CONTENTS

                   Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY               E-1

Section 1  INTRODUCTION               1  

 Stormwater Advisory Committee           1  

Report Purpose and Focus             1  

Exhibit 1: Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) Members   3  

Section 2  RECOMMENDATIONS             4  

Problem Statement and Goal             4

   Benefits                 4  

   Existing Activities and Coordination           5  

   Categories                 5

   Priorities                 6  

   General Policy Recommendations           7

   Greenscape Recommendations           8

   Hardscape Recommendations             12

   Stormwater System/Facilities Recommendations       15

   Previous SAC Recommendations           21

Section 3  IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS       23  

 Funding and Incentives             23

 Monitoring, Maintenance, and Evaluation         25

 Response Report               25

   Next Steps—SAC Workscope           26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) was appointed by Commissioner Dan Saltzman on behalf of City Council in September 2000. Its members represent environmental, neighborhood, and community groups; engineering, transportation, and landscape architecture consultants; and industry, development, and large commercial interests. The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), Office of Transportation (PDOT), and other City bureaus provide staff assistance.

In June 2002, the SAC submitted a report to City Council with policy recommendations for new development/redevelopment and existing development. A number of those recommendations applied to transportation-related development and served as preliminary transportation recommendations. Following submittal of the June 2002 report, the SAC continued to work on transportation issues.

This report presents the SAC’s final policy recommendations for transportation-related development, as summarized below and presented in more detail in Section 2. The recommendations fall into the following four categories:¹

➢  General Policy Recommendations

➢  Greenscape (right-of-way area landscaping)

➢  Hardscape (pavement materials)

➢  Stormwater System/Facilities (techniques to treat, detain, and/or detain stormwater)

PRIORITIES

The SAC does not have sufficient information about costs, benefits, City processes, and technical considerations to assign priorities to its recommendations. The SAC considers all of the recommendations to have high importance and, to the extent practical, would like to see most of them underway within three years of Council’s acceptance of this report.

RESPONSE REPORT

The SAC requests BES and PDOT to prepare a joint response report within 9 months, similar to the report prepared in response to the SAC’s June 2002 recommendations. The response report can serve as a workplan that indicates how and when the City will address the SAC’s transportation recommendations. It should include the following elements:

•  Tasks and priorities (including relationship to work already underway by PDOT and BES)

•  Timeframes

•  Funding mechanisms

•  Roles and responsibilities

•  Performance measures

•  Possible barriers to implementation

•  Mechanisms and schedules for reporting back to the SAC on progress made

NEXT STEPS—SAC WORKSCOPE

Over the next year, the SAC will provide review and comment on the following subjects:

•  City’s renewed NPDES stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) update.

•  Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM) 2004 update.

•  Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit and plan.

The SAC will also continue to monitor the progress of its previous policy recommendations.

Section 1: INTRODUCTION

STORMWATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The current Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) is the successor of two previous committees:

•  The Stormwater Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC) was established in April 1996 to develop stormwater management policies for new development and redevelopment. City Council accepted the SPAC’s policy recommendations in July 1997. The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) developed the Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM) to implement the recommendations. City Council adopted the SWMM on July 1, 1999.

•  The first SAC was established by City Council resolution in spring 1999. Its charge was to review and make recommendations to BES and City Council on issues involved with implementation of the SWMM, and to address a number of other stormwater-related topics. The SAC submitted its report to Council in April 2000. BES revised the SWMM in September 2000, incorporating many of the SAC’s recommended changes.

The current Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) was appointed by Commissioner Dan Saltzman on behalf of City Council in September 2000. Its members represent environmental, neighborhood, and community groups; engineering, transportation, and landscape architecture consultants; and industry, development, and large commercial interests (Exhibit 1). BES, the Office of Transportation (PDOT), and other City bureaus provide staff assistance.

The SAC was charged with following up on the recommendations identified in the April 2000 SAC report. The SAC was also asked to address new issues within three major areas of concern: new development/redevelopment (implementation and evaluation of the SWMM), existing development, and transportation-related development. In June 2002, the SAC submitted a report to City Council with policy recommendations for new development/redevelopment and existing development. The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), working with other City bureaus, then prepared a response report to the SAC that provides a workplan for how the City will address the SAC’s recommendations.

REPORT PURPOSE AND FOCUS

A number of the recommendations in the SAC’s June 2002 report applied to transportation-related development and served as preliminary transportation recommendations. Following submittal of that report, the SAC continued to work on transportation issues. This report presents its final policy recommendations for transportation-related development. It includes the June 2002 recommendations that apply to transportation uses (as well as to other types of development) in order to provide all transportation-related recommendations in one report.

The transportation recommendations focus on stormwater management approaches for streets and rights-of-way. The SAC felt that parking lots are already addressed in the SWMM; by some of the recommendations for existing development in the June SAC 2002 report; and by City Code Title 33, which requires landscaping for stormwater management on new, redeveloped, and (in some cases) existing parking lots.

The recommendations do not address operations and maintenance (O&M). However, the SAC believes that street and transportation stormwater system cleaning are critical for reducing transportation-related pollutants in stormwater and are essential components of efforts to improve water quality. Street cleaning and other O&M activities are included as best management practices (BMPs) in Portland’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharge Permit. The City obtained a renewed NPDES permit on March 8, 2004, and will revise its Stormwater Management Plan to reflect the revised permit conditions. The SAC’s work in the coming year (see Section 3) will include review and comment during revision of the SWMP, including operation and maintenance BMPs such as street cleaning.

Exhibit 1: STORMWATER ADVISORY (SAC) COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Section 2: RECOMMENDATIONS

PROBLEM STATEMENT AND GOAL

Approximately 27 percent of Portland’s total area consists of impervious surfaces from existing development. Studies endorsed by NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conclude that watershed degradation begins to occur when impervious surfaces exceed approximately 10 percent of the area within a drainage basin.

Rights-of-way comprise approximately 19 percent of the City’s total land area, but account for 49 percent of the impervious surfaces. (Other impervious surfaces include parking lots and building footprints.) A substantial number of streets are directly connected to the storm sewer system, and most do not drain to a water quality facility. Rights-of-way have a major effect on stormwater runoff, contributing 66 percent of the total discharge quantity (from both pervious and impervious surfaces) and 77 percent of pollutants in the discharge. This means that streets significantly contribute to negative impacts on the City’s waterways. Increased stormwater runoff volume and rates contribute to streambank erosion, stream channelization, degradation of fish habitat, and flooding. Heat from paved surfaces elevates runoff temperature and, in turn, stream temperature. In addition, motor vehicles generate a variety of harmful pollutants (such as oil, grease, and metals) that degrade water quality. The SAC has categorized these problems into four major categories:

➢  Impaired fisheries

➢  Degraded stream structure

➢  Water quality impairment

➢  Flooding

In light of these impacts, the SAC assigns a very high priority to stormwater management from transportation-related development and believes that a variety of methods must be used to reduce or mitigate the problems. The SAC’s transportation recommendations support the following overall SAC goal:

SAC GOAL

Reduce and/or mitigate the negative impacts of stormwater runoff (both quality and quantity) from street and right-of-way uses.

BENEFITS

The SAC’s recommendations are formulated to benefit stream structure, water quality, fisheries, and flood control for surface waters. They will help protect groundwater as well as surface water resources by including approaches that mimic the natural hydrologic cycle and preserve water quality. Actions taken to implement the recommendations will support multiple City programs and goals, including the Clean River Plan, NPDES Stormwater Program, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Program, Endangered Species Act Program, and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) under the Clean Water Act.

EXISTING ACTIVITIES AND COORDINATION

The SAC recognizes that the City is already taking some steps to address transportation-related stormwater issues. The Stormwater Policy Advisory Committee recommended formation of a Water Quality Friendly Streets Program, which began in 1998. Portland has also participated in Metro’s Green Streets program. Both efforts evaluated aspects of street design standards that can be modified for stormwater benefits. The interbureau (BES and PDOT) Water Quality Friendly Streets Program has since been designing, constructing, and monitoring pilot projects to learn more about each technique and evaluate which should be adopted as standards for future use in Portland.

The City’s Sustainable Infrastructure Committee (which includes BES, PDOT, the Bureau of Water Works, Bureau of Sustainable Development, and Bureau of Parks and Recreation) began in 2002 as a forum for sharing information and expertise about sustainable infrastructure policies, products, and practices. The committee is currently focusing on three high-priority issues, two of which are transportation related: sustainable streetscape and alternative paving materials.

The SAC believes the Water Quality Friendly Streets Program and the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee are good existing mechanisms for implementing many of the SAC’s recommendations, as noted under “Implementation Strategies” for the relevant recommendations. The SAC considers its policy recommendations to be input for these groups to further consider and integrate with their work. These groups also enable BES, PDOT, and other City bureaus to coordinate interrelated issues and actions, which is essential for achieving positive results.

PDOT is already pursuing several of the approaches recommended by the SAC, including TG#1, TG#2, TG#3, TG#4, TH#1, TH#2, and TS#4. Even though these actions are underway to some extent, the SAC included them to emphasize their importance and encourage their continuation and/or expansion.

CATEGORIES

The SAC’s recommendations are grouped into the following four categories, which are consistent with the categories used by the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee.²

➢  General Policy Recommendations are policy and planning approaches that will improve stormwater management.

➢  Greenscape means right-of-way area landscaping, including plants and organic materials. The purpose/focus of these recommendations is to manage water quantity and improve water quality, and to prevent and remove pollution.

➢  Hardscape means pavement materials, including asphalt, Portland cement concrete, and other products and components. The purpose/focus of these recommendations is to manage water quantity and to reduce effective impervious area (EIA).

➢  Stormwater system/facilities are techniques used to treat, detain, and/or retain stormwater. The purpose/focus of these recommendations is to investigate and implement measures to improve the design and function of stormwater management systems/facilities.

Some categories and actions relate to each other; these are cross-referenced in the recommendations.

PRIORITIES

The SAC does not have sufficient information about costs, benefits, City processes, and technical considerations to assign priorities to its recommendations. The SAC requests the City to propose implementation priorities as part of the City’s response to the recommendations (see Section 3). The SAC considers all of the recommendations to have high importance and, to the extent practical, would like to see most of them underway within three years of Council’s acceptance of this report.

General Policy Recommendations

Purpose/Focus: Implement policy and planning approaches that

will improve stormwater management.

TP#1:  Give priority to water quality friendly design (for both new development and retrofits) for all applicable public and private transportation projects.

TP#2:  Continue and expand the Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

TP#3:  Adopt policies and add flexibility to standards to recognize and accommodate project-specific conditions (e.g., land use, topography, soils).

Implementation strategies:

➢  Coordinate with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program to evaluate, implement, and monitor approaches and techniques.

➢  Provide public education to demonstrate that these approaches are feasible, effective, and cost-effective.

➢  Expand pilot projects to include new types of street construction and reconstruction.

➢  Continue to expand the toolbox of approaches currently accepted by PDOT for both public and private transportation projects.

➢  Periodically review policy effectiveness by tracking number, size, and features of projects that use water quality friendly street designs versus those that do not.

➢  Require monitoring and feedback of public and private pilot projects to identify successful approaches and to add those approaches to the accepted toolbox.

Greenscape Recommendations

Purpose/Focus: Manage water quantity and improve water quality;

prevent and remove pollution.

TG#1:  Retrofit roadside ditches to swales to provide stormwater management and pedestrian access where appropriate. Work with adjacent properties to maintain.

(Links to TH#1)

FOCUS AREA: Citywide.  

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Provide resources to BES’s Conditions Assessment Team to identify and prioritize problem areas (e.g., where erosion is most prevalent and is an environmental and safety issue).

➢  Set targets (e.g., linear feet per year, number of projects per subbasin) and develop an implementation schedule for retrofits.

➢  Implement projects in conjunction with other projects such as street/right-of- way work, maintenance projects, etc.

➢  Develop maintenance plans where appropriate that include education for and assistance from adjacent property owners.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  Pedestrian access and street trees.

➢  Vehicle ingress/egress; driveways.

➢  Design issues associated with inflow into facility—how to ensure no erosion problems or clogged inlet.

Greenscape (continued)

TG#2:  Encourage the use of greenscape for stormwater management to limit flow and treat runoff from roads.

Examples: Filter strips, swales, retention and planting of street trees.

(Links to TH#1)

FOCUS AREA: Citywide.      

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Revise standards for public and private street rights-of-way to incorporate the greenscape approach; coordinate with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

➢  Integrate into the existing process for street planning; as district street plans (e.g., the Gateway District Plan) are developed, look for opportunities to implement water quality friendly streets.

➢  Inventory and evaluate opportunities for retrofits.

➢  Identify opportunities through the permit and local improvement district (LID) processes.

➢  Look for opportunities to implement with new urban renewal districts. (See recommendation P#2 in the SAC’s June 2002 report to Council.)

➢  Focus on streets with highest pollutant loads (e.g., arterials).

➢  Use watershed plans, Urban Forestry maps, and other resources to identify street tree-deficient areas.

➢  Partner with groups such as Friends of Trees, community groups, and private property owners to plant street trees. (Tree planting relates to ON#3 in SAC’s June 2002 Report to Council.)

➢  Work with utility companies and Urban Forestry to develop criteria for water quality friendly street tree maintenance and preservation.

➢  For public streets, evaluate as an option for sump replacement in areas where sumps must be decommissioned or cannot be installed.

➢  Implement projects in conjunction with other projects such as street/right-of-way work, maintenance projects, etc.

➢  Maximize water quality treatment and infiltration, based on site conditions.

Greenscape (continued)

TG#3: Look for opportunities to use public and private greenscape adjacent to the right-of-way to manage street runoff.

Examples: Facility-sharing agreements, easements, willing sellers.

(Links to TS#1, which addresses opportunities within the right-of-way.)

FOCUS AREA: Citywide.      

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Revise standards as needed to allow stormwater management in land adjacent to the right-of-way, in coordination with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

➢  Inventory space adjacent to the right-of-way that has potential for stormwater management, especially publicly owned property, including opportunities to acquire tax foreclosed properties.

➢  Set targets (e.g., number of projects per subbasin) and develop an implementation schedule.

➢  Integrate into the existing process for street planning; as district street plans (e.g., the Gateway District Plan) are developed, look for available space adjacent to the right-of-way.

➢  Look for opportunities to implement with new urban renewal districts. (See recommendation P#2 in the SAC’s June 2002 Report to Council.)

➢  For public streets, evaluate as an option for sump replacement in areas where sumps must be decommissioned or cannot be installed.

➢  Implement projects in conjunction with other projects, such as street/right-of-way work, maintenance projects, etc.

➢  Tie in with willing seller programs.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  City may need to incur some additional liability (perhaps on an initial basis) to encourage private properties to implement shared facilities and allow public stormwater onsite.

➢  City will need to revise current policies prohibiting use of private parcels to manage right-of-way runoff.

Greenscape (continued)

TG#4: Prevent or reduce/treat the flow of stormwater from existing development to the right-of-way by encouraging onsite stormwater management retrofits.

FOCUS AREA: Citywide.  

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Inventory and evaluate commercial and industrial properties that drain to public rights-of-way in priority areas (e.g., areas that drain to tributary headwaters, UICs, etc.).

➢  Coordinate with the Industrial Permitting Program, Maintenance Inspection Program, and Downspout Disconnection Program to provide information and assistance to property owners.

➢  Identify sites that drain to the right-of-way in conjunction with other city programs and projects, such as street/right-of-way work, maintenance projects, etc.

➢  Identify retrofit opportunities for property owners through the permit process.

➢  Develop incentives or a grant program for property owners to implement retrofits.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  Some sites (e.g., industrial and commercial) that drain to rights-of-way with UICs may be required to prevent runoff into the right-of-way.

Hardscape Recommendations

Purpose/Focus: Manage water quantity; reduce effective impervious area (EIA).

TH#1: Use curbless and/or segmented curb streets where applicable to direct stormwater flow into landscaped stormwater facilities.

(Links to TG#1 and TG#2)

FOCUS AREA: Citywide

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Revise street standards as needed, in coordination with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

➢  Integrate into the existing process for street planning; as district street plans (e.g., the Gateway District Plan) are developed, look for opportunities to implement.

➢  Inventory and evaluate opportunities for retrofits.

➢  Identify opportunities through the permit and local improvement district (LID) processes.

➢  Look for opportunities to implement with new urban renewal districts. (See recommendation P#2 in the SAC’s June 2002 report to Council.)

➢  Focus on streets with highest pollutant loads (e.g., arterials).

➢  For public streets, evaluate as an option for sump replacement in areas where sumps must be decommissioned or cannot be installed.

➢  Implement projects in conjunction with other projects such as street/right-of-way work, maintenance projects, curb/sidewalk replacement projects, etc.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  May be difficult to do in commercial areas.

Hardscape (continued)

TH#2: Optimize and encourage flexibility within street width and sidewalk design standards, PDOT’s connectivity policy³, and the use of materials to reduce effective impervious area.

Examples:

- Reduce street and sidewalk width (Skinny Street Program).

- Slope sidewalks away from streets.

- Use porous pavement.

- Use the minimum possible number of cross-street connections and stream and wetland drainageway crossings.

- Add storage capacity by incorporating a thickened rock base under streets and

sidewalks to distribute and infiltrate stormwater.

FOCUS AREA: Citywide

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Revise standards as needed, in coordination with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

➢  Integrate into the existing process for street planning; as district street plans (e.g., the Gateway District Plan) are developed, look for opportunities to reduce effective impervious area.

➢  Identify opportunities through the permit and local improvement district (LID) processes.

Hardscape (continued)

TH#3: Develop low-cost alternative street and stormwater standards as options for upgrading unimproved and substandard streets. Implement and monitor pilot projects to evaluate O&M needs and stormwater quality.

Examples:

- Gravel streets

- Center strip paved streets

FOCUS AREA: Citywide

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Develop standards, implementation approaches, and pilot projects in coordination with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

➢  Inventory and evaluate unimproved and substandard streets where alternative standards may be appropriate.

➢  Integrate into the existing process for street planning; as district street plans (e.g., the Gateway District Plan) are developed, look for opportunities to implement alternative approaches.

➢  Identify opportunities through the permit process (street opening, new/redevelopment).

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  Need to ensure that erosion and transport of fines do not occur on gravel streets.

➢  Some alternatives (e.g., gravel streets) may require code changes.

Stormwater System/Facilities Recommendations

Purpose/Focus: Investigate and implement measures to improve the design and

function of stormwater management systems/facilities.

TS#1: Look for opportunities to use unimproved or underused space available within the right-of-way, or acquire additional right-of-way for stormwater management.

Examples:

- Right-of-way not needed for transportation function

- Streets platted, but not improved

- Landscaped areas (e.g., interchanges, roundabouts, planting strips, buffer zones).

- Traffic calming devices

(Links to TG#3, which addresses opportunities adjacent to the right-of-way.)

FOCUS AREA: Citywide.

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Revise street standards as needed to allow stormwater management within rights-of-way, in coordination with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

➢  Inventory space within rights-of-way that has potential for stormwater management.

➢  Set targets (e.g., number of projects per subbasin) and develop an implementation schedule.

➢  Look for and consider opportunities on a case-by-case basis, and implement them as feasible/available.

➢  Integrate into the existing process for street planning; as district street plans (e.g., the Gateway District Plan) are developed, look for opportunities to use unimproved/underused space.

➢  Look for opportunities to implement with new urban renewal districts. (See recommendation P#2 in the SAC’s June 2002 Report to Council.)

➢  Evaluate as an option for sump replacement in areas where sumps must be decommissioned or cannot be installed.

➢  Implement in conjunction with other projects (e.g., CIP projects, street/right-of-way work, maintenance projects).

Stormwater System/Facilities (continued)

TS#2: Investigate/pilot test (including O&M) the use of various water quality inlets (filters, etc.) to trap pollutants as close to the source as practical.

FOCUS AREA: Citywide

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION

➢  Coordinate investigation/pilot tests with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee, Water Quality Friendly Streets Program, and other jurisdictions.

➢  In particular, evaluate the use of inlets during or immediately after construction to minimize construction site impacts.

➢  Focus on areas where biofiltration-type BMPs are less practical and/or areas where retrofits may be practical/possible.

➢  Use private maintenance contractors where needed/appropriate.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  Water quality inlets must meet the requirements set forth in BES’s Vendor Submission Guidance for Evaluating Stormwater Treatment Technologies (February 2002).

➢  The Bureau of Maintenance has evaluated and used a variety of inlets for short-term actions, but has not evaluated their use for long-term placement.

Stormwater System/Facilities (continued)

TS#3: Reevaluate water quantity (runoff) design standards for streets to mitigate the negative impacts to stream stability and habitat caused by prolonged erosion-causing release rates.

   (Links to TS#4)

FOCUS AREA: Westside streams and Johnson Creek

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Evaluate release rate/flow control as part of 2004 Stormwater Management Manual revision.

Stormwater System/Facilities (continued)

TS#4: Continue to evaluate the feasibility of using street and parking area flooding in some areas for detention purposes.

  (Links to TS#3)

FOCUS AREA: Citywide

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Evaluate feasibility in coordination with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee, Water Quality Friendly Streets Program, and CSO Program (for stormwater flow control).

➢  Review standards and use by other jurisdictions.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  Public safety

➢  Public acceptability

Stormwater System/Facilities (continued)

TS#5: Identify and implement ways to incorporate stormwater retrofits into routine maintenance practices.

FOCUS AREA: Citywide

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Examine existing O&M procedures to identify possible opportunities to combine functions.

➢  Revise/develop procedures as needed to incorporate stormwater retrofits (e.g., staff observation to identify opportunities; reporting protocols; implementation approaches).

➢  Provide training for maintenance personnel.

Stormwater System/Facilities (continued)

TS#6: Consider possible stormwater management thresholds and requirements for projects not currently covered by the Stormwater Management Manual.

Examples:

- Utility projects

- Repaving

- Curb extension projects

- Pedestrian/streetscape projects

FOCUS AREA: Citywide

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE ACTION APPLIES TO:

WHEN/HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION:

➢  Evaluate as part of Stormwater Management Manual revisions. Include consideration of watershed-specific approaches—e.g., temperature and other TMDL parameters.

➢  Coordinate policy development and implementation approaches with the Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS:

➢  Could use the new water quality friendly street design standards as guidance for curb extensions.

➢  Could be as simple as planting trees or using stormwater planters for repaving or utility projects.

➢  For pedestrian/streetscape projects, could involve measures such as street trees, porous pavement, depressed planter strips, segmented curbs.

PREVIOUS SAC RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations in the SAC’s June 2002 Report to Council apply to transportation uses as well as to other types of development. These are repeated below to provide all transportation-related recommendations in one report.

Facility Sharing

•  Continue the planned review and pilot testing of facility sharing agreements and projects. These would allow private properties to build oversized stormwater management facilities to manage stormwater runoff from public right-of-way.

•  Change City policies as needed to allow right-of-way runoff to be co-mingled with private water and be treated by either the public property owner or a private property owner, as appropriate.

Existing Development

Section 3: IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS

FUNDING AND INCENTIVES

The SAC has identified some possible funding sources and incentives to implement its recommended actions. The SAC recommends that PDOT and BES further investigate these mechanisms and include their findings in a response report, as discussed on page 25.

It is important to note that it may be possible to implement some recommendations without new funding sources. The SAC encourages the City to incorporate the recommended actions into existing work programs and projects as much as possible, and to consider how existing work could possibly be reorganized or refocused to be most cost effective.

General Approaches for Funding and Incentives

1.  Seek a variety of funding sources to ensure implementation of the recommended actions in a timely manner.

2.  Consider life-cycle system costs. Base facility choices on both capital and ongoing (O&M) costs. Factor in replacement costs for underground facilities. Determine how reduced street maintenance (because of reduced square footage) might result in life-cycle cost savings.

3.  Maximize cost-sharing among bureaus.

4.  Use the local improvement district (LID) process to have unimproved streets built to city standards, including stormwater quality and quantity.

5.  Provide private property owners with information and assistance to encourage implementation of the recommended actions. Provide cost information to demonstrate that some green approaches may be less expensive than traditional methods for street improvements. Where appropriate, integrate information and assistance into other related City programs and processes.

6.  Continue to educate the public about the need for stormwater management for transportation uses, what the City is doing to address the problems, and the advantages of the recommended approaches.

Possible Funding Sources for City Implementation of Transportation Recommendations

1.  Grants (local, state, federal, private).

2.  In-lieu-of fees from new development and redevelopment (Stormwater Management Manual).

3.  Enforcement funds from local, state, and federal agencies.

4.  Fee increases (e.g., monthly stormwater drainage fee, system development charge, inspection fees, permit fees).

5.  General fund.

6.  Transportation utility fee.

7.  Possible use of gas tax money for transportation-related stormwater facilities.

8.  City bicycle registration fee.

9  Redirection of BES and PDOT funds from other programs/projects.

10.  A percentage of citywide capital improvement program (CIP) project costs dedicated to a fund for transportation-related stormwater improvements.

Possible Funding and Incentives for Private Property Owners to Implement Transportation Recommendations

1.  Stormwater fee discount as part of the City’s Clean River Incentive and Discount Program.

2.  Rate incentives for managing the public portion of runoff (which constitutes 65 percent of the utility fee).

3.  Existing incentives in the Downspout Disconnection Program: payment per discount; free installation; no permit required.

4.  City funding:

a. Technical assistance and funding support for design and construction support.

 b. Funding assistance for capital construction of oversized portion of facilities.

c. Grants.

d. Financial support of Friends of Trees and other community groups for street trees.

5.  City financing programs:

a. “Green LIDs” for capital costs.

b. Low-interest loans (similar to sewer connection program).

6.  Streamlined/standardized review process for developers.

7.  Incentives to developers to implement new technology.

8.  Shared liability between City and private developers who conduct pilot tests of innovative technologies.

9.  Education/outreach/facilitation/partnering, including:

 a. Education and outreach.

 b. Aggressive encouragement/facilitation.

c. Assistance with organizing and facilitating volunteer labor.  

d. Partnerships with other organizations/programs.

MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND EVALUATION

As the recommended actions are implemented, it will be important to monitor their performance, promote optimum conditions, and evaluate their effectiveness. The SAC has identified a number of approaches that could possibly be used:

•  City inspection. In some cases, this could be accomplished under the City’s existing Maintenance Inspection Program (e.g., for TG#4) or Conditions Assessment Team (e.g., for TG#1).

•  Observation by maintenance staff during routine activities; follow-up maintenance as needed.

•  Stormwater monitoring.

•  Traffic safety monitoring (e.g., for TS#4).

•  Inventories (e.g., tracking the number and size of right-of-way projects that use water quality friendly street designs versus those that do not).

•  Monitoring and evaluation of pilot projects.

•  Participation by private property owners—e.g.:

-  Visual monitoring and maintenance of swales (TG#1).

-  Involvement/training of property owners to identify and report drainage problems (TG#2).

A policy determination will be needed about who will maintain landscaped stormwater facilities—for example, PDOT, BES, and/or adjacent property owners.

RESPONSE REPORT

The SAC requests BES and PDOT to prepare a joint response report within 9 months, similar to the report prepared in response to the SAC’s June 2002 recommendations. The response report can serve as a workplan that indicates how and when the City will address the SAC’s transportation recommendations. It should include the following elements:

•  Tasks and priorities (including relationship to work already underway by PDOT and BES)

•  Timeframes

•  Funding mechanisms

•  Roles and responsibilities

•  Performance measures

•  Possible barriers to implementation

•  Mechanisms and schedules for reporting back to the SAC on progress made

The SAC asks PDOT and BES to consider the following points in preparing the response report:

•  Intra- and interbureau coordination and cooperation are essential to effectively plan, implement, and fund needed actions. The joint contributions of PDOT and BES to the SAC’s transportation discussions have set a good precedent for ongoing collaboration.

•  As discussed in Section 2, the existing Sustainable Infrastructure Committee and Water Quality Friendly Streets Program are good existing mechanisms for implementing many of the SAC’s recommendations. The SAC would like the response report to indicate how these groups will integrate the SAC’s recommendations with their work, including priorities, schedules, and products.

The SAC felt it did not have sufficient information about costs, benefits, City processes, and technical considerations to assign priorities to its recommendations. PDOT has provided the SAC with a preliminary evaluation of priorities, based largely on ease of implementation. The SAC would like the response report to propose implementation priorities and schedules that consider the value of implementing the recommendations, as well as the ease or cost. The SAC believes that it is not valid to equate difficulty of implementation with low priority in all cases. The response report should include the rationale for the proposed prioritization. While the SAC recognizes that it is necessary to set priorities, it considers all of the recommendations to have high importance and would like all of them to be implemented.

•  To the extent practical, the SAC would like to most of its recommendations underway within three years of Council’s acceptance of this report.

•  Pilot testing should be implemented whenever possible/appropriate. Pilot projects would help the City evaluate the feasibility of some recommendations, rather than necessarily deem them difficult to implement. They could also help determine costs/benefits and priorities. In addition, pilot projects could provide information and demonstrate the value of new approaches to the public.

NEXT STEPS—SAC WORKSCOPE

Over the next year, the SAC will provide review and comment on the following subjects:

•  City’s renewed NPDES stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) update.

•  Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM) 2004 update.

•  Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit and plan.

The SAC will also continue to monitor the progress of its previous policy recommendations.