stormwater activities outside the MS4 permit area, in rural parts of the County. USA's Surface Water Management Framework Document — This term refers to a document that has evolved from the Surface Water Management Plan that USA originally developed in 1990. As explained in Section 1.1.5 and Appendix 3, USA's Surface Water Management Plan is being updated and re -cast as a policy document that will define USA's planning framework for conducting several programs, one of which is described in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. This document is not explicitly required by any State or Federal regulation. USA's Surface Water Management (SWM) Program — The SWM program addresses urban surface water management issues within USA' s District Boundary, both quality and quantity. The SWM program seeks to provide and maintain urban -area surface water management facilities, policies, practices, and controls that protect the public's safety, health, and property. The program seeks to conserve, and where possible, enhance and restore the natural systems of the Tualatin River Basin. The SWM program is guided by USA's Surface Water Management Framework document, which is intended to provide policy guidance to a variety of USA programs. 1.1.5 General Background of Urban Stormwater Programs in Washington County The following provides an overview of stormwater program elements and activities in urban Washington County. USA's Surface Water Management (SWM) program was developed and approved by city and county partners with official operations beginning on July 1, 1990 in response to the establishment of the total phosphorus nonpoint source TMDL. The SWM program has been guided by USA's Surface Water Management Framework document. This document is intended to provide policy guidance to a variety of USA programs. As explained in Section 2.2, the area covered by USA's SWM program (referred to herein as USA's "District Boundary") is the same as the area enclosed within the boundary for USA's municipal wastewater program, and includes most of the area within the UGB within Washington County. The SWM program was intentionally designed to deal with urban surface water management issues, both quality and quantity. It is important to note that USA's full SWM program is much broader in scope than the stormwater quality programs described in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. USA's SWM program includes many elements that are not directly required by the Clean Water Act. Many of the activities in the SWM program are voluntarily undertaken, because they are recognized as being appropriate and useful aspects of responsible public service and stewardship, even though they extend beyond what is explicitly required by the MS4 regulations. Similarly, it is important to note that the Washington County stormwater management program encompasses the entire area of Washington County. 1.2 PHASE I MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS U \Leg al1Stormva ter Manag ernent PI an \62 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ 6-3 r ary_Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume ^t _ _ Page 22 SECTION 0 NE Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan In 1990, USEPA issued a set of stormwater regulations that apply to entities that own and operate municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). These "Phase I" stormwater regulations are described in the Code of Federal Regulations under 40 CFR, Part 122.26. The regulations require that designated municipal entities develop and submit materials to apply for an MS4 permit. In 1993, USA, Washington County, and ODOT joined as co- applicants and submitted the two -part application required by the MS4 regulations In 1995, DEQ issued an MS4 permit to these three entities defining the circumstances and conditions under which their respective MS4 systems can discharge to receivi ng waters: In 1999, ODOT decided to apply for its own statewide stormwater NPDES permit, so USA and Washington County are the Co- permittees whose systems and programs are defined in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. In order to place the Co- permittees' MS4 practices and procedures in proper context, this document refers to several types and sources of discharges. However, only those discharges that are specifically defined in the MS4 regulations are covered by the MS4 Permit. These include only stormwater and some non- stormwater discharges that are discharged from the Co- permittees' MS4 systems into waters of the United States. The Phase I stormwater regulations set forth a two -part process by which municipal entities applied for MS4 permits. During that process, the Co- applicants compiled and developed information that described local receiving waters, their respective MS4 systems, their respective organizations, and their respective programs for reducing the pollutants discharged from their MS4 systems. The programs contained all of the elements required by the MS4 regulations, served as the basis for the 1995 MS4 permit, and have continued to guide their stormwater management activities. The existing BMPs have been re- defined to better describe activities that have been found to be practical and effective or practices have been merged or grouped together to facilitate program tracking and management. Additional new practices and procedures have been added where it was determined that improvements could be made. Those that have been completed have been eliminated. 1.3 OTHER REGULATIONS As noted in Section 1.1.1, the Co- permittees are subject to a variety of Federal, State, and regional regulations that require them to control water pollutants and protect aquatic habitats. The purpose of describing these other regulatory programs is to provide a context for understanding the Co- permittees' overall environmental protection activities, and to draw the distinction between these activities and those driven by or accountable under MS4 regulations. 1.3.1 Clean Water Act TMDL Requirements The CWA outlines a formal process by which state -level regulatory agencies (like DEQ) define waterbodies throughout the state, "designate" their respective beneficial uses, and set narrative and /or numerical water quality criteria to protect such uses. The CWA also prescribes a process of "adaptive management" for periodically reviewing water quality conditions. DEQ reviews monitoring data for receiving waters, develops a Section 303(d) list that names waterbodies that do not meet standards, and then determines (generally by the use of predictive models) the U \Leg aftStorrnwa ter Manag ement PI an \6-2 -00 Final Document 01o62- JUN-00l 6-4 (Gary Pagenstecher_ 6-2 -00 Final DocumP ; tp d f Page 231 SECTION 0 N E Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan maximum amounts of specific pollutants that the waterbody should be able to accommodate without exceeding ambient standards or impairing the beneficial uses. USA and Washington County are among numerous entities that have been named as Designated Management Agencies (DMAs) by a TMDL process that was conducted to improve conditions in the Tualatin River Basin. In 1989, the DMAs began comprehensive programs of applying watershed management and pollution control practices. Through a variety of structural facilities and non - structural practices and procedures the DMAs have substantially reduced the loads of phosphorous and ammonia and have greatly improved conditions in the Tualatin River and its tributaries. DEQ has recently been developing new TMDL requirements to address other water quality problems in the Tualatin River Basin 1.3.2 Clean Water Act Section 404 Requirements The CWA contains provisions for protecting recei ving waters and aquatic habitat from adverse effects that could result from the improper discharge or deposition of dredged or fill materials. Section 404 applies to development and /or construction projects that could disturb streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, and other water bodies. USA and Washington County must adhere to Section 404 requirements, and must obtain 404 permits when they perform such construction activities. They also have certain responsibilities when such construction is performed within their jurisdictions (e.g., they receive copies of developers' permit applications and may consult with permitting agencies regarding specific concerns). The Oregon Removal /Fill Law, which is administered by the Division of State Lands (DSL), requires a permit for activities that would remove or fill 50 cubic yards or more of material in waters of the State (e.g., streams, lakes, wetlands). In areas designated as Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat, a permit is required for all removal /fill activities (i.e., regardless of size). USA and Washington County must comply with the removal /fill laws when they design and build their own facilities and have related responsibility when they deal with developers and other construction projects within their respective jurisdictions 1.3.3 The Endangered Species Act Requirements The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administers provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for marine and anadromous species of fish. As N FMS works to develop guidance and more specific regulatory requirements, USA and Washington County will be working with local cities and each other to actively look for ways to make revisions and /or refinements to their respective policies, programs, and facilities to benefit the listed salmon id species. 1.3.4 Land Use and Land Management Laws A variety of State, regional, and local land use laws apply to USA and Washington County. The Co- permittees comply with these laws when they plan, design, and install surface water U \Leg eitStormwe ter Manag ement PIan\G2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-0O\ 6-5 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Documpnt.pdf _ Page 24, SECTION 0 NE Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan management facilities and when they implement certain practices and procedures to control pollutants and protect and enhance aquatic habitat. Examples include the following: • State Land Use Goal 5 and Goal 6 • Metro Title 3 • City /County Comprehensive Land Use Plans 1.4 STORMWATER QUALITY ISSUES AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The following provides a summary discussion of the constituents that are believed to cause or contribute to problems in local receiving waters. It also summarizes the history of the Co- permittees' efforts to comply with current TMD L and MS4 requirements. 1.4.1 Water Quality Concerns in Local Receiving Waters: Current TMDL Constituents In 1988, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements were established in the Tualatin Basin for ammonia and total phosphorus by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). The ammonia TMDL was established to correct problems with dissolved oxygen in the lower Tualatin River and to protect the following beneficial uses: resident fish and aquatic life. It had point source and nonpoint source components. The nonpoint source load allocations (LAs) have always been met, therefore a nonpoint source management program was not developed for ammonia. The wasteload allocations (WLAs) prescribed for the wastewater treatment plants were met on schedule. Currently, USA's wastewat er treatment plants discharge significantly less ammonia than is allowed by their WLAs, and the beneficial uses relative to the ammonia TMDL are being met. The total phosphorus TMDL was established to correct problems with chlorophyll a and pH in the lower Tualatin River to protect the following beneficial uses aesthetics, resident fish, and aquatic life. It has point source and nonpoint source components. USA's wastewater treatment plants met their WLAs on schedule. The DMAs developed management plans based on the use of TMDL- driven Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address the nonpoint source component. Although the TMDL BMPs have been and continue to be implemented, the Tualatin Basin is not meeting the prescribed load allocations (LAs) for phosphorus. The EQC has issued a series of Implementation and Compliance Orders that relate to the DMAs' compliance with the total phosphorus nonpoint source TMD L. Since the TMDL was established, however, a great deal of scientific information has been gathered and analyzed that indicates that the current total phosphorus TMDL cannot be met due to naturally occurring total phosphorus that is contributed by groundwater as it enters the Tualatin River system. The groundwater represents a significant amount of the flow during the low -flow period of the summer when algal growth is at its maximum. U \Leg aNStormwa ter Maneg ement Plan \6-2 - 00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 6-6 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf _ Page SECTION 0 NE Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan DEQ is currently updating the ammonia and total phosphorus TMD Ls to reflect the new knowledge. The revised TMD Ls are expected to be finalized by December 2000. 1.4.2 Water Quality Concerns in Local Receiving Waters: Potential Expansion of TMDL Constituents DEQ listed 31 water segments /reaches in the Tualatin Basin as being "water quality limited" on its 1998 303(d) list. Out of the 31, 17 segrrents/reaches are urban tributaries, although some of the predominantly rural tributaries have urban land uses also The beneficial uses did not change in the 1994/1996 303(d) list, but more beneficial uses were linked to criteria than in previous 303(d) lists. The following table shows, for each exceeded criterion, which beneficial uses are deemed impaired and the number of tributaries on the 303(d) list. TABLE 1 -1 Water Quality Limited Streams in the Tualatin Basin, (Source: DEQ 1998 303(d) List) Criteria Exceeded Beneficial Use I mpaired Impaired Waterbodies Temperature Resident Fish & Aquatic Life Tualatin River RM 0 to 44.7 (17.8 °C) Salmon id Rearing & 18 Tributaries Bacteria Water Contact Recreation Tualatin River RM 0 to 44.7 & 25 Tributaries Dissolved Oxygen Resident Fish & Aquatic Life 22 Tributaries (6.5 mg /L) Salmon id Rearing Biological Criteria Resident Fish & Aquatic Life 10 Tributaries Chlorophyll a Water Contact Recreation 6 Tributaries Aesthetics Fishing Water Supply Livestock Watering pH Resident Fish & Aquatic Life 2 Tributaries (low) Water Contact Recreation (rural) Toxics* Resident Fish & Aquatic Life 1 Tributary (Metals, Arsenic, Drinking Water (Fanno Creek) Iron, Manganese) Not DEQ has listed whole tn butaies even if there ae multipiesanpiesites and only one Site shows an ecoseda ce U \Leg a Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 F nal Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 6-7 i Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocumPnt.pdf _ Page 26 SECTION 0 NE Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan Note DEQ Tualatin Toxi cs Discussion Piper received 4/2000 i ndi cater these ae background levels and will be removed from future DEQ 303(d) list 1.4.3 Other Urban Pollutants Under the requirements for the Part 2 MS4 permit application that was submitted in 1993, USA monitored three storms at seven sites for a variety of pollutants. An evaluation of the data from analyzing the samples showed that stormwater in USA's MS4 permit area did not contain significant amounts of the pollutants on the following list. The data for these pollutants were either non - detects, significantly below the EPA Table 20 Water Quality Criteria, or there were no Oregon standards and the value was low. • Nitrate • Cyanide • Total Phenols • Total Oil and Grease • Volatile Organic Compounds • Base Neutral /Acid Semivolatile Organic Compounds • Organochlorine Pesticides • Metals — Antimony — Arsenic — Beryllium — Chromium — Mercury — Nickel — Selenium — Silver — Thallium 1.4.4 History The following Table 1 -2 summarizes the history of the MS4 permit. U \Leg al\Storo '. a ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN -00\ 6-8 !Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2_00 Final Documr ' pdf Page 27, SECTION 0 N E Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan TABLE 1 -2 HISTORICAL SUMMARY Date Activity May 1992 Part 1 Permit Application for an MS4 Permit submitted by USA, Washington County, and ODOT, as co- applicants May 1993 Part 2 Permit Application for an MS4 Permit submitted by USA, Washington County, and ODOT, as co- applicants. July 26, 1995 MS4 Permit issued to USA, Washington County, and ODOT by DEQ. Permit Number 101309, Expiration Date: June 30, 2000 August of Annual Reports submitted to DEQ regarding monitoring results and 1996, 1997, detailing progress made on BMP implementation. 1998, 1999 December USA requested a permit modification to change monitoring sites (i.e., 1997 and replace land use characterization with instream monitoring sites and undated BMP effectiveness studies). DEQ approved requested permit official permit modification submitted in December 1997 as Addendum No. 1 to the modification MS4 permit Modification took effect in Permit Year 3. May 1999 DEQ approved change in monitoring sites. June 2000 Renewal application submitted to DEQ. ODOT no longer a co- permittee. 1.5 REGULATORY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1.5.1 General During the course of implementing the program described in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan, the Co- permittees will work with a variety of Federal, State, and regional regulatory agencies and will conduct their program activities in ways that comply with a broad spectrum of regulatory requirements. The following subsection describes regulatory roles and responsibilities. Section 1.5.2 describes the Federal and State regulatory agencies that are directly involved in assuring compliance with CWA- derived MS4 regulatory requirements. USA has reached agreements with many of the cities within its District Boundary to implement the program within each respective city. USA provides oversight of how the cities carry out these regulations through intergovernmental agreements (IGAs). Similarly, Washington County has an IGA with USA to implement some maintenance /operation of County-owned facilities within USA's District Boundary. U \Leg aft Stormwa ter Mang ement PI an \62 -00 Final Document doe \2- JUN -00\ 6-9 Gary Pagenstecher - 6- 2- 00_Final'Docurnr pdf Page 28;1 SECTION 0 N E Overview of MS4 Stormwater Management Plan 1.5.2 Agencies with MS4 Regulatory Authority The Clean Water Act gives USEPA authority and responsibility to perform a variety of functions, including the following: • Conduct research into various water quality issues. • Develop and establish water quality standards. • Develop and promulgate water quality regulations. • Work with states and other agencies to implement water quality regulatory programs and enforce the CWA and CWA - derived regulations. Accordingly, USEPA delegates some of its authority and responsibilities to qualified state -level agencies. In Oregon, DEQ has the authority to implement a variety of CWA- derived programs and enforce the related regulatory requirements. The Co- permittees expect to work with DEQ in the following ways: • Complete the forthcoming renewed MS4 Permit and this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. • Annually report the status and the accomplishments of the Co- permittees' respective stormwater management programs. • Discuss the need for program revisions or refinements during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit under an adaptive management process. DEQ, USEPA, and a variety of other Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies have authority over the Co- permittees for reasons other than CWA - derived MS4 requirements. However, MS4 enforcement mechanisms cannot be employed to enforce requirements under other non -MS4 programs. U \Leg a Stormwa ter Manag ement PI an\ -2- 00 F eel Document doe \2- JUN-00\ 6-10 Gary Pagenstecher -_6-2-00 Final Documen+ odf Page 29 SECTION TWO Program Management 2.1 GENERAL The purpose of Section 2 is to provide information on USA and Washington County, as Co- permittees, and describe how they will manage the programs they conduct to comply with MS4 stormwater regulations. • Section 2.2 describes the Co- permittees in terms of their respective jurisdictions, missions, organizations, MS4 program responsibilities, and their separate and shared functions under the MS4 Permit • Section 2.3 describes how the Co- permittees work together and with other municipal entities, the general public, citizen groups, regulatory agencies, and resource management agencies. • Section 2.4 describes how the BMPs that were initiated during the initial MS4 permit cycle were selected, how these and other candidate BMPs have been evaluated, and how the BMPs designated for coverage under the renewed MS4 Permit were selected. 2.2 INTRODUCTION TO CO- PERNITT EES AND COVERAGE OF MS4 PERMIT AND MS4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.2.1 Co -Permiitees' Respective Organizations USA and Washington County are separate entities, and they have distinctly different organizations. The following describes USA's and Washington County's respective organizations to show how the Co- permittee entities are organized, such that they can efficiently carry out their respective missions and meet their respective legal /political responsibilities. USA General Organization . USA is a municipal corporation, established under Chapter 451, Oregon Revised Statues. Its service District includes most of urban Washington County. A simplified organizational chart is shown in Figure 2 -1. U \Leg arStormwa ter Manag ement PI an \62- 00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 7-1 Gary Pagenstecher - 6- 2- 00_Final DocumF ` odf . Page 30, SECTION TWO Program Management Figure 2 -1 USA Organizational Chart U \Leg a Stormwe ter Mang ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document tloo\2- JUN-00\ 7-2 (Gary P a - 6 -2 -00 Final DOCUmP ^+ pdf Page 31 SECTION TWO Program Management Composition of the Board USA's Board of Directors consists of the five elected County Commissioners. Four of the Commissioners are elected from specific geographical regions within the County and serve part -time The fifth Commissioner, who serves as the Chair, is elected at -large and serves full -time. Roles of Board, General Manager, and Leadership Team. USA's Board of Directors consists of five persons who also serve as the elected Washington County Board of Commissioners. Therefore, this single Board of Commissioners acts in a dual capacity overseeing the operations of both of the Co- permittees. Administration and management of USA is the responsibility of the General Manager, who is appointed by the Board USA's Leadership Team consists of upper - level managers who report directly to the General Manager including the Department Directors of Wastewater Treatment, Conveyance, Technical Services, and Business Operations; the Managers of the Public and Employee Services Division, and the Planning Division; and the Chief Counsel. The Leadership Team acts under the direction of the General Manager. Relationship to the Cities within USA's District Boundary. USA has authority to provide sanitary and storm sewer services throughout its District Boundary. The cities within USA's jurisdiction have entered into IGAs with USA which delegate certain specific functions to the Cities (such as local maintenance, billing, and permit issuance) See Section 2.3 for further information about the IGAs. Washington County General Organization Washington County is the second largest and fastest growing urban county in Oregon, and is one of three Oregon counties making up the Greater Portland Metropolitan area. The County is currently operating under a comprehensive "County 2000" Plan that addresses the needs of residents and includes a budget for 1999 -2000. The organizational chart, Figure 2 -2, demonstrates services and departments of the County. Composition and Role of the Board. Washington County government is led by the same Board as described above. Duties of the Board generally involve approving all ordinances and regulations of the County, establishing policy for County organizations, and approving all significant contracts. The Board appoints the County Administrator who manages the County service departments. Although the Board interacts frequently with Department Heads in weekly Board meetings, the County Administrator manages the departments. Role of the County Administrator. The County Administrator is appointed by the Board of Commissioners to manage the County's day -to -day activities and to interact with the appointed Heads of the various Departments. The Administrator appoints the Department Heads and oversees their duties. The County Administrator is the chief administrative officer of the County, reports to the Board, takes policy direction from the Board, and is responsible for executing those policies. U \Leg aI ■Stormv2 ter Manag ernent Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document dec\2- JUN -00\ 7-3 [ Gary Pagenstecher= 6- 2- 00_Final_bocume odf _ Page 32 SECTION TWO Program management Figure 2 -2 Washington County Organizational Chart U \Leg altStormwa ter Maneg ement PI aM6 -2 -00 Final Document do62- JUN-00\ 74 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 - Final Docume ^} pdf Page 33 SECTION TWO Program Management Relationship to Cities within Washington County. Washington County provides many services to the twelve Cities within its jurisdiction. See Section 2.3 for information on services related to stormwater pollution control. 2.2.2 Co-Perm ittees' Respective Jurisdictions and Missions The following provides information about the institutional context within which the Co- permittees must implement the practices and procedures described in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. This institutional context is complex in nature, and the Co- permittees operate under unique circumstances. Although USA and Washington County are Co- permittees in the MS4 permit, the two entities have distinctly different missions, organizations, and funding. The two entities also have overlapping jurisdictions and different relationships to the cities that are located within their boundaries. USA Jurisdiction. USA was formed in 1970 by a special vote of the people to abate pollution of the Tualatin River and its tributaries under Chapter 451, Oregon Revised Statues. USA was reconstituted in 1990 as a County Special Service District, and its responsibilities were expanded to include management of surface water runoff ( stormwater). The USA District Boundary encompasses an approximately 123 square -mile area, all of which is located within the current (i.e., 2000) UGB The District Boundary primarily encompasses the urban areas of Washington • County and small portions of the City of Portland, Multnomah County, and Clackamas County as shown on Figure A -1 -1 in Appendix 1. Figure A -1 -1 also shows major arterials, rivers and major streams, all of Washington County and portions of surrounding counties. population and Services Covered. USA serves a population of approximately 405,000. USA is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of all domestic and industrial wastewater, and for providing surface water management services for the cities of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, Hillsboro, King City, Forest Grove, Sherwood, Cornelius, Banks, Gaston, Durham, North Plains, and areas of urban unincorporated Washington County within USA's District Boundary. Other services USA provides include street sweeping and other maintenance activities, review of development proposals, and implementation of an erosion control program. Mission Statement. The vision of USA is to enhance the environment and quality of life in the Tualatin River watershed through visionary and collaborative management of water resources in partnership with others. USA's Mission Statement declares the following. "We provide cost - effective services and environmentally sensitive management of water resources for the Tualatin River watershed." Funding. USA is 100 percent fee- and charge- supported. The Board of Directors is authorized by state law to set fees and charges for connection to, and use of, the public facilities and public services related to surface water management, including stormwater drainage. The Surface Water Management program is a separate utility system. Revenues of the SWM program are not gross revenues of the sewer system, and the SWM operating expenses are not operating expenses of the sewer system. Surface water management fees are based on measured impervious surface U \Leg anStormwa ter Manag ement an \62 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN -00\ 7 -5 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume' pdf Page 3 4 , SECTION TWO Program Management areas, including roofs and paved areas (such as parking lots and roads). These SWM fees are charged against an average residential measurement (2,640 square feet) or equivalent service unit (ESU). The rate charged for SWM services is $4.00 per month per ESU. Some weighted values have been developed for graveled areas, greenhouses, and other improvements. Single - family residences are typically charged a flat 1 0 ESU rate. Washington County Jurisdiction. Washington County covers an area of approximately 727 square miles. Of its many responsibilities , the County manages the network of County roads throughout the permit area, including roads located within both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Generally, however, USA and the cities maintain the storm drain systems associated with these roads within the city limits, including Best Management Practices and water quality facilities. An explanation of these distinct areas of responsibility follows: • Washington County unincorporated territory within the UGB but outside of USA's District Boundary: 2 26 square miles (which amounts to 0.31% of the County). As urbanizable land is annexed, sometimes small pockets or islands of territory are left between city boundaries This is true for a small area of Washington County where land use is typically in agricultural production, or is zoned as single - family residential and undeveloped. As lands within these pockets become urbanized, they will likely be annexed by the adjoining cities. At that time, USA's District Boundary and SWM program for the cities are expected to be expanded. In the meantime, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation (DLUT) is responsible for the operation and maintenance of roadways, roadside storm drainage ditches, bridges, and 36 -inch and larger culverts in these areas. The County continues to be responsible for reviewing and approving land development permits in these areas. As a Co- permittee responsible for MS4 program elements, the County uses USA's Design and Construction Standards for guidance in approval of new stormwater systems associated with new land development. The County also applies the Tualatin Basin Rule, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340 -41 -455 for new development. • Washington County unincorporated territory within the UGB and within USA's District Boundary: 41.5 square miles (which amounts to 5.7% of the County). In 1990, when USA's SWM program was offered to the cities and the County, USA entered into an IGA with Washington County, whereby USA provides operation and maintenance services for the portions of the County's stormwater drainage system that are located within USA's District Boundary. This includes responsibility for maintenan ce of public catch basins, drain inlets, and pipes and culverts less than 36 inches in diameter, and implementation of U \Leg arStormwa ter Manag emer,t Plan \62 -00 Final Document dog \2- JUN -00\ 7-6 !Gary _ 6 -2 -OO Final Document.pdf Page SECTION TWO Program Management various other surface water management tasks. Although the IGA signed in 1990 does not include ditch maintenance, USA has contracted to maintain these for the County. Washington County DLUT maintains culverts greater than or equal to 36 inches in size, as well as all bridge crossings in County roads. The County permits land use development and routes appropriate development plans to USA for approval of drainage systems and approval relating to water quality standards. USA, along with the Cities, routinely conducts street sweeping on curbed roads within its District Boundary, although some Cities contract with sweeping companies. Uncurbed roads are not routinely swept Population and Services Covered. Washington County had a 1999 population of approximately 405, 000. Of this population, about 370,000 (91 %) lived in urban areas, and about 35,900 (9 %) lived in rural areas of the County. Services provided by the County include land use planning, housing, transportation, health and human services, culture, recreation services, libraries, and sheriff's and public safety services, including justice court. Other agencies providing public services to Washington County's residents and employers include cities, school districts, fire districts, water districts, park districts, sanitary districts, regional planning, port, and transit agencies. Mission Statement. Washington County is a home rule county under County Charter, which gives it authority over matters of County concern. As such, the County has broad police powers over matters affecting the health and safety of its citizens. Additionally, ORS Chapter 203 grants authority to the County to adopt and enforce its ordinances and resolutions. The stated mission of Washington County in the "County 2000 Strategic Plan" is "to provide specific County government services within the bounds of resources in a professional, efficient manner." The Washington County DLUT defines its organization as "an organization of professional people within Washington County government which strives to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by balancing the desires of citizens with quality of life concerns, the natural environment and opportunities for economic development ". Funding. The County's water quality improvement practices are funded entirely from the County Road Fund, and use of such funds is restricted to road purposes. The County's stormwater facilities built in conjunction with capital road projects are funded by levy funds approved by voters. Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) help fund capital improvement projects for capacity and safety, generally in the urban unincorporated area. Washington County reimburses USA for the services USA provides to the County within its District Boundary. 2.2.3 Co .Permittees' Properties, Facilities, and Activities USA's Properties, Facilities, and Activities The following describes USA properties, facilities, and activities that are covered by the MS4 Permit and this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. U \Leg aAStormwe ter Money ement PI an \6-2 -00 Foal Document doc \2- JUN-00 \ 7-7 ! Gary Pa gen s techer 6 2 00 Final Docume ' odf Page 36; SECTION TWO Program Management Geographic Scope of the MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. The primary factor considered in defining the geographic scope of the MS4 Stormwater Management Plan that applies to USA was the extent of USA's District Boundary. USA's current District Boundary are shown on Figure A -1 -1. USA is a county service district that serves the designated urban area of Washington County, together with small urban areas of Multnomah and Clackamas Counties that are adjacent to the District Boundary. All land within USA's District Boundary is within the UGB; however, a few small areas within the UGB in Washington County are not within USA's District Boundary. Figure A -1 -2 shows the area covered by USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Plan and MS4 permit. Cities are shown in light blue and unincorporated area dark blue. Note that this permit area includes some areas outside Washington County where the District Boundary extends into portions of Multnomah County. Also note that thin grey lines within the light blue areas are tax lot boundaries and that streets shown in white are part of Washington County's MS4 permit area. USA Properties, Facilities, and Activities that are Covered by the Plan.. The majority of the properties that are owned by USA are facility sites for municipal wastewater treatment plants, public pump stations, or office facilities. USA also owns several surface water quality management facilities (e.g., detention basins), which are typically located on separate tracts owned by USA. Ownership, Operation and Maintenance, and Construction of the MS4 . USA is responsible for • implementing surface water management activities within its District Boundary, including the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the MS4 system. Operation and maintenance activities are limited to the formal "public" drainage system that has been designed and constructed to public standards and is located within easements or real property that has been conveyed or dedicated to USA. Through IGAs with the member cities within the USA District Boundary, some of the cities perform certain specified surface water management activities. For example, the larger cities (Forest Grove, Cornelius, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood) operate and maintain the public, local storm drainage facilities within their respective boundaries. USA operates and maintains the public storm drainage facilities within the smaller cities (North Plains, Durham, Banks and King City), within unincorporated Washington County, and within its District Boundary. Although Washington County is responsible for maintenance of roadside ditches in unincorporated areas within the USA District Boundary, USA actually performs the maintenance of these ditches inside USA's District Boundary, under contract with Washington County. The inventory of municipal stormwater facilities within USA's District Boundary (USA plus City maintenance areas) includes the following: • 30,000 catch basins • 900 miles of storm lines • 500 water quality facilities • 2,200 curb miles of street sweeping • 200 water quality manholes U \Leg at`Stormwa ter Mann ement Plan \6-2 -CO Final Document 01o62- JUN -W\ 7 -8 - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- — - - -- -- - - - -- rGary_Pagenstecher - 6 -2 Final DocumP ^+.pdf _ _ Page 371 SECTION TWO Program Management Washington County's Properties, Facilities, and Activities The following describes Washington County properties, facilities, and activities that are covered by the MS4 Permit and this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. Geographic Scope of the MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. In defining the geographic scope of the MS4 Stormwater Management area within the Washington County permit boundaries, two factors directed the limited scope. First, the Federal stormwater regulations [40 C.F.R. 122.26] contain the following language which differentiates between incorporated and unincorporated portions of a county: "While permits issued for [MS4s] will cover municipal system discharges in unincorporated portions of the county, it is the intent of EPA that management plans and other components of the programs focus on the urbanized and developing areas of the county. Undeveloped lands of the county are not expected to have many, if any, municipal separate storm sewers." 55 Fed. Reg. 222, p. 48041. Washington County contains developable areas within the UGB but not within USA's District Boundary. The UGB is considered to encompass urbanized and urbanizable areas, and is used to define the MS4 permit boundaries. It includes small areas outside of USA's District Boundary, and the population of these scattered areas is less than 500. The second factor directing the limited scope of Washington County's permit area is the fact that all of the remaining urbanizab le unincorporated County area is within USA's District Boundary and is managed by USA. Figure A -1 -3 shows the area covered by Washington County's MS4 Stormwater Management Plan and MS4 permit. This MS4 permit area is shown in purple. Washington County Properties, Facilities, and Activities that are Covered by the Plan. This territory inside of USA's District Boundary is about 54 square - miles, and includes County roads (shown in purple on Figure A -1 -3) and about 26 water quality treatment facilities associated primarily with road runoff. These facilities were built by and are owned by Washington County, but they are currently operated and maintain ed by USA by a formal IGA between USA and Washington County. These water quality facilities include detention ponds, compost filters, drainage swales, and master sump manholes. The County owns no sanitary landfills or treatment plants The Washington County unincorporated territory that lies within the permit area is also shown on Figure A -1 -3. The small solid purple areas shown on Figure A -1 -3 are the unincorporated portions of Washington County that lie within the UGB, but are outside of USA's District Boundary. These small areas outside of USA's District Boundary total about 2.26 square - miles, and include County roads and conveyance systems (ditches). The County has no structural water quality treatment facilities in this currently undeveloped, but urbanizable, area. Unincorporated portions of Washington County that lie within the UGB, and are inside of USA's District Boundary, are also shown in purple on Figure A -1 -3. 2.3 COORDINATION AMONG CO -PERMITTEES AND OTHER PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS U \Leg altStormwa ter Manag ement PI an \6 -2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 7-9 I Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocumF ' odf Page 38; - SECTION TWO Program Management The following describes how USA and Washington County will coordinate with each other in performing the activities required under the renewed MS4 Permit and how USA and Washington County, individually, will work with the local cities. As it has in the past, USA will act as overall program coordinator and will monitor compliance with MS4 Permit requirements for its member cities. USA, as the regional service provider, oversees the implementation of many storm and surface water management efforts within its District Boundary. USA develops and adopts the work programs, rules, policies, rates, and charges needed to meet the MS4 regulatory requirements. The 12 member cities also perform the tasks that are described in formal IGAs with USA. To facilitate implementation of this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan, USA, Washington County, and the cities will coordinate work programs and meet to review proposed changes using two standing committees: the Washington County Managers Committee (which meets monthly), and the USA Technical Committee (which meets monthly or as needed). USA provides training to the County and the cities when new rules are adopted, and is available to assist with program implementation and non - routine circumstances USA monitors each city's compliance with the terms of its respective IGAs through an annual performance review. The review requires detailed reporting of maintenance work that each city has accomplished In addition, certain specified non - maintenance practices and procedures are also reviewed to assure that USA's rules are being followed in plan review, erosion control, rates and charges, use of System Development Charges, and requirements for protection of sensitive areas, wetlands, and floodplains. USA/Washington County IGA USA and Washington County entered into an IGA (in 1990) that defines roles and responsibilities in both the Surface Water Management Program and the Sanitary Sewer Program. The IGA generally defines USA as being responsible for the storm and surface water management within USA's District Boundary for urban unincorporated areas of the County. There are exceptions to this general authority which preserve County responsibility. The IGA has been amended three times since 1990: first to allow USA to perform the ditch maintenance program with funding by the County, the second to more exactly define the circumstance for provision of other services, and the third to define the maintenance responsibilities for certain specific water quality facilities. Under the existing USA /County IGA, USA is responsible for the following. • The duties of ownership, operation, and maintenance of all publicly owned storm and surface water facilities, including facilities for water quality, within USA's District Boundary, and not in public road rights -of -way. U \Leg ai\Stormwa ter Manag ement PI en \6-2- 00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 7-10 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docurn5 odf Page 39 SECTION TWO Program Management • The duties of ownership, operation, and maintenance of all publicly owned storm and surface water facilities, including water quality facilities, within USA's District Boundary, and within public road rights -of -way for the following: - Street sweeping; - Drainage structures (e.g., manholes, catch basins, grates, covers, laterals) - Storm drain pipes and their inlets; and - Culverts less than 36" in diameter crossing under public roads. • Development, adoption, and enforcement of standards and rules for the design, construction, and use of the storm and surface water system. • Plan review, issuance of permits, inspection, and enforcement for new construction, modification, and connection to the storm and surface water system, and erosion control. • Wetland, floodway, and floodplain management. • Adoption of programs to meet regulatory requirements. • Collection of fees to operate these programs. USA has management authority to set policies, rules, and standards; to set the rates, and to define the work program within the urban unincorporated areas of Washington County that are within USA's District Boundary. Under the USA/VV ashington County IGA, the County is responsible for: the duties of ownership, operation, and maintenance of the following storm and surface water facilities and functions within public rights -of -way: roadside ditches and swales; roadside shoulders; bridges; and culverts equal to or greater than 36" in diameter. The IGA also defines the County as being responsible for preparing and revising the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. USA/City IGAs USA and cities entered into IGAs (in 1990) to add SWM program functions. The agreements specify that USA will develop the rules, policies and programs, and set the rates and charges. The cities agree to follow these programs as adopted by USA. Depending on the specific city, various elements of the program are delegated to the city to perform. For the larger cities (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Tigard, and Tualatin) this includes maintenance of the local public stormwater drainage system; plan review, permit issuance, and inspection; and billing and collection. For smaller cities (King City, Durham, Banks, and North Plains) USA typically implements the entire surface water management program activities, except for the City of Gaston, which does its own SWM program, sets their own rules, and sets their own rates In addition to the individual city agreements, there is also a "City Committee" agreement (also entered into in 1990) which provides a means for the cities to provide inputs to USA' s rules and U \Leg at\Stormwe ter Macao ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 Final Document duo \2 - JUN -00\ 7-11 f Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DoCi mr ' odf Page 40, SECTION TWO Program Management policies, and also provides a means for enforcement against a city in the circumstance where it is determined that the city has not performed according to agreement. USA and the larger member cities are in the process of revising the IGAs The existing individual city agreements and the City Committee agreement will be replaced. The division of responsibilities will be defined in more detail, and USA's ability to modify programs will be clarified. Washington County / Cities Relationship . Washington County includes a portion of the City of Portland and twelve cities including Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, Gaston, Forest Grove, Cornelius, Durham, King City, Sherwood, Banks, and North Plains. The County 2000 Strategic Plan describes two kinds of services, Countywide and Municipal. Countywide services are defined as services that are of countywide benefit. These services are typically funded by countywide property taxes, other general - purpose revenues, or other special revenues dedicated to those services. Municipal services benefit only specific sub -areas and groups within the County. The County does not generally fund or perform municipal services. Cities, geographically limited special districts, or user fees typically fund these services. County services provided by the Department of Land Use and Transportation (DLUT) related to stormwater pollution source control are more clearly defined. Although County roads cross through some cities, USA maintains the stormwater facilities associated with those roads per an IGA with the County. The only stormwater facilities operated and maintained by the County within the permit area are those small scattered areas outside USA's District Boundary (these amount to about 2.5 square miles total area). Land use planning services, including erosion control requirements for new development and redevelopment, are provided by the County DLUT. 2.4 SELECTION OF BMPS 2.4.1 General The following summarizes the Co- permittees' efforts to identify, evaluate, and select methods for controlling stormwater- related water quality problems. These control methods are referred to as "best management practices" (BMPs). The NPDES Permit Application Regulations for Stormwater Discharges (40 CFR, Part 122.26) define the type and degree of controls that are adequate as follows. "A proposed management program shall include a comprehensive planning process... to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable using management practices, ... and such other provisions which are appropriate." The MS4 regulations do not explicitly state which particular pollutants should be controlled, the percent reduction that must be achieved, or the quality of stormwater that can be discharged. The Co- permittees used a formal, documented process to evaluate and select BMPs to include in their respective programs that are described in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan The U \Leg a Stormwa ter Manag ement PI an\6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-DO 7 -1 2 Gary Pagenstecher - 6- 2- 00_Final DocumF ` odf _Page 41 SECTION TWO Program Management participants involved in this process included a broad range of technical, legal, public information, and management personnel representing USA and Washington County. 2.4.2 Initial Process for Identifying/Eval uating/Approving / Implementing BMPs The following provides some historical context by summarizing the process the Co- permittees used in 1993 to identify, evaluate, approve and implement the current MS4 BMPs (i.e., the BMPs that are performed in response to the requirements of the 1995 MS4 Permit). The participants met in a series of technical works hops to discuss objectives, approaches, and results. They used the following step -wise process to select BMPs: Step 1 Identification of local stormwater quality problems; Step 2 Definition of objectives for the Stormwater Management Program; Step 3 Nomination of candidate BMPs; Step 4 Definition of factors for preliminary screening of candidate BMPs; Step 5 Preliminary screening of candidate BMPs; Step 6 Final evaluation, screening, and selecti on of BMPs to include in the Stormwater Management Program and the MS4 permit application. A summary of this process and a description of each of the selected BMPs were provided in the 1993 Permit Application. 2.4.3 Process for Identifying/E valuating /Approving New BMPs The following describes the Co- permittees' efforts to identify, evaluate, and approve the MS4 BMPs that are included in this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan and will be implemented through the renewed MS4 Permit. Senior personnel from USA and Washington County participated in two parallel, similar processes to determine the BMPs that would be included in their respective programs. These processes are summarized in the following paragraphs. USA's Process for Selecting BMPs • USA's technical, legal, public information, and management personnel met in technical workshop sessions to establish appropriate evaluation criteria, review candidate BMPs, and select BMPs for use during the renewed permit cycle. The steps followed in the process were as follows: Step 1 Reviewed criteria to determine which would be appropriate for evaluating potential BMPs. Thirteen criteria were adapted from the documentation of the BMP evaluation processes that were used in developing the 1993 MS4 permit application and in updating USA's Surface Water Management Master Plan. Step 2. Selected criteria that are appropriate to this stage of BMP evaluation and program refinement. U \Leg anStormva ter Manag ement PI an \62 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 7-13 Gary_ Pagenstecher 6 -2 -00 Final Docum,P ' pdf _ Page 421, SECTION TWO Program management Step 3. Reviewed the descriptions of the BMPs that were prescribed in the 1993 MS4 permit application. Modified the descriptions of some BMPs to reflect current implementation methods and intentions. Step 4. Considered a total of 79 potential BMPs and other procedures, practices, and activities that were defined in the 1993 MS4 permit application and /or will be defined in USA's 2000 Surface Water Management Framework document. Step 5. Selected BMPs that meet the selection criteria. These BMPs were recommended to USA's Project Team for its final decision about inclusion in the new MS4 Permit application. Eliminated BMPs that have already been undertaken and accomplished. Eliminated BMPs that are not presently considered appropriate to include in the forthcoming MS4 Permit application In evaluating the current BMPs, it was discovered that some BMPs are no longer useful to USA's MS4 program, and these were either modified, grouped to facilitate tracking and management, or eliminated if they had been completed. Some current BMPs were redefined to better describe activities that have been found to be practical and effective, and to better meet the BMP evaluation criteria. See Appendix 2 for an explanation of the completed BMPs. The original thirteen criteria that were considered for evaluating BMPs were as follows: Meets applicable regulatory requirements [items required by 122.26(d)(2)(iv)] • Addresses substances that are known to cause water quality problems in local • receiving waters (phosphorus, temperature, ammonia, bacteria, dissolved oxygen) Known to be effective in controlling substances that cause water quality problems • in local receiving waters (phosphorus, temperature, ammonia, bacteria, dissolved oxygen) Known to be "robust "— (1.e., the BMP has been shown to work well across a wide • variety of circumstances and conditions and optimizes multiple benefits) Known to be cost effective— (i.e., the BMP is a proven cost - effective practice that • has costs commensurate with benefits, and it can be expected to provide appreciable additional benefits for relatively small additional investments) Recognized as being necessary to facilitate management of the stormwater • management program Recognized as being relatively easy to implement, maintain, and /or enforce • Recognized as being relatively economic as compared to other similar activities • within any given USA program area Cost Recoverable —USA' s implementation costs can be recovered directly from • those who cause the problem(s) or from another agency U \Leg a Stormwa ter Manag ement PI an \0 -2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 7-14 ;Gary Pagenstecher - 6-2-00 Final Documr ` ndf Page 43 SECTION TWO Program Management Recognized as being protective of natural systems including floodplains, • wetlands, and riparian areas Stakeholder Satisfaction —BMP generally satisfies "universally shared" and • "strongly expressed" values identified in stakeholder value survey (January 1999) • Stewardship—Pr omotes public and /or stakeholder stewardship. Incentives —Allow s for the effective use of a variety of positive incentives • The following criteria were used to evaluate all existing BMPs and to select among the new (or revised) candidate BMPs: The BMP addresses relevant pollutants (i.e., substances that are known to cause • or significantly contribute to water quality degradation to the extent that the pollution effects interfere with designated beneficial uses in local receiving waters). The BMP is likely to be effective in controlling relevant pollutants. • • The BMP is called for by the MS4 regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)). The BMP is known to be reliable and robust (i.e , it can be expected to perform • well across a wide variety of circumstances and conditions and will provide benefits that address multiple program objectives). The BMP is known to be cost - effective (i e., its costs are commensurate with the • anticipated benefits), and /or it can provide appreciable incremental benefits for relatively small incremental investments. In addition, participants considered the goals and objectives expressed in the • Stormwater Management Framework document. The MS4 BMPs that USA will implement through this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan are listed in Section 3.3 and are described in detail in the Fact Sheets provided in Section 6. Washington County's Process for Selecting BMPs Washington County staff met in a workshop to select evaluation criteria, review candidate BMPs, and select proposed BMPs. The steps followed in the process for Washington County were as follows: Step 1. Reviewed criteria to determine which ones should be used for evaluating potential BMPs. These criteria were adapted from the documentation of BMP evaluation processes that were used in developing the 1993 MS4 permit application and from USA's list of criteria. Step 2. Selected appropriate criteria. U \Leg al\StormwaterMenag ement PIan \6 -2 -00 Final Document tloc \2- JUN -00\ 7 -15 ;Gary - 6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf Page 44, SECTION TWO Program Management Step 3. Reviewed the descriptions of the BMPs that are prescribed in the 1993 MS4 permit application Modified the descriptions of some BMPs to reflect current practice and intentions. Eliminated some BMPs that have already been undertaken and accomplished. Eliminated some BMPs that are not presently considered appropriate to include this application for permit renewal. Step 4. Reviewed approximately 35 potential BMPs and other procedures, practices, and activities that are defined in the 1993 MS4 permit application and /or are being proposed by USA. Step 5. Selected BMPs that meet the criteria. These BMPs were recommended to the Project Team for its final decision about inclusion in this application for permit renewal. In evaluating the current BMPs, it was discovered that some BMPs are no longer useful to the MS4 program, and these were eliminated from Washington County's proposed MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. Some current BMPs were modified to better reflect current practices and intents, and to better meet the BMP evaluation criteria. The following criteria were used to evaluate all existing BMPs and to select among the new (or revised) candidate BMPs: • The BMP meets regulatory requirements [items required by 122 26(d)(2)(iv)] • The BMP addresses and is effective in controlling substances that are known to cause water quality problems in local receiving waters (phosphorus, temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, toxics) • The BMP works well across a wide variety of circumstances and conditions and optimizes multiple benefits • The BMP is a proven cost - effective measure (costs commensurate with benefits) that can provide appreciable additional benefits for relatively small additional investments The MS4 BMPs that Washington County will implement through this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan are listed in Section 4.3 and are described in detail in the Fact Sheets provided in Section 7 2.5 COORDINATION WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL ENTITIES OUTSIDE MS4 PERMIT AREA The following describes how the Co- permittees will coordinate with other municipal entities that are not named in the MS4 Permit, but which may influence compliance performance. These entities include the City of Po rtland, the City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). U \Leg al\Stormwater Manag ement Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN -00\ 7-16 {Gary_ Pagenstecher - 6 -2_00 Final Docunne ^} p df Page 45 SECTION TWO Program Management USA has operational agreements with the City of Portland and City of Lake Oswego. Although neither of these cities' areas are located within USA's District Boundary, close coordination is needed because stormwater can flow through the systems, across political boundaries. USA coordinates with Clackamas County and Multnomah County. Small areas of both counties are within USA's District Boundary, and USA performs its duties in these areas. USA has no formal IGA with the two Counties, or with the Oregon Departments of Agriculture or Forestry. ODOT owns, operates, and maintains storm drainage and surface water management systems within the rights -of -way of State Highways, including the State Highways that are located within USA's and Washington County's jurisdictions. Coordination between USA, Washington County, and ODOT occurs during the process of plan review for new projects and when one system requires non - routine maintenance. There is no formal IGA between ODOT and USA. ODOT and USA are reviewing options for USA to perform portions of ODOT's maintenance program. Washington County DLUT and ODOT enter into IGAs on a project -by- project basis for such arrangements as ownership transfer, contract management, funding, and right -of -way management. DLUT and ODOT have no drainage IGAs outside of these project - specific agreements. U \Leg aAStormwo ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 7 -17 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document pdf Page 46 SECTION THREE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program 3.1 GENERAL The following describes USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Through the program, USA and cooperating agencies will implement a variety of practices and procedures that are intended to control the pollutants to the maximum extent practicable discharged from USA's portion of the MS4 storm drainage system The program's goal is to achieve and maintain compliance with MS4 regulations and do so in ways that are compatible with USA's larger mission, its obligations under other regulatory programs, and its agreements with various partner agencies and stakeholders (e.g., Washington County, local cities, other governmental entities, various non - governmental organizations). At the time USA prepared its two -part application to obtain the 1995 MS4 permit, it submitted current information regarding USA's legal authority, its fiscal resources, and how it would address non - stormwater discharges. This section provides updated information on those topics. The remainder of Section 3 is organized as follows: • Section 3.2 provides a summary description of USA's current legal authority and an overview of the IGAs USA has with the cities in Washington County and the cities within it District Boundary. • Section 3.3 provides a broad overview of the practices and procedures that comprise USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Detailed descriptions'of USA's MS4 BMPs are presented in the Fact Sheets provided in Section 6. • Section 3.4 describes those discharges within USA's jurisdiction that are deemed to be "non - stormwater discharges." The discussion also explains how USA plans to deal with such discharges to comply with MS4 regulations. • Section 3.5 provides a summary description of USA's current fiscal resources. 3.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY This section begins with an explanation of USA's unique legal relationship with its member cities and with Washington County. It then describesUSA's legal authority to satisfy the requirements of the MS4 regulations under40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i),(A) through (F). 3.2.1 Basis for USA's Legal Authority USA is a municipal corporation and county service distract established in 1970 under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter451. USA has management and enforcerrent authority over the storm and surface water programthroughoutits service District and with each of its member cities. USA's management and planning authority over the MS4 facilities within its District excludes roadside ditches and swales, roadsideshoulders,and bridges within the public rights -of -way; these are under Washington County'sjunsdiction (see section 4.2). Upon order of the Portland Metropolitan Area U \LegaltStorrnwa ter Manag emere Plan \ -2 -00 Final Document ooc \2- JUN -00\ 3 -1 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume" odf Page 4 --.I SECTION T HREE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program Boundary Corrmission and subsequentaction by the Washington County Board of County Commissioners,stormand surfacewater drainage and management were added to USA's responsibilities. In 1990, USA reached consensuswith each of its member cities to extend their respective IGAs related to cooperative operation of the sanitary sewer system to address surface water management. 3.2.2 USA/City Agreements As described in Section 2.3, USA has management authority forstormand surfacewater management within its District Boundary,whereas the cities have varying degrees of operation and maintenance authority delegated by IGAs. These IGAs are in the process of being updated. USA has "full service agreements" with the following cities: Banks, Durham, King City, and North Plains. U nder those "full service agreements," generally, each City agrees that all storm and surfacewater services are provided by USA. This arrangement works for the smaller cities which do not necessarily have the resources to manage the functionsof the stormdrainage system USA has a different relationship with the following cities, which are referred to as "self- service providers ": Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest G rove, H illsboro, Sherwood, Tigard, and Tualatin. U nder "self- service" provider agreements, specific stormvater functions are to be provided by the City. The USA /City IGAs are identical for each of the cities known as "self- serviceproviders" except for the identified areas for each city listed in each agreement. For "self - service providers," generally, each City has operation and maintenance authority over un d erg round storm drain systerrs and roadside ditches in street rights -of -way under City jurisdiction. Each City is responsiblefor maintenance and other associated functions of the stormdrainageand stornrwater programwithin City limits, and must conformto work program maintenance standards prescribed by USA. 3.2.3 USA/County Intergovernmental Agreement As described in Section 2.3, prior to July 1990, Washington County managed the Drainage Local ImproverrentDistrict (D LID) program. This programceased July 1, 1990when USA's Surface Water Management Program began, and the existing DLIDs were dissolved. Under the USA /County IGA, USA's responsibility includes the following: • The duties of ownership, operation, and maintenance of all publicly owned storm and surface water facilities (including facilities for water quality), within its D istrict Boundary, but not in public road rights -of -way. • The duties of ownership, operation, and maintenance of all publicly owned storm and surface water facilities (including facilities for water quality), within its District Boundary, and within public road rights -of -way for the following: street sweeping; drainage structures (e.g., manholes), catch basins and their grates, covers, and laterals; stormdrain pipes and their inlets; and culverts crossing under public roads. • The duties of development, adoption, and enforcement of standards and rules for the design, construction, and use of thestormand surfacewater system U \Leg alkStormwater Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 3 -2 [Gary Pagenstecher - 6 2 00 Final Docum6 ^+ Of Page 48! SECTION THREE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program • The duties of plan review, issuance of permits, inspection, and enforcement for new construction, modification, and connection to the storm and surface water system, and erosion control. Authority to set policies, rules, standards; to set rates; and to define the work programremains USA's responsibilityin urban Washington County within the USA District Boundary,exceptwhere that authority has been delegated to the Cities underthe aforementioned USA /City IGAs. 3.2.4 Authority to Control Construction Site Runoff To comply with its MS4 permit, a permittee must have the authority to hold dischargersaccountable for their contributions to separate storm sewers [Ref 40 CFR 122.26(dX2)(i)(A)]. For example, construction sites of 5 or rnore acres that discharge stormwater through municipal separate stormwater sewer systems are required to obtain individual N PD ES permits or coverage under general NPDES permits from Oregon D EQ. These permits require compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations. Through an agreement dated January 2, 1992,with DEQ, USA acts as D EQ's agent in receiving applications for DE Q's 1200 -C permit forthe control of story water associated with construction activities. USA and DEQ have developed an "Erosion Control Joint Permit" that meets the requirements of both USA and NPDES erosion control programs. 3.2.5 Authority to Prohibit IllegalDischarges To demonstrate that it possesses adequate legal authority to control stormwater discharges, a municipality must be able to effectively prohibit illicit discharges [Ref: 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)0)(B)]. An illicit discharge is "any discharge that is not composed entirely of stormwater except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit... and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities" [40 CFR 122 .26(b)(2)]. Effective prohibition of non-stornwater dischargesto municipal separate storm sewer systems means the municipality's management plans will require an industryto obtain a NPDES permitfromDEQ or EPA for non- storrrwaterdischarges where such discharges were identified as significantsourcesof pollutants. ORS 468B.050 requires a permit from DEQ for industrial dischargers, which shall specify applicable effluent limitations for discharge of any wastes into the waters of the state from any industrial or corrrnercial establishment or activity or any disposal system Table 3 -1 summarizes USA's authority to control such discharges. U \ Legal \Stormwa ter Manag ement Pl an\62 -00 Final Document do62- JUN -00\ 3 -3 `-Ga ry g Pa enstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Documer f pdf Page SECTION T H R E E USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program TABLE 3 -1 AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT ILLICITDISCHARGES REGULATORY SOURCE OF USA'S AUTHORITY REQUIREMENT Prohibit non - stormwater USA Ord. 27, Sec. 3 discharges to municipal separate storm sewer unless covered under a NPDES permit. Be able to stop the discharge USA Ord. 27, Sec. 10.G. from occurring. Be able to impose penalties on USA Ord. 27, Sec. 10.G.; ORS 451.990; USA facilities which do not R &O 90 -63 as amended by R &0.98 -35 eliminate their illicit discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer. 3.2.6 Authority to Control Spills and Dumping To demonstrate that it possesses adequate legal authority to control stormwater discharges, a municipality must be able to effectively prohibit illegal dumping [Ref 40 CFR 122.26(dX2)(i)(C)]. Table 3 -2 summarizes USA's authority to control such discharges. U \Leg ahStormvs ter Manag ement PI an162 -00 Falal Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 3-4 [Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf _ _ - Page 50 SECTION T H R EE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program TABLE 3 -2 AUTHORITY TO PROHI BIT I LLEGAL DUMP! NG REGULATORY SOURCE OF USA'S AUTHORITY REQUI REM ENT Prohibit spills or dumping of any USA Ord. 27, Sec. 3, R &O 00 -7, Ch. 3 material other than stormwater to the municipal separate storm sewer. Assess fines or other penalties USA Ord. 27, Sec. 10; ORS 451.990; USA against people caught dumping R &O 90 -63 as amended by 98 -35 materials into the municipal separate storm sewer. 3.2.7 Authority to Control Contribution of Pollutants from One Part of the Urban Area to Another When two or more municipal entities subnita joint application, each co- applicant must demonstrate that it individually possessesadequate legal authority over the entire municipal system it operates or owns. A co- applicant need not fulfill every component of legal authority specified in the regulations, as long as the combined legal authority of all co- applicants satisfiesthe regulatory criteria for every segment of the urban area [Ref. 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(0(D)]. USA isamunicipal corporation and county service district, organized underORS Chapter451. USA and its member Cities have the authority to enter into intergovernrrental agreements, for the cooperative operation of service facilities underORS 451.560and ORS Chapter190. The County and USA have the authority to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the cooperative operation of service facilities under ORS 451.560, ORS Chapter 190, and Washington County CharterSection 97. Table 3 -3 summarizes USA's authority to control the discharges of pollutants to the MS4 system. TABLE 3 -3 AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERNMENTA L AGREEMENTS REGULATORY SOURCE OF USA'S AUTHORITY REQUIREMENT Have specific legal authority to ORS 451 560 make interagency agreements with ORS 190 other jurisdictions. U \Leg a Stormwe ter Manag ement Plan \ -2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 3-5 Ga Pa en stecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume pdf _ Page 51_; SECTION THREE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program 3.2.8 Authority to Require Compliance with Conditions To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i)(E), each co- applicant mustdemonstrate adequate authority to enforce its ordinances. Table 3 -4 outlines the authority to require compliance and impose penalties. TABLE 3 -4 AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS REGULATORY SOURCE OF USA'S AUTHORITY REQUIREMENT Require compliance with all USA Ord. 27, Sec. 4.E., 9.B.; USA R &O 00 -7, Sec. conditions in ordinance 2.07 contracts, permits, or orders. Impose penalties that will be USA Ord. 27, Sec 10, ORS 451 .990, USA R &O 90- stringent enough to deter 63 as amended by 98 -35 non - compliance. Seal off any identified illicit USA Ord. 27, Sec. 4.E., 9.D. connections. Impose fines for not USA Ord. 27, Sec. 10; ORS 451.990; USA R &O 90- correcting illicit 63 as amended by 98 -35 connections, for discharging pollutants, and for dumping materials other than stormwater into the MS4. 3.2.9 Authority to Carry Out Inspection, Surveillance, and Monitoring Procedures Permittees must have the legal authority to carry out inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance with permit conditions [Ref: 40 CFR 122 26(d)(2)(i)(F)]. To meet this requirement, permittees may use ordinances that require industrial facilities to perform inspections and report the results to the cities or agency. Table 3- 5 outlines USA's authority to carry out monitoring. U \ Leg e Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 3 -6 ;Gary Final - 6 -2 -00 Final Docurne' *pdf Page 52 SECTION T HR EE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program TABLE 3 -5 AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT INSPECTION, SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING PROCEDURES REGULATORY SOURCE OF USA'S AUTHORITY REQUI REM ENT Carry out all inspection, USA Ord. 27, Sec. 9; surveillance, and USA R &O 00 -7, Chs 1, 2, 7, 8 monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance or non - co mp l ian c e with permit conditions, including the prohibition of illicit discharges to the MS4. Conduct site inspections USA Ord. 27, Sec. 9 to perform dye tests at the (authority to do all things necessary to administer facility or residence in question. the provisions of this Ordinance) 3.3 USA'S MS4 BIVPSS AND OTHER PROCEDURES AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS The following provides brief descriptions of the BMPs and other procedures and program elements that USA will implement to meet MS4 requirements. USA will implement the following BMPs through this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. In addition, a monitoring program has been developed (see Section 5.2). Detailed descriptions of these BMPs are provided in the Fact Sheets in Section 6. 1. Technology /Engineering a) Update and maintain maps of the storm drainage system. Throughout the permit period maps will be updated with information about new or existing infrastructure that is discovered through field investigation. b) Review, update, and enforce design and construction standards to protect and improve the quality from new development and redevelopment. c) Identify and construct structural controls via USA planning documents for improving stormwater quality. Subbasin planning process will identify projects to be implemented in accordance with USA's Capital Improvement Program. d) Implement inspection, enforcement, and permitting programs aimed at preventing soil erosion and controlling sediment, as follows: U \Leg al\Stormwater Mang ement PI an162 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN -00\ 3-7 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document pdf _ _ Page 53! • SECTION T HR EE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program • Review and update standards. • Review erosion control plans and issue permits. • Enforce erosion control regulations • Offer education and training. e) Evaluate and retrofit where feasible, existing drainage structures to producewater quality benefits. • Pre- treatm ent structures • Sumped catch basins • Water quality manholes 2. JVlaintenanre Maintain the MS4 and elements of the private storm system as allowed in USA's Resolution and Order, including line cleaning and repair; catch basin and water quality manhole maintenance; root control; retention and detention facility maintenance; TV inspection; customer and emergency response; roadside ditch and culvert maintenance; street sweeping; material processing and disposal, creek and stream maintenance; proactive leaf pickup programs; manhole repair; and culvert maintenance. In addition, perform maintenance of the sanitary sewer system in order to reduce overflows and cross - connection s which may harm the storm system. 3. Education and Outreach Educate the public with respect to the relationship between human activities and water quality. a) Proper use and proper disposal of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. b) Clean up and proper disposal of pet waste and impacts of water fowl feeding. c) Illicit dumping and yard debris disposal. d) Promote regional /local programs that provide the means for convenient and safe disposal of waste oil, anti - freeze, pesticides, and other household hazardous wastes. e) Develop and provide education and guidance on methods to reduce existing effective impermeable area. 4. Public Involvement and Participation U \Leg altStormwater Manag ement PI an \62 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 3-8 Gary Pagenstecher 6 2 00 Final Docume^+.pdf _ Page 54 SECTION THREE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program a) Work with property owners, citizen volunteer groups, and the general public to promote public involvement and participation in water quality improvement and protection programs and projects. b) Promote storm drain stenciling (inlet labeling) to educate the public on the impacts of pollutant disposal to the storm drain system. c) Promote the formation of stream and wetland "friends" groups for neighborhood education, stream clean ups, and stream and wetland enhancement projects. d) Promote stewardship among property owners adjacent to streams, wetlands, and surface water management facilities. e) Conduct periodic (every 2 -3 years) public attitude, opinion, and /or awareness surveys on water quality issues. f) Work closely with USA Advisory Commission (USAAC) to share information and receive recommendations on water quality improvement and protection policy issues. 5. Technology Development Educate operators of industrial and commercial facilities and municipal landfills regarding design features and "good housekeeping" practices that minimize the discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system. Technical guidance has previously been developed to facilitate this task. 6. Source Control Implement a program to detect, investigate, prevent, and eliminate illegal/iinapprop riate activities and illicit discharges to the stormd'rainage system. a) Continue to investigate illicit connections to the stormwater system. b) Continue to notify the appropriate Agency(s) to eliminate illicit connections to the stormwater system. c) Continue collaboration between USA departments when sewage or unknown spills/ illegal dumping occurs. d) Continue to collaborate with member cities and Washington County to identify and eliminate illicit discharges. e) Continue to investigate, document, eliminate, and enforce any illegal /inapprop riate activities that may have an impact to the stormwater system. f) Continue to investigate and eliminate any reported activities that may have an impact to the stormwater system. g) Continue to investigate incidents of illicit discharges of pollutants such as used motor oil, paint, and toxic materials. U \ Leg e Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document deo \2- JUN-00\ 3-9 I Gary_Pagenstecher - 6- 2- 00_Final Docume ^} pdf Page 55 SECTION THREE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program h) Continue to incorporate public education and involvement, during water quality investigations. i) Work cooperatively with Agency Inspectors at construction sites. 3.4 NON- STORNWATER DISCHARGES The following provides a description of those discharges within USA's jurisdiction that are deemed to be non - stormwater discharges. It also describes how USA will deal with them to meet MS4 permit requirements. Non - stormwater discharges may include chlorinated water discharges, groundwater, permitted industrial discharges, and illicit connections. 3.4.1 Chlorinated Wa1r Discharges The discharge of chlorinated water to surface waters and storm sewers is addressed by DEQ in a memorandum dated May 19, 1997. Super - chlorinated water (greater than 4 mg /I total residual chlorine) must not be discharged to surface waters or storm sewers. Discharges of more than 500 gallons per event of chlorinated water (containing up to 4 mg /I total residual chlorine) may be discharged to surface waters or storm sewers, provided that DEQ's designated Best Management Practices are applied. These include evaluating non - discharge alternatives, allowing sufficient travel time before discharge for dissipation of chlorine to occur, de- chlorination for certain discharges, and detention for certain discharges. Sources of chlorinated water in the USA District Boundary may include fire hydrants flushing, water line pressure testing and maintenance, hydrostatic testing, water line flushing, and other distribution system discharges. Chlorinated water discharges are addressed in Schedule A of the Co- permittees' current MS4 permit Schedule A, 1.b. states, "The following non- stormwater discharges need not be prohibited from entering the MS4, provided appropriate control measures to minimize the impacts of such sources are developed under the SWMP: water line flushing, ... dechlorinated swimming pool discharges." Such chlorinated water discharges are estimated to occur approximately 15 to 20 times per year. 3.4.2 Groundwater There is likely to be some incidental discharge to storrwater pipes from groundwater due to inflow and infiltration, surface trenches, streams, artesian wells, and other sources. No groundwater sources have been identified that need to be corrected. However, even small amounts of groundwater inflow and infiltration could be significant due to high levels of naturally occurring phosphorus in the soils and groundwater of the Tualatin basin 3.4.3 Stormwater Discharges Associaled with Industrial Activity Under the NPDES program, DEQ issues 1700 A/B Wash Water permits and 1200 -Z permits for industrial /commercial uses. The 1700 A/B permits cover wash water runoff from both vehicles U \ Leg aM1Stormwa ter Monad ement PI an \62 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 3 -10 Gary_Pagenstecher 7 6 -2 -00 Final Docume -+ pdf Page 56 SECTION T HR EE USA's MS4 Stormwater Management Program and products; there is the potential for 75 such permits in the USA District Boundary. The 1200 - Z permits are stormwater NPDES permits that cover discharges associated with certain types of industrial activities. At this time, USA in cooperation with DEQ has identified 162 industrial /commercial facilities located within USA's District Boundary. In addition, DEQ issues a general permit for non - contact cooling water. DEQ permits for these facilities address stormwater runoff quality, for example, via requirements for Stormwater Pollution Control Plans. In addition, USA has proposed a BMP that addresses industrial dischargers: Educate operators of industrial and commercial facilities and municipal landfills regarding design features and "cx/ housekeeping" practices that minimize the discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system. See the BMP fact sheets in Section 6 for detailed information. 3.4.4 Illicit Connections No illicit connections are known to be present within USA's District Boundary. USA has proposed a BMP that addresses illicit connections: Implement a program to detect and prevent illicit discharges of pollutants into the storm drainage system. See the BMP fact sheets in Section 6 for detailed information. When they are reported, all illicit discharges are investigated. The following characteristics of the discharges are investigated: color, sheen, and composition. If it is determined that the discharge has a potential to contain pollutants, a decision is made for the discharge to be treated, diverted, or eliminated. Decisions also take into account the pollutants contained in the discharge and whether any appurtenances are in place to treat the discharge 3.5 FISCAL RESOURCES The materials that were subrritted to apply for the 1995 MS4 Permit described USA's fiscal resources to support the management practices and procedures used to control pollutants discharged from USA's MS4 system USA still has adequate fiscal resources to implement the stormwater pollution controls required by the MS4 regulations. USA operates its storm and surface water management activities as a self- sustaining utility enterprise. Funding is provided for these activities through user charges and fees, system development charges (SDCs), interest earnings, and existing fund balances. U\ Leg artStormv2 ter Manag ement PI a,, -2 -00 Finai Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ 3 -11 i_Gary Pagenstecher - _6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf _ Page 57 SECTION FO UR Washington Conntvs MS4Stormwater Management Program 4.1 GENERAL The following describes Washington County's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Through the program, Washington County and cooperating agencies will implement a variety of practices and procedures that are intended to control the pollutants to the maximum extent practicable discharged from Washington County's MS4 storm drainage system. The program's goal is to achieve and maintain compliance with MS4 regulations and do so in ways that are compatible with Washington County's larger mission, its obligations under other regulatory programs, and its agreements with various partner agencies and stakeholders. At the time Washington County prepared its two -part application to obtain the 1995 MS4 permit, it submitted current information regarding its legal authority, its fiscal resources, and how it would address non - stormwater discharges. This section provides updated information on those topics. The remainder of Section 4 is organized as follows: • Section 4.2 provides a summary description of Washington County's current legal authority and an overview of the IGA the County has with USA. • Section 4.3 provides a broad overview of the practices and procedures that comprise Washington County's MS4 Stormwater Management Program. Detailed descriptions of Washington County's MS4 BMPs are provided in the Fact Sheets in Section 7. • Section 4.4 describes those discharges within Washington County's MS4 jurisdiction that are deemed to be "non - stormwater discharges." The discussion also explains how the County plans to deal with such discharges to comply with MS4 regulations. • Section 4.5 provides a summary description of Washington County's current fiscal resou rces. 4.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY Washington County is a separate Co- permittee for those portions of the MS4 system that are located outside of USA's District Boundary. The County had and still has adequate legal authority for the majority of listed required elements, for example: to require a discharger to construct source controls; to deny the discharger the privilege of discharging to the MS4 if the discharger refuses to comply with conditions; and to impose penalties on dischargers who are not complying with the stormwater runoff requirements. U \Leg aAStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document don \2 - JUN-00\ 4-1 I Gary Pagenstecher - 6-2 -00 Final Document pdf Page 581 SECTION FO UR Washington County's MS4Stormwater Management Program Most criteria are enforced in Washington County through the concurrent authority provided to USA for those areas within the jurisdiction of the USA /County IGA. These areas include urban unincorporated Washington County within USA's District Boundary. It is important to note that USEPA provided permit application guidance that stated it was not necessary for each co- applicant to demonstrate each component of legal authority specified in the rules as long as the combined legal authorities of the various municipal co- applicants satisfy the regulatory criteria for appropriate portions of the MS4. Furthermore, as mentioned in the application for the 1995 MS4 permit application, the County reserved the option to consider the de minimis effect of the 2 square -mile area that is not already covered by USA and /or County ordinances. 4.3 WASHINGTON COUNTY'S MS4 BMPS AND OTHER PROCEDURES AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS The following provides brief descriptions of the BMPs and other procedures and program elements that Washington County will implement to meet MS4 requirements. Washington County will implement the following eight BMPs through this MS4 Stormwater Management Plan. Detailed descriptions of these BMPs are provided in the Fact Sheets in Section 7. 1. Maintain the County's MS4 storm drainage system, and make improvements as needed. 2. Develop a program for vegetative management that includes protection of water quality impacts to the MS4. 3. Support and promote public education and involvement activities related to water quality concerns. 4. Review and modify as needed, storm drainage design standards for new development and redevelopment to ensure that they include consideration of water quality. 5. Develop structural controls for improving stormwater quality. 6. Implement the County's program aimed at erosion and sediment control related to construction sites, both private and public 7. Investigate and eliminate illicit discharges and inform enforcement authorities when illicit discharges are found. 8. Support staff training and education activities relating to water quality concerns. U \Leg eAStormwater Manag ement Plan \6.2 -CO Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 4-2 1Gary Pagenstecher 6 -2 00 Final Docume ^+ pdf • Page 59 SECTION FO UR Washington county's MS4Stormwater Management Program 4.4 WASHINGTON COUNTY'S NON- STORMWATER DISCHARGES This section describes those discharges within Washington County's jurisdiction that are deemed to be "non - stormwater discharges." 4.4.1 Groundwater To determine potential groundwater impacts, aerial photos of the Washington County permit area were reviewed with County Road Operations managers (March 2000). It was determined that these areas are mostly flat land, with no springs and no known groundwater discharges to the MS4 system. 4.4.2 Permitted Industrial Discharges Industrial activity within the Washington County permit area (outside USA's District Boundary) is limited Washington County does not have permit authority for stormwater discharges from these facilities. Potential permitted industrial discharges include the following: • A private landfill. • A Bonneville Power Administration electrical substation. • A small lumberyard and mill near the City of Banks. No other industrial activity is occurring in the Washington County permit area. DEQ permits for these facilities are assumed to address stormwater runoff quality. 4.4.3 I I lic it Connections Aerial photos of Washington County permit area outside USA's District Boundary were reviewed (March 2000) by County Road Operations managers. It was determined that no known illicit connections are occurring in this Washington County permit area. 4.5 FISCAL RESOURCES Washington County will continue to fund the stormwater management program at a level to meet NPDES regulations. Sources of funding are the general fund and the road fund. In accordance with County 2000 policies, the Resources Allocation Strategy essentially describes the method used to determine how various types of County services are to be prioritized and subsequently, how they are to be funded. U \Leg aAStormwater Manag ement Plan \6 -2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 4-3 Gary Pagenstecher - _6- 2- 00Final DocumP ^+ pdf _ Page 60 SECTION FIVE Monitoring, Program Evaluation, and Reporting 5.1 GENERAL The Co- permittees will perform a variety of activities, including monitoring, program evaluation, and reporting during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit. Some of these activities will be performed to satisfy specific permit requirements, but others will be performed in the interest of obtaining insights that will help the Co- permittees make wise, effective use of the resources they spend on stormwater management practices and procedures. The Co- permittees plan to review the information developed each year and use what they have learned: to prepare annual reports to DEQ, to make recommendations to staff and management regarding program refinement opportunities, and to request program and /or MS4 Permit revisions, if warranted. Although USA and Washington County will implement their respective "adaptive management" approaches independently (see Section 5.3), they share the goal of continuing the process of routinely gathering and analyzing information that will allow them to make increasingly efficient use of the resources they direct toward MS4 permit compliance. The remainder of this section describes what the Co- permittees plan to do in the following areas: • Section 5.2 describes the monitoring activities that will be used to meet MS4 Permit requirements. • Section 5.3 describes how the Co- permittees will use the results of each year's monitoring and program review findings to update and refine aspects of their respective stormwater management programs. • Section 5.4 describes the types of information the Co- permittees expect to provide in their annual reports to DEQ, recognizing that the renewed MS4 Permit will prescribe specific reporting requirements. • Section 5.5 describes how the Co- permittees expect to prepare for the permit renewal process that is anticipated to begin in 2005. 5.2 MONITORING AND STUDIES This section describes monitoring activities that are conducted to meet regulatory requirements and to obtain information for managing and progressively refining the stormwater management program. U \Leg aAStormweter Manag ement Plan \E2 -00 Final Document do62- JUN-00\ 5-1 LGary Pageristecher 6 -2 -00 Final DocumP ^f.pdf _ .. _ Page 61_, SECTION FIVE Monitoring, Program Evaluation, and Reporting 5.2.1 Monitoring Program for the Current MS4 Permit (1995 b 2000) The goal of USA's stormwater monitoring program is to comply with the MS4 Permit's monitoring requirements and to provide data for nonpoint source pollution management and control. Specific objectives include' • Evaluate selected BMP performance. • Provide information for prioritizing implementation of control measures. • Measure impact on surface water quality. Based on findings in the Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA) report, Analysis of Oregon Urban Runoff Water Quality Monitoring Data Collected From 1990 to 1996, June 1997, land use -based stormwater characterization has been sufficiently described. DEQ has since approved a change in •monitoring sites to shift from land use -based evaluation methods to assessment BMPs and instream stormwater impacts. This shift in assessment strategy is helping to fill existing information gaps. 5.2.2 Proposed Monitoring Program for the Renewed MS4 Permit (2000 to 2005) The following sites are proposed for storm monitoring during the duration of the renewed MS4 Permit. At least three storms will be sampled and analyzed during each permit year. These storms will be selected to represent both summer and winter conditions. 1 nstrea m Flow - Proportione d Samples USA will monitor at least two instream sites to obtain flow - proportioned samples during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit. Land Use Flow Proportioned Samples USA will monitor at least two land use sites to obtain flow - proportioned samples during the term of the renewed MS4 Permit. Industrial sites are not included, industries are required to self - monitor under their own stormwater permits. USA reserves the right to modify the sites selected for this storm monitoring program, if other monitoring sites or activities would provide more valuable information. 5.2.3 BMP Evaluation/Refin ement Process The following explains how the Co- permittees plan to evaluate their respective MS4 BMPs and other program procedures. They need such information to gain the insights they will use to periodically revise their policies and procedures, and also for refining the MS4 Stormwater Management Plan overtime. U \Leg a■Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 F maI Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 5-2 Gary Pagenstecher- 6 -2 -00 Final Document. - Page 62; SECTION FIVE Monitoring, Program Eualual ion, and Reporting Having selected MS4 BMPs in the workshops referred to in Section 2.4.3, the Co- permittees discussed how these BMPs will be tracked and evaluated. The Co- permittees intend to use the results of such tracking and evaluating to refine their stormwater management programs annually. These results are intended to show which practices are most successful, to give information that will enable Co- permittees to ensure their BMPs are useful, and to make changes based on the latest technical findings, so that pollutant discharges can be minimized. The Co- permittees used a formal, documented process to select program evaluation procedures. The participants' workshop session included a broad range of technical, legal, public information, and management personnel. The participants discussed alternative approaches to program evaluation and decided to use one or more of the following methods to track and evaluate BMPs: Method 1 - Define target levels of effort — Define the level of effort that staff will be assigned and budgeted to carry out. This would be done before beginning the BMP. Method 2 - Track BMP implementation — Observe specific BMP implementation activities, using self- auditing and record - keeping procedures to determine the level of effort that was actually expended. This method would be done after the BMP has begun. The tracking and evaluation methods selected for each BMP are designated at the end of each BMP Fact Sheet in Sections 6 and 7 The following Table 5 -1 summarizes, by BMP, which of the above methods were selected. 5.2.4 Other USA Monitoring Programs USA also conducts monitoring programs that are not required by the MS4 Permit. These programs provide support information for evaluating the overall effectiveness of USA's comprehensive SWM program. Instream ambient grab samples are collected at least once a month for the entire year. Samples are collected from sites outside USA's jurisdictional responsibility to provide comparisons between urban land uses and rural land uses. Approximately 9 Tualatin River sites and 6 tributary sites are sampled U \Leg aIStormwa ter Manag ement Plan 6-2- 00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 5-3 Gary Pagenstecher - 6-2 Docume ^+.pdf — - Page 63' SECTION FIVE Monitoring, Program Evaluation, and Reporting TABLE 5 -1 BMP EVALUATION METHODS BMP Program Evaluation BMP Program Evaluation Method Number Method Selected Number Selected USA's BM Ps 1 a Target level of effort. 3a -d Track implementation. 1 b Track implementation. 3e Track implementation. lc Target level of effort. 4 Track implementation. Track implementation. 1d Track implementation. 5 Track implementation. 1e Track implementation. 6 Track implementation. 2 Target level of effort. Track implementation. W C a B os M uh P n i s t n g 1 Routine record - keeping 5 Regular update of Water Quality procedures Facilities List 2 Routine record-keeping 6 Database tracks number of procedures violations and inspections 3 TBPAC Annual Report 7 Records are kept for exceptional spills 4 Records are kept for 8 Keep records of seminars and every development training sessions permit U \Leg a Storm ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document eoc12- JUN -00\ 5-4 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 "Final DocumP^t.pdf Page 64; SECTION FIVE Monitoring, Program Evaluation, and Reporting 5.3 ANNUAL REPORT The renewed MS4 Permit will provide a description of the information the Co- permittees need to submit in each year's Annual Report. The Co- permittees plan to follow permit requirements, but they also plan to report information that reflects what they have learned as a result of the adaptive management methods they will have employed each year. The Co- permittees anticipate conducting an annual review of their stormwater quality management programs and making changes as appropriate. The Co- permittees also plan to continue their approach of focussing attention and resources toward practices and procedures that have the highest likelihood of protecting the beneficial uses of the receiving waters from the adverse effects of MS4 discharges. 5.4 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL (YEAR 2005) The original application for an MS4 permit was guided by the requirements outlined in 40 CFR 122.26 (d). The application for the renewal of the MS4 permit is guided by the USEPA guidance document, "Interpretive Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems," dated May 17, 1996. It is expected that some form of guidance will be produced for the renewal application in next permit cycle that will reflect EPA's thinking on the topic in the future. When it is produced, that guidance will be followed in the next permit renewal application. U \Leg anStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 5-5 j 6ary_Pagenstecher -6-2-00 Final Document.pdf _ _ - _ Page 65 SECTION SI X USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets The following are detailed descriptions of USA's proposed MS4 BMPs. It is expected that the BMPs will be refined as they are implemented and as the annual tracking and evaluation described in Section 5.3 is conducted. The following is a brief description of the elements covered by each fact sheet: Citation —the regulatory requirement, from40 CFR 122.26 Purpose —a description of the purpose for implementing the BMP, especially addressing whether the BMP acts on and controls relevant pollutants, whether it is called for by the MS4 regulations, how reliable and robust it is. Who —who is responsible (USA, cities, etc.) for implementing the BMP. What —a description of what will be done. When —when it will be performed and completed within the 5 -year permit period. Where—a geographic description of where the BMP applies. Pollutant(s) Addressed —which pollutants the BMP addresses. Performance Measurement — method by which the BMP will be measured, of the following: Method 1 - Define target levels of effort – Define the level of effort that staff will be assigned and budgeted to carry out. This would be done before beginning the BMP. Method 2 - Track BMP implementation – Observe specific BMP implementation activities, using self - auditing and record - keeping procedures to determine the level of effort that was actually expended. This method would be done after the BMP has begun. U \ Leg af\Storr,, ter Manag ement Plan \62 -00 Final Document doc 6-1 "Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocumPnt.pdf Page 66; SECTION S I X USA's MS4 LIMP Fact Sheets BM P la. Update and maintain maps and inventory of the storm drainage system . Citation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(1) The program shall contain a description of maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s. (paraphrased). Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to provide accurate records of the public conveyance system so that maintenance and other activities required under the permit can be efficiently performed. This BMP provides support for requirements to address structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants, all O&M activities, assessing impacts of flood management projects on water quality, spill response, inspection and monitoring. Who Unified Sewerage Agency and its member cities will individually maintain maps of the portions of the storm system for which they perform maintenance. What There are several different mapping systems in use throughout the USA permit area. Some cities use manual, or paper, systems while others have mapping on computerized systems. USA uses a Geographic Information System (GIS) to maintain data on the storm system in the area for which it performs maintenance. Throughout the permit period maps will be updated with information about new infrastructure or information about existing infrastructure that is discovered through field investigation. When Programs are ongoing and effectiveness of tasks will be analyzed and adjusted on an annual basis to ensure tools are effective and efficient. Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed Not directly associated with specific pollutants. Performance Measurement 1) Define target levels of effort. U \Leg allStormwater Manag ement Plan\6 -2 -00 Final Document doc 6-2 1 Gary Pagenstecher - 6-2 -00 Final Document.pdf _ _ Page 67 SECTION SI X USA's MS4 AMP Fact Sheets BMP 1b. Review , update and enforce design and construction standards to protect and improve water quality on new development and redevelopment. Citation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(2), 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(D)(1) The program shall contain a description of planning procedures including a comprehensive master plan to develop, implement and enforce controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from MS4s which receive discharges from areas of new development and significant redevelopment. Such plans shall address controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s after construction is complete. The program shall contain a description of BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff from construction sites, including procedures for site planning to consider potential water quality impacts. (paraphrased) Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to: a) Ensure that design and construction standards include requirements to protect and improve water quality from new development and redevelopment. b) Ensure that public agency personnel (plan reviewers) and design professionals are educated and trained about the standards. c) Ensure that conditions are correctly applied to new development and redevelopment. d) Ensure that the design and construction standards are regularly reviewed and updated to reflect new requirements and improvements in technology. This BMP helps meet the regulatory requirements to have planning procedures for new development as a source control measure to reduce pollutants from commercial and residential areas. It also helps meet the regulatory requirements to limit infiltration of sanitary sewers to MS4 system. This BMP addresses and controls relevant pollutants and is cost - effectiv e in that it addresses construction at the initial planning stage. Who USA will develop and enforce the design and construction standards. Through intergovernmental agreement, some plan review and inspection tasks are also performed by its member cities. What USA's Design and Construction standards will include requirements to protect and improve water quality for new development and redevelopment in the following primary areas: • Requires water quality facilities (with maintenance plans) to be built as part of U \ Leg at\Stor,,, ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doc 6-3 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 2 00 Final Docuni t.pdf Page 681 SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP fact Sheets new and redevelopment, with a focus on "natural" solutions for water quality facilities; • Requires identification and protection of water quality sensitive areas; • Requires identification, protection, and enhancement of vegetated corridors as "buffers" to the water quality sensitive areas; • Requires separate storm and sanitary sewers with marking to help prevent cross connections a) USA will conduct regular training sessions for public agency personnel —USA, City, and County —and for engineering /desi gn personnel to educate them about the water quality standards and water quality facility design focusing on natural solutions. b) USA will review plans for development and redevelopment prior to the issuance of permits to ensure that the water quality standards have been correctly applied c) USA will regularly review its Design and Construction Standards, including technical guidance manuals, solicit input from stakeholders, and update the standards as necessary to reflect new requirements and improvements in technology. d) USA will regularly prepare reports regarding new development and water quality facilities. Men. Programs are ongoing and effectiveness of tasks will be analyzed and adjusted on an annual basis to ensure tools are effective and efficient. Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP is applicable to all pollutants of concern as pollutant control criteria are incorporated into the design and construction standards. Performance Measurement Track implementation U \Leg al\Stormna ter Manag ement PI an \6-2- 00 Final Dccumer t doc 64 Gary Pagenstecherz_6 -2 -00Final DocumPnt.pdf _ _ Page_69 SECTION SI X USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP lc. Identify and construct structural controls via USA planning documents for improving stormwater quality. C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(2) The program shall contain a description of planning procedures including a comprehensive master plan to develop, implement and enforce controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from MS4s which receive discharges from areas of new development and significant redevelopment. Such plans shall address controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s after construction is complete. Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to improve water quality through the construction of structural controls identified in USA planning documents. The BMP helps meet the requirements to provide structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from commercial and residential areas. Who USA is the lead agency responsible for identifying the projects. USA, its member cities, and the County will implement the projects through intergovernmental agreements. What USA will complete its subbasin planning for all the watersheds within its jurisdiction. This effort includes updating older plans to reflect new information and prioritization. The subbasin planning effort involves representation from broad stakeholder groups, including citizens, the environmental, development, and engineering communities, member cities, and Washington County. Projects will be identified and prioritized, and USA, a city or the County will be designated as the lead agency responsible for implementation of the project. Projects will be evaluated and budgeted for annually through USA and city capital improvement program and budget processes. Cost - sharing agreements between parties will be executed as necessary. Projects will be implemented in accordance with the Capital Improvement Program. When The subbasin planning effort, including the update of older watershed plans, is scheduled to be completed within the 5 -year period. Implementation of projects will be ongoing. Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area pollutant(s) Addressed Structural controls are designed to control specific contaminants. Performance Measurement U \Leg al\Stornrvrater Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 Final Document doc 6-5 `Gary_ Pagenstecher- 6 -2 -00 Pin a-I pdf Page 70, SECTION SI X USA's MS4 BMP race Sheets 1) Define target levels of effort 2) Track BMP implementation. U \ Leg al1StormvaterManag ernent Plan \6 -2 -00 Final Document doc 6-6 _Gary Pagenstecher 1 6 -2 -00 Final Documo ^t.pdf Page 71 , • SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP Id. I mplem ent inspection, enforcem en t, and permitting programs aimed at preventing soil erosion and controlling sediment. C itation 40 CFR 122 26(d)(2)(iv)(D)(1 -4) The program shall contain a description of BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff from construction sites, including: procedures for site planning to consider potential water quality impacts, requirements for nonstructural and structural BMPs, procedures to prioritize inspections and enforcing control measures, and educational and training measures for construction site operators. (paraphrased) Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to improve water quality by reducing or preventing soil erosion from construction sites through regulation, inspection, enforcement, and education. This BMP meets the regulatory requirements for a program to implement and maintain . BMPs for construction sites, including: site planning to consider water quality impacts, development of BMPs for construction sites, prioritization, inspection, and enforcement, and training for construction site operators. It also addresses and controls relevant pollutants. Who USA is responsible for development of the regulations for this BMP. Certain inspection and enforcement tasks are performed by USA's member cities through intergovernmental ag reemen t. What USA will regularly review and update its erosion control standards, ordinances, and technical guidance manuals, including regulations for enforcement and penalties, to reflect changes in rules and new technologies The erosion control technical guidance manual will describe BMPs that USA has reviewed and approved for use in the USA permit area. a) USA will review erosion control plans to ensure that they are appropriate to the site and proposed activities, and issue permits for erosion control activities. b) USA will perform regular inspection of permitted sites to ensure that erosion control measures are correctly installed and maintained through the life of the project. c) USA will enforce erosion control regulations using increasing compliance measures including. • Issuing deficiency notices identifying problems and requiring correction; • Issuing stop work notices prohibiting further work on sites until erosion control issues have been addressed U \ Leg af\StormwaterManag emenl PIan \6 -2 -00 Final Document doe 6-7 Gary _Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final_ Docume ^t,pdf _ Page 72 _ SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets • Issuing civil citations with fines d) USA will offer regular education and traini ng for public agency staff (inspection), construction contractors, engineers, and developers on erosion control standards and techniques. e) USA will explore opportunities for and the feasibility of offering permit fee incentives for construction personnel successfully demonstrating knowledge and implementation of effective erosion control measures. When Programs are ongoing and effectiveness of tasks will be analyzed and adjusted on an annual basis to ensure tools are effective and efficient. Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed Suspended solids and associated oxygen- demanding substances, nutrients, and /or bacterial contaminants. Performance Measurement Track implementation \ Leg af\StormveterManag ement PI are6 -2 -00 Final Document doe 6-8 Gary Pagenstecher 7 _6 7 2-00 Final Document.pdf Page 73 SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP le. Evaluate and retrofit where feasible, existing drainage structures to produce water quality benefits. Citation 40 CFR 122 26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(1), (2) The program shall contain a description of maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s. (paraphrased). The program shall contain a description of planning procedures including a comprehensive master plan to develop, implement and enforce controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from MS4s which receive discharges from areas of new development and significant redevelopment. Such plans shall address controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s after construction is complete. Purpose 1 To reduce pollutant loading from upland areas into water resource areas, by pre - treating the stormwater before it enters the natural system (applies to pre 1990 drainage systems only). 2. To convert existing facilities originally designed fora single purpose, usually conveyance or detention, into a facility that will serve multiple purposes including pollutant capture, treatment, and /or removal. 3. To evaluate, and implement where feasible, projects to improve water quality through the retrofit of existing MS4 system elements including water quality facilities, detention facilities, culverts and other system piping. This BMP helps meet the regulatory requirements for structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from commercial and residential areas. It also addresses and controls relevant pollutants and is often cost - effective and robust. Who 1. USA and its member cities that manage the stormwater conveyance system in their jurisdiction will evaluate the system for possible retrofit opportunities. 2., 3. USA, Washington County, and the cities will jointly identify potential opportunities and construct necessary projects, as defined by agreement. U \ Leg al Stormwater Manag ement PI an\62- 00 Final Document doc 6-9 11 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final_ ^} pdf Page 74 1 SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets What 1. Pre -1990 stormwater drainage pipes will be evaluated for pre- treatment retrofit opportunities. The size and type of pre- treatment facility recommended will be based on the likely pollutant wash -off the upland site in which it drains, the space available for the retrofit, and the effectiveness of the pre- treatment facility to reduce the pollutants of greatest concern. Once the retrofits are identif ied, they will be prioritized. High priority sites (a maximum of 12) will be designed and installed on public or private land, depending on the site situation and arrangements made with private property owners. 2. Identify and implement improvements to the storm system such as the replacement of flow- through catch basins with sumped catch basins; conversion of water quantity detention facilities to also provide water quality benefits; replacement of regular manholes with water quality manholes. 3. Through the Watershed Planning efforts, field maintenance and investigation, and citizen inquiries, USA and the cities will identify potential opportunities to improve water quality through the upgrade or retrofit of existing elements of the MS4 system, particularly: • Opportunities to daylight outfalls to creeks in order to improve water quality • Opportunities to improve the efficiency of existing water quality facilities through better planting or outlet design • Opportunities to retrofit or reconstruct existing manholes and catch basins to include sumps for water quality • Opportunities to convert or upgrade water quantity detention facilities to provide water quality treatment • Immediate correction of cross - connected storm and sanitary sewers Most potential projects will be prioritized and budgeted for study, design, and /or construction annually through USA's Capital Improvement Program review process. Cross - connections will be immediately corrected through enforcement of USA's existing regulations. Replanting of water quality facilities will be performed as part of regular maintenance activities by USA. When 1. The evaluation and prioritization will be completed within a three -year period. The design of high priority retrofit outfalls will be complete before the end of the 5 -year period. Installation of the retrofits will take another 2 -4 years. 2. This will be done annually as facilities are identified and staff is available. 3. The subbasin planning effort is scheduled to be completed before the end of the 5 -yr period. Projects identified through that effort will be prioritized and budgeted annually. Projects identified through field maintenance and investigation and citizen inquiries will be evaluated throughout the 5 -year period as part of routine operations. U \LegalStorr, , ter Manag emern Plan \6 -2- 00 Final Document ooc 6 -1 0 Gary Pagenstecher = 6 -2 -00 Final Don pdf Page 75 , SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP is applicable to all pollutants of concern. Performance Measurement Track BMP implementation. U \ Leg al\Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6 -2- O6 Final Document doc 6 -11 • Gary Pagenstecher_ 6 -2 -00 Final DocumP�+ pdf Page 76 SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP 2. Maintain the MS4 and elements of the private storm system as allowed in Agency R &O, including line cleaning and repair; catch basin and water quality manhole maintenance; root control; retention and detention facility maintenance; TV inspection; customer and em ergency response; roadside ditch and culvert maintenance; street sweeping; material processing and disposal; creek and stream maintenance; proactive leaf pickup programs; manhole repair; and culvert maintenance. In addition, perform maintenance of the sanitary sewer system in order to reduce overflows and cross- connection swhich may harm the storm system . C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(1) and 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(3) The program shall contain a description of maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s (paraphrased). The program shall contain a description of practices for operating and maintaining public streets, etc. and procedures for reducing their impact on receiving waters, including pollutants discharged as a result of de -icing activities (paraphrased). Purpose The purpose of the maintenance programs is to continue the proper functioning of facilities; remove pollutants as high up in the system as practical, repair, replace or renovate deteriorated facilities; and improve facilities where feasible to increase their benefit to the system. This BMP helps meet regulatory requirements to describe maintenance activities and schedule for structural contracts to reduce pollutants and to describe practices for operations and maintenance of public roads. It also addresses and controls relevant pollutants and is reliable / robust. Who USA and its member cities will implement various other procedures as defined by agreement. USA monitors the performance of its member cities. What Maintenance programs are shown in the following table titled "Maintain Collection Systems ". The maintenance activities are quantifiable and measurable. These represent the "ideal" or "target" levels of maintenance activity. There are circumstances that normally will prevent USA and Cities from achieving the entire work program annually; however, this BMP commits to accomplishing 90% of the total work program annually, plus measuring the results as indicated in the work program. In addition, this BMP commits to continue this total level of maintenance program each year; however, USA's Board retains the ability to modify the detail of the activities to gain efficiencies, respond to changing conditions, and to take advantage of new technology and information. When lJ \Leg altStormva ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 F nal Document doe 6-12 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf _ Page 77, SECTION SIX USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets The program is performed annually, with individual activities as specified. Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area, on facilities as specified. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP is applicable to all pollutants of concern. Performance Measurement 1) Define target levels of effort. 2) Track BMP implementation. U \Le er Management Plant 8-2-00 Final Document doc 6 -13 E G a r y Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf Page 78 • SECTION SI X USA's MS4 BMP Fact sheets BMP 2 Maintain Collection Systems SWM Program Activity Activity Fa day Details and Frequency Measurement Measurement Description Criteria #1 Cntena #2 1 Line Cleaning All per R &O good slope —3 to 4 years Footage Cubic Yards All per R &O poor slope - -1 to 2 years Footage Cubic Yards All per R &O Problem areas -- Weekly oras Footage CubicYards needed All per R &O Non Routine - -As needed Footage Cubic Yards 2 Repair All pubic As needed Number repaired 3 Clean Catch Basins All public Normal - -once per year Number Cleaned Cubic Yards All public Problems areas -- as needed 4 Clean Water Quality All Public Twice per year Number Cleaned Cubic Yards Manholes UllegaRStormweter Varian emeni Para.-CO Fret Document Eoc 6 -1 4 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume^t.pdf _ _ Page 79 • SECTION S I X USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets 5 Mechanical Root Control Public Lines 1 to 5 years as needed Footage 6 Retention /Detention Facility All Public Mowing - -4 to 6 times per year Hours Acreage Maintenance All Public Trimming - -4 to 6 times per year Hours Footage All Public Spray Herbicides - -As needed Acreage Gallons All Public Levee /Bank Maintenance - -As Number repaired needed All Public Clean Inlet/Outlet - -Once per year Number cleaned Cubic Yards All Public Garbage removal - -As needed Facilities cleaned All Public Remove silt - -5 to 10 years Number cleaned Cubic Yards All Public Inspection - -4 times during rainy Number season inspected All Public Water /Fertilize - -As needed Number Acreage All Public Plant/replant - -As needed Number of Acreage facilities 7 TV Inspection All Public Routine - -8 years Footage All Public Problem Lines -- As needed Footage All Public Non Routine - -As needed Footage All Public Post Construction -- Contractor duty U llepeAStormiraler M1Unap ement Pen \62 -00 Frel Document tla 6 -1 5 rGary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume ^+ pdf Page 80 SECTION S I X USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets All Public 1 -year Warranty -- Before end of1 Footage year 8 CustomerResponse Service Area As needed Number of Calls 9 Storm /Emergency Service Area As needed Number of Calls Response 10 Ditch Maintenance Major Roads Every 5 years Footage Cubic Yards Minor Roads Every 8 years Footage Cubic Yards Hydroseed -- Following cleaning Acreage Ditch armoring - -As needed Footage 11 Clean Roadside Pipes and Major Roads Every 5 years Footage Cubic Yards Culverts Minor Roads Every 8 years Footage Cubic Yards Repair - -As needed Number repaired Install - -As needed Number installed Remove -- As needed Number removed 12 Street Sweeping All public All curbed streets and curbed roads, Curb miles Cubic Yards roads with except those streets and roads that u \legakStormreler neMw am. P.6z-011 Frei Can n rim 6-1 6 1 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 2 -00 Final DOCUmP ^ +.pdf Page 81 ' SECTION S I X USA's MS4 BMP Fact sheets curbs are ODOT's responsibility -- 12 times per year Downtown areas - -Up to weekly Curb miles Cubic Yards Non Routine - -As needed Curb miles Cubic Yards Leaf Program -- Follow leaf machine Curb miles Cubic Yards 13 Material Processing and Sweeping Transport Material -- Replace Drop Cubic Yards Number of Disposal and Leaf Box once per week or as needed dropboxes Program Process and Sort - -As needed Cubic Yards Disposal -- As needed Cubic Yards Number of boxes 14 Creek and Stream Per R &O Debris Removal - -Non Routine Number of Cubic Yards Maintenance locations Per R&O Plant and Restore - -Non Routine Number of Acreage locations Per R&O Bank Stabilization - -Non routine Number of locations Per R &O Garbage /Nuisance Removal -Non Number of Cubic Yards Routine locations Per R&O Beaver /Dams - -Non Routine Dams removed Dams modified 15 Leaf Programs High leaf Curbside pickup -- Every 2 weeks, 4 Curb miles Cubic Yards Lena. ..meter Management Pants.2 � Foal Document deo 6 -1 7 Gary Pagenstecher - _6- 2- 00_Final Document.pdf Page 82 SECTION S I X USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets areas times Recycling Option -- Double pickup Extra pickups Cubic Yards fre q Leaf Drop Day - -1 to 4 times per Number of days Cubic Yards year 16 Manhole Repair All Public Adjust to Grade - -As needed Number Adjusted Repair -- As needed Number Repaired 17 Catch Basin and Storm All Material Processing and Sorting -- As Cubic Yards Material Disposal needed Disposal --As needed Cubic Yards Number of boxes 18 Culvert Maintenance Under 36" Clean -- As needed Number Cleaned Cubic Yards Sanitary Sewer Program 1 Line Cleaning Under 24" good slope - -3 to 4 years Footage Cubic Yards Under 24" poor slope -- 1 to 2 years Footage Cubic Yards Under 24" Problem areas -- Weekly oras Footage CubicYards needed U \leganlamvald Mar. mrert ptn \62- W Frei clot 6 -1 8 LGary_Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum - -4 pdf Page 83 SECTION S I X USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Under 24" Non Routine - -As needed Footage Cubic Yards 2 Repair All pubic As needed Number repaired 3 Manhole Maintenance All public Adjust to grade - -As needed Number adjusted All public Sealing - -As needed for l &I Number sealed All public Repair - -As needed Number repaired 4 Root Control All public Mechanical -- 1 to 5 years as Footage needed All public Chemical - -3 to 5 years as needed Footage 5 TV Inspection All Public Routine - -6 years Footage All Public Problem Lines - -As needed Footage All Public Non Routine - -As needed Footage All Public Post Construction -- Contractor duty All Public 1 -year Warranty -- Before end of 1 Footage year 6 C ustome r Response Service Area As needed Number of Calls U tLepet,Stomeater Mane, emeM Phn \Sb W Fml Document .c 6 -1 9 Gary_ Pagenstec - 6 - 2- OOF Docum' pdf Page 84; SECTION S I X USA's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets 7 Trunkline Maintenance 24" and Inspection - -2 years Footage Number of larger manholes Remote Markerposts -- Replace as needed Number replaced areas High water Self closing lids install as needed Number installed area 24" and Cleaning - -5 years Footage Cubic Yards larger 24" and Repair -- As needed Number repaired larger 8 Siphon Maintenance All public Clean -- Annual or more often if Number cleaned needed 9 Emergency Response Service Area As needed Number of calls 10 Laterals In Public Investigation --As needed Number R/W investigated In Public Repair - -As needed Number repaired R/W u lle la Management Pbn\62 -Q3 Fret Oaumen dm 6-20 rGary_ Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum ` pdf Page 85 SECTION SI X USA'S MS4 BMP Pact Sheets BM P 3. Education and outreach: Educate the public with respect to the relationship between human activities and water quality. 3a. Use and proper disposal of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers 3b. Clean up and proper disposal of pet waste and im pacts of duck feeding. 3c. Illicit dumping and yard debris disposal. 3d. Promote regional /local programs that provide the means for convenient and safe disposal of waste oil, anti -freez e, pesticides and other household hazardous wastes. C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(6), 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(6), 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(5) The program shall contain a description of a program to reduce pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers (paraphrased). The program shall contain a description of a program to detect and remove illicit discharges including education, public information activities to facilitate proper management of used oil and toxic materials (paraphrased). The program shall contain a description of a program to detect and remove illicit discharges including promote, publicize, report illicit discharges or associated water quality impacts (paraphrased). Purpose The purpose is to f Raise public awareness of the capability of stormwater to carry pollutants to rivers and streams; f Promote individual responsibility for and link individual behavior to prevention of stormwater pollution; and f Illustrate to the public how small quantities of pollutants from one source can contribute to significant pollution problems when mixed with small quantities from o th er sources. This BMP helps meet regulatory requirements to describe educational, public information, and other activities to facilitate the proper management/disposal of oil/toxic materials. It also addresses and controls relevant pollutants. Who USA will implement this BMP. What Activities are numerous and diverse using a broad array of public education, awareness and outreach tools. Among these tools: f Brochures f River Rangers classroom program f Mass media advertising through the Regional Coalition for Clean Rivers and Streams, Tualatin Basin Public Awareness Committee and Agency initiatives. f News releases U \ Leg at\Stormwa ter Manag ement PIar\6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-0O\ 6 -21 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum- ` p Page 86 SECTION S 1 X USA'S MS4 BMP Fact Sheets f Signage f Billing Inserts f Leveraging of program through support of existing community education programs. f Exhibits f Coordinate Tualatin Basin Public Awareness Committee meetings and joint projects. f Speakers Bureau When Programs are ongoing and effectiveness of tasks will be analyzed and adjusted on an annual basis to ensure tools are effective and efficient. Where This BMP will apply throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP is applicable to all pollutants of concern. Performance Measurement -- 2) Track BMP implementation. U \Leg altStormwa ter Manag emert Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 6 -2 2 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 2 -00 Final Docum }.pdf Page 87, SECTION S I X USA'S MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP 3e. Implement Public Education programs. Develop and provide education and guidance on methods to reduce existing effective impermeable area. C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(2) The program shall contain a description of planning procedures including a comprehensive master plan to develop, implement and enforce controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from MS4s which receive discharges from areas of new development and significant redevelopment Such plans shall address controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s after construction is complete. Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to encourage the reduction of effective impermeable area, either through the use of alternate surface materials (paving blocks, "grass- crete ", etc.) or through the increased use of landscaping. Reducing effective impermeable area, especially in vehicle travel areas, may reduce pollutants reaching the storm system. Increasing site landscaping helps reduce runoff from paved areas. This BMP helps meet the regulatory requirements as a structural source control measure to reduce pollutants from commercial and residential areas. It addresses and controls relevant pollutants. Who USA would be the primary lead agency on this BMP, with assistance and support from its member cities and other public agencies. What USA will prepare educational materials on effective impermeable area reduction techniques and distribute to engineers, designers, developers and homeowners. USA will review development plans and encourage the use of alternate surface materials where feasible. USA will consider fee changes (incentives) for the use of alternate surface materials. When The educational materials will be prepared and distributed before the end of the 5 -yr period. Education will be an ongoing BMP. Fee changes will be reviewed annually. Where This BMP will apply throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP is primarily focused at reducing quantity which indirectly can result in reduced amounts of all pollutants of concern. U \Leg a Stormwa ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ 6 -2 3 • i Gary Pagenstecher 1 6-2-00 Final _Docum ` pdf Page 88 SECTION SIX USA'S MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Performance Measurement 2) Track BMP implementation. U \Leg attStormwe ter Manag ement Plan \62 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ 6 -2 4 1 PagenstecheL- 6 -2 -00_ Final Document.pdf Page 89 SECTION SI X USA'S MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP 4. Public involvem ent and participation: Work with property owners, citizen volunteer groups and the general public to promoting public involvem ent and participation in water quality improvem ent and protection programs and projects. 4a. Promote storm drain stenciling (inlet labeling) to educate the public on the impacts of pollutant disposa I to the storm drain system . 4b. Promote the formation of stream and wetland friends groups for neighborhood education, stream clean ups and stream and wetland enhancem ent projects. 4c. Promote stewardship among property owners adjacent to stream s, wetlands and surface water management facilities. 4d. Conduct periodic (every 2 -3 years) public attitude, opinion and/or awareness surveys on water quality issues. 4e. Work closely with USA Advisory Commission (USAAC) toshare information and receive recom m endations on water quality improvem ent and protection policy issues. C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(5) and 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(6) The program shall contain a description of a program to detect and remove illicit discharges including education, public information activities to facilitate proper management of used oil and toxic materials (paraphrased). The program shall contain a description of a program to detect and remove illicit discharges including promote, publicize, report illicit discharges or associated water quality impacts (paraphrased). Purpose The purpose is to f Promote individual responsibility for and link individual behavior to prevention of stormwater pollution and improvement of water quality f Engage and involve citizens in water quality improvement and education projects; and f Protect and improve water quality by affecting a behavior change in how the public engages in activities that may impact storm and surface water quality. This BMP helps meet regulatory requirements to describe educational, public information, and other activities to facilitate proper management/disposal of oil /toxic materials. Who USA will implement this BMP. 18lb.at Activities are numerous and diverse using a broad array of public education, awareness and involvement tools. Among these tools: f Public involvement activities and speakers bureau to increase awareness and involvement in water quality issues. U \Legal\ Storm. ter Manag ement Plan \62 Final Document doc12- JUN -00\ 6 -2 5 [Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docurr �.pdf Page 90 • SECTION SI X USA'S MS4 BMP Fact Sheets f Promote behavior changes through the use of brochures, billing inserts, mass media, news releases and support of existing community involvement and education programs. f Conduct public awareness /attitu de surveys to evaluate effectiveness of existing programs and make adjustments where necessary. f Cooperative Funding Program to provide support for volunteers to do stream enhancement projects and water quality education in the basin. Meet monthly with USAAC to receive recommendations on policy issues. When Programs are on -going and effectiveness of tasks will be analyzed and adjusted on an annual basis to ensure tools are 'effective and efficient Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP is applicable to all pollutants of concern by attempting to reduce sources and inputs. 1 Performance Measure 2) Track BMP implementation U \ Leg al1StormwaterManag emer¢ Plan\8-2 -00 Final Document ood2 -JUN -000 6 -26 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum ` pdf Page 91 SECTION SI X USA'S MS4 IMP Fact Sheets BMP 5. Educate operators of industrial and commercial facilities and municipal landfills regarding design features and "good housekeep ing" practices that minimize the discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system . Technica I guidance has previously been developed to facilitate this task. Continue to coordi nate USA's industrial /com m e rcial program with DEQ's industrial permitting program. C itati o n 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(C) The program shall contain a description of a program to monitor and control pollutants from municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities, industrial facilities subject tot SARA Title III, and industrial facilities that contribute a substantial pollutant loading to the MS4 (paraphrased). Pu rpose Continue to provide technical guidance for and educate operators of industrial and commercial facilities regarding design features and "good housekeeping" practices that minimize the discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system. This BMP helps meet regulatory requirements to control pollutants from municipal landfills, industrial facilities, etc. It addresses and controls relevant pollutants, is reliable, and cost - effective. Continue to coordinate USA's industrial /commercial program with DEQ's industrial permitting program. Who The lead agency for this BMP will be USA. What Reporting • Continue to provide ongoing training to USA staff related to technologies to assist industrial and commercial facilities on appropriate "good housekeeping" practices. • USA staff will provide technical guidance and education to industrial /co mmercial facilities on either a one on one basis, or group setting. • Appropriate materials will be made available to continue to educate industrial /commercial facilities on "good housekeeping" technologies. • Monitor existing permits and notify DEQ of areas that may have non- compliance issues (ongoing into future permit years). • Collaborate with DEQ on issuing and monitoring industrial /commercial stormwater permits. • Receive and review appropriate Stormwater Pollution Control Plans (SWPC Ps) U \Leg eAStormwater Manag ement PI an \62 -00 Final Document tloc \2- JUN-00\ 6 -2 7 l Gary Pagenstecher - _6 -2 -00 Final DocumP pdf 92' SECTION SIX uSA'S MS4 IIMP Fact Sheets When This BMP is ongoing and will be expanded during the next permit period. Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP may have a net effect in reducing all pollutants of concern due to the possible contaminants /chemicals associated with industrial /com mercial facilities. Performance Measurement 2) Track BMP implementation. U \Leg altStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 6 -2 8 [Gary Pagenstecher - Final Documr - • pdf Page 93 SECTION SIX USA'S MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP 6. Implement a program to detect, investigate, prevent, and eliminate illegal /inapprop riate activities and illicit discharges to the storm drainage system . C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B); 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(3), (4), and (5); 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(C). The program shall contain a description of a program to detect and remove illicit discharges including investigations based on field screening, procedures to prevent, contain, respond to spills, and program to promote, publicize, report illicit discharges or associated water quality impacts (paraphrased). The program shall contain a description of a program to monitor and control pollutants from municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities, industrial facilities subject tot SARA Title III, and industrial facilities that contribute a substantial pollutant loading to the MS4 (paraphrased). Purpose Detect and prevent illicit discharges, eliminate illicit connections, monitor, inspect, and investigate illegal /inapprop riate activities that discharge pollutants to the stormwater drainage system. Who USA will implement this BMP. Member cities will follow up in their jurisdictions, with USA providing technical assistance. What • Continue to investigate illicit connections to the stormwater system. • Continue to notify the appropriate Agency(s) to eliminate illicit connections to the stormwater system. • Continue collaboration between USA departments when sewage or unknown spills/ illegal dumping occurs. • Continue to collaborate with member cities and Washington County to identify and eliminate illicit discharges. • Continue to investigate, document, eliminate, and enforce any illegal/inapprop riate activities that may have an impact to the stormwater system. • Continue to investigate and eliminate any reported activities that may have an impact to the stormwater system. • Continue to investigate incidents of illicit discharges of pollutants such as used motor oil, paint, and toxic materials. • Continue to incorporate public education and involvement, during water quality investigations. U \Leg altStormwa ter Manag ement PI an \62- 00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00t 6 -2 9 Gary Pagenstecher 1 6 7 240 Final Docum '.pdf _ Page 94' SECTION SIX USA'S MS4 BMP Fact Sheets • USA will work cooperatively with Agency Inspectors at construction sites. When Programs are ongoing and effectiveness of tasks will be analyzed and adjusted on an annual basis to ensure tools are effective and efficient. Where This BMP applies throughout the USA permit area. Pollutant(s) Addressed This BMP may have a net effect in reducing all pollutants of concern due to the possible contaminants /chemicals associated with illegal dumping. Performance Measurement 2) Track BMP Implementation U \Leg AStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6 -2 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ 6 -30 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum- ^t.pdf Page 95: SE CTION SEVEN Washington coun4rs MS4 BMP Fact sheets The following are detailed descriptions of Washington County's proposed MS4 BMPs. It is expected that the BMPs will be refined as they are implemented and as the annual tracking and evaluation described in Section 5.3 is conducted. The following is a brief description of the elements covered by each fact sheet: Citation —the regulatory requirement, from40 CFR 122.26 Purpose —a description of the purpose for implementing the BMP, especially addressing whether the BMP acts on and controls relevant pollutants, whether it is called for by the MS4 regulations, how reliable and robust it is. Who —who is responsible (Washington County, USA, cities, etc.) for implementing the BMP. What —a description of what will be done. When —when it will be performed and completed within the 5 -year permit period. Where —a geographic description of where the BMP applies. Pollutant(s) Addressed —which pollutants the BMP addresses. Program Evaluation Procedure —Track BMP implementation: observe specific BMP implementation activities, using self - auditing and routine record - keeping procedures to determine the level of effort that was actu'ally achieved. U \Leg eAStormwaterManag ement Plan \S -2 -OO Final Document dO \2- JUN-00\ 7 -1 Gary_ Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocumF pdf _ Page 96 SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Description — BMP 1. Maintain'the County's MS4 storm drainage system , and make improvements as needed. Citation - 4 -0 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(1). The program shall contain a description of maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s. (paraphrased). Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to maintain the storm drainage system in such a way as to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The purpose for ditches, which are part of the storm drainage system, is to maintain the ditches in such a way to reduce pollutants from the storm drainage system before they are washed into the receiving waters. This is done by minimizing trash and sediment washoff into streams and water areas or wetlands to reduce the negative impacts to water quality. Who USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: USA is responsible for the implementation activities of this BMP in this service area for closed conveyance systems and structures. USA provides ditch maintenance, under contract with the County. Washington County DLUT is responsible for maintaining bridge crossings and pipes > 36 ". County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation (DLUT) is responsible for the implementation activities of this BMP. What USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: USA cleans and maintains storm drain systems in this area. This includes maintenance of catch basins, street sweeping, drain inlet pipes, ditches, and culverts less than 36 inches in diameter, and implementation of various other surface water management tasks. Washington County DLUT maintains bridge crossings, and culverts over 36" on an as needed basis. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary The County cleans and maintains roadside ditches. No street sweeping occurs in this uncurbed area The County DLUT (Road Operations) shapes ditches for flow and safety reasons, with hydro- seeding follow -up to vegetate and prevent erosion. Bio -bags and matting are used where appropriate to prevent sedimentation and promote erosion control. Armoring is used on steep portions of roadsides to prevent eroding the ditchline. U \Leg aAStormvla ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ 7-2 • Gary Pagenstecher _6 -2 -00 Final Docum -t pdf Page_ 9r, SECTION SEVEN Washington Countvs MS4 IMP Fact Sheets When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. The schedule for maintenance of roadside ditches is seasonal, with additional work on an as needed basis. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area. See Figure A -1 -4 for geographic description of areas within and outside of USA service area. Pollutants Addressed Oil & grease, sediments, nutrients, organics, litter. Program Evaluation Procedure(s) The area of Washington County implementation activity outside the USA service area undeveloped, waiting to be urbanized. It cannot develop and urbanize without annexing to cities, which will remove it from Washington County area of responsibility. The current area is less than 1% of the permit area, and does not warrant estimating pollutant reduction levels for an undeveloped environment. The DLUT will track implementation of this BMP outside the USA service area through routine record keeping procedures. U \Leg aAStormwa ter Manag ement PI an \6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 7-3 — - -- I Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum ` pdf Page 98 SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP Fact Sheet Description — BMP 2. Develop a program for vegetative management that includes protection of water quality impacts to the MS4. Citation 40 CFR 122 26 (d)(2)(iv)(A)(6). The program must include a description of a program to reduce to the maximum extent practicable, pollutants in discharges from MS4s associated with the application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers which will include, as appropriate, controls such as educational activities, permits, certifications and other measures for commercial applicators and distributors, and controls for application in public rights -of -way and at municipal facilities. Pu rpose USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: The purpose of this BMP is to reduce runoff to the storm system, and to reduce sediment loading to the waterways. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: The purpose of this BMP is to control and minimize the application of necessary herbicides, and to use vegetative cover as a means to filter stormwater runoff in the conveyance system (ditches). Who USA Service Area/ Uninc. County. USA is responsible for the some of the implementation activities of this BMP, including vegetative management in the drainage tracts, common areas, drainage easements and additional off right of way areas. Washington County is responsible for the implementation activities of this BMP within the road right of way. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Washington County DLUT is responsible for vegetative management of the roadside ditches, and vegetated swales and conveyance systems within the road right -of -way for this small permit area. What USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: Washington County DLUT supports USA in the use of native vegetation for landscaping, revegetation and restoration, by ensuring these materials are used for County road projects within the right of way. Washington County DLUT applies herbicides to roadside shoulders to control unwanted competitive vegetation, which encourages growth of appropriate cover. Washington County spot sprays herbicides to stumps, and undesirable nuisance plants (e.g., blackberries) to encourage desirable grasses and groundcover. Washington County will continue to experiment with the use of specialized seed mixtures of low Growing grasses, which may result in less disturbance of the ditches. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Washington County DLUT applies herbicides to roadside shoulders to control unwanted competitive vegetation to extend pavement life and encourages growth of appropriate ground cover. Washington County \Leg aftStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6- 7 2 - 00 Flnal Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ I -4 [Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum' ` pdf Page 99' SECTION SEVEN Washington Countys MS4 IMP Fact Sheets spot sprays herbicides to cut stumps of woody plants, and undesirable nuisance plants to encourage desirable grasses and groundcover. Washington County will continue to test with the use of specialized seed mixtures of low growing grasses, which may result in less disturbance of the ditches. When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area. See Figure A -1 -4 for geographic description of areas within and outside of USA service area. Pollutants Addressed Oil & Grease, Sediments Program Fvaluatinn Procedure(s) The Washington County area outside USA service area is less than 1% of the permit area, and does not warrant estimating pollutant reduction levels for an undeveloped environment. The DLUT will track implementation of this BMP through routine record keeping procedures. U \ Leg aNStormwa ter Manag ement PI an \6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-0O\ 7-5 `Gar Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final pdf Page 1 SECTION SEVEN Washington Counters MS4 BMP Fact Sheets BMP Fact Sheet Description — BMP 3. Support and promote public education and involvem ent activities related to water quality concerns. C itation Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to raise public awareness of activities (both agency activities and those by private citizens) related to water quality impacts. By educating the public about the adverse water quality impacts when pollutants are discharged to the storm drain system or waterways, and motivate behaviors to reduce nonpoint source pollution, we can effectively reduce pollutants in the MS4 system Who All agencies within the permit area are responsible for implementing this Zthal Washington County actively participates in and financially contribute to the TBPAC: Tualatin Rasin Public Awareness Cnmmittee. This committee includes all Tualatin Basin TMDL Designated Management Agencies (DMA's), and DEQ. Activities of this Committee vary from year to year, and include public awareness campaigns (brochures, newspaper ads, movie theater public announcements), public education campaigns (Brochure series and distribution, Basin signage program, newspaper articles), and participation in community events (Tualatin Discovery Days, Washington County Fair, etc.) Washington County will continue the following public awareness activities: - Adopt -a -Road to reduce litter and its impacts to the MS4. - Community Service Program with Corrections Department for tree planting, litter removal, etc. - Feature articles in quarterly DLUT Newsletter regarding water quality projects. - Work with USA in the stenciling of storm drain inlets. - Signage of the stream crossing within the Tualatin Basin. - Communication plans (e.g., working with major newspapers) to promote environmental responsibility. - Work with Metro SOLV for recycling household wastes and other events. U \Leg aftStorm. ter Manag ement PI an \6-2 -00 Final Document doe \2- JUN-00\ 7-6 !Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docum� ` pdf Page 101 SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area. Pollutants Addressed Oil & grease, sediments, nutrients, organics, litter, bacteria Program Evaluation Procedure(s) The TBPAC Annual Report evaluates the Public Awareness program on an annual basis. Every few years TBPAC does a formal effectiveness survey and adjusts its' program accordingly. U\ Leg al\Stwmwater Manag ement Plan \6-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 7-7 [Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document pdf _ Page 102'' SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Description — BMP 4. Review , modify as needed, storm drainage design standards for new development and redevelopment to ensure that they include consideration of water quality. C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(2). The program shall contain a description of planning procedures including a comprehensive master plan to develop, implement and enforce controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from MS4s which receive discharges from areas of new development and significant redevelopment. Such plans shall address controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from MS4s after construction is complete. Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to require water quality controls in design standards so that new development and redevelopment minimize discharges of pollutants to waterways. Who USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: USA is responsible for reviewing and modifying as needed, storm drainage design standards for new development and redevelopment in urban areas, to ensure that they include consideration of water quality. Washington • County participates in this USA service area in three ways (see 'What' section): County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Washington County is responsible for reviewing storm drainage design standards for development applications on single family lots of record to ensure they include consideration of water quality. Within this area, new development and redevelopment on other than single family lots of record would only occur after annexation into USA service area. What USA Service Area/ Uninc. County. - Washington County builds water quality facilities to USA storm drainage design standards in conjunction with capital road projects. After they are built, USA maintains those facilities. - Washington County participates in the USA Watershed Planning Processes (advisory committee member on all watershed programs) and Sub -Basin Planning; and - Washington County participates in and review design standards with USA, and will implement the new update to the Design and Construction Manual completed in 2000. U \ Leg e Stormwa ter Maneg ement PI an \62 -00 Final Document doe \2 - JUN-00\ 7-8 [ Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocurP" pdf Page 1 O3,' SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP fact Sheets . Washington County participates in this USA service area in three ways: - Washington County participates in the USA Watershed Planning Processes (advisory committee member on all watershed programs) and Sub -Basin Planning; - Washington County participates and reviews design standards with USA, and just completed in 2000 an update to the Design and Construction Manual; and - Washington County builds water quality facilities to design standards in conjunction with capital road projects. After they are built, USA maintains those facilities. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Washington County reviews storm drainage design standards for development applications on single family lots of record to ensure water quality concerns are addressed, and reviews development permit applications within the County permit area. When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area. See Figure A -1 -4 for geographic description of areas within and outside of USA service area. Pollutants Addressed Total Phosphorus, Oil & Grease, Sediments Program Evaluation Procedure(s) Records are kept for every development permit issued. Pollutant reductions are inherent in the design standard. U \Leg aAStormwa ter Manag emenl Plan \ 6-2- 00 Final Document doc\2- JUN-00\ 7-9 Gary_ Pagenstecher - 6 2 -00 Final DocumP ^+ pdf :Page _104_ SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Description — BMP 5. Continue to develop structural controls in conjunction with capital road projects for improving stormwater quality. C itation Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to integrate water quantity control and surface water quality management, and to minimize negative impacts to water quality. • Who USA Service Area/ Uninc. County Washington County is responsible for development of water quality facilities (structural controls) in conjunction with County capital road projects. After they are built, USA operates and maintains those facilities. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Washington County is responsible for development of water quality facilities (structural controls) in conjunction with capital road projects. Within this portion of the Washington County permit area, waiting to be urbanized, there are generally no structural controls other than vegetated ditches and /or drainage swales. As this area is urbanized, appropriate structural controls would be required, and transfer to USA would occur. What USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: Washington County builds every County Capital Improvement Project with runoff treated to a Maximum Extent Practicable standard. There are almost30 structural controls built by the County, and now maintained by USA. The types of facilities include: constructed ponds, compost filters, constructed vegetated ditches, constructed water quality swales, water quality manholes. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Within this portion of the Washington County permit area, waiting to be urbanized, there are generally no structural controls other than vegetated ditches and /or drainage swales. As this area is urbanized, transfer to USA would occur and appropriate structural controls would be required of developers. U \Leg aAStormwe ter Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- OD Final Document don \2 - JUN -00\ 7-10 EGary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final DocurP -} pdf Page 105_; SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area. See Figure A -1 -4 for geographic description of areas within and outside of USA service area. Pollutants Addressed Oil & Grease, Sediments, Nutrients, Organics, Bacteria Program Evaluation Procedure(s) The County DLUT maintains lists of location and status of the water quality facilities it builds and will track implementation of this BMP through regular update of this list. The area of Washington County responsibility is undeveloped, waiting to be developed. It cannot urbanize without annexing to cities, which will remove it from Washington County area of responsibility The current area is less than 1% of the permit area, and does not warrant estimating pollutant reduction levels for an undeveloped environment. U \Leg attStormwaterManag ement PIan\6-2 -00 Final Document dac12- JUN-0O\ 7-11 Gary Pagenstecher- 6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf _ Page 106 SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Description — BM P 6. I m plem ent the County's program aimed at erosion and sediment control related to construction sites, both private and public. Citation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(D). Describe a program to implement and maintain structural and nonstructural best management practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites to the MS4. (Paraphrased). . Purpose Erosion and sediment controls related to construction sites are aimed at reducing sediment loads. Reducing sediment loads will reduce associated pollutant loads. Who USA Service Area/ Uninc. County. USA is responsible for implementation activities of this BMP relating to technical guidance, on -site inspection , and for issuing the erosion control permit. However, grading permits are in addition to the erosion control permit, and are the responsibility of the Washington County Building Department. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: Washington County DLUT is responsible for the program implementation of this BMP. The County Building Dept. is responsible for implementing the BMP relating to building permits. What USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: There are two broad areas of activity to implement construction site erosion and sediment control. First, there are activities relating to building permits (primarily private development). Second, there are activities relating to public road projects - For development activity, Washington County will continue to require that a USA erosion control permit be submitted together with building plans in order to obtain a building permit. Washington County requires the installation of silt fences and other specific control measures. USA provides technical guidance and issues the erosion control permit. USA inspects building sites in Washington County and within USA service area to ensure compliance with erosion control permit conditions. - For development activity, Washington County will continue to apply County ordinances relating to grading and erosion control. The ordinance requirements include: • Requiring the use of established maximum flow velocities for ditches. • Grading permit application must include a revegetation plan. U \Leg alStormwa ter Manag emem Plan \ 6-2-00 Final Document doc \2- JUN-00\ 7 -1 2 [Gary Pagenstecher 6 2 -00 Final DocurP ^} pdf Page 1 O7 SECTION SEVEN Washington Countlys MS4 BMP Fact Sheets • Proposed grading must not increase erosion of the site. • Prohibiting development in certain areas of the flood plain and drainage hazard areas. For Washington County road construction projects, extensive erosion and sediment control measures are required through contract specifications, to reduce or eliminate construction sediment washoff. The County also requires construction materials and fueling practices to comply with DEQ requirements, for the purpose of eliminating pollutant spills and to use more innocuous construction materials. The County also requires construction materials and fueling practices to comply with DEQ requirements. These practices are inspected by County DLUT construction inspectors and by USA erosion control inspectors to ensure compliance with erosion control plans. County permit area outside USA Service Boundary: The County reviews building permit applications on single family lots of record and fully applies USA's Erosion and Sediment Control Manual requirements, for the purpose of reducing sediment and associated pollutant runoff Washington County enforces County ordinances related to grading and erosion control, as explained above. The County reviews permit applications and apply appropriate erosion and sediment control practices. The County responds to complaints about permit violations as well as unpermitted activities, and applies Code enforcement, which may include Stop Work Orders. When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area See Figure A -1 -4 for geographic description of areas within and outside of USA service area. Pollutants Addressed Sediments, Nutrients, Organics, Dissolved Oxygen, Bacteria Program Evaluation Procedure(s) Through building permits, the County maintains a GIS data base with every action noted pertaining to that permit. The data base tracks number of violations and inspections. U\ Legat`StormwaterManag ement Plan \ -2 -00 Ftnal Document 0c \2- JUN-00\ 7 -13 Gary Pagenstec ler - 6 -2 -0 0 Final DocumF = f pdf Page 108 SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Description — BMP 7. I nvestigate and eliminate illicit discharges, and inform enforcem ent authorities when illicit discharges are found. C itation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(B). The program must contain a description of a program, ... to detect and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer. Purpose The original purpose of this BMP was intended to build on the existing arrangements for emergency response to chemical spills. The purpose of this BMP includes prohibiting disposal, dumping, or spilling nonstormwater discharges to the MS4 thereby reducing negative impacts to water quality. Who For the entire permit area, it is sometimes appropriately DEQ's responsibility to investigate an illicit discharge. In these cases, DEQ enforcement is called. USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: USA is responsible for implementation activities of this BMP relating to investigating illegal connections to the MS4, and for implementing regulations protective of its storm drainage system County permit area outside USA Service Boundarv_: Washington County is responsible for implementation of this BMP. What USA Service Area/ Uninc. County: USA implements regulations prohibiting the disposal of certain materials to the storm drainage system. - Washington County will not dispose or otherwise discharge prohibited materials relating to its activities, to the storm drainage system. • - Washington County will provide clean up and proper disposal of materials on County roads following a vehicular accident, as needed. County permit area outside USA Service Boundant Washington County identifies and investigates illicit discharges through normal maintenance activity. For example, if excessive mud is found in the right of way, County workers seal off the area, place containment structures in the ditch, flush the mud to the ditch, and remove it to an appropriate location. If mud or dirt is entering the right of way from agricultural sources (Note: Agricultural Runoff is statutorily exempted from the Municipal NPDES program), the County may contact the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) for help in working with an agricultural owner to alter agricultural practices to reduce or eliminate sediment U \Leg aNStormwater Manag ement Plan \ 6-2- 00 Final Document tloc \2- JUN -000 7 -1 4 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Documewl pdf Page 109 SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact sheets discharge. Washington County responds to citizen complaints and visually noticeable discharges. For example if Road Maintenance staff are notified of or notice an oil slick in a ditch, they investigate the source of the slick and will take appropriate action to address the problem. Sometimes this means they determine the type of pollutant, and use appropriate spill absorbent materials. In certain circumstances of unknown substance, or known hazardous waste substance, a Spill Containment Contractor may be used. When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area, in the manner described above. See Figure A -1 -4 for geographic description of areas within and outside of USA service area. Pollutants Addressed Oil & Grease, Sediments, Nutrients, Organics, Litter Program Fvaluation Procedure(s) This BMP is implemented on a case -by -case basis. Although records are maintained for exceptional spills, estimating pollutant load reductions are not applicable here. U \Leg aAStormwa ter Manag ement Plan \6 -2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -001 7 -15 I Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Document.pdf Page 110 SECTION SEVEN Washington County's MS4 BMP Fact Sheets Description — BMP 8. Continue support of staff training and education relating to water quality concerns (e.g., erosion control sem inars, vegetation management, herbicide applicators training). C itation Purpose The purpose of this BMP is to maintain and improve knowledge of water quality issues relating to the County MS4, to facilitate implementation of BMPs, and to support staff training exercises. Who Washington County is responsible for implementation of this BMP. at Washington County requires inspectors to attend training classes to inspect and enforce construction site requirements. They attend both USA and ODOT erosion and sediment control training. Washington County will ensure staff is appropriately trained for relevant practices re: water quality controls and practices. In particular: - Washington County herbicide applicators will meet all State and Federal regulatory requirements and will be trained accordingly for proper application procedures. - Washington County will ensure any inspector of erosion and sediment control practices is trained in proper erosion control techniques. - Washington County will send appropriate staff to Vegetation Management seminars offered through state agencies. When This BMP is ongoing and continuous. Where This BMP is applicable throughout the Washington County NPDES MS4 permit area. U \LegaNStorn w ter Maneg ement P1 an \62 -00 Final Document do62- JUN-00\ 7-16 Gary_Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final Docume ^ +.pdf Page 111 SECTION SEVEN Washington Countys MS4 IDMP Fact Sheets Pollutants Addressed Oil & Grease, Sediments, Nutrients, Organics, Litter Program Evaluation Procedure(s) Although no estimation of pollutant reductions can be made for training efforts, the County will keep records of seminars and training sessions (materials, number of staff attending). • U \Leg attStormwa ter Manag ement PI an16-2 -00 FIna' Document ooc \2- JUN-000 7-17 Gary Pagenstecher - 6 -2 -00 Final D ocu m r ` pdf Page 112' APPENDICES U \Leg al Stormwa ter Manag ement PI an16-2 -00 Final Document doc \2- JUN -00\ 4 . i ( ti Washingt County � _ • � a Ly 4 ■ l y v 21.15 A f • I ` i i ) f "' r o r 1, ■ A1 w 1 9 A M20 2 1 2 n1w22 vfQ _ A vAd 2n1eN i � j 'A1wM 61 3119 zmp2a r I y53 • 1. 1.1 '4 ie. _•* - - k - A ` t / �.r� A Nd36 A,w31� r j �• �� raji2 Zn1e'.3 �Je j, Al -, 1 ,202 A26f3 sV + 20 4 - I - • j 11m■ J f � .1'.. �I.s■y ,..a, 4_ t � 5 it oh t, i G 1 r 1 + LL � _ i MN. 02+61 :10 M M. •n•wCQ 1 A6 totc'S 10. II m1U3 - ' We0$_- 1\� 411 i :'3 I We', s, - 7 0.6 _ 1n1 '' \ • � 1 1 a � ( _ j ) 10.99 1,2.0 ; In2a11 Msw12 1n1wN In Mt@ 10509 1ntw10 In 1,71S 1 I>'1 e07 1,1.3 10.9 1000 `' 1,267 1268 1111;‘71: I '0t �! "..ii - 1 • . _ _ Y ri.m : . - 1 1 INE /5y,,. - ..."..• "%,1k _ "' ._4 1 1l :ref < ll 1. 1.04 1nb13 1,2x18 0.17 .., i6 1,2»15 In2x1d 01x18 inlwl] , Inlw16 In1wi5 10.4 I 1,1¢16 � 1005 In1el4 1,1¢13 1,2¢18 0.06 I ' 15 1 Aft ,$0213 ir3a18 Iae14Y / � � �� a � , +,� 1rx13 ir�eP. � , l 10.9 M209 el 12»42 2.'24 1Iw19 1n1 w20 10x21 F 10» h aiL_ In1e19 01¢22 01.4 i 1 In2e22 1.2 1 oGe 1.22. -1.23 .. ,,1 a • 116¢19 + 'i4 �� 1MNP . MG . 1nM$ 12.26 Insx- 1.30 10.0 10»28 MMP i ,n1.6 In,. 1,1¢30 1 103 1,10 "'7 1nI56 1,85 0.30 0&29 100 ii 1.0 12526 w. a+ ; 1.26 f • .. 1.3a le III lY M,L6 1130•11 r <_ 1 MO 1,2x32 In2x 1,20•.•5 1,2.86 1 1 31 1 I % .., I' , w33 in y 1,1x3 �. �I. 1 1 -t � Inls • p. n1r35 ( 0106 I • 10 In - 1,2¢34 1 1.13' 1Nk31 �i -Me31 • T lig 1 602 152»910• 151»026' �" S � I 44 si✓ i 0004 W 1 11x02 10x01 L1066 0265 i¢ 1 51QL IS161 15265 I s2. 10.3 10w3'r � IS3wo4 r a R ) . ;wi,� a f - �84 � -__ ■ .-„,% -...3 I I 9G 10 .9. aft 002 + < 1►.; < v_ -,1 , =r 10 � 151»0 � s� • �E1w t 1007 +' 1.08 i Hh III 162:1: �� 4e • , 10. 1007 1 1068 r • r 1n 10.2 , r 19438' 1st `` l .. v , 4 r I , L .1-0.- 1003 19»1 15307 1903 8 151 w18 I0w17 10 w1 151 •5 10 11_,.IS,w13 1 511 161 e17 MI el6 I f i I 1st e13 ,s2e18 162ait 152:1: IS2el5 1 6213 11 14 ¢1 6 19¢1 19¢14 19¢13 10 ai] a � � �_ _. i ( 1.43 = 152.0, {! f 152@ Is1w19_ 151x01 10.22 • 451x23 Isl. 151 e19 1st 3 1S = 1st t 1043 Isl@4 1098 162@0 152 1,202 IS2e23 IR54 19819 19¢20-, � 19e21 1 f 190 i to , ' ,'c ts 1080 '..1--._ . ., t ,y - I . j y i A.l l u•.in...l ' ._. .L_1.•. ' u.u.l.uuul.....uu g l JJ too f @8 i 2] W mJ Y 1009 1510•8 1020•7 151316 1005 i Isi LU @B 10 •6 10 05 i26r 59 Q8 122] ' V. 12 0 • 1009 .. 19 07 f d 089 d 1 162+83 10MW j 1 6 2 .36 ,51x81 1510•34 I s 'IS1x90 ' 15161 _IS102 Isl . 1 0 . 4 1s1 t 1s186 1 2 1s.rE9 16281 a 1008... 11 61 t002 1 00 4 I 00t5 111 10 91 1068 x0,.45 210 1 n uul j lq •, .„mow' '1111I1 E summ.r.1.1.1■i.ui.l.l , rd 'b .1. • ■ ■ 25.05 ,4 2403 111 251.05 � 20x04 1 2.03 2 1 .2006 2.05 j 2 2s163 rr .. 12 25161 "6 2 6- . ; +4 25263 ,20.1 2.06 2065 1 29814 �� 06 1 R E GIONAL LAND INFORMATION F O R M A 1 1 0 N SYSTEM L i ` 6] �F � 2008 RE .. �„_w 00 1 252»11 252x12 2s109 .125100 2s 11 2 fw6102 261 25268 .'. 69 2S2e10 24¢12- ' . IrOral 11111111/11 2 .1:9'" 9 �(2s2 • al:A I v r -^ sly �. i 1 � :..i�/ 26208 26205 . 1 252x13 ' 2 t6 M 2 ! 2,,,' 2s e16 ] 2 0 .6 I 3 262 J 6 t 298129 2004 -2005 .1_ I �■ _ k r J : r • • 252,23 252.24 2000 ..1 2¢1,02 2510Q3 21 ' ! 6t L 251 ■3 2S1 04 �� 25219 252 &0 1 - @I .203 /,24¢24 ,I 29¢19 25301 .29@2 .. , ' 29@4 ■ • y P ro j ect Area x.1. /1 , 5 ;Q E1Q @9 , ,.. / • 52123 2s2Wt5 , ` 2 ` ^ , 26157. 251 @$. 25185 2sT6Q 262 @9 .. 252¢26 � a ka a Coon 2 4 . 2•'''' ar 2c,v11 21WR `2s „Q7 + , 3 " . i � i t ' f Tile deserlphons ■ 103 721,34- 251 _ 12x35 2.a. 2032 x05 . Et x06 1 26161 1 251662 2063 4 2 .S 95 2a1 ®1 262 2001 2002 2.33 i Mea urban . i / 2 ■ k I .. CI ti1.1.1.1 ■1.1 ■ 1.1�.. -.. . 10•.1. 1 .1■ 1 � w ! vt 4' �� l I Meet rural mrssW um 111¢5 , i 3 I El f` ,I S •. 3s106 ) 1 ! - 0 " - 351»5 . 35,x05 30eod slx((3 3 -si • a t 31b1 . 35166 3165 C .fs164 .: ¢ .:: :r 3562 3 @fll 34¢00 6 3965 3964 Urban or. h bar., ! 2rA2 • , t - �„ �� � L 3 , • •11•11311.1 •11•11311.1 County Inds �uuu1.1. LLr - j •r3,1 ' T :: . 3104 306] 3008 31639 r 0 1 35,0•2 3¢267 .r. ,• r . 911 35234wf1 3s2w1x0] j 30,68 3s1wb 30»10 3s10 olv6mnaxleE � ` 3x1.1] 30 »16 35105 3610 31 e17 31¢16 35 - . „ebn ,.X: r `r T , ..e a. rrm..p ,p s er o wan., t X. ii olewar. w n Lt :- :.f _ .. _ ® w ,, ' , i . pe,6mal Tlwr, •,rowanw,en, e4we,,,s armpw ile ranxpd . ] I + A.. • x§8 3si,R] 30 n, + re- " ^ <.' 39¢19 rr... d ia y : MI '111 31 et9 36�3Pr3s1 @1 1351@2 31 @3 351 @4 '32¢19 ®® • s . nmvW a pa nwW popes. ao-eny,nms em P<6a However ■ 351»19 30.0 � � I P 351 ...on d .,r mo, wal» , 01.... 1 . dl miles y ' I a °'^^'^^* • ' - s Mles � 0 1 - ■ ; 3, a„1' } 'ssi - -� 35189 j 3006 3157 362 010 3s2e29 III" 1111 . 34.25 l 11 % 510•5. 31,-08 .2m 61 23 f 35212 36L Zi } X. 3s2e� 34638 z M eET..., ET..., 1/ T 'r i �� ` �1�! 01.101.1.1 ■17 +6. .. 4 ._ 4 • ME T RODAT RESOURCE CENTER - rl ti^ 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND ORE WN 07232 - 2736 1� - e t i TEL (503) - 1742 FM(693)797-10 - 4 dra3rostrod9 or us wwwmetroreg co a `rJ rt Prgwi 11911031 2004 Ma sae Jun 2031 AUdneilpM04101.00.ev!.M 99,.4 - Rememmde wM mad paper ti c " Si f (aI N) CrlCVO T° Al F .c.:4111.1 5 vd, 4" .4 3 .4 14) x3` '4 6 1 4,54 -gtre , got Chapter 3 STANDARD DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER AND VEGETATED CORRIDORS Section 3.00 Introduction 3.01 Application and Interpretation of Chapter 3.02 Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor Standards 3.03 Storm Water System: Engineering 3.04 Hydrologic Analysis 3.05 Hydraulic Analysis 3.06 Storm Manhole and Pipe Design Standards 3.07 Inlet Design Standards 3.08 Constructed Channel Design Standards 3.09 Culvert Design Standards 3.10 Outfall Design Standards 3.11 Water Quantity Facility Design Standards 3.12 Water Quality Facility Design Standards 3.13 Flood Management Design Standards Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 1 Chapter 3 STANDARD DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER AND VEGETATED CORRIDORS 3.00 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to outline design requirements for storm and surface water management. The provisions of this chapter are intended to prevent or reduce adverse impacts to the drainage system and water resources of the Tualatin River Basin. In combination with other state, federal, and local laws and ordinances, these requirements are intended to protect the beneficial uses of waters within the Tualatin River Basin and within the District. 3.01 Application and Interpretation of Chapter The provisions of this chapter shall apply to storm and surface water systems within the District and City jurisdiction. Interpretations of such provisions and their application in specific circumstances shall be made by the District and City. Any City operating a local program may adopt stricter design specifications within its jurisdiction than the specifications stated in this chapter. No person shall undertake development activities within the District's jurisdiction without first obtaining a Storm Water Connection Permit from the District or its designee pursuant to Ordinance 27 and these rules, or receiving a written determination from the District that no Storm Water Connection Permit is required. Applicants may apply for permits as single project or as part of a master planned activity. 3.02 Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor Standards 3.02.1 Service Provider Letter and Permits Required a. In order to determine if the proposed activity will require a service provider letter, the applicant may apply for a Prescreening Site Assessment. If no Water Quality Sensitive Areas appear to exist on or within 200 feet of the site, then no further site assessment or service provider letter is required. The Prescreening Site Assessment does not eliminate the need to evaluate and protect Water Quality Sensitive Areas if they are subsequently discovered on, or within 200 feet of the site. b. Prior to land use application or issuance of building permit for a development activity as defined in section 1.02.14, the Applicant shall secure a service provider letter from the District or its designee, which specifies the conditions and requirements associated with Vegetated Corridors and Sensitive Areas necessary for the District to issue a Storm Water Connection Permit pursuant to Ordinance 27 and these rules and regulations. If allowed by the land use jurisdiction, applicant may begin Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 2 the land use permit application process and secure the service provider letter prior to completing the land use permit application. c. In order to secure a service provider letter from the District the applicant shall perform a Natural Resource Assessment in accordance with Section 3.02.2. The applicant shall perform a Tier 1, 2 or 3 Alternatives Analysis pursuant to Section 3.02.6 if the proposed site plan can not meet the standards outlined Sections 3.02.3 and 3.02.4. d. No person shall perform construction without first obtaining a Storm Water Connection Permit from the District or its designee as required pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.B. The Storm Water Connection Permit shall be issued upon District approval of final construction plans showing that all of the applicable conditions from the service provider letter have been met. The Applicant must obtain and comply with all permits and approvals required under applicable local, state and federal law. e. Exceptions to the process outlined in 3.02.1.a -d include: 1) For lot line adjustments that are not part of a land use or building permit application, and that do not result in any physical development, the Applicant shall complete a Prescreening Site Assessment. If Sensitive Areas appear to exist on or within 200 feet of the site, then further site assessment may be required. The lot line adjustment shall be reviewed by the District / City/ County to ensure the proposed configuration of the lots retain buildable status. Vegetated Corridor conditions shall not apply to the lot line adjustment approval process, but may apply to subsequent land use or development applications on the subject property. 2) For redevelopment, the standards in Section 3.02 shall apply only when the activity alters 10% or more of existing improved impervious area within 100 feet of the Sensitive Area. The process outlined in 3.02.1.a -d shall be followed. 3.02.2 Natural Resources Assessment Required a. Prior to completion of a land use permit application or building permit issuance for development activity as defined in section 1.02.14, the Applicant shall provide a Natural Resource Assessment for any Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors in accordance with Appendix C: Natural Resource Assessments. The Assessment shall consist of a reconnaissance and site certification. When Sensitive Areas are found to be present, the Applicant shall delineate the Sensitive Areas and determine the width and condition of the Vegetated Corridor. For qualifying projects, the Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 3 Applicant may perform a Simplified Site Assessment as described in Appendix C. b. The Applicant shall measure the Vegetated Corridor as shown in Figure 3.2 and further outlined in Appendix C: Natural Resource Assessments. A minimum of three slope measurements along the Sensitive Area, spaced at no more than 100 -foot increments, shall be made for each property for which development is proposed. The District may require additional measurements for sites with highly variable topography. The Applicant shall determine existing corridor conditions per Table 3.2 and Appendix C: Natural Resource Assessments and clearly mark them on scaled plans. The Applicant shall provide photos of the site conditions with the plans. 3.02.3 Sensitive Areas a. Extent of Sensitive Areas 1) The Applicant shall determine the extent of the Sensitive Area using the methods outlined in Appendix C: Natural Resource Assessments. 2) Local land use codes may require additional natural resource analysis. b. Requirements and Conditions Within Sensitive Areas 1) No person shall erect any structure, conduct any development or construction activities, establish or maintain any garden or lawn, clear native vegetation, remove non - native invasive vegetation other than with an integrated vegetation management approach, store uncontained hazardous materials, dump or dispose of materials of any kind (including pet waste), or conduct other activities within a Sensitive Area that may negatively impact water quality, except as allowed in 3.02.3.b.2. 2) The following activities are allowed within a Sensitive Area when impact is minimized through choice of mode, sizing, and placement: a. Maintenance practices and enhancement activities, as defined or permitted by the DSL or COE, are allowed within the Sensitive Area per criteria set forth by DSL and /or COE. b. Development within the Sensitive Area shall be allowed if the required permits are issued, when necessary, by the DSL and /or the COE. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 4 c. On -site relocation of intermittent streams that drain less than 50 acres and have a perpendicular land slope of less than 25 %, provided that the pre- existing discharge point off the site is maintained. d. As approved by the District or its designee through an alternatives analysis set out in Section 3.02.6 of these rules, the activities listed in Section 3.02.4.b.2), 3), and 4). within Water Quality Sensitive Areas that are not regulated by DSL and the COE. 3) Mitigation shall be required per the DSL and COE rules and regulations or as determined by the District for areas or activities not regulated by COE or DSL. 3.02.4 Vegetated Corridors a. Extent of Vegetated Corridors 1) The Vegetated Corridor may range from 15 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the Sensitive Area, except where approval has been granted by the District or City /County to modify the width of a portion of the corridor in accordance with section 3.02.4.a.2). Table 3.1 documents the Vegetated Corridor Widths and Figure 3.1 illustrates the requirement. 2) Modifications to the required Vegetated Corridor widths are allowed via averaging or reduction for Corridor areas certified by the District or Designee to be in marginal or degraded condition. Modifications are not allowed for Corridor areas certified by the District to be in good condition. Averaging shall be considered prior to reduction and cannot be used in conjunction with reduction. a. The maximum encroachment allowed for averaging at a project site is 20% of the frontage length of the Vegetated Corridor by no more than 20% of the required width. The area of encroachment must be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. The replacement area must be incorporated into the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the project site and meet the "Good Corridor Condition" standards as defined in Table 3.2, regardless of its distance from the Sensitive Area. b. If the Vegetated Corridor extends 125 feet or more from the boundary of the Sensitive Area, and Vegetated Corridor averaging is not practicable, the maximum encroachment allowed for reduction at a project site is 20% of the required Vegetated Corridor width. A stamped geotechnical report confirming that slope stability can be maintained with the reduced setback is Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 5 • required. The remaining Vegetated Corridor shall be enhanced to meet the "Good Corridor Condition" standards as defined in Table 3.2. c. When the slope is greater than 25% and the Vegetated Corridor extends 35 feet beyond the break in slope, the outer boundary of the Vegetated Corridor may be reduced from 35 feet to 15 feet beyond the break in slope, as long as the resulting Vegetated Corridor is no less than 50 feet beyond the edge of the Sensitive Area. This reduction is allowed only if a stamped geotechnical report confirms that slope stability can be maintained with the reduced setback from the break in slope. 3) If trees or native vegetation have been cleared from the Vegetated Corridor or Sensitive Area prior to applying for development and without District /City /County approval, the maximum Vegetated Corridor widths for the resource type and pre- existing site condition will apply. Mitigation and enhancement of the entire impacted Sensitive Area and/or Vegetated Corridor will be required for the full extent of the Sensitive Area and /or Vegetated Corridor in the impacted area. The following mitigation requirements shall apply to sites where native vegetation has been removed from Vegetated Corridors or Sensitive Areas without prior authorization: a. Trees removed shall be replaced with a number of trees equal to the caliper divided by the largest size reasonably available, for a 1:1 replacement by caliper size. Tree density for the plant community shall meet or exceed the good corridor condition standard outlined in Table 3.2 and Appendix D, Table 1. b. Shrub and herbaceous material replacement shall meet the good corridor condition standard outlined in Table 3.2 and per Appendix D, Table 1: Plant Communities for Revegetation. 4) The requirements of 3.02.4.a.3 do not apply to: a. The removal of "hazard" trees if they threaten a structure or public area. Hazard trees shall be topped and standing trunks retained, if possible. b. Vegetated Corridors or Sensitive Areas in which clearing occurred prior to February 22, 2000. 5) The Vegetated Corridor shall not be required to extend beyond an existing building or improved roadway separating the proposed development from the Sensitive Area. For the purposes of this section, Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 6 an "improved roadway" shall be gravel or paved, a minimum of 12- feet in width, and actively used for vehicular traffic. The building or roadway must remain as part of the proposed development and not planned for future demolition. 6) If the proposed activity is redevelopment and alters 10% or more of existing improved impervious area within 100 feet of the Sensitive Area, then a 25 -foot Vegetated Corridor for streams, springs and wetlands, and a 50 -foot Vegetated Corridor for the Tualatin River shall apply per Table 3.1. Vegetated Corridor averaging is permitted per 3.02.4.a.2.a and shall exclude any existing building footprint area already encroaching into the Vegetated Corridor. Exceptions to the Vegetated Corridor requirement on redevelopment sites include: a. Redevelopment of a single family residence is exempt, unless redevelopment is changing use (to commercial/ multifamily/ industrial, etc), or proposing to encroach further into the Vegetated Corridor. b. Redevelopment of an existing impervious area fully separated from the resource by a building (i.e. building divides the activity from the Sensitive Area) are exempt. c. Properties with pre- existing Vegetated Corridors or setbacks averaging at least 25 feet from streams and 50 feet for the Tualatin River, may maintain the pre- existing Vegetated Corridor width. Enhancement of existing Vegetated Corridor to good condition is required, if not already in good condition. • d. Properties bordering wetlands at least 25 feet from stream may utilize the wetlands as the Vegetated Corridor. Enhancement of • wetlands to a good condition for a width of 25 feet towards the stream is required, if not already in good condition. b. Requirements and Conditions within a Vegetated Corridor 1) No person shall erect any structure, conduct any development or construction activities, establish or maintain any garden or lawn, clear native vegetation, remove non - native invasive vegetation other than with an integrated vegetation management approach, store uncontained hazardous materials, dump or dispose of materials of any kind (including pet waste), or conduct other activities within a Vegetated Corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except as allowed in Section 3.02.4.b.2) and 3). Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 7 2) Upon review and approval by the District or Designee and other appropriate regulatory authorities, the following activities are allowed within a Vegetated Corridor when impact is minimized through choice of mode, sizing and placement. a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the Vegetated Corridor from one side to the other in order to provide access to the Sensitive Area or across the Sensitive Area; b. Utility /service provider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm drainage, sanitary sewer, service laterals, outfalls, water, phone, gas, cable, etc.) Infrastructure construction shall not remove native trees greater than 6" dbh. c. Stormwater facilities planted with appropriate native vegetation. Storm water facilities may encroach into the Vegetated Corridor in accordance with the Vegetated Corridor averaging or reduction allowances set out in Section 3.02.4.a.2); they may be integrated within a Vegetated Corridor of an intermittent stream draining less than 50 acres and having a slope less than 25 %. Refer to Appendices B and D for design criteria and guidance. d. An access way, path, or sidewalk (referred to as "path" henceforth) 10 feet or less in width. When the path is greater than 3 feet in width, the square footage of the excess path width shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio by enhancing additional Vegetated Corridor to a good condition. The following conditions apply to all paths: 1) The path shall avoid the Vegetated Corridor where possible. 2) The path shall be located in the outermost 40% of the Vegetated Corridor boundary as it runs near or parallel to the Sensitive Area. 3) Paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and maintain slope stability;. e. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the Vegetated Corridor; f. Grading for purposes other than enhancement may occur under the following conditions: 1) The vegetated corridor condition is degraded, Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 8 2) The proposed grading is consistent with native ground, 3) The proposed grading does not result in the removal of native vegetation, and 4) The graded slopes are no more than 4H:1 V; g. Other uses, not listed in a) through f) above, as approved by the District or its Designee through an alternatives analysis process as described in Section 3.02.6. 3) District review for Vegetated Corridors is not required for the following activities. Other regulating jurisdictions may require review and approval. a. Activities excluded from the definition of development in Section 1.02.14.b; b. Enhancement of the riparian corridors for water quality or quantity benefits, and aquatic habitat; 4) Mitigation for negative impacts to the Vegetated Corridor and /or enhancement of the Vegetated Corridor to a "good" condition, as defined in Table 3.2, is required for activities identified in Section 3.02.4.b.2) and Chapter 12. Replacement mitigation, if required shall be at a 1:1 ratio or greater. Refer to Appendix D: Landscape Requirements for revegetation requirements. 5) When impact to Sensitive Areas is permitted by DSL and COE: a. The Vegetated Corridor impact area shall be calculated based on the site conditions as they exist prior to the proposed impact and mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio either on site or in association with the required DSL / COE mitigation. b. If Payment to Provide is approved by DSL for Sensitive Area impact, then Applicant shall provide a 1:1 replacement of the Vegetated Corridor as mitigation for impacted area or apply for Vegetated Corridor Payment to Provide. Applicant may pay a Vegetated Corridor Payment to Provide to the District, per the District's Rates and Charges Ordinance. The Payment will be assigned to an enhancement project within the subwatershed in which the impact occurs. 6) Wetlands may not be filled in order to create, expand, or eliminate a Vegetated Corridor. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 9 3.02.5 General Requirements for Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors a. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction, the Applicant shall survey, stake, and demarcate with standard orange construction fencing or equivalent the outer boundary of the combined Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor per approved plan. During construction the outer boundary of the combined Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed in Section 3.02.4.b and per approved plans. b. For any development which creates multiple parcels or lots intended for separate ownership, the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor shall be contained in a separate tract. The first 50 feet of Vegetated Corridor on intermittent streams draining 10 -100 acres shall be contained in a separate tract; the remainder may be placed in an easement. The District, City, or County may also require that the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor be signed, fenced, or otherwise physically set apart from parcels that will be developed. Signage for Sensitive Areas shall meet the requirements of Standard Detail No. 275. Signs may also be available for purchase from the District. c. The District or City /County may require an easement over the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor for surface and storm water management in order to prevent the owner of the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor from carrying out activities and uses inconsistent with the purpose of the corridor and any easements therein. d. The Applicant shall protect and enhance the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor in accordance with the requirements listed in Table 3.2 and Appendix D: Landscape Requirements, per approved plans. For Vegetated Corridors 50 feet and greater in width, the Applicant shall enhance the first 50 feet closest to the Sensitive Area to meet or exceed "good" corridor condition as defined in Table 3.2. For Vegetated Corridors less than 50 feet wide, the Applicant shall enhance the entire corridor to meet or exceed "good" corridor condition as defined in Table 3.2. e. The Applicant shall adequately protect drainage ditches that drain surface water systems or storm water infrastructure from erosion and, to the extent possible, integrate the appearance of such ditches into the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor through the use of native vegetation and rock/wood placement. 3.02.6 Alternatives Analysis Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 10 a. The Applicant shall conduct an Alternatives Analysis if the proposed site plan can not meet the standards outlined in Section 3.02.4 and 3.02.5. In conducting the Alternatives Analysis: 1) The Applicant shall prepare the Submittal Requirements outlined in this section for the type of encroachment proposed; 2) The Applicant shall participate in one or more meetings with the District and City or County to negotiate the Vegetated Corridor encroachment and mitigation; b. The District shall review the alternatives analysis pursuant to the Criteria for Acceptance as outlined in this section for the type of encroachment proposed; and c. The District or its designee shall prepare a service provider letter documenting the results of the alternatives analysis and District's requirements necessary to comply with water quality protection. d. Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis: For marginal or degraded Vegetated Corridors with encroachment up to 40% of the length by 30% of the width: 1) Submittal requirements a. Natural Resource Assessment performed pursuant to Appendix C: Natural Resource Assessments and Section 3.02.2 of these rules. b. Site Plan showing entire site with encroachment area and calculations of Vegetated Corridor encroachment and mitigation areas /plan. c. Description of why the encroachment is needed. 2) Criteria for Acceptance a. Encroachment area is mitigated by at least a 1:1 ratio on site. b. Enhancement of the replacement area if not already in good condition, and either the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the project site or the first 50 feet of width closest to the resource, whichever is less, to a "good" corridor condition per Table 3.2 and Appendix D: Landscape Requirements. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 11 c. District or its designee's Storm Water Connection Permit is likely to be issued based on proposed plans. d. Location of development and site planning minimize incursion into the Vegetated Corridor; and • e. There is no practicable alternative to the location of the development that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. c. Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis: For any good Vegetated Corridor encroachment or marginal /degraded Vegetated Corridor with encroachment greater than 40% of the length by 30% of the width and for activities listed in Section 3.02.4.b.2) which are proposed to occur within the Water Quality Sensitive Area. 1) Submittal requirements a. Natural Resource Assessment performed pursuant to Appendix C: Natural Resource Assessments and Section 3.02.2 of these rules. b. Site Plan showing entire site with encroachment area and calculations of water quality Sensitive Area and/or Vegetated Corridor encroachment and mitigation areas. c. Description of why the encroachment is needed; and d. Functional Analysis Report; see Appendix C 4.2.f.2 2) Criteria for Acceptance a. Encroachment area is mitigated by a 1:1 ratio or greater and is located either on -site or off -site along the same stream or its watershed; b. The mitigation protects the functions and values of the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor; c. Enhancement of the replacement area if not already in good condition, and either the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the project site or the first 50 feet of width closest to the resource, whichever is less, to a "good" corridor condition per Table 3.2 and Appendix D: Landscape Requirements; Storm and Surface Water Chapter 3 - - Page 12 d. A District or its designee's Storm Water Connection Permit is likely to be issued based on proposed plans; e. Location and site planning minimizes encroachment into the Vegetated Corridor; f. There is no practicable alternative to the requested development which will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor; g. There are public benefits of the encroachments; and h. If the application of these Vegetated Corridor regulations results in a lot being unbuildable the Vegetated Corridor shall be reduced to assure the lot will be buildable while still providing for the maximum Vegetated Corridor to the greatest extent practicable. f. Tier 3 Alternatives Analysis: For Vegetated Corridors with pre - existing encroachment (Redevelopment as defined in Section 1.02.46): 1) Submittal requirements a. Natural Resource Assessment performed pursuant to Appendix C: Natural Resource Assessments and Section 3.02.2 of these rules. b. Site Plan showing entire site with encroachment area (including existing and proposed areas) and calculations of Vegetated Corridor encroachment and mitigation areas /plan if applicable. c. Description of why the encroachment is needed under proposed redevelopment plan. 2) Criteria for Acceptance a. Encroachment area is mitigated by at least a 1:1 ratio on site or off -site, or a Payment to Provide for Vegetated Corridor mitigation is applied. b. Enhancement of the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the project site or the first 50 feet of width closest to the resource, whichever is less, to a "good" corridor condition per Table 3.2 and Appendix D: Landscape Requirements. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 13 c. District or its designee's Storm Water Connection Permit is likely to be issued based on proposed plans. d. Location of the redevelopment and site planning minimize incursion into the Vegetated Corridor; and e. There is no practicable alternative to the location of the redevelopment that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 14 3.02.7 Tables and Figures Table 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Widths Sensitive Area Definition* Land Slope Width of Vegetated Perpendicular to Corridor per Side Sensitive Area Figure 3.1 - Graphic 1 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: • 10 to <50 acres < 25% 15 feet • >50 to 100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands < 0.5 acre <25% 25 feet Figure 3.1 - Graphic 2 • Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre • Streams with perennial flow <25% 50 feet • Springs with perennial flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes, ponds, and in- stream impoundments Figure 3.1 - Graphic 3 • Tualatin River <25% 125 feet Figure 3.1 - Graphic 4 • Springs with intermittent flow > 25% 15 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable • Tualatin River from 50 -200 ft ** • Streams with perennial flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Springs with perennial flow • Natural lakes, ponds, and in- stream impoundments Figure 3.1 - Graphic 5 • Streams with intermittent flow draining 10 -100 >25% Variable acres from 50 -200 ft * ** Figure 3.1 Graphic 6 • Redevelopment sites adjacent to Water Quality Sensitive Areas other than the Tualatin River <25% 25 feet • Redevelopment sites adjacent to the Tualatin <25% 50 feet River * See Chapter 1: Definitions for Sensitive Area, Intermittent and Perennial Flow ** Measured in 25 -foot increments from the edge of the Sensitive Area to the break in slope (i.e. <25 %). Add 35 feet past the break in slope to determine the Vegetated Corridor width, not to exceed 200 feet. For land divisions, the entire Vegetated Corridor must be contained in a tract. * ** Measured in 25 -foot increments from the edge of the Sensitive Area to the break in slope (i.e. <25 %). Add 35 feet past the break in slope to determine the Vegetated Corridor width, not to exceed 200 feet. For land divisions, the first 50 feet closest to Sensitive Area must be placed in a tract; remaining area may be contained in easement. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 15 Figure 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Width Edge of Sensitive Area <2504° so e 1. • Intermittent streams. 10 to <50 acres drainage 14---H • Intermittent streams, >50 to <100 acre drainage 25' • Wetlands <0.5 acre Edge of Sensitive Area I <25'10 Slo e 2. ♦ • Wetlands >0,5 acres • Streams, springs with perennial flow I- -1 • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres 50' • Natural lakes, ponds and instream impoundments Edge of Sensitive Area < 25% 2 -Year 3. Surface Water Elevation 125' � • Tualatin River Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 16 r Figure 3.1 (continued) Break In Slope v 35' Edge of '25afa \ace R 15 15' Sensitive Area \ Intermittent Spring 4. Variable 200' Max • Wetlands • Tualatin River, streams, springs with perennial flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres • Natural lakes, ponds and instream impoundments Break In Slope N 35 . Edge of ofo \cce _ e \15' 15' Sensitive Area ,25 Intermittent Spring 5. 50' Variable 200' Max • Streams with intermittent flow draining 10 to 100 acres. First 50' in tract and remaining area in easement (easement limits tree/vegetation removal. no staging, grading. stockpiling) Edge of Sensitive Area 6 . as% S10 a t -. N- 2 5 , — • Redevelopment sites on streams, springs, wetlands. lakes. ponds 1 50 . ■1 • Redevelopment sites on Tualatin River Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 17 Figure 3.2 Vegetated Corridor Measurement Methodology 1) Measure 50 feet horizontally from the Edge of the Sensitive Area (see Table 3.1). Horizontal Distance 50' '4 •:, l Vertical j Difference f Edge of Sensitive Area 2) Determine the slope (Vertical difference /Horizontal distance) * 100 = percent slope 3) If slope is < 25 %, apply the vegetated corridor per Table 3.1 (a) If stream or spring is intermittent, measure the drainage area from the upstream drainage point of the development determine appropriate width application. The width of the Vegetated Corridor may widen as it proceeds downstream, if the drainage acreage increases past the various acreage cut -off points outlined in Table 3.1. . 1 1 , Upstream 1 /4- Drainage Area Drainage i , ' . / • - / Development Site Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 18 Figure 3.2 Vegetated Corridor Measurement Methodology (cont'd) 4) If the slope is > 25 %, measure another 25 feet horizontally and perpendicular to the starting point up the slope until either: (a) A slope is encountered that is less than 25 %. In this case, determine the break in slope and add an additional 35 feet to mark the outside boundary of the Vegetated Corridor; or Outside Boundary of 50' 25' 25' 25' > Vegetated Corridor >25% >25% >25% <25% '1 r f. - - - -.i 15' with Geotech Break in Slope Edge of Sensitive Area (b) 200 feet is reached (all slope measurements >25% ). 50' 25' ( 25' 25' 200 Outside Boundary of Vegetated Corridor • Edge of Sensitive Area Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 19 Table 3.2 Vegetated Corridor Standards Vegetated Corridor Condition Definition' Requirements of Vegetated Corridor Protection, Enhancement, and /or Mitigation Good Corridor Condition • Provide certification, per Appendix C: Natural • Combination of native trees, shrubs, Resource Assessments, to District or City/County that and groundcover covering greater than the vegetated corridor meets condition criteria. 80% of the area and greater than 50% • Remove any invasive non - native species within the tree canopy exists (areal measure) corridor by hand and revegetate cleared area using low impact methods. • If impact is to occur, provide District or City /County with a native plant revegetation plan appropriate to the site conditions developed by an ecologist/biologist or landscape architect to restore condition. See Appendix D: Landscape Requirements. • Revegetate impacted area per approved plan to re- establish "good" corridor conditions Marginal Corridor Condition • Provide certification, per Appendix C: Natural • Combination of native trees, shrubs, and Resource Assessments, to District or City/County that groundcover covering 50 % -80% of the the vegetated corridor meets condition criteria. area and 26 -50% tree canopy exists (areal • Remove any invasive non - native species within the measure) corridor by hand or mechanically with small equipment, to minimize damage to existing native (Enhancement up to "good" corridor vegetation. condition required regardless of planned • Provide District or City/County with a native plant impact) revegetation plan appropriate to the site conditions developed by an ecologist/biologist or landscape architect to restore to a good corridor condition. See Appendix D: Landscape Requirements. • Vegetate corridor to establish "good" corridor conditions Degraded Corridor Condition • Provide certification, per Appendix C: Natural • Combination of native trees, shrubs, and Resource Assessments, to District or City/County that groundcover covering is less than 50% of the vegetated corridor meets condition criteria. the area and less than 25% tree canopy • Remove any invasive non - native species within the exists (areal measure) corridor by hand or mechanically. • Provide District or City/County with a native plant (Enhancement up to "good" corridor condition revegetation plan appropriate to the site conditions required regardless of planned impact) developed by an ecologist/biologist or landscape architect to restore to a good corridor condition. See Appendix D: Landscape Requirements. • Vegetate Corridor to establish "good" corridor conditions 1 When a single plant community type contains multiple condition characteristics, the higher quality condition shall prevail 2 See Appendix C for plant lists and references. 3 Refer to Integrated Vegetation Management Guidelines for appropriate methodology Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 20 Figure 3.3 Vegetated Corridor Averaging Example Frontage length = 200' ea °\ lea 20% of length = 40' . e e\` 5 Width of vegetated corridor • at encroachment = 75• ' 20% of width =15' r •' Total allowable encroachment - — — area = 600 square feet _ , _._ :.41` ' • ■ • e - - 1 y - - Area to be reduced and averaged • \O.• _� 600 square feet • ' (in this example) � o S0, i Y r.4 A� � � \ -- - 15 feet (in this example) r 1 - -°-- 40 feet (in this example) '' \ - - -- Added vegetated corridor = \e ��. d sk °t ,,,,, 600 square feet + enhanced to good condition v° eer 0.6 cs ,e'c ' kA itf . Figure 3.4 Vegetated Corridor Reduction Example O �e ea 6 d' ■ c3 e• GcP Via\ ....e" ' X 0' a 20% Vetated Corridor Width • . ' Oi9� Reduction (Variable) 60\ ado „ 'R. Enhance to good ---\..... R 31 ' �� l / . condition as mitigation e ductio n • . a \o . • . . /30 0 26 " ped octiop 7 Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 21 3.02.8 Enforcement Failure to comply with any provision of Section 3.02 or with any term of a Storm Water Connection Permit shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and subject to enforcement action pursuant to applicable District and City Ordinance and Resolutions and Orders, including all implementing rules and regulations. 3.03 Storm Water System: Engineering 3.03.1 General Provisions All stormwater system elements (including, but not limited to conveyance systems, water quality facilities, water quantity facilities) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the District, and any District interpretations thereof including those set out in the Appendices and applicable technical guidance manuals, and with all applicable federal, state and local statues and rules. 3.03.2 Extension of Public Storm Sewer Systems Public storm sewer systems shall be extended to the most distant upstream parcel boundary(s) to accommodate current and future storm flows entering the property, unless otherwise approved by the District or City. Except as otherwise provided, the extension of the public stormwater systems to serve any parcel or tract of land shall be done by and at the expense of the Property Owner or applicant. The District or City may require that a storm pipeline that serves or may serve more than one property be a public system. 3.03.3 Surveying The Owner's Engineer or Surveyor shall be responsible for establishing the location of the storm sewer system by means of construction stakes offset along the center lines prior to commencement of construction. 3.03.4 Railroad Crossings Crossing of railroad rights -of -way shall be done in a manner that conforms to the requirements of the railroad having jurisdiction. If any bonds and/or certificates of insurance protection are required, they shall be furnished by the Contractor or Owner to the railroad company concerned naming the District or City as an additional insured. Actual permits or easements for such crossings shall be obtained by the Owner and all the terms for such permits or easements shall be met by the Owner and Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 22 Contractor. 3.04 Hydrologic Analysis The hydrologic analysis shall be consistent with Appendix A: Hydrology and Hydraulics. The engineer may use various computer models or formulas for the hydrograph analysis but the District may verify the design flows and volumes based on King County's SBUH program "HYD" or as alternatively identified in Appendix A: Hydrology and Hydraulics. 3.05 Hydraulic Analysis 3.05.1 General The method of hydraulic calculations shall be subject to District and/or City approval and shall be consistent with the CWS Appendix A: Hydrology and Hydraulics. 3.05.2 System Design Considerations Site development improvement projects shall address on -site and off -site drainage concerns, both upstream and downstream of a project, including but not limited to the following: a. Modifications to the existing on -site storm drainage facilities shall not restrict flows creating backwater onto off -site property to levels greater than the existing situation unless approved by the impacted off -site property owners and the District or City. The off -site property owner(s) shall agree to and sign a permanent easement legally describing the location of the backwater storage and authorizing the use of their property for stormwater drainage and detention purposes. The easement shall be in a form approved by the District or City. b. Storm drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed to accommodate all future full build -out flows generated from upstream property based upon the most recent approved County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and upon the most recent and technically accurate watershed model information available from the District, or other data as approved by the District. c. The design of storm drainage facilities shall analyze the impact of restrictions downstream of the project site, in accordance with Section 3.05.3. Downstream restrictions that create on -site backwater may be required to be removed by the developer, at the District's discretion, or the on -site backwater shall be addressed in the design of the development's storm system. The removal of downstream obstructions shall not be allowed if this removal creates downstream capacity problems. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 23 d. If the projected increase in surface water runoff leaving a proposed development will cause or contribute to damage from flooding to existing buildings or dwellings, the downstream stormwater system shall be enlarged to relieve the identified flooding condition prior to development, or the developer must construct an on -site detention facility. 3.05.3 Review of Downstream System a. For each development constructing new impervious surface of more than 5,000 square feet, or collecting and discharging more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area, the design engineer shall submit documentation, - for review by the District, of the downstream capacity of any existing storm facilities impacted by the proposed development, except for the construction of a detached single family dwelling or duplex. The design engineer must perform a capacity and condition analysis of the drainage system downstream of the development. 1) The analysis shall extend downstream to a point in the drainage system where the additional flow from the proposed development site constitutes 10 percent or less of the total tributary drainage flow. 2) If the additional flow from the proposed development drops to less than 10 percent of the total tributary drainage flow then the analysis will continue for the lesser of: a) One - quarter (1/4) of a mile; or b) Until the additional flow constitutes less than 5 percent of the total tributary drainage flow. b. When the downstream analysis does not continue for at least one - quarter (1/4) mile, the design engineer will provide a stamped Certification of Investigation that states the design engineer has visually investigated the downstream system for at least one - quarter (1/4) mile downstream and is aware of no observable downstream impacts to structures. 3.05.4 Conveyance System Hydraulic Standards The conveyance system shall be designed to convey and contain at least the peak runoff for the 25 -year design storm. Structures for proposed pipe systems must be demonstrated to provide a minimum of 1.0 foot of freeboard between the hydraulic grade line and the top of the structure or finish grade above pipe for 25- year post development peak rate of runoff. Design surcharge in pipe systems shall not be allowed if it will cause flooding in portions of a habitable structure, Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 24 including below -floor crawl spaces, or otherwise create a hazard or danger to the health and safety of the public. The 25 -year design shall be supplemented with an overland conveyance component demonstrating how a 100 -year event will be accommodated. This overland component shall not be allowed to flow through or inundate an existing building. Flows in streets during the 25 -year event shall not run deeper than 4 inches against the curb or extend more than two feet into the travel lane. Open channel systems shall be designed for minimum one foot freeboard from bank full provided no structures are impacted by the design water surface elevation. - - 3.05.5 Catch Basin System Standards a. Standard Catch Basin System: All catch basins shall be sumped. The main storm line shall not pass through any catch basins or sumped manholes unless approved by the District. No more than three catch basins may be connected in series before connecting to the main storm line. A ditch inlet or field inlet may be connected directly to the end of the main storm line. b. Series Catch Basin System: Unsumped catch basins are allowed, provided a sumped manhole is constructed below the unsumped catch basins before the flow enters the main storm line. No more than three unsumped catch basins may be constructed above a sumped manhole. The main storm line may not pass through the catch basins or sumped manholes. No ditch inlet or field inlet may be part of a series of unsumped catch basins. c. Flow - through Catch Basin System: This system is allowed within an arterial or major collector road, provided the main line storm pipe has a design velocity of at least three (3) feet per second. Unsumped catch basins, ditch inlets, and field inlets which are properly channelized are allowed to connect directly to the main storm line. An adequately sized water quality manhole is required at the downstream end of the flow - through system. 3.06 Storm Manhole and Pipe Design Standards 3.06.1 Application For pipe systems which convey flows from or through water quality sensitive areas; a local representative of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) or other applicable state or federal agency shall be contacted to determine if fish passage is required and to identify site specific design criteria.. All culverts shall be designed for fish passage in accordance with ODFW guidance for Fish Passage Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 25 unless otherwise exempted by ODFW and the District /City. 3.06.2 Manhole Design a. Manholes shall be provided at least every 500 feet, at every grade change, and at every change in alignment. Unless an exception is approved by the District, City or County, manhole lids shall have a minimum of 12 inches of clearance from the edge of a curb and/or gutter and shall not be in a wheel path of the traveled way. b. All manholes shall be a minimum of 48 inches in diameter. c. All piped inside drop manholes with 12 -inch or larger pipe shall be a minimum of 60 inches in diameter. d. Detail(s) shall be submitted with the plans where pipes into or out of a manhole are larger than 24 inches or where more than four mainline connections are made. There shall be a minimum of 8 inches of unperforated wall separating the cut -outs or break -outs for the individual pipe connections. e. Connections to an existing manhole, elevation of the existing ledge, location of steps, and elevations of existing inlets and outlets shall be submitted with the plans. f. All manhole bases shall be properly channelized. No more than three side laterals are allowed to be connected to a manhole unless an exception is approved by the District or City. There shall be a minimum of 8 inches of unperforated wall separating the cut -outs or break -outs for the individual pipe connections. g. A Curb Inlet Manhole or Modified Curb Inlet Manhole per Standard Details may be used in lieu of a manhole required by Section 3.06.2, when approved as part of a flow - through system. Standard inlets will not be allowed in lieu of manholes in any system. h. Pipes entering manholes may have a maximum free fall of 4 feet as measured to the invert of the manhole base. i. Permanent Clean Outs shall not be allowed in storm sewer systems. Temporary Clean Outs will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 26 3.06.3 Water Quality Manholes Water Quality Manhole design shall be consistent with Appendix B: Water Quality and Quantity Facility Design. 3.06.4 Pipe Size a. The design size shall be based on hydraulic calculations provided by the design engineer. The minimum diameter of public storm pipe is identified below. 1) Pipe from catch basins to the main line in the public right -of -way shall be nominal 10 -inch diameter. 2) Main line pipe shall be a minimum nominal 12 -inch diameter. Where there is no requirement to extend the pipe for adjacent development, the main line pipe diameter may be nominal 10 -inch diameter for the furthest upstream section, provided that a 10 -inch pipe is adequate for flow. 3) Storm pipes located out of a public street right -of -way, with no requirement to be extended, and with roof drains and/or area drains connected, shall be a minimum 8 -inch diameter pipe. 3.06.5 Location of Pipe a. When storm drain pipes are located within a local public street right -of- way with curbs, the storm pipe shall be located between the curbs but not closer than five feet to either curb unless an exception is approved by the District or City. b. Storm pipes may be located behind and parallel to the curb on collector streets and arterial streets with the approval of the District or City. c. Storm pipes in easements shall be located in the center of the easement unless an exception is approved by the District or City. The centerline of a storm pipe shall be at least five feet from an easement side line. d. The minimum separation distance between storm pipe alignments and other utilities shall be 5 feet (clear). If vertical separation between utilities is greater than 3 feet, additional horizontal spacing may be required to allow for maintenance access. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 27 3.06.6 Distance Between Structures a. For 8 -inch and larger pipe, the maximum distance between manholes, excluding cleanouts, shall be 500 feet. b. The maximum distance between area drains and catch basins shall be 250 feet. 3.06.7 Alignment Public storm pipe shall be laid on a straight alignment and at uniform grade. 3.06.8 Grade Storm lines shall have sufficient slope to maintain a minimum flow velocity of 2.5 feet per second when flowing full, except that storm lines in flow - through systems shall have a minimum flow velocity of 3 feet per second. 3.06.9 Steep Slopes Storm pipes on slopes in excess of 20 percent shall be secured with approved anchor walls, see Standard Details. 3.06.10 Pipe Cover Minimum pipe cover shall be in compliance with this section unless an exception is approved by the District, City, or County. In paved areas or areas anticipated to receive vehicular traffic, pipe cover shall be measured from the top of the paved surface (finish grade) to the upper surface of the pipe barrel. The pipe bell shall not intrude into the subbase. In areas without pavement or vehicular traffic, pipe cover shall be measured from finish grade to the upper surface of the pipe barrel. Minimum cover requirements are contained in the following table: Type of Pipe Paved Areas(in) Unpaved Areas (in) Non - reinforced Pipe 48 36 RCP Class III 30 18 RCP Class IV 24 12 RCP Class V 18 6 AWWA C900 24 12 AWWA C905 24 12 Ductile Iron 18 6 Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 28 3.06.11 Headwalls Pipe headwalls or other approved end protection shall be required where pipe material other than concrete or ductile iron is exposed in the design of an outlet or inlet pipe or where required to stabilize slope. Details of all headwalls and end protection shall be included in the construction drawings. 3.06.12 Trash Racks /Debris Barriers If trash racks /debris barriers are required by the District /City for pipe or culvert systems, the Engineer shall submit the trash/rock/debris barrier system design to the District /City for approval. 3.07 Inlet Design Standards 3.07.1 Inlet and Catch Basin Capacity All inlets and catch basins shall be designed to accept a 10 -year storm event. Grates shall, as far as practical, be designed to avoid failure due to accumulation of debris. 3.07.2 Design Criteria a. Precast and poured in place catch basins, and gutter inlets are allowed. b. All catch basins shall be constructed with an 18 -inch minimum sump unless part of a series catch basin system or a flow - through catch basin system and approved by the District under Section 3.05.5. c. A main storm line shall not pass through a sumped catch basin. d. The spacing of catch basins shall be determined by the capacity of each catch basin to pass a 10 -year storm event. Where finish street grade is greater than or equal to five percent, catch basin spacing shall not exceed 300 feet. In addition, catch basin shall be provided just prior to curb returns on streets with a centerline gradient of three percent or more and a street gutter drainage run of 100 feet or more. e. Catch basins, except for CG -48 shall be a maximum depth of 5 feet from the top of grate to the lowest pipe invert elevation. f. The maximum length of pipeline between the inlet and a mainline structure shall be 40 feet for 10 -inch pipe and 60 feet for 12 -inch pipe unless additional length is required to cross the street right -of -way. g. Tee connections may only be used in street rights -of -way if the Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 29 jurisdiction having authority over the street approves them. h. Inlet grates or tops shall be cast with "Dump No Waste" in accordance with the Standard Details. 3.07.3 Area Drains and Ditch Inlets a. The standard Area Drain and Ditch Inlet shall be as shown in Standard Details, unless an exception is approved by the District. b. Area drains in rear or side' yards shall not be sumped and shall be properly channelized. Ditch inlets shall be equipped with an 18 -inch sump unless part of a flow through system approved in accordance with Section 3.05.5. c. A main storm line shall not pass through an area drain or ditch inlet. d. Area drains or ditch inlets may be located at the upper terminus of a main storm line, may connect to the main storm line at a manhole, or may connect to the main storm line through a tee with a lateral no longer than 10 feet. 3.08 Constructed Channel Design Standards 3.08.1 Application This section shall apply to open channels constructed to convey runoff to the existing public storm and surface water conveyance system. This section does not apply to design or construction of new roadside ditches or work within existing stream channels. Development which re- grades existing roadside ditches or constructs new roadside ditches shall meet Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards and applicable City regulations. 3.08.2 Channel Design a. Channel Design shall be in accordance with Appendix A: Hydrology and Hydraulics. b. Vegetation -lined channels shall be used whenever practicable as determined by the District or City. Rock -lined channels shall be used only where a vegetative lining will not provide adequate protection from erosion. c. Constructed open channels shall be sized to pass the required flows without causing erosion and shall have side slopes no steeper than 2H:1 V. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 30 d. No protruding pipes, culverts or other structures, which reduce or hinder the flow characteristics of the channel, will be allowed. Channels and connections shall be designed to prevent scouring. All pipe connections shall match side slopes and incorporate a headwall. 3.09 Culvert Design Standards 3.09.1 Application This section shall apply to culverts placed across streams and drainageways. Culverts pass water under or through obstructions. - For culverts with diameters of 36 inch or greater or for driveway culverts which are part of a roadside ditch system, the County or City is the jurisdictional District, and their road design standards shall apply. Culverts within FEMA floodplains shall be reviewed and approved by the local FEMA designated authority. For culverts which convey flows from or through water quality sensitive areas; a local representative of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) or other applicable state or federal agency shall be contacted to determine if fish passage is required and to identify site specific design criteria. All culverts shall be designed for fish passage in accordance with ODFW guidance for Fish Passage unless otherwise exempted by ODFW and the District /City. 3.09.2 Hydraulic Design Culverts will be designed to safely pass the 25 -year flow. 3.09.2.1 Headwater a. For new culverts 18 inches in diameter or less, the maximum allowable design storm event headwater elevation (measured from the inlet invert) shall not exceed two times the pipe diameter or three times the pipe diameter with a seepage collar unless an exception is approved by the District / City. b. For new culverts larger than 18 inches in diameter the maximum allowable design storm event headwater elevation (measured from the inlet invert) shall not exceed 1.5 times the pipe diameter unless an exception is approved by the District or the City. c. The maximum headwater elevation of a design storm event for new culverts shall be at least one -foot lower than the road or Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 31 , parking lot sub - grade. 3.09.2.2 Inlet For culverts 18 inches in diameter and larger, the embankment around the culvert inlet shall be protected from erosion bylining around inlet with rock or other protection. The lining shall extend upstream from the culvert a minimum of five feet and shall be as high as the designed headwater elevation. 3.09.2.3 Outlets For culverts 12 inches in diameter and larger, the receiving channel of the outlet shall be protected from erosion by rock lining, bio- engineering, or other District or City approved energy dissipater. 3.09.2.4 Inlet Control Analysis The headwater depth for pipes under inlet control shall be determined using the nomographs contained in Appendix A: Hydrology and Hydraulics, the ODOT Hydraulics Manual, or a modeling methodology consistent with FHWA's HY8. 3.09.2.5 Outlet Control Analysis The headwater depth for pipes under outlet control shall be determined using the nomographs contained in Appendix A: Hydrology and Hydraulics, the ODOT Hydraulics Manual, or a modeling methodology consistent with FHWA's HY8. 3.10 Outfall Design Standards Outfalls shall be above the mean low water level unless an exception is approved by the District or City. All outfalls shall be provided with a rock splash pad or other approved erosion control measure. Rock protection at outfalls shall be designed in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix A: Hydrology and Hydraulics, unless exceptions are approved by the District or City. Mechanisms, which reduce velocity prior to discharge from an outfall, are encouraged. Engineered energy dissipaters, including but not limited to, stilling basins, drop pools, hydraulic jump basins, baffled aprons, and bucket aprons, are required for outfalls with velocity at design flow greater than 10 -feet per second. These shall be designed using published references such as Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipaters for Culverts and Channels published by the Federal Highway Administration of the United States Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 32 Department of Transportation, the ODOT Hydraulics Manual and others. Design reference shall be cited on the construction plan submittal. 3.11 Water Quantity Facility Design Standards 3.11.1 Mitigation Requirement for Quantity Each new development must incorporate techniques for mitigating its impacts on the public stormwater system. The District shall determine which of the following techniques may be used to satisfy this mitigation requirement. a. Construction of permanent on -site stormwater quantity detention facilities designed in accordance with Appendix 13: Water Quality & Quantity Facility Design; or b. Enlargement or improvement of the downstream conveyance system in accordance with Appendix B: Water Quality & Quantity Facility Design; or c. Payment of a Storm and Surface Water Management System Development Charge (SWM SDC), as provided in CWS Ordinance 28, which includes a water quantity component to meet these requirements. 3.11.2 Criteria for Requiring On -Site Detention a. If the on -site facility is required to be constructed, the development shall be eligible for a credit against SWM SDC fees, as provided in District Ordinance and Rules. b. On -site facilities shall be constructed when any of the following conditions exist: 1) There is an identified downstream deficiency, and detention rather than conveyance system enlargement is determined to be the more effective solution. 2) There is an identified regional detention site within the boundary of the development. 3) There is a site within the boundary of the development, which would qualify as a regional detention site under criteria or capital plan adopted by the District. 4) Water quantity facilities are required by District adopted watershed management plans or adopted subbasin master plans. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 33 3.11.3 Water Quantity Facility Design Criteria a. All water quantity facilities shall be designed in accordance with District guidance documents and be consistent with Appendix B: Water Quality and Quantity Facility Design. b. When required, stormwater quantity on -site detention facilities shall be designed to capture runoff so the post - development runoff rates from the site do not exceed the pre - development runoff rates from the site, based on a 2 through 25 -year, 24 -hour return storm. Specifically, the 2, 10, and 25- year post development runoff rates will not exceed their respective 2, 10, and 25 -year pre = development runoff rates; unless other criteria are identified in an adopted watershed management plan or subbasin master plan. c. When required because of an identified downstream deficiency, stormwater quantity on -site detention facilities shall be designed such that the peak runoff rates will not exceed pre - development rates for the specific range of storms which cause the downstream deficiency. d. Construction of on -site detention shall not be allowed as an option if such a detention facility would have an adverse effect upon receiving waters in the basin or subbasin in the event of flooding, or would increase the likelihood or severity of flooding problems downstream of the site. 3.11.4 Water Quantity Facility Design Standards All water quantity facilities shall be designed in accordance with Appendix B: Water Quality and Quantity Facility Design. 3.12 Water Quality Facility Design Standards a. Purpose Owners of new development and other activities which create new impervious surfaces or increase the amount of stormwater runoff or pollution leaving the site are required to construct or fund permanent water quality facilities to reduce contaminants entering the storm and surface water system. b. Criteria for Requiring Construction of a Water Quality Facility 1) A water quality facility shall be constructed on -site unless, in the judgment of the District or City, any of the following conditions exist: a) The site topography or soils makes it impractical, or ineffective to construct an on -site facility; Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 34 b) The site is small, and the loss of area for the on -site facility would preclude the effective development. c) There is a more efficient and effective regional site within the subbasin that was designed to incorporate the development or is in the near vicinity with the capacity to treat the site. d) The development is for the construction of one or two family (duplex) dwellings on an existing lot of record. 2) If construction of an on -site facility is not required, the owner of the development shall pay a System Development Charge in accordance with District Rules and Regulations. The System Development Charge shall be calculated on an equivalent basis of constructing the minimum Standard Water Quality Swale. c. Design Standards 1) The stormwater quality facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the total phosphorous from the runoff from 100 percent of the newly constructed impervious surfaces. 2) The phosphorous removal efficiency specifies only the design requirements and is not intended as a basis for performance evaluation or compliance determination of the stormwater quality control facility installed or constructed pursuant to this Chapter. 3) If an onsite water quality facility cannot be constructed to treat the runoff from the development's impervious surface, then with District or City approval, an on- or off -site water quality facility may be designed to treat runoff from an equivalent area of adjacent untreated impervious surfaces. 4) Facilities shall be designed such that flow from the development is treated off -line from the storm conveyance system and reconnected to upstream flows following treatment. If an off -line facility is not feasible, additional capacity may be required for upstream flow. 5) Discharges to sensitive areas shall maintain the hydroperiod and flows of pre - development site conditions to the extent necessary to protect the characteristic functions of the sensitive area. Conversely, discharge of flows that may be critical to downstream water quality sensitive areas into other catchments will not be permitted unless addressed in the applicant's Service Provider Letter. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 35 6) The stormwater quality facilities shall be designed for a dry weather storm event totaling 0.36 inches of precipitation falling in 4 hours with an average storm return period of 96 hours. 7) Water quality facilities shall be constructed as part of the subdivision public improvements. 8) Other design options for meeting this section may be considered by the District for approval. 9) All water quality facilities shall be designed in accordance with Appendix B: Water Quality and Quantity Facility Design. d. Impervious Area Used In Design 1) For single family and duplex residential subdivisions, stormwater quality facilities shall be sized for all impervious area created by the subdivision and for all existing impervious area proposed to remain on site, including all existing and proposed residences on individual lots at the rate of 2640 - square feet of impervious surface area per dwelling unit. 2) For all developments other than single family and duplex, including rowhouses and condominiums, the sizing of stormwater quality facilities shall be based on the impervious area created by the development and for all existing impervious area proposed to remain on site, including structures and all roads and impervious areas. Impervious surfaces shall be determined based upon building permits, construction plans, or other appropriate methods of measurement deemed reliable by District and/or City. 3) The District encourages design initiatives that reduce effective impervious area. In developments other than single family and duplex, a decrease in the size of the water quality facility may be possible. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 36 3.13 Flood Management Design Standards a. Purpose The purpose of these standards is to reduce the risk of flooding, prevent or reduce the risk to human life and property, and maintain the functions and values of floodplains, such as allowing for the storage and conveyance of stream flows through existing and natural flood conveyance systems. b. Flood Management Areas Defined Flood management areas shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) Land identified within the 100 year floodplain and floodway as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance maps 2) Land identified in updated flood studies or any other authoritative data documenting flood elevations as approved by the District or City /County Applicants shall use the most recent and technically accurate watershed model information available from the District, or other updated data as approved by the District, to determine flood areas. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the area within the town center of the City of Tualatin, more particularly described in Attachment 1, which is by this reference incorporated herein, is not subject to the Flood Management Design Standards set out in Section 3.13 of these rules. c. Design Criteria The standards that apply to the flood management areas apply in addition to local, state, and federal restrictions governing floodplains and flood hazard areas. 1) All fill placed in a floodplain shall be balanced with an equal amount of soil material removal and shall not decrease floodplain storage capacity at any stage of a flood (2, 25, or 100 -yr event). No net fill in any floodplain is allowed except when all of the following conditions are met: (a) when an area has received special protection from floodplain improvement projects which either lower the floodplain, or otherwise protect affected properties; (b) where the exceptions comply with adopted master plans, watershed management plans, or subbasin plans, if any; and (c) When all required permits and approvals have been obtained in Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 37 compliance with FEMA rules and other local, state, and federal laws regarding fill in floodplains. 2) Large areas may not be excavated in order to gain a small amount of fill in a floodplain. Excavation areas shall not exceed the fill areas by more than 50 percent of the square footage, unless approved by the District. 3) Any excavation dug below the winter "low water" elevation shall not count toward compensating for fill since these areas would be full of water in the winter and not available to hold storm water following a rain. Winter "low water" elevation is defined as the water surface elevation during the winter when it has not rained for at least three and the flows resulting from storms have receded. This elevation may be determined from records, studies, or field observation. Any fill placed above the 100 -year floodplain will not count towards the fill volume. 4) The excavated area must be designed to drain if it is an area identified to be dry in the summer, e.g., if it is used for a park or mowed in the summer. Excavated areas identified to remain wet in the summer, such as a constructed wetland, shall be designed not to drain. For areas that are to drain, the lowest elevation shall be at least 6 inches above the winter "low water" elevation, and sloped to drain. One percent slopes will be allowed in areas less than 1000 sq. ft. 5) Excavation to balance a fill shall be located on the same parcel as the fill unless it is not reasonable or practicable to do so. In such cases, the excavation shall be in the same drainage basin, within points of constriction on the conveyance system, if any, as near as practical to the fill site, and shall be constructed as a part of the same development project. 6) Short term parking (motor vehicles remain parked for less than 18 hours per day) in the floodplain may be located at an elevation of no more than one foot below the ten year floodplain so long as the parking facilities do not occur in a Water Quality Sensitive Area or vegetated corridor. Long term parking (motor vehicles remain parked for greater than 18 hours without being moved) in the floodplain may be located at an elevation of no more than one foot below the 100 year floodplain so long as the parking facilities do not occur in a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. 7) Temporary fills permitted during construction shall be removed upon completion of construction prior to the close of the in- stream work window as defined by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or other local, state or federal authority. Storm and Surface Water Rules Chapter 3 - - Page 38 Chapter 8 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, EROSION PREVENTION, AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RULES Section 8.00 Introduction 8.01 General Policy 8.02 District Enforcement 8.03 Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control 8.04 Contaminated Soils Environmental and Erosion Rules Chapter 8 -- Page 1 Chapter 8 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, EROSION PREVENTION, AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RULES 8.00 Introduction This chapter identifies requirements for erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC). The provisions of this chapter are intended to prevent and reduce adverse impacts to the drainage system and water resources of the Tualatin River basin. In combination with other state, federal, and local laws and ordinances, these requirements are intended to protect the beneficial uses of waters within the Tualatin River Basin and within the Clean Water Services service district. 8.01 General Policy 8.01.1 Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Policy In order to meet the stringent water quality requirements of the Tualatin River Basin, the use of erosion prevention techniques shall be emphasized, rather than sediment control measures. This shall be especially important on larger construction sites immediately before and during the rainy season. Erosion prevention techniques are designed to protect soil particles from the force of rain and wind so that they will not erode. These techniques include, but are not limited to, such things as construction scheduling, ground cover, and matting. Sediment control measures are designed to capture soil particles after they have been dislodged and attempt to retain the soil particles on -site. These measures include, but are not limited to, silt fences, sediment barriers, and settling basins. Both erosion prevention techniques and sediment control measures have appropriate uses; however, numerous case studies have shown that sediment control measures are less effective in preventing soil movement than erosion prevention techniques. 8.01.2 Existing Vegetation a. As far as is practicable, the existing vegetation shall be protected and left in place, in accordance with the clearing limits on the approved Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control plans. Work areas shall be carefully located and marked to reduce potential damage. Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment. Environmental and Erosion Rules Chapter 8 -- Page 2 b. Where existing vegetation has been removed, or the original land contours disturbed, the site shall be revegetated, and the vegetation established, as soon as practicable. 8.02 District Enforcement Failure to comply with any provision of this Chapter or with any term of an Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Permit shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and subject to enforcement action pursuant to applicable District and City Ordinance and Resolutions and Orders, including all implementing rules and regulations. 8.03 Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control 8.03.1 Application and Purpose a. It is a District requirement to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion, to the limits prescribed in this Chapter. b. It is the policy of the District to require temporary and permanent measures for all construction projects to lessen the adverse effects of construction on the environment. All projects shall include properly installed, operated, and maintained temporary and permanent erosion control measures as provided in this section and/or in an approved plan, designed to protect the environment during the term of the project. Additionally, compliance with the measures prescribed in this Chapter and /or in an approved plan do not alleviate or diminish the necessity to provide effective and comprehensive erosion prevention and sediment control, as described in Section 8.03.2. These erosion control rules apply to all properties within the CWS boundary, regardless of whether that property is involved in a construction or development activity. c. Nothing in this section shall relieve any person of the obligation to comply with the regulations or permits of any federal, state, or local authority. 8.03.2 Erosion Prohibited a. Visible or measurable erosion as defined in Chapter 1, which enters, or is likely to enter, the public or private storm and surface water system or other properties, is hereby prohibited, and is a violation of these rules. The owner of the property, permittee under a Site Development Permit, Environmental and Erosion Rules Chapter 8 -- Page 3 together with any person or persons, including but not limited to the Contractor or the Engineer causing such erosion, shall be held responsible for violation of these rules. b. No person shall create physical erosion by dragging, dropping, tracking, or otherwise placing or depositing, or permitting to be deposited, mud, dirt, rock or other such debris upon a public street or into any part of the public storm and surface water system, or any part of a private storm and surface water system which drains or connects to the public storm and surface water system. Any such deposit of material shall be immediately removed using hand labor or mechanical means. No material shall be washed or flushed into any part of the storm and surface water system until all mechanical means to remove the debris have been exhausted and preventative sediment filtration is in place. The owner of the property, permittee under a Site Development Permit, together with any person or persons, including but not limited to the Contractor or the Engineer who causes such erosion, shall be held responsible for violation of these rules. 8.03.3 Maintenance The permittee shall maintain the facilities and techniques contained in the approved Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan so as to continue to be effective during the construction phase, post construction phase, establishment of permanent vegetation, or any other permitted activity. If the facilities and techniques approved in an Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan are not effective or sufficient as determined by the District or City site inspection, the permittee shall submit a revised plan within three working days of written notification by the District or City. Upon approval of the revised plan by the District or City, the permittee shall immediately implement the additional facilities and techniques included in the revised plan. In cases where erosion is likely to occur, the District or City may require the applicant to install interim control measures prior to submittal of the revised Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan. 8.03.4 Inspection a. District or City Initial Inspection On a site development or any other type of project, the erosion prevention and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to the start of any permitted activity. The permittee shall call the District or City prior to the foundation inspection of a building for an inspection of the erosion prevention and sediment control measures for that property. Environmental and Erosion Rules Chapter 8 -- Page 4 b. Owner Inspections and Inspection Logs The owner shall be required to inspect Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control measures and provide information on log forms provided by the District. Inspections shall be completed as required by the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual or the approved plans. Logs are to be maintained on -site and available to District inspectors upon request. c. Final Inspection A final erosion control inspection shall be required prior to the sale or conveyance to new property owner(s) or prior to the removal of Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control measurements. 8.03.5 Erosion Prevention Techniques and Methods The techniques and methods contained and prescribed in the latest addition of the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, adopted by Clean Water Services, must be used with the following additional requirements: a. Gravel Construction Entrance A gravel construction entrance is required. If there is more than one vehicle access point, a gravel construction entrance shall be required at each entrance. The responsibility for design and performance of the driveway remains with the permittee. Vehicles or equipment shall not enter a property adjacent to a stream, watercourse, or storm and surface water facility, or wetlands unless adequate measures are installed to prevent physical erosion into the water or wetland. b. Sediment Filters /Barriers 1) The use of straw bales as a sediment barrier is not allowed. 2) A filter system may not be used on catch basins in public streets as a part of single family erosion prevention and sediment control plans. c. Plastic Sheeting Plastic sheeting shall generally not be used as an erosion control measure for single family house construction. Plastic sheeting may be used to protect small, highly erodible areas, or temporary stockpiles of material. If plastic sheeting is used, the path of concentrated flow from the plastic Environmental and Erosion Rules Chapter 8 -- Page 5 , must be protected. d. Protection Measure Removal The erosion prevention and sediment control measures shall remain in place and be maintained in good condition until all disturbed soil areas are permanently stabilized by installation and establishment of landscaping, grass, mulching, or otherwise covered and protected from erosion. e. Wet Weather Measures On sites where vegetation and ground cover have been removed, vegetative ground cover shall be planted and established by October 1, or as approved by the District. If ground cover is not established by October 1, the open areas shall be protected through the winter with straw mulch, erosion blankets, or other method(s) approved by the District /City. f. Exceptions to Sediment Barrier Requirements Sediment barriers are not required on a site: 1) Where there are no concentrated flows and the slope being protected has a grade of less than two (2) percent. 2) Where flows are collected through the use of temporary or permanent grading or other means such that the flows are routed to an approved settling pond, filtering system, or sediment barrier. 3) Where there are no concentrated flows, slopes are less than 10 percent, and where the run -off passes through a grassed area which is either owned by the applicant, or such use is allowed, by written agreement, by the owner of the grassed area. The grass area shall be at least equal in dimensions to the project area. 4) Where the surface is protected by District approved ground cover or matting. 8.03.6 Dust Dust shall be minimized to the extent practicable, utilizing all measures necessary, including, but not limited to: a. Sprinkling haul and access roads and other exposed dust producing areas with water. Environmental and Erosion Rules Chapter 8 -- Page 6 b. Applying District - approved dust palliatives on access and haul roads. c. Establishing temporary vegetative cover. d. Placing wood chips or other effective mulches on vehicle and pedestrian use areas. e. Maintaining the proper moisture condition on all fill surfaces. f. Prewetting cut and borrow area surfaces. g. Use of covered haul equipment: 8.04 Contaminated Soils In the event the construction process reveals soils contaminated with hazardous materials or chemicals the Contractor shall stop work immediately, ensure no contaminated material is hauled from the site, remove the contractor's work force from the immediate area of the contaminated area, leaving all machinery and equipment, and secure the area from access by the public until such time as a response team has relieved them of that responsibility. The Contractor shall immediately notify an emergency response team, the District /City, and DEQ of the situation. Environmental and Erosion Rules Chapter 8 -- Page 7 ieye/a4 '--1 eee&tiet-b Agenda Item: 5.2 Hearing Date: November 6, 2000 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TYO TI CITY OF TIGARD Community Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Shaping ABetterCommunity SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CODE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING NEW USA WATER QUALITY DESIGN STANDARDS FILE NOS. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2000 -00001 Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ZOA2000 -00003 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes to amend Volume II of The Comprehensive Plan in order to recognize the Unified Sewerage Agency's (USA) role in managing water quality and to provide additional evidence of Metro Title 3 compliance. The City proposes to amend the Sensitive Lands Chapter (18.775) of the Community Development Code in order to incorporate by reference new USA Design and Construction Standards and to add a requirement that a USA Stormwater Connection Permit be obtained. The City also proposes to consolidate the Water Resources Overlay (18.797) and Sensitive Lands Chapters (18.775), both of which have as their primary focus stream and wetland protection, into one chapter in order to eliminate all lesser standards that provide lesser protection than the USA standards. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City Wide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 7; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 7.1.1, 7.1.2; and 7.2.1 and Community Development Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments according to the findings found in Section IV of this report. • Staff Report CPA 2000 -0001, ZOA 2000 -00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 1 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Introduction In mid -1998, the Metro Council adopted performance standards for the protection of streams, wetlands, and floodplains, known as Title 3 of the Functional Plan. Tigard and the other jurisdictions within Metro are required to amend their comprehensive plans and develop codes to comply with these new standards. In Washington County, the new protection measures are implemented through incorporation into the USA Design and Construction Standards, which all the jurisdictions within USA are required to follow. The purpose of the present amendments is to complete Title 3 by updating the City plan and code and adding references to USA's Design and Construction Manual and to USA's role as a service provider whose storm /surface water management service is required as part of the land use review process. A closely related purpose is to eliminate conflicting standards by integrating into the Sensitive Lands Chapter, portions of the Water Resources Overlay Chapter that are more stringent than USA or Sensitive Lands standards and deleting all other portions of the Water Resources Overlay Chapter. Title 3 Overview and USA Design and Construction Standards Title 3 contains performance standards for (1) flood and erosion control and for (2) stream water quality protection. The key flood control provisions include a requirement for the balancing of cut and fill within the floodplain, a prohibition on the storage of hazardous materials, and a requirement to supplement FEMA maps with 1996 flood and other pertinent data, if available. The key provision related to water quality protection is the imposition of vegetated corridors around streams and wetlands. The width of the corridor is based on the slope of the area adjacent to the stream. For year -round streams, the width varies from 50 to 200 feet. Streams with adjacent areas of 25% slope receive the widest setback. In Washington County, the cities and the county have had a coordinated water quality program since 1990. This program, called SWM, provides one set of rules for all the jurisdictions to follow. Given the success of this program and a common desire to maintain the consistency it provides, the Washington County jurisdictions unanimously elected to meet Title 3 by building on the existing USA storm water management program. In late 1999, after a one -year collaborative planning process, the USA rules were revised to reflect the Title 3 performance standards. The revisions were adopted by the USA board after public hearings and became effective in February 2000. Thus, in Washington County, the new Title 3 standards are implemented through incorporation into the USA Design and Construction Standards, which all the cities within USA are required to follow as a minimum. New USA Standards The new USA rules require wider buffers around streams and wetlands and also require the enhancement to "good condition" of the first 15 to 50 feet of disturbed or degraded buffer areas. The USA rules limit development within sensitive water resource areas and adjacent corridors. The corridors range in width from 15 to 200 feet depending on the nature of the sensitive area and the slope of the surrounding terrain. Very steep areas receive the widest corridors. A chart showing the vegetated corridor widths is attached. Also, attached is a chart comparing the salient Title 3 /USA standards to existing city standards. The main differences include: wider buffers on some streams, the required preservation or restoration to good condition of the first 50 feet of stream buffer, the protection of intermittent streams with 15' to 50' buffers, and wider buffers around isolated wetlands larger than 0.5 acres. To Staff Report CPA 2000 -0001, ZOA 2000 -00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 2 provide flexibility in the land use review process and also to avoid takings in specific cases, the new standards allow for development to occur with appropriate conditions through buffer averaging and reduction and though an alternatives analysis or variance process. These provisions are described in Chart II. It is useful to note that along Fanno, the North Fork of Ash, and Ball Creeks, where the existing buffer is 50 feet and gradients are low, the new regulatory buffers generally do not exceed existing City standards. Existing development located within a setback area is not subject to the new regulatory setbacks and is not required to be brought into conformity with the new rules. However, any proposed expansion of the existing use would be required to meet the new regulations. The new regulations require that applicants for development near streams and wetlands prepare a site assessment and obtain a stormwater permit from USA prior to submitting a land use application to the City. The Water Resource Overlay District section of the development code section was adopted in order to comply with Statewide Goal 5 for streams and wetlands. Many of its provisions are less stringent than the new USA standards. These lesser standards are removed by the code amendments. In order to maintain Goal 5 compliance, those standards that are more stringent than the USA standards are retained and, for purposes of streamlining and clarity, are integrated into the Sensitive Lands Chapter. As shown in Chart II, these more restrictive standards include a fixed 75 -foot setback along the Tualatin River and the stronger protection of good condition buffers and sensitive areas. Local Title 3 Compliance Although existing intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) require Tigard and the other USA - affiliated jurisdictions to "follow and enforce the orders promulgated by the Agency ", the IGAs do not specifically require that USA's standards and performance criteria be applied as criteria for land use approval. Up to now, the standards have been implemented by requiring land use applicants to obtain approvals by the City acting on behalf of USA before connection to the storm and surface water management system. Applicants presently are required to comply with the Design and Construction Standards as part of the development review process, in the same way that they are required to comply with design and construction standards for water lines, sanitary sewers, and streets, or with building structural code requirements, fire code requirements, and similar standards. Tigard and most of the other jurisdictions apply USA standards as part of the engineering review that accompanies permits for connection to storm water system; the City acting on behalf of USA pursuant to the IGA thus functions as a storm /drainage service provider in each jurisdiction, and the land use review process requires the applicant to demonstrate that the service is available. In Tigard, USA standards are applied pursuant to the IGA, typically by the City Engineer during the development review process. If USA, as the special district planning for water quality management in the basin, has enforceable standards in place that substantially comply with the performance standards of Title 3, and if cities and the county have coordinated comprehensive plans that assure implementation of those standards, then the cities and county should substantially comply with Title 3. However, because Title 3 provides that "local codes shall require" development to conform to specific performance standards, Metro may and does require as part of substantial compliance that specific references in land use regulations identify the service provider and assure that USA standards are applied through the land use review process. Staff Report CPA 2000 -0001, ZOA 2000 -00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 3 In conclusion, in order to complete Title 3 compliance, Tigard needs to adopt conforming amendments to its comprehensive plan and development code explicitly recognizing USA's role as a service provider whose storm /surface water management service is required as part of the land use review process. These required amendments are the subject of this application. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, and 7; Metro 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 7.1.1, 7.1.2; and 7.2.1 and Community Development Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 ; and Community Development Code Section 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure and public hearings as listed below. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing plan and code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Notices and information also were mailed to the owners of properties located within or partially within the regulatory boundary of a Title 3 vegetated corridor. This included approximately 1,400 property owners. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings, which follows Community Development Code procedure. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, is met because the proposed amendments provide greater protection for streams and wetlands than do existing regulations. These greater protections include wider buffers around sensitive water resource area and a requirement than good condition vegetated corridors be established. 4. Statewide Planning Goal 7, addressing areas subject to natural disaster and hazards, is satisfied, because the proposed changes meet or exceed the flood management standards included in the current code. These more restrictive standards include requiring a higher minimum floor elevation and prohibiting the storage of uncontained hazardous materials within the floodplain. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged comprehensive plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to Staff Report CPA 2000 -0001, ZOA 2000 -00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 4 keep the development code current with local needs and recent administrative rule changes. In particular, the changes implement Title 3 of the Metro Framework Plan. 2. Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the plans of the Metropolitan Service District, is met because the amendments have been reviewed by Metro staff and have been determined to be consistent the Metro Framework Plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). 3. Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, citizen involvement, are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. All owners of property within identified Title 3 areas, some 1,400 owners, were sent written notice of the proposal and hearing schedule. This mailing included a general information sheet describing the amendments with a contact number provided for those with questions or wishing additional information. Individual property site maps, depicting approximate Title 3 boundaries, were mailed to some thirty property owners at their request. The full text of the proposed amendments was posted on the City WebPages. The staff report was made available more than seven (7) days prior to the hearings along with a draft of the proposed ordinance. 4. Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because this policy calls for development control of wetlands and these amendments provide tools consistent with recent regional Unified Sewerage Agency and Metro rules to protect these resources. 5. Policy 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, prohibiting any land from alterations or developments within the 100 -year floodplain that would result in any rise in elevation of the 100 -year floodplain, is satisfied because the proposed amendments do not alter the existing requiring that the zero -rise floodway be maintained. 6. Policy 3.2.4 is satisfied because the amendments further restrict development within areas designated as significant wetlands and establish 25 to 200 feet setbacks from the outer edges of designated wetland areas. 7. Policy 3.4.1.a is satisfied because the Title 3 rules designate significant wetlands according to the criteria and procedures for the identification of significant wetlands established in the "Final Approved Administrative Rules for Identifying Significant Wetlands" adopted by the Division of State Lands. 8. Policy 3.4.2.a, which calls for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors, is satisfied because the proposal establishes mandatory setbacks from the top of banks and the edges of wetlands and requires that the areas within these setbacks remain undisturbed or enhanced with native vegetation. 9. Comprehensive Plan Policies 4.2.1, Water Quality, and 4.2.2, Wastewater Systems, are satisfied because the proposed amendments are intended to implement stream protection performance standards adopted by Metro. At the same time, the proposed standards go beyond the Metro standards by providing increased protection for intermittent streams and by requiring the enhancement to good condition of fifty foot vegetated corridors along stream and wetlands. 10. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.1.a and f, Public Facilities and Services, is satisfied because the purpose of the amendments is to implement the rules and regulation of Staff Report CPA 2000 -0001, •Z0A 2000 -00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 5 the Unified Sewerage District pertaining to the location of developments, including required stormwater retention ponds. 11. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.2.a, Public Facilities and Services, is met because the new regulations require that a storm drainage connection permit be obtained from USA before development can occur. 12. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1, Storm Drainage and Wastewater Management, is satisfied because the proposed amendments stipulate that the City shall require as a pre- condition to development in sensitive water resource areas that a site development study be submitted to USA for review and approval according to stringent standards and that natural drainage ways and intermittent streams be maintained. 13. Community Development Code Chapter 18.380, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and 18.390, Decision Making Procedures, are satisfied because all the procedures for Type IV application and a legislative code change were followed. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Operations and Engineering Divisions has reviewed the proposal and has offered no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Current Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: How would underground utilities, and other underground work be treated under the new code? Response: Under the proposed amendments, the review of underground utilities within vegetated corridors and sensitive areas would be conducted by the Unified Sewerage Agency according to the revised USA Design and Construction Standards. Following its review, the agency will issue a Storm Water Connection Permit for approved facility plans. City staff would not be responsible for reviewing underground utility plans within vegetated corridors. This responsibility will be delegated to USA. On the other hand, because existing Water Resources Overlay rules are more restrictive than the USA rules with regard to sensitive areas, the City would continue to be responsible for the review of underground utilities within these areas. Thus, utilities within sensitive areas will be subject to both USA and City review. Staff Report CPA 2000 -0001, ZOA 2000 -00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 6 What happens to wetlands discovered but not mapped? Response: According to existing City regulations, wetlands that are overlooked or otherwise not mapped on the City Significant Wetlands Inventory are not subject to City wetlands regulations. Notwithstanding this, wetlands that meet the Federal definitions of a wetland are subject to conjunctive USA, State, and Federal regulations governing wetlands. What happens if a vegetated corridor is degraded before or after a required site assessment, due to negligence or destruction on the part of the owner? Consider mitigation measures if owner causes destruction. Response: The new USA regulations prohibit any clearing within a vegetated corridor area without a permit. Any clearing that may take place prior to or inconsistent with site plan approval would be a violation of USA standards and would be subject to penalties and mitigation requirements. SECTION VI. AGENCY AND CIT COMMENTS The Wetlands Conservancy, The Friends of Fanno Creek, The Tualatin Riverkeepers; The Association of Northwest Steelheaders; The Metropolitan Area Homebuilders; The Tigard Chamber of Commerce; Metro; The Oregon DLCD; The Division of State Lands; The Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation; and members of the Citizen Involvement Team have all had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no written comments or objections. Officials of Metro and the Department of Land Conservation and Development made oral comments supportive of the proposed changes. No other comments have been received. 10/27/2000 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DATE Associate Planner Staff Report CPA 2000 -0001, ZOA 2000 -00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 7 DATE: 1/7/2005 CODE SECTIONS: 18.725 • 18.745 18.775 18.790 _ 18.810 p_ (37)c Comprehensive Plan Policies 3, 4, 7 TMC Chapter 12.02 Land Use Compatibility Statement Findings & Conclusions for DEQ NPDES CWS MS4 Discharge Permit Renewal INTERPRETATION: DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION (James N.P. Hendryx) REGARDING LAND USE COMPATABILITY STATEMENT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR DEQ NPDES CWS MS4 DISCHARGE PERMIT RENEWAL. I. REQUEST The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has determined Clean Water Services (CWS) must obtain a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) from each local jurisdiction in its service district to determine whether the actions to be taken under the Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for CWS's municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) are consistent with the City's land use regulations. II. BACKGROUND Clean Water Services District is authorized by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality under a NPDES permit to operate individual waste treatment facilities (WTFs) as well as a municipal separate storm sewer system and to discharge storm water. • The NPDES was issued through a permit renewal process and does not require a LUCS under OAR 340 - 018 -0050 because it does not involve: (i) a permitted source or activity relating to the use of additional property or a physical expansion on the existing property; (ii) a permitted source or activity involving a significant increase in discharge to state waters or into the ground; (iii) a permitted source or activity involving the relocation of an outfall outside of the source property; (iv) a major modification of an air contaminant discharge permit which means any physical change or change of operation of a source that results in a net significant emission rate increase as defined in OAR 340 - 020 - 0225(25). However, as a precautionary matter, pursuant to a petition from interested parties, DEQ is requesting a LUCS for the MS4 portion of the permit. The following findings are provided in response to that request. The MS4 permit covers an area of approximately 75,000 -acres (117 square miles) including 400 miles of storm drains operated by CWS and an additional 570 miles of storm drains operated by cities, including Tigard, within the CWS service area. Approval of the MS4 permit authorizes CWS to operate an MS4 consistent with the Clean Water Act and federal rules. A separate development or right -of -way permit is required for the actual construction and installation of a stormwater facility. As such, approval of an MS4 permit does not directly authorize development. • III. ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THE PERMIT As required by federal law the MS4 permit includes specific minimum control measures for storm water systems including: (i) Structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from runoff from commercial and residential areas. (ii) A program to detect and remove (or require the discharger to the MS4 to obtain a separate NPDES permit for) illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer. 4111 (iii) A program to monitor and control pollutants in storm water discharges to municipal systems from municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities, industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of SARA, and industrial facilities that the permittee determines are contributing substantial pollutant loading to the MS4. (iv) Program to implement and maintain structural and non - structural best management practices to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff form construction sites to the MS4. Additionally, the CWS Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) describes the programs used by CWS to comply with the Clean Water Act and federal rules including: 1. public education and outreach, 2. public participation /involvement, 3. illicit discharge detection and elimination, 4. construction site runoff control, 5. post- construction runoff control, and 6. pollution prevention /good housekeeping. The SWMP includes specific reference to the legal authority to assure ongoing monitoring, management and enforcement as well as a discussion of the fiscal capacity for purposes of implementing the SWMP. In addition, specific best management practices (BMPs) are set out in the SWMP to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). IV. MS4 PERMIT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The following findings evaluate whether the CWS "system and program ", as described above and allowed under the MS4 permit, is consistent with the City of Tigard • Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The policies and code standards discussed below touch on storm water issues either directly or indirectly and are therefore relevant for purposes of determining compatibility. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Volume Two, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Chapter 3. Natural Features and Open Space Section 3.4 Natural Areas /Policy 3.4.2(a) The city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible. Finding: The System and Program, as outlined in the SWMP and in CWS's Design and Construction Standards (adopted by the city of Tigard (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19)), provide protection of the riparian habitat and erosion control t protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors. Conclusion: The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.4, Policy 3.4.2(a). Chapter 4, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality /Section 4.2 Water Quality Policy 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. Ord. 02 -15) Finding: CWS's Design and Construction Standards were adopted by the city of Tigard (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19). CWS's Design and Construction Standards (R &O 04 -9) cover the administrative and technical requirements for the design and construction of sanitary and surface water management systems which are built as part of residential or commercial development. All new development submittals within the District's boundaries -- including development within cities - -must comply with these standards. Conclusion: The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Section 4.2, and Policy 4.2.1. Chapter 7 Public Facilities and Services /Section 7.2 Storm Drainage and Wastewater Management Policy 7.2.1 The city shall require as a pre- condition to development that: A. A site development study be submitted for development in areas subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding which shows that the development is safe and will not create adverse off -site impacts; B. Natural drainage ways be maintained unless submitted studies show that alternative drainage solutions can solve on -site drainage problems and will ensure no adverse off -site impacts; C. All drainage can be handled on -site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off -site impact; D. The 100 -year floodplain elevation as established by the 1981 Flood Insurance Study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be protected; and E. Erosion control techniques be included as a part of the site development plan. Finding: The System and Program includes provisions that address the requirement of a service • provider letter for all development on sensitive lands, natural resource assessments for developments on sensitive lands, and that Best Management Practices, including erosion control techniques be included as part of site development plans. Conclusion: The System and Program are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7, Section 7.2, and Policy 7.2.1. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 12.02 Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management Section 12.02.040 Clean Water Services Rules Adopted. Clean Water Services Resolution and Orders No. 91 -47 (excluding Chapter 2) as amended, Construction Standards and Regulations pertaining to the sanitary sewerage and storm and surface water management systems are adopted and shall be in full force and effect as part of this code. (Ord. 02 -28, Ord. 94 -19) Finding: A portion of the System and Program is expressly incorporated into the City of Tigard's' Municipal Code under this chapter. Conclusion: The System and Program are consistent with Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 12.02.040. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE • Chapter 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards Section 18.725.020 General Provisions A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non -point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules • shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. Finding: The System and Program is currently permitted under a DEQ NPDES permit. This LUCS is being requested by DEQ for consideration in the renewal of the NPDES permit. As the discharge of matter into streams is the responsibility of CWS and CWS standards have been incorporated into Tigard's Development Code, each use, activity or operation within Tigard is subject to compliance with the applicable state and federal regulations. Conclusion: The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.725.020(A). Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening Section 18.745.060 Re- vegetation A. When re- vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. Finding: The System and Program contain Best Management Practices for re- vegetation of disturbed areas. These BMP's are incorporated into the Community Development Code through CWS Design and Construction Standards. • Conclusion: The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.725.060(A). Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands Sections: 18.775.010 Purpose A. Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. C. Implement Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin in accordance with the CWS Design and Construction Standards, as adopted February 7, 2000. D. Implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources Within water quality and flood management areas and to implement the performance standards of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. E. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). The regulations in this chapter are intended to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule pertaining to wetland and riparian corridors. F. Protect public health, safety, and welfare. Sensitive land areas are de designated as such to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community through the regulation of these sensitive land areas. Finding: The System and Program are implemented through this section of the Community Development Code to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin. Other provisions of this section are also implemented by adoption of these standards, including the water resources provisions of METRO's Functional Plan, and the Statewide Planning Goal 5. Implementation of the CWS Design and Construction Standards contribute to maintaining the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and 40 fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. These standards help protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Conclusion: The System and Program are consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.775.010(A, C, D, E, F). Chapter 18.790 Tree Removal Section 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. Finding: CWS Design and Construction Standards contribute to the preservation of trees on sensitive lands. These trees help control erosion and maintain water quality. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with the tree removal provision of the Community Development Code Section 18.790.010(A). Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right -of -way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff form its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design • and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Finding: The CWS Design and Construction Standards are implemented in these provisions of the Community Development Code to ensure proper storm water management. Conclusion: The System and Program is consistent with the storm drainage provision of the Community Development Code Section 18.810.100. V. CONCLUSION The Clean Water Services' "system and program" is consistent with the relevant provision of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. VI PROCEDURAL FINDINGS The Code does not currently provide a review procedure that is specific to LUCS. The Director has determined that a Director's Interpretation (TDC 18.340) shall be used to provide the findings of fact and conclusion of law required by DEQ for each LUCS. This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the Tigard City Council pursuant to TDC 18.340.020.E. and F. Notice of this decision was provided to: James J. Nicita, Attorney for the Interested Parties Tualatin Riverkeepers Willamette Riverkeepers Elizabeth Callison Cynthia C. Eardley Barbara Kemper, Attorney • •