Issuu on Google+

(Please print or copy double sided when possible)

STORMWATER ANNUAL REPORT JULY 2012 – JUNE 2013 September 30, 2013


IMPORTANT NOTE: This annual report has been prepared by the City of Mesa (City) in response to the conditions established by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the City, effective August 30, 2010 (herein referred to as the 2010 MS4 Permit). This report is designed to meet all the requirements established under Appendix B (Annual Report Form for Phase I MS4) and is required to be submitted to the ADEQ on or before September 30th of each year. This report incorporates the requirements under the 2010 MS4 Permit for the previous reporting year, which also coincides with the City’s fiscal year. This document can be found on the ESD Server at the following location: I:\STORMWATER\Annual Reports\2012-2013 Annual Report\Document Text\2013-09 Stormwater Annual Report - Final.docx


TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0

GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................... 1-1

2.0

ANNUAL REPORT CERTIFICATION ............................................................... 2-1

3.0

NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF STORMWATER PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ......... 3-1 3.1 PUBLIC EDUCATION & OUTREACH ....................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 General Public ................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.2 Business Sectors ............................................................................ 3-3 3.1.3 Additional Education & Outreach Activities ..................................... 3-4 3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Environmental Hotline ..................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Stormwater Website ....................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Household Hazardous Waste Program .......................................... 3-6 3.3 NON-STORMWATER FLOWS TO THE CITY’S MS4 ............................... 3-7 3.3.1 Non-Stormwater Flow Prevention Activities .................................... 3-7 3.3.2 Training Dates and Topics .............................................................. 3-8 3.3.3 Investigations .................................................................................. 3-8 3.4 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 3-10 3.4.1 Description & Status of Inventory.................................................. 3-11 3.4.2 Overview of Findings .................................................................... 3-11 3.4.3 Response Actions ......................................................................... 3-11 3.4.4 Facilities Covered under the Multi-Sector General Permit ............ 3-12 3.5 INVENTORIES, MAPS, AND MAP STUDIES ......................................... 3-12 3.5.1 Inventories .................................................................................... 3-12 3.5.2 Maps ............................................................................................. 3-12 3.5.3 Map Studies .................................................................................. 3-13 3.6 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ....................................................................... 3-14 3.6.1 Identification and Inventory of Private Commercial and Industrial Facilities ........................................................................ 3-14 3.6.1.1 Commercial Facilities ...................................................... 3-15 3.6.1.2 Industrial Facilities ........................................................... 3-15 3.6.2 Overview of Inspection Findings and Significant Findings ............ 3-15 3.6.2.1 Commercial Facilities Inspection & Prioritization ............. 3-16 3.6.2.2 Industrial Facilities Inspection & Prioritization.................. 3-17 3.6.3 Summary of Corrective and Enforcement Actions ........................ 3-18 3.6.3.1 Commercial Facility Corrective & Enforcement Actions... 3-19 3.6.3.2 Industrial Facility Corrective & Enforcement Actions ....... 3-19 3.7 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ............................................ 3-20


3.7.1 Status of Inventory and Plan Review of Construction Operations .................................................................................... 3-21 3.7.1.1 Private Construction Projects .......................................... 3-21 3.7.1.2 City Projects .................................................................... 3-21 3.7.2 Overview of Inspection Findings and Significant Findings ............ 3-22 3.7.2.1 Private Construction Projects .......................................... 3-22 3.7.2.2 City Projects .................................................................... 3-23 3.7.3 Summary of Corrective and Enforcement Actions ........................ 3-23 3.7.3.1 Private Construction Projects .......................................... 3-24 3.7.3.2 City Projects .................................................................... 3-24 3.8 POST-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ................................. 3-25 3.8.1 New or Revised Post-Construction Controls ................................. 3-25 3.8.2 Overview of Post-Construction Inspection Program ..................... 3-25 3.8.3 Summary of Corrective and Enforcement Actions ........................ 3-26 3.9 DRY-WEATHER SCREENING................................................................ 3-26 3.9.1 Staff Training ................................................................................ 3-26 3.9.2 Outfall and Field Screening Point Inventory .................................. 3-27 3.9.3 Inspection Tracking System .......................................................... 3-27 3.9.4 Inspection and Screening Procedures and Significant Findings ... 3-27 3.10 ORDINANCES, RULES, & POLICIES ..................................................... 3-27 3.11 FISCAL EXPENDITURES ....................................................................... 3-28 4.0

STORMWATER PROGRAM NUMERIC SUMMARY ........................................ 4-1

5.0

EVALUATION OF THE STORMWATER PROGRAM ...................................... 5-1 5.1 PROGRAM PROGRESS ........................................................................... 5-1 5.2 PROGRAM SUCCESSES ......................................................................... 5-2 5.3 REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS TO THE CITY’S MS4 ............................ 5-2 5.3.1 Public Education & Outreach .......................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Public Reporting ............................................................................. 5-3 5.3.3 Household Hazardous Waste Events ............................................. 5-3 5.3.4 Commercial & Industrial Facility Inspections................................... 5-3 5.3.5 Construction Site Inspections ......................................................... 5-4 5.4 REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS FROM THE CITY’S MS4 ...................... 5-4 5.4.1 MS4 Infrastructure Maintenance ..................................................... 5-4 5.4.1.1 Street Sweeping ................................................................ 5-4 5.4.1.2 Storm Sewers Components............................................... 5-4 5.4.1.3 Detention/Retention Basins ............................................... 5-5 5.4.2 Post-Construction Requirements .................................................... 5-5

6.0

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS .................... 6-1 6.1 ADDITION OF NEW CONTROL MEASURES .......................................... 6-1 6.2 ADDITION OF TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES ............................ 6-1


6.3 INCREASE OF EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES ................................. 6-1 6.4 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES ........................ 6-1 7.0

MONITORING LOCATIONS ............................................................................. 7-1 7.1 AS-US60 ................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2 SS-US60 ................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 54-EMF...................................................................................................... 7-2 7.4 UN-EMF .................................................................................................... 7-3 7.5 FF-ACES ................................................................................................... 7-3

8.0

STORM EVENT RECORDS .............................................................................. 8-1

9.0

SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA ............................................................... 9-1

10.0

ASSESSMENT OF MONITORING DATA ....................................................... 10-1 10.1 SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS .......................................... 10-1 10.2 EXCEEDANCES OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ........ 10-1 10.3 STORMWATER QUALITY EVALUATION - BY LOCATION ................... 10-2 10.3.1 Station AS-US60........................................................................... 10-2 10.3.2 Station SS-US60........................................................................... 10-2 10.3.3 Station 54-EMF ............................................................................. 10-2 10.3.4 Station UN-EMF............................................................................ 10-3 10.3.5 Station FF-ACES .......................................................................... 10-3 10.4 SWQS EXCEEDANCE INVESTIGATIONS ............................................. 10-3

11.0

ESTIMATE OF POLLUTANT LOADING ........................................................ 11-1 11.1 POLLUTANT LOADING MODELING, DATA ANALYSIS, AND CALCULATIONS ..................................................................................... 11-1 11.1.1 Event Mean Concentration ........................................................... 11-2 11.1.2 Rainfall Data Evaluation ............................................................... 11-2 11.1.3 Drainage Area Runoff Volumes .................................................... 11-3 11.1.3.1 Drainage Area Evaluation................................................ 11-3 11.1.3.2 Weighted Average Runoff Coefficient ............................. 11-4 11.1.4 Annual Pollutant Loading Estimate ............................................... 11-4 11.2 COMPARISON OF POLLUTANT LOADING ESTIMATES ...................... 11-5

12.0

ANNUAL EXPENDITURES............................................................................. 12-1

13.0

ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................. 13-1 13.1 DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAPS ................................................................... 13-1 13.2 LISTING OF OUTFALLS & FIELD SCREENING POINTS ...................... 13-1 13.3 LIST OF CHANGES TO OUTFALL & FIELD SCREENING POINTS ...... 13-1


13.4 STORMWATER MONITORING ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS ............................................................................................... 13-2 13.5 NEW OR REVISED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES ... 13-2 13.6 NEW OR REVISED PUBLIC EDUCATION & OUTREACH DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................... 13-2 13.7 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE EVENT REPORTS ..................... 13-3 13.8 UPDATED CITY FACILITY INVENTORY................................................ 13-3 13.9 ANNUAL EXPENDITURE REPORTS ..................................................... 13-3


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2010 MS4 Permit – City of Mesa MS4 Stormwater Permit, AZS000004-2010 ADEQ – Arizona Department of Environmental Quality APP – Aquifer Protection Permit AZPDES - Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System BMP – Best Management Practice(s) City – City of Mesa CGP – Construction General Permit FCDMC – Flood Control District of Maricopa County FOG – Fats, Oils, and Greases GRD – Grease Removal Device HHW – Household Hazardous Waste IDDE – Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination LID – Low-Impact Development MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSGP – Multi-Sector General Permit NAICS - North American Industry Classification System NOI - Notice of Intent NOT – Notice to Terminate PSA – Public Service Announcement SARA – Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SIC – Standard Industrial Code Stormwater Code - Title 8, Chapter 5, of the Mesa City Code STORM – STormwater Outreach for Regional Municipalities SWMP – Storm Water Management Plan


SWPPP – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWQS – Surface Water Quality Standard TRI - Toxic Release Inventory USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency


1.0

GENERAL INFORMATION

A.

Name of Permittee: City of Mesa

B.

Permit Number:

AZS000004-2010

C.

Reporting Period:

July 1,

D.

Program Contact:

Scott Bouchie

Title:

Deputy Director, Environmental & Sustainability Division

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 146

City:

Zip:

Fax: E.

Mesa

480-644-4774

2012

through

85211-1466 Email Address:

Certifying Official:

Christopher J. Brady

Title:

City Manager

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 1466

City:

Zip:

Fax:

Mesa

480-644-2175

85211-1466 Email Address:

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

June 30,

Phone:

2013

480-644-4366

Scott.bouchie@mesaaz.gov

Phone:

480-644-2066

Chris.Brady@mesaaz.gov

Page 1-1


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 1-2


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 2-2


3.0

NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF STORMWATER PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City of Mesa (City) to provide a narrative describing the implementation, progress, and challenges associated with the stormwater program activities as provided in the following subsections. The permit also requires the City to explain any significant developments or changes to the number or type of activities or the priorities or procedures for specific management practices. 3.1 PUBLIC EDUCATION & OUTREACH The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to report outreach events, topics, number of people reached, number and type of materials distributed and the target groups in this Annual Report as it pertains to the City’s stormwater public education and outreach program. The City’s stormwater public education and outreach method is managed through the STormwater Outreach for Regional Municipality (STORM) organization. STORM is comprised of Phase I and Phase II MS4 operators in the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area. STORM was founded in 2002 largely in response to the Phase II stormwater regulations and was spearheaded by the Phase I MS4 operators as a method of assisting all regulated MS4 operators in the development of their public education programs, among other things. As such, the City played a key role in the early years of the development of the STORM organization and continues to be a major participant and proud supporter to this day. The traditional approach to public stormwater education and outreach is for individual communities to work independently. STORM encourages a new perspective at a regional level to improve public outreach and education. Members meet monthly to discuss ideas, gather information, and share results of stormwater management tools, techniques, programs, and initiatives. The City realizes a great economic benefit from their membership investment. For a relatively small contribution, the City receives a significant return in public outreach and education, much more than the City would have gained working independently. Membership in STORM also provides increased buying power that helps achieve bulk pricing on storm water pollution awareness promotional items. Additionally, the ability to City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-1


cooperatively apply for grants and other financial assistance helps further the common goal of public education to reduce stormwater pollutants and ultimately improve the regional water quality. STORM uses a multimedia approach targeting audiences through radio, television, special events, and providing permit information to the general public and the regulated community. These approaches include, but are not limited to, radio and television public service announcements (PSAs), developing brochures and other handouts, and attending public events. Additionally, STORM has created a comprehensive website that includes the copies of outreach materials and PSAs which can be accessed at www.azstorm.org. 3.1.1 General Public The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to target at least one of the following groups during each permit year (August 30 through August 29th): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

General Public Residential Community Home Owners Home Owners Associations Schools

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires that at least one of the following topics be addressed for these target groups: •

Post-construction ordinances and long-term maintenance requirements for permanent stormwater controls

Stormwater runoff issues and residential stormwater management practices

Potential water quality impacts of application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer and control measures to minimize runoff of pollutants in stormwater

Potential impacts of animal waste on water quality and the need to clean up and properly dispose of pet waste to minimize runoff of pollutants in stormwater

Illicit discharges and illegal dumping, proper management of non-stormwater discharges, and to provide information on reporting spills, dumping, and illicit discharges

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-2


Spill prevention, proper handling and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials, and measures to contain and minimize discharges to the storm sewer system

Installation of catch basin markers or stenciling of storm sewer inlets to minimize illicit discharges and illegal dumping to the storm sewer system

Proper management and disposal of used oil

STORM aired a PSA campaign targeting swimming pool discharges. The PSA aired in both English and Spanish on eight radio stations, ran from June 3 through June 30, 2013 and reached over 3.2 million people. The campaign included 134 (30 second) paid spots; plus 82 (30 second), 4 (15 second) and 6 (10 second) "bonus" spots at no charge. A Community Service interview was aired on one of the participating stations. The cost of the campaign was $5,021.65. 3.1.2 Business Sectors The 2010 MS4 Permit also requires the City to target at least one of the following business sector groups during each permit year: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Development Community Construction Site Operators Targeted Sources Types of Businesses (industrial or commercial)

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires that at least one of the following topics be addressed for these target groups: •

Planning ordinances, engineering standards and grading and drainage design standards for stormwater management in new developments and significant redevelopments

Municipal stormwater requirements and stormwater management practices for construction sites

Illicit discharges and proper management of non-stormwater discharges

Spill prevention, proper handling of toxic and hazardous materials, and measures to contain and minimize discharges to the storm sewer system

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-3


Proper management and disposal of used oil and other hazardous or toxic materials, including practices to minimize exposure of materials/wastes to rainfall and minimize contamination of stormwater runoff

Stormwater management practices, pollution prevention plans, and facility maintenance procedures

STORM was a sponsor of the Low-Impact Development (LID) Basics and Beyond: Low Impact Development Trends in the Southwest workshop on February 5, 2013. STORM contributed $1,000 to the ASU Sustainable Cities Network for costs associated with the workshop. Approximately 122 were in attendance at the workshop. Workshop details and presentations are posted at the following website address. http://sustainablecities.asu.edu/2012/12/10/lid-basics-and-beyond-low-impactdevelopment-trends-in-the-southwest/ STORM also targeted operators of industrial facilities that were required to have coverage under the ADEQ Multi-Sector General Permit by hosting the 2013 Industrial Stormwater Compliance Made Easy seminar. The seminar drew an audience of approximately 84 attendees and featured presentations by representatives of consultant representing member municipalities and the ADEQ. The Arizona Department of Transportation, a STORM member, provided the seminar room at no charge. STORM expended $1,177.18 for costs associated with printing, mailing, and refreshments. Seminar presentations are available at the following website address. http://www.azstorm.org/construction-seminar/maricopa-county-stormwater-constructionseminar 3.1.3 Additional Education & Outreach Activities More information regarding the STORM organization’s public education and outreach program activities for the current reporting year can be found in the STORM Annual Report, FY 2011 available at the following address: http://www.azstorm.org/annualreports. 3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to identify activities, number of people involved, number and type of materials distributed, if applicable and to describe MS4 system for

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-4


public reporting of spills, dumping, discharges, and related stormwater issues in this Annual Report as it pertains to the City’s public involvement stormwater program. 3.2.1 Environmental Hotline The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide and publicize a reporting system to facilitate and track public reporting of spills, discharges or dumping to the storm sewer system (i.e., storm water hotline, web page, etc.) on a continuous basis. The City established an Environmental Hotline as a method to receive calls regarding stormwater as well as other environmental issues [air quality, hazardous material disposal, illegal dumping, and public nuisances (i.e. mosquitoes)]. During normal business hours, calls are answered by personnel trained to understand the nature of the types of calls they receive and can address questions that are informational in nature. Where a complaint is filed, the record is turned over to appropriate personnel trained in code enforcement procedures for inspection. All complaints are logged into the City’s Tidemark® database system for tracking purposes. During off-business hours, callers are provided an opportunity to leave a message which is retrieved and processed the following business day. Emergency calls related to stormwater issues received during off-hour operations are handled through the City’s public safety dispatch operations. 3.2.2 Stormwater Website The City maintains a website specifically for stormwater. That website has information specific to the City’s stormwater program. The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to post the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and latest annual report on the City’s web site within one (1) year from the effective date of the permit. The draft version of the SWMP was posted on the City’s website within ten (10) business day of the end of the first permit term (August 30, 2011). The final version of the SWMP, after being approved of by the ADEQ, was uploaded to the website within ten (10) business days after the receipt of the ADEQ approval (date April 12, 2012). The City will also provide a link to this Annual Report within ten (10) business days of submittal of this document to the ADEQ. These documents are accessible through City’s Environmental & Sustainability Division website at http://www.mesaaz.gov/environ/.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-5


3.2.3 Household Hazardous Waste Program The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to incorporate at least one of the following as fundamental support to its storm water program: •

An opportunity to involve the public in the City’s stormwater program and encourage public participation in monitoring and reporting spills, discharges, or dumping within their communities (such as facilitation of neighborhood watch groups) once per year.

An opportunity to participate in the City’s stormwater program, such as voluntary litter control activities (e.g., facilitation of Adopt-A-Wash, Adopt-A-Park, and Adopt-A-Street litter control activities) or voluntary erosion control projects as a regular ongoing activity.

A household hazardous waste (HHW) program to facilitate proper disposal of used oil, antifreeze, pesticides, herbicides, paints, and other hazardous and toxic materials by city residents (such as scheduled household hazardous waste collection events or operation of full-time disposal facilities) a minimum of two (2) times per year for the first two (2) years of the permit, three (3) times per year for years three (3) and four (4) of the permit, and every year thereafter.

The City has selected to incorporate the HHW program into their stormwater program since the City has been conducting these types of events as part of meeting the requirements of their previous MS4 permit. The City’s HHW program facilitates proper disposal of used oil, antifreeze, pesticides, herbicides, paints, and other hazardous and toxic materials as well as electronics, tires, and prescription medicine generated by city residents. During this reporting period, the City provided four opportunities to residents to dispose of HHW. By providing a proper disposal option to the City’s residents, the City has kept this material from potentially being illegally dumped into the MS4, spilled onto City streets, or improperly disposed of into solid waste receptacles. The City’s HHW collection events are held at two different locations, one on the east side of the City, the other on the west. The events alternate between locations to ensure that all residents have adequate access to these events. Information, including

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-6


the number of residents attending, amount and type of material received, is included as an attachment to this Annual Report (see Section 13.7 and Attachment C). At these events, the City distributes packets to residents as they enter. Based on the timing of each event, this information would have included some or all of the following: •

HHW Collection Event Date Flier

Additional Electronics Recycling Opportunities

Christmas tree recycling information

Environmental & Sustainability Information

3.3 NON-STORMWATER FLOWS TO THE CITY’S MS4 The City’s 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to summarize their program activities related to non-stormwater flows. This includes: 1. Prevention activities associated with the release of non-stormwater flows to the MS4; 2. Training dates and topics of City personnel addressing non-stormwater flow complaints; and, 3. Overview of identified sources resulting from industrial facility inspections, illicit releases, types of illicit connections identified, and significant corrective or enforcement actions. For the overview of industrial facility inspections, see Section 3.6.2. 3.3.1 Non-Stormwater Flow Prevention Activities The City does not operate as a permitting agency for stormwater or non-stormwater flows. However, the City has identified the following non-stormwater releases to target through the development of fact sheets to reduce the pollutants from these sources to the maximum extent practicable. Targeted Release Flood Irrigation Water

Targeted Pollutant(s) Sediment

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Targeted Areas Irrigation over areas that are exposed to bare soils.

Page 3-7


Targeted Release Individual Car Washing

Targeted Pollutant(s) Sediment Solvents

Street Wash Water

Sediment Oils

Swimming Pools & Hot Tub Water (generally not allowed)

Chlorine Bromine Sediment Bacteria

Targeted Areas Washing heavily soiled trucks. Washing undercarriage or engine compartments. Washing paved surfaces impacted with dirt. Washing standing liquid oil spills from paved surfaces. Flows must remain on site (irrigation usage) go to sanitary sewer, or be pumped and hauled away for disposal.

During this reporting period, the City finalized these documents which are accessible through City’s Environmental & Sustainability Division website at http://www.mesaaz.gov/environ/. 3.3.2 Training Dates and Topics The City developed an Environmental Program Training Standard Operating Procedures manual (dated February 2012) to meet the training requirements of the 2010 MS4 Permit and other environmental program areas. Previously, a training module was developed targeting inspectors/staff with no direct stormwater responsibilities (general awareness training). Topics included what types of discharges are allowed under the Title 8, Chapter 5 of the Mesa City Code (Stormwater Code) and the procedure for reporting suspected illicit discharges. During this reporting period, a training module was developed targeting stormwater inspectors/field staff (enforcement training). Topics include identifying illicit discharges, tracking illicit discharges, allowable stormwater discharges, and enforcement actions. 3.3.3 Investigations For stormwater complaints publically reported to the City, the 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Investigate reported releases to identify the source(s) of the release;

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-8


2. Respond to 90% of all reports of releases made to the City (i.e. called into the Environmental Hotline, or other form of reporting) or other detection methods (i.e. pro-active inspections); and, 3. Initiate investigation of 80% of releases reported to the City within three (3) business days of the date of report. The City has established an Environmental Hotline as a method to receive calls regarding stormwater as well as other environmental issues (see Section 3.2.1). It has been the City’s experience that non-stormwater releases reported to the Environmental Hotline are identified at locations prior to entering the subsurface portions of the City’s storm sewer system (primarily flowing down the curb and gutter system). Most connections that are reported to the Environmental Hotline are in the form of a pipe (usually PVC) installed through a block wall or a pump hose that is placed in the yard, through a fence, or directly in the street or alleyway. These surface flows and connections are generally easy to track down to the source through a drainage area investigative approach. In general, the City can utilize a corrective or enforcement action to obtain compliance with the Mesa City Code. “Corrective actions” are generally those taken by the responsible party to remove pollutants or reduce the potential of pollutants from entering the City’s MS4. “Enforcement actions” are those taken by the City to address any hazards associated with the violation, generally where a voluntary compliance option has failed to be an effective tool in gaining compliance, and includes reporting violations to other City departments or regulatory agencies having ultimate authority regarding the nature of the violation. During this reporting period, the majority of the complaints received through public reporting involved draining and/or backwashing of swimming pools to the City’s storm sewer system. Other noted complaints involved debris in drainage channel, oil in the street, grey water, vegetation blocking drainage, and track-out from a yard.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-9


Section 8-5-5 of the City’s Stormwater Code (Commencement of Action) provides for formal enforcement actions by issuing a notice of abatement under this Chapter or a citation for civil sanctions under this Chapter, or both. However, the code provides that City employees may seek voluntary compliance through notices of violation, warnings, or other informal devices designed to achieve compliance in the most efficient and effective manner under the circumstances. The City’s code enforcement procedure provides the option of voluntary compliance to responsible parties to implement corrective actions by issuing a courtesy notice. Where voluntary compliance is not obtained within a reasonable timeframe, the City has the ability to issue a civil violation and citation, issue a notice to abate, or suspend any license issued by the City. Additionally, the City may impose criminal violations for responsible parties identified as habitual offenders. Most cases were closed with the issuance of a courtesy notice during this reporting period. 3.4 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to report the following in the annual report as it relates to City facilities: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Description of the status of identification and inventory of these facilities. Overview of inspection findings (i.e., number inspected, number with follow-up actions needed, significant findings). Description of activities needed and performed in response to inspections (control measures implemented). Description of the identification and tracking of municipally-owned and operated facilities subject to permitting under the Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP).

In general, this program includes City facilities that meet the following conditions: •

City parks, golf courses, and other recreational facilities (where landscape maintenance, herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer application, and waste management are implemented);

Public swimming pools (pool maintenance/repair and chemical storage);

Water treatment plants;

Public septic systems (sanitary waste handling);

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-10


Fire stations and other city fleet maintenance facilities (vehicle washing and maintenance, chemical handling, waste storage);

Publically-owned treatment works and sludge handling areas;

Material and waste storage and processing facilities, including oil collection facilities; or,

Those facilities that handle, store, or otherwise use hazardous materials where any single container exceeds five (5) gallons and where such materials are exposed or have the potential to be exposed to stormwater

3.4.1 Description & Status of Inventory The City deleted two facilities from its inventory during this reporting year. One facility was rented to a tenant and the City has no operations taking place at that facility, the other was demolished. 3.4.2 Overview of Findings The facility inspection extended beyond stormwater issues. Most findings included identifying hazardous waste that needed to be disposed of, where these wastes were not exposed to stormwater. Other issues were unlabeled containers, necessity for fire cabinets, buckets of chemicals next to sanitary sewer without secondary containment, etc. Three facilities were identified that stored over 5 gallons of hazardous materials. One facility was noted as having a 55-gallon contaminated fuel drum that was exposed to stormwater. The other two facilities stored over 250 pounds of chlorine gas but these were stored under a shelter. 3.4.3 Response Actions The City is evaluating options regarding the facility with the 55-gallon drum of contaminated fuel. This facility will be re-inspected this reporting period to identify any additional issues and to resolve the location of the 55-gallon drum. If the drum cannot be moved indoors or otherwise put under a shelter, a spill plan will be developed for this facility. The chlorine gas canisters do not pose a threat to stormwater quality regardless of their storage location, so no response action is expected for those facilities.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-11


3.4.4 Facilities Covered under the Multi-Sector General Permit The City has one facility that is covered under the Multi-Sector General Permit. 3.5 INVENTORIES, MAPS, AND MAP STUDIES The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to report the status of all inventories, maps, and map studies required by the permit to be developed including completion dates. 3.5.1 Inventories The 2010 MS4 Permit requires to City to develop “inventories” or other methods of identification of the following: 1. An inventory or map of all major outfalls, and of other field screening points (if applicable), identified by Mesa as priority for illicit discharges or other nonstormwater flows (see Section 13.2); 2. An inventory, list, database or map of facilities owned and operated by Mesa (excluding office and administration buildings) that have the potential to discharge pollutants to waters of the United States (see Section 13.8 and Attachment D); 3. An inventory, list, or database of private commercial and industrial facilities that have the potential to discharge pollutants to the city’s storm sewer system (see Section 3.6.1); and, 4. An inventory, list, database, or map of construction activities that result in land disturbance of one (1) or more acres and that have the potential to discharge to the city’s storm sewer system (see Section 3.7.1). 3.5.2 Maps Appendix A of the 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to prepare and routinely update maps of the MS4 system that incorporates mapping of all of the following: 1. Linear Drainage Structures - Line layer showing the location of the City’s MS4 storm drain pipes and the direction of stormwater flow. 2. Storm Drain Inlets and Catch Basins - Point layer showing the locations of the City’s MS4 storm drain inlets and catch basins. 3. Major Outfalls, Field Screening Points, and Monitoring Locations

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-12


a. Point layer showing the location of the City’s stormwater monitoring locations, field screening points, and major outfalls (pipes or culverts). b. Layer showing the drainage area associated with each monitoring location identified in the 2010 MS4 Permit. 4. Detention/Retention Basins - Point or polygon layer showing the locations of all City-owned retention and detention basins that are connected to the municipal stormwater conveyance system (i.e., that receive drainage from or discharge to a stormwater conveyance). 5. Jurisdictional MS4 Boundary - Line or polygon layer showing the jurisdictional boundaries of the City’s MS4, including any new land annexations during the permit term. The City is required to incorporate mapping of the above by the due date of the fourth (4th) year annual report (i.e. September 30, 2014). The City maintains Land and Utilities maps that are continually updated for use by City employees. The application provides the ability to view and print Land, Water, Gas, Sewer, or Storm Drain maps for each quarter section of the City. The City also maintains this information in ArcGIS software which is available for use by select City personnel. As of the date of the Annual Report, the City’s current mapping system includes all the information that is required under the 2010MS4 Permit. 3.5.3 Map Studies Appendix A of the 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to complete a study that evaluates the cost, method, and time it will take to complete the following: 1. Linear Drainage Structures a. Line layer showing the location of all streets used for stormwater conveyance and the direction of stormwater flow. b. Line layer showing other linear stormwater conveyance structures (channels, floodways, etc.) and the direction of stormwater flow. 2. Land Uses - Layer showing the land uses. 3. Detention/Retention Basins a. Point or polygon layer showing the location of all privately-owned retention and detention basins that are connected to the municipal stormwater

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-13


conveyance system (i.e., that receive drainage from or discharge to a stormwater conveyance). b. Line layers showing the drainage infrastructure associated with each retention/detention basin. 4. Locations of Discharges to Waters of the United States - Line or polygon layer showing the location (and name) of all waters of the United States that may receive stormwater discharges from the MS4 and to clearly identify any listed Outstanding Arizona Water or Impaired Water. The City is required to complete studies associated with the above mapping requirements by the due date of the fourth (4th) year annual report (i.e. September 30, 2014). As of the date of the Annual Report, the City’s mapping system includes all of the information required in the mapping studies having completed a study to determine the direction of flow from the streets with storm water conveyance. Please note, the City does not discharge to waters of the United States that are considered to be an Outstanding Arizona Water or Impaired Water. 3.6 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to report the following in the Annual Report as it pertains to the inspection of private commercial and industrial facilities: 1. Status of identification and inventory of these facilities. 2. An overview of inspection findings and note significant findings. 3. Corrective and enforcement actions needed and taken in response to inspections. 3.6.1 Identification and Inventory of Private Commercial and Industrial Facilities The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Develop and maintain an inventory, list, or database of commercial and industrial facilities that have the potential to discharge pollutants to the City’s MS4. 2. Maintain a system to collect and update this information on a routine basis.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-14


3.6.1.1 Commercial Facilities The City inspects commercial facilities that require a grease removal device (GRD) as part of the City’s industrial pre-treatment fats, oils, and greases (FOG) program. These types of facilities are required to submit an industrial pretreatment survey to the City to determine the type of business (i.e. industrial, commercial, manufacturing, restaurant etc.) and the nature of the facilities discharges to the City’s sanitary sewer. This survey assists the City in determining what, if any, pretreatment devices are required. These facilities are entered into a database and tracked for inspection purposes. During these inspections, City inspectors also conduct a stormwater assessment associated with the operations of these facilities. 3.6.1.2 Industrial Facilities The City contracted InfoUSA, a private customer listing group commonly used by other regulated Phase I MS4 operators (i.e. City of Phoenix, City of Tempe), to provide information on facilities subject to the MSGP based on standard industrial classification (SIC) codes. Additionally, the City conducted a review of the United State Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database. The City redeveloped their Industrial (Private) database to include new information supplied by InfoUSA and to incorporate the most recent listing of TRI facilities. This information increased the City’s industrial facility database to over 750 facilities. The inventory at the end of this reporting period was 719 facilities. Since the development of the database, some facilities have been identified and added to the inventory, but others were removed from the inventory because they went out of business, the information supplied by InfoUSA improperly identified them as operating in the City of Mesa (i.e. the address provided was outside of the City’s incorporated area), or name of the company changed (in these cases the old business name record was deleted from the inventory and a new record was created for the new business name). 3.6.2 Overview of Inspection Findings and Significant Findings The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Develop an inspection and prioritization program.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-15


2. Inspect at least 50 industrial facilities [Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III and MSGP facilities] each year during the permit term. 3. Inspect other commercial and industrial sources (or category of sources) which the City determines to be a significant source of pollutants. 4. Verify implementation and maintenance of stormwater management practices in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Code. 5. Identify and eliminate potential discharges of pollutants to the system. 6. Confirm permit coverage to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity, as applicable. 7. Conduct follow-up inspections as necessary. 3.6.2.1 Commercial Facilities Inspection & Prioritization Inspections of commercial facilities are based on a geographical distributional approach. Commercial inspections are also conducted in response to complaints from other City staff and the general public. Priority is given to complaint responses, which are investigated without regard to the geographical distribution approach. Commercial inspections are conducted by City inspectors trained to identify stormwater compliance issues related to these types of facilities. Though all commercial facilities inspected under the FOG program are assessed for stormwater compliance, those that pose a higher risk include, but are not limited to: •

Auto Repair Shops;

Gasoline Stations;

Grocery Stores;

Restaurants;

Car Washes; and,

Movie Theaters

Stormwater issues that were identified as a result of follow-up inspections at commercial facilities during this reporting period included: •

Discharges from wash bays; and,

Used oil exposed to stormwater.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-16


3.6.2.2 Industrial Facilities Inspection & Prioritization The following criteria are used to determine categories and establishing a prioritization for conducting industrial inspections. 1. Complaints. 2. Newly identified TRI listed facilities that have not been previously inspected. 3. Current TRI listed facilities that were not previously inspected within the last 5 years. 4. Industrial facility sectors, SICs or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) groups that have a reasonable potential to conduct dust generating operations and that may require permit coverage for such operations (i.e. unlikely to be no-exposure facilities). 5. Other industrial facility sectors, SICs or NAICS groups that the City determines may be a significant source of pollutants. During this reporting period, the City concentrated on industrial facilities involved in the following operations (also provided are the industrial subsector code): •

Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical Products; Pharmaceutical Preparations; in vitro and in vivo Diagnostic Substances; and Biological Products, Except Diagnostic Substances (C5)

Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products (C5)

Concrete, Gypsum, and Plaster Products (E2)

Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills (F1)

Dimension Stone (J2)

Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Rip Rap (J2)

Nonmetallic Minerals Services, Except Fuels (J2)

Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (J2)

Automobile Salvage Yards (M1)

Scrap Recycling and Waste Recycling Facilities except Source-Separated Recycling (N1)

Source-separated Recycling Facility (N2)

Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment, and Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services (AA1)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-17


Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware (AA1)

Fabricated Metal Coating and Engraving (AA2)

Industrial and Commercial Machinery, Except Computer and Office Equipment (AB1)

Transportation Equipment Except Ship and Boat Building and Repairing (AB1)

Many of the industrial facilities in the City’s database that were inspected during this reporting period did not perform operations consistent with the SIC codes that were assigned to them from the information provided by InfoUSA. When contacted, the facilities operator was asked what types of operations took place there and assisted them with identifying the appropriate SIC. The City conducted an inspection to ensure that these facilities did not require MSGP coverage and that their operations were being performed in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Code. The City’s industrial inspection database was updated for revised SIC codes. Issues at industrial facilities noted as part of the inspection process during this reporting period included: •

Open containers of oil/water exposed to stormwater;

General housekeeping issues;

Paint storage in uncovered area;

Water in loading dock;

Accumulation of old tires;

Process water and trash discharged to drywell; and,

Exposed dry sludge area.

3.6.3 Summary of Corrective and Enforcement Actions The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Establish an effective compliance and enforcement program that incorporates escalating actions for violations of the City’s Stormwater Code that provides timeframes and escalation for corrective actions; and, 2. Focus the escalated enforcement protocol on having the highest level of enforcement action resolved within one (1) year of the initial inspection/violation.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-18


In general, the City can utilize corrective or enforcement actions to obtain compliance with City’s Stormwater Code (see Section 3.3.3). 3.6.3.1 Commercial Facility Corrective & Enforcement Actions Corrective actions needed and taken at commercial facilities during this reporting period included: •

Discharges from a wash bay flowing into an on-site retention basins

Used oil stored in an area exposed to stormwater

Section 8-5-5 (Commencement of Action) of the City’s Stormwater Code provides for formal enforcement actions by issuing a notice of abatement or a citation for civil sanctions, or both. However, the code provides that City employees may seek voluntary compliance through notices of violation, warnings, or other informal devices designed to achieve compliance in the most efficient and effective manner under the circumstances. The City’s commercial and industrial facility enforcement procedure provides the option of voluntary compliance to responsible parties to implement corrective actions by issuing a courtesy notice. Where voluntary compliance is not obtained within a reasonable timeframe, the City has the ability to issue a civil violation and citation, issue a notice to abate, or suspend any license issued by the City. Additionally, the City may impose criminal violations for responsible parties identified as habitual offenders. Most cases were closed with the issuance of a courtesy notice during this reporting period. During this reporting period, no enforcement actions were needed or taken as a result of stormwater inspections conducted by the City of private commercial facilities. Some cases were closed without a violation being confirmed. The remaining cases were closed when the issue had been addressed or upon the issuance of a courtesy notice. 3.6.3.2 Industrial Facility Corrective & Enforcement Actions Corrective actions needed and taken at industrial facilities during this reporting period included:

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-19


Open containers of oil and oil/water were removed.

Paint was moved under a covered structure.

Water was drained for loading dock.

Old tires were removed.

Reported drywell violations to ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) Program personnel.

Section 8-5-5 of the City’s Stormwater Code provides for formal enforcement actions by issuing a notice of abatement or a citation for civil sanctions under the code, or both. However, the code provides that City employees may seek voluntary compliance through notices of violation, warnings, or other informal devices designed to achieve compliance in the most efficient and effective manner under the circumstances. The City’s commercial and industrial facility enforcement procedure provides the option of voluntary compliance to responsible parties to implement corrective actions by issuing a courtesy notice. Where voluntary compliance is not obtained within a reasonable timeframe, the City has the ability to issue a civil violation and citation, issue a notice to abate, or suspend any license issued by the City. Additionally, the City may impose criminal violations for responsible parties identified as habitual offenders. Most cases were closed with the issuance of a courtesy notice during this reporting period. During this reporting period, no formal enforcement actions were needed or taken as a result of stormwater inspections conducted by the City of private industrial facilities. Some cases were closed without a violation being confirmed. The remaining cases were closed when the issue had been addressed or upon the issuance of a courtesy notice. 3.7 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to report the following in the Annual Report as it pertains to the review of plans and inspections of construction operations: 1. Status of inventory/plan review of these facilities. 2. An overview of inspection findings and significant findings. 3. Corrective and enforcement actions needed and taken in response to inspections. City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-20


3.7.1 Status of Inventory and Plan Review of Construction Operations The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Develop an inventory, list, or database, or map of construction activities that result in land disturbance of one (1) or more acres and that have the potential to discharge to the City’s storm sewer system within one (1) year of permit issuance (August 30, 2011) and to be updated at least annually; 2. Review at least 80% of plans for new development and redevelopment (such as grading and drainage plans) to verify conformance with the City requirements for stormwater, including erosion and sediment control, prior to issuing construction approvals or authorizations; and, 3. Require a copy of the ADEQ’s Authorization Certificate for non-municipal construction projects (as required by municipal stormwater requirements or ordinances or state stormwater requirements) be submitted prior to issuing construction approval or authorization. 3.7.1.1 Private Construction Projects When plans are submitted to the City, information on the construction project is entered into a database providing a detailed record of the construction operations from the point of plan submittal through inspection and approval (i.e. issuance of a Certificate of Completion or Certificate of Occupancy). The City reviews all construction plans for compliance with all aspects of the City’s Engineering and Design Standards Manual and the City Mesa Code. Stormwater drainage and infrastructure are generally detailed in grading and drainage plans. Approval of these plans is required before a building permit is issued by the City. A copy of the contractor’s ADEQ Authorization Certificate is also required before a building permit is issued by the City of Mesa for projects involving land disturbance of one or more acres. The City places a “hold” that prevents the issuance of a building permit where an ADEQ Authorization Certificate is required until it has been submitted. 3.7.1.2 City Projects For City projects, the City is deeply involved in the project through all phases of development (i.e. conception, planning, construction, and completion). Grading and drainage plans are required for most engineering projects, certainly any project that

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-21


disturbs one or more acres of land. The City maintains a separate database for City construction projects that disturb more than 0.1 acres. This is the threshold disturbance limit where a dust control permit would be required from the Maricopa County Air Quality Department. The general contractor is required to submit a copy of their SWPPP for review and approval along with a copy of their ADEQ Authorization Certificate before the contractor is authorized to conduct any land disturbance activities for City projects that disturb one or more acres of land. The City files as a co-permittee under the ADEQ’s Construction General Permit (CGP) and is issued a separate Authorization Certificate. 3.7.2 Overview of Inspection Findings and Significant Findings The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Establish a prioritization schedule for inspecting construction sites with a higher frequency of inspections for those sites that have a higher potential to discharge to the storm sewer system; 2. Routinely inspect construction projects to determine whether effective erosion and sediment controls are in place, and verify conformance with local stormwater requirements and approved construction plans; 3. Inspect higher priority sites, based on the prioritization schedule, a minimum of one (1) time every three (3) months and all other sites at least once every six (6) months until final stabilization is established; and, 4. Conduct follow-up inspection of construction sites within 30 days to ensure stormwater deficiencies/concerns/non-compliance identified as a result of a routine inspection were corrected 3.7.2.1 Private Construction Projects The City will generally first inspect a private construction operation during the footing stage of development. During this visit, City staff takes time to review the operator’s plans to identify active areas and stormwater best management practices (BMPs). During the inspection of the footing structure(s), City staff look at all active areas of the construction project to ensure that BMPs identified on the operator’s plans are in place and maintained, and to ensure that the only non-stormwater releases to the City MS4

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-22


are properly permitted. These projects are inspected thereafter a minimum of one (1) time every three (3) months where construction activities are still active. Where deficiencies are noted and a re-inspection is required, the City will conduct this follow-up inspection within 30 calendar days. Inspection findings for private construction projects during this reporting period included: •

Catch basin inlet protection required.

3.7.2.2 City Projects The City generally conducts a compliance audit within two weeks of the issuance of approval by the City to the general contractor (i.e. issuance of a Notice to Proceed) and where the disturbance of land associated with the project has begun. These projects are inspected thereafter a minimum of one (1) time every three (3) months. Where deficiencies are noted and a re-inspection is required, the City will conduct this follow-up inspection within 30 calendar days. Inspection findings for City construction projects during this reporting period included: •

BMP maintenance;

Lack of perimeter control;

Unprotected catch basins;

Lack of updated SWPPP site inspection records

Illegal Non-stormwater discharges from sites

Lack of erosion control BMPs on stockpiles (i.e. wattles not installed/staked)

3.7.3 Summary of Corrective and Enforcement Actions The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Establish an effective compliance and enforcement program that incorporates escalating actions for violations of the City’s Stormwater Code that provides timeframes and escalation for corrective actions; and, 2. Focus the escalated enforcement protocol on having the highest level of enforcement action resolved within one (1) year of the initial inspection/violation.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-23


In general, the City can utilize corrective or enforcement actions to obtain compliance with Mesa City Code (see Section 3.3.3). 3.7.3.1 Private Construction Projects Corrective actions needed and taken at private construction projects during this reporting period included: •

Follow up inspection reported site in compliance.

Section 8-5-5 of the City’s Stormwater Code provides for formal enforcement actions by issuing a notice of abatement or a citation for civil sanctions under this Chapter, or both. However, the code provides that City employees may seek voluntary compliance through notices of violation, warnings, or other informal devices designed to achieve compliance in the most efficient and effective manner under the circumstances. The City’s private construction enforcement procedure provides an option of obtaining voluntary compliance by allowing a reasonable timeframe for obtaining compliance and taking actions equivalent to issuing a stop work order (i.e. not approving site improvements until such time the issues have been adequately addressed) where necessary. Where voluntary compliance is not obtained within a reasonable timeframe, the City has the ability to take formal enforcement actions by issuing a civil violation and citation, issue a notice to abate, or suspend any license issued by the City. Additionally, the City may impose criminal violations for responsible parties identified as habitual offenders. 3.7.3.2 City Projects Corrective actions needed and taken at City construction projects during this reporting period included: •

BMP maintenance needs were addressed;

Perimeter control was established;

Catch basins BMPs were installed;

Updated SWPPP inspection records were available

Discharge source removed/relocated to another portion of site

Erosion control BMPs installed on stockpiles

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-24


Section 8-5-5 of the City’s Stormwater Code provides for formal enforcement actions by issuing a notice of abatement or a citation for civil sanctions under this Chapter, or both. However, the code provides that City employees may seek voluntary compliance through notices of violation, warnings, or other informal devices designed to achieve compliance in the most efficient and effective manner under the circumstances. The City construction enforcement procedure provides for an option of obtaining voluntary compliance by allowing a reasonable timeframe for obtaining compliance and confirming during a follow-up inspection(s), and where compliance issues remain unresolved, initiating the stop work order process until such time the issues have been adequately addressed. 3.8 POST-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to report the following in the Annual Report as it pertains to the post-construction requirements associated with construction operations: 1. Summary of any new or revised post-construction controls for City projects or post-construction requirements related to permits the City issues. 2. An overview of the city’s post-construction inspection program. 3. Corrective and enforcement actions needed and taken in response to postconstruction inspections. 3.8.1 New or Revised Post-Construction Controls During this reporting period, no changes were made to the Engineering & Design Standards (2012) which incorporates the City’s stormwater drainage and retention standards. A copy of that document is available at the following link: http://www.mesaaz.gov/engineering/MesaStandardandSpecs.aspx 3.8.2 Overview of Post-Construction Inspection Program For private construction projects, the City requires developers to obtain a third party inspection of post-construction stormwater controls to determine effectiveness of these controls. For City projects, the City conducts a final stability inspection for projects involving land disturbance of one or more acres ensure the site has achieved permanent stabilization.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-25


An inspection of this nature is necessary in order to file a Notice of Termination (NOT) to end coverage under the CGP. 3.8.3 Summary of Corrective and Enforcement Actions For private construction projects, a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until such a time that the developer provides a third party inspection of post-construction stormwater controls for projects requiring such an inspection. The City files a NOT to end coverage under the CGP for each project that disturbed one or more acres of land based on the results of the final stability inspection. Where final stabilization has not been achieved, coverage under the CGP is maintained. This may occur in instances where one general contractor’s scope of work did not include final stabilization (e.g. application of ground cover) but that this would be achieved under another project phase, either by City personnel or another general contractor. 3.9 DRY-WEATHER SCREENING The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to report the status of the following in the Annual Report as it pertains to the dry-weather screening requirements: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Staff training. Outfall and field screening point inventory. Inspection tracking system. Inspection and screening procedures and significant findings.

3.9.1 Staff Training The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the existing employees directly involved with stormwater management activities, including dry-weather screening and associated investigations, be trained at least once every two (2) years and to provide an opportunity for new employee training at least one (1) time per year. As such, all City staff who conducts these types of operations must meet the following requirements: •

Review the procedures detailed in the Environmental Code Violation Standard Operating Procedures;

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-26


Have knowledge of:  Ordinances, rules, and regulations governing stormwater discharges, particulate pollution, and hazardous materials;  Principles and practices for field monitoring protocols, sample collection, preservation, analysis, and documentation requirements;  Occupational and safety precautions at industrial and construction work sites (position requirement; and,

Have a basic knowledge of chemicals on human and ecological systems (position requirement).

Dry weather screening inspections involve two personnel for health and safety reasons among others. Dry-weather screening inspections conducted during this reporting period involved personnel that were hired during the reporting year. Training was provided to these personnel prior to conducting dry-weather screening activities. 3.9.2 Outfall and Field Screening Point Inventory No changes to the outfall or field screening point (FSP) inventory were made as a result of the dry-weather screening activities conducted this reporting period. 3.9.3 Inspection Tracking System Dry-weather screening and associated investigations are documented on the DryWeather Screening Report Form specific for each location. The City has developed a database with the functionality to retrieve data and generating reports required for the annual report and to better track results at these locations. 3.9.4 Inspection and Screening Procedures and Significant Findings No dry-weather flows were observed at the outfalls or field screening points monitored during this reporting period. 3.10 ORDINANCES, RULES, & POLICIES During this reporting period, the City Council approved revisions to City’s Stormwater Code through ordinance to include the adoption of the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa County – Erosion Control manual detailing best management practices and associated City amendments, which will apply to any stormwater best management practice (BMP) installed on all projects

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-27


conducted by the City and under contract to the Engineering Department or another City department and/or any City property; including, public right-of-way areas (e.g. city owned and operated streets, catch basins, scuppers, etc.). A copy of the City’s revised Stormwater Code is provided as an attachment to this Annual Report (see Section 13.5 and Attachment B. 3.11 FISCAL EXPENDITURES See Section 12.0.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 3-28


4.0

STORMWATER PROGRAM NUMERIC SUMMARY

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide a summary of management practices and activities performed each year and to report that summary in a table as provided in that permit. Attached in this section is the table summarizing activities conducted under the City’s 2010 MS4 Permit.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 4-1


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 4-2


NUMERIC SUMMARY OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ANNUAL REPORTING YEAR (July 1 – June 30)

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE OR ACTIVITY

2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012 Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 1. Municipal Employee Training Number of training sessions (on non-stormwater discharges and the IDDE program) Number of employees attending training 2. Spill Prevention Number of municipal facilities identified with hazardous materials Number of spills at municipal facilities with hazardous materials, that occurred in outside areas Number of facility assessments completed (identify any issues found requiring follow-up in narrative and summarize new practices to minimize exposure) Date of last review of site-specific materials handling and spill response procedures (identify participant(s) with stormwater expertise in narrative)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

2012 - 2013

0

13(1)

6

NA

357(1)

71

0 NA

0 0

2 0

NA

230

55

NA

NA

NA(2)

2013 - 2014

2014 - 2015

Numeric Summary of Stormwater Management Program Activities Page 1 of 4


ANNUAL REPORTING YEAR (July 1 – June 30)

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE OR ACTIVITY 3. Outfall and Field Screening Point Inspections Total number inspected (attach or forward electronic copy of inventory or map of major outfalls and field screening points and priority outfalls and field screening points) Number of ‘priority outfalls’ and field screening points identified to date (summarize findings and follow-up actions in narrative) Number of ‘priority outfalls’ and field screening points inspected (summarize findings and follow-up actions in narrative) Number of dry weather flows detected Number of dry weather flows investigated Number of outfalls and field screening points sampled Number of illicit discharges identified Number of illicit discharges eliminated Amount of storm drain inspected (length) Number of storm drain cross connection investigations Number of illicit connections detected Number of illicit connections eliminated Number of corrective or enforcement actions initiated within 60 days of identification Percent of cases resolved within one (1) calendar year of original enforcement action Number of illicit discharge reports received from public Percent of illicit discharge reports responded to Percent of responses initiated within three (3) business days of receipt

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

2010 - 2011

2011 - 2012

2012 - 2013

41

30

44

0

0

0(3)

NA

NA

NA(3)

0 NA NA 12 12 NA 0 2 2 12

0 NA NA 9 5 NA 0 0 0 13

0 NA NA 25(4) 22(4)(5) NA(6) 0 0 0 27

100

100

100

28 100 100

16 100 100

32 100 81

2013 - 2014

2014 - 2015

Numeric Summary of Stormwater Management Program Activities Page 2 of 4


ANNUAL REPORTING YEAR (July 1 – June 30)

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE OR ACTIVITY 2010 - 2011 Municipal Facilities 1. Employee Training Number of training events (dates and topics to be included in narrative) Number of staff trained 2. Inventory, Map, or Database of MS4 Owned & Operated Facilities Total number of facilities on inventory Date identification of ‘higher risk’ facilities completed Date prioritization of municipal facilities completed 3. Inspections Miles of MS4 drainage system prioritized for inspection Miles visually inspected Number of ‘higher risk’ municipal facilities inspected Number of ‘higher risk’ municipal facilities found needing improved stormwater controls 4. Infrastructure Maintenance Linear miles of drainage system cleaned each year (city to maintain records documenting specific street cleaning events) Record amount of waste collected from street and lot sweeping (reported in pounds, gallons, etc.) Total number of catch basins Number of retention/detention basins cleaned Number of catch basins cleaned

2011 - 2012

2012 - 2013

0 NA

7(1) 276(1)

4 46

96 NA NA

286 NA NA

285 01/30/13 07/22/13(7)

NA NA 0 NA

NA NA 0 NA

NA(8) NA(8) 2 1

30,976

52,026

51,648

1,769

3,235

3,330(9)

8,508 19,146 17,050

10,042 21,586 11,420

9,951

Industrial and Commercial Sites Not Owned by the MS4 Number of training events for MS4 staff 0 1(1) Number of municipal staff trained NA 6(1) Number of industrial facilities inventory inspected (see Appendix A, Part V.B) 1,117 1,146 Number of corrective or enforcement actions initiated on industrial facilities Percent of cases resolved within one (1) calendar year of original enforcement action

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

2013 - 2014

2014 - 2015

22,862(10) 5,318(11) 1 5 1,169

9

28

5

NA

100

100

Numeric Summary of Stormwater Management Program Activities Page 3 of 4


STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE OR ACTIVITY

ANNUAL REPORTING YEAR (July 1 – June 30)

2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012 Construction Program Activities Number of training events for MS4 staff (include topics in narrative summary) 0 10(1) Number of municipal staff trained NA 148(1) Number of construction/grading plans submitted for review 80 89 Number of construction/grading plans reviewed 88 122 Number of construction sites inspected 113 58 Number of corrective or enforcement actions initiated on construction facilities 56 57 (identify the type of actions in narrative summary) Post Construction Program Activities Number of post-construction inspections completed 18 23 Number of corrective or enforcement actions initiated for post-construction 0 0 activities (identify the type of actions in narrative summary)

2012 - 2013

2013 - 2014

2014 - 2015

2 22 121 134 73 12

4 0

Notes for current reporting period: NA- Not Applicable

(1) During this reporting period, the City developed a training database to track employee training for all environmental training program areas. These numbers have been adjusted because previously reported number double counted some personnel. (2) One facility assessment has a potential to require this type of plan. The City is working on alternative storage options at this facility. (3) To date, the City has not identified any conditions at outfall or field screening point locations that meet the definition of a "priority outfall" as provided in the 2010 MS4 Permit. (4) Reported illicit discharges were the result of those called in as a complaint. No dry-weather flows at outfall or field screening points were identified during this reporting period from dry-weather screening operations. (5) The remaining three cases were still open at the end of this reporting period. (6) Storm drain inspections were not required during this reporting period, since no dry-weather flows were identified at outfall or field screening point locations. (7) Municipal facility assements were completed during the reporting period, however, the City did not complete the stormwater evaluation of these sites as of the end of this reporting period (June 30, 2013). Actual date evaluaton was completed is provided. (8) The City is continuing to develop an accurate method to track the number of miles of MS4 prioritized for inspection and inspected. (9) Quantity reported in tons. (10) The City has 174 basins in its inventory. Some basins are cleaned more frequently than others. Reported value is the total number of times City owned and operated basins were cleaned. (11) Between summer 2008 and summer 2012 the City conducted a concentrated effort to target the cleaning of every City owned catch basin. The recent drop in numbers is attributed to the City returning to a regular preventative maintenance schedule.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Numeric Summary of Stormwater Management Program Activities Page 4 of 4


5.0

EVALUATION OF THE STORMWATER PROGRAM

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide an evaluation of the progress and success of the City’s stormwater management program, including an assessment of the effectiveness of stormwater management practices in reducing the discharge of pollutants to and from the City’s MS4 in the Annual Report. 5.1 PROGRAM PROGRESS The City has drafted the following standard operating procedures addressing the requirements provided in the 2010 MS4 Permit. The most current date of these procedures is also provided. •

Commercial & Industrial Facility Inspection Standard Operating Procedures (September 2011)

Environmental Code Violation Standard Operating Procedures (September 2011)

Environmental Program Training Standard Operating Procedures (February 2012)

Standard Operating Procedures for City Facility Compliance Assessments (February 2012)

Standard Operating Procedures for City Field Operations Activities (September 2011)

Standard Operating Procedures for City Stormwater Infrastructure Operations Activities (March 2011)

Standard Operating Procedures for Construction Activities of City Projects (March 2011)

Standard Operating Procedures for Construction Activities of Private Projects (September 2011)

Standard Operating Procedures for Stormwater Monitoring (currently in draft)

Wet-Weather Stormwater Sampling & Analysis Plan (April 2011)

Standard Operating Procedures for Stormwater Monitoring (October 2012)

Many of these procedures incorporate other City requirements established under the Mesa City Code that are not specific to the City’s stormwater program.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 5-1


5.2 PROGRAM SUCCESSES During this fiscal year, the following successes to the City’s stormwater program include: •

The City passed and incorporated the revisions to the Title 8, Chapter 5, Storm Water Pollution Control of the Mesa City Code.

The STORM organization conducted radio PSA that reached an estimated 3.2 million people over the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area.

STORM sponsored the LID workshop that attracted approximately 122 attendees.

The 2013 Industrial Stormwater Compliance Made Easy seminar provided by STORM attracted approximately 84 attendees.

5.3 REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS TO THE CITY’S MS4 Elements of the City’s stormwater program that the City identifies as having significantly reduced the release of pollutants to their MS4 include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Public Education & Outreach Public Reporting (i.e. Environmental Hotline) Household Hazardous Waste Events Commercial & Industrial Facility Inspections Construction Site Inspections

5.3.1 Public Education & Outreach The STORM organization’s radio PSA campaign was a major benefit to the City’s stormwater program by providing information pertaining to proper disposal of swimming pool water. The LID workshop was a major benefit to the City’s stormwater program by providing information regarding stormwater design alternatives to City staff in attendance at the workshop. This information will be valuable for the City is assessing low-impact alternatives as required by the 2010 MS4 Permit for the following reporting period. STORM’s 2013 Industrial Stormwater Compliance Made Easy seminar provided information on the selection and proper installation and maintenance of BMPs for industrial facilities that were required to obtain coverage under the ADEQ MSGP. A

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 5-2


copy of the information from that seminar was also placed on the STORM website for attendees and those operators who could not attend. This seminar helps to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to the City’s MS4 by providing industrial site operators with increased knowledge of what is required on their facilities. 5.3.2 Public Reporting By providing a public reporting method for complaints regarding stormwater issues, the City is able to identify and take timely action against persons who are responsible for releasing pollutants to the City’s MS4. Additionally, this information can be used to determine what topics need to be further addressed though the STORM organization’s public education and outreach program. 5.3.3 Household Hazardous Waste Events The City’s HHW events collected over 65,000 gallons of waste. It is not possible to quantify the amount of HHW that could be released into the storm sewer system if the HHW events were not held. However, since material collected at the events is disposed of properly, these events ultimately result in significantly reducing releases of these types of pollutants to the City’s MS4. 5.3.4 Commercial & Industrial Facility Inspections City inspectors conduct inspections on a daily basis of commercial facilities that require permitting under the City’s FOG program. These inspectors are trained to identify violations of the City’s Stormwater Code and to report such violations to appropriate City personnel. The inspections of industrial facilities by qualified personnel to identify violations of the City’s Stormwater Code are also an effective method for reducing the release of pollutants to the City’s MS4. Through the issuance of a courtesy notice requiring corrective actions, the City is able to have the source of pollutants removed by the responsible party while at the same time providing a public education opportunity to prevent future discharges and encourage public reporting. Where necessary, the City does have the authority to pursue civil and criminal actions against responsible parties if they refuse to take action, take action then recommit the offense, or commit offences in a manner that they are considered habitual offenders. These enforcement actions, or the threat of them, can be an effective tool in accelerating corrective actions by the responsible party.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 5-3


5.3.5 Construction Site Inspections City inspectors conduct inspections of private construction projects to ensure they are operating in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Code. Where issues are identified, City inspectors have the authority to issue a “Stop Work Order” or otherwise not approve contractor improvements (similar to a Stop Work Order) as a mean of obtaining compliance until such time that the issues have been adequately addressed. Where necessary, the City does have the authority to pursue civil and criminal actions by establishing a code compliance case against responsible parties if the construction site operator refuses to take action, takes action but then recommits the offense, or commits offences in a manner that they are considered repeat offenders. These enforcement actions, or the threat of them, can be an effective tool in accelerating corrective actions by the responsible party. 5.4 REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS FROM THE CITY’S MS4 Elements of the City’s stormwater program that the City identifies as having significantly reduced the discharge of pollutants from their MS4 to waters of the United States include: 1. MS4 Infrastructure Maintenance 2. Post-Construction Requirements 5.4.1 MS4 Infrastructure Maintenance Maintenance of the City’s MS4 System results in the direct removal of pollutants from the system, thus keeping them from being discharged into a water of the United States. 5.4.1.1 Street Sweeping Sediment and debris that collects on paved streets owned and operated by the City is removed through the City’s street sweeping program. The estimated amount of pollutants removed from the City’s street sweeping program is provided in the Numeric Summary of Stormwater Management Program Activities table in Section 4.0. 5.4.1.2 Storm Sewers Components The City has a program to clean catch basins, storm pipes, open channels, headwalls and culverts that are owned and operated by the City. Removal of trash, debris and

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 5-4


sediment from these structures prevents this material from being discharged to a water of the United States. 5.4.1.3 Detention/Retention Basins The City owns and operates several detention and retention basins installed throughout the City. Much of the City’s streets and storm pipes drain to a detention or retention basin at some point before potentially draining to another regulated MS4 or a water of the United States. The City removes debris, trash, and sediment from detention basins to keep pollutants from discharging further into the City’s MS4. The removal of these pollutants from retention basins keeps these basins operational and allows for the infiltration of stormwater. 5.4.2 Post-Construction Requirements The City has developed an Engineering and Design Standards Manual that provides specific direction and guidelines to the design professionals preparing construction documents for private land development projects. That manual adopts the Uniform Drainage Policies and Standards for Maricopa County as published by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County with modifications as specified within that manual. City regulations requiring the retention of the 50-year, 24-hour run-off volume were adopted in 1997 and were based on three (3) inches of precipitation. Subsequent development in the City has been required to retain rainfall from a 100 year, 2-hour storm event either through the City’s retention standard since these requirements were adopted in the late 1980’s. The retention standard results in the reduction of pollutants discharged from the City’s MS4 to a water of the United States.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 5-5


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 5-6


6.0

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide a description of the modifications to the City’s SWMP for the areas described in the following subsections. No other changes to the City’s SWMP are allowed without permit modification. 6.1 ADDITION OF NEW CONTROL MEASURES No additional control measures apart from those required in under the 2010 MS4 Permit were implemented during this reporting period. 6.2 ADDITION OF TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES No temporary control measures were implemented during this reporting period. 6.3 INCREASE OF EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES No increases to existing control measures were implemented during this reporting period. 6.4 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES No existing controls were deemed to be ineffective and replaced with an alternate control measure that will continue to achieve an equivalent or increased reduction in pollutants during this reporting period.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 6-1


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 6-2


7.0

MONITORING LOCATIONS

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide a brief description of the City’s wetweather stormwater monitoring locations in the first annual report. Subsequent annual reports need only advise of any changes or updates that were required. The information required includes the following: 1. Name and description of water of the United States receiving discharges from the monitoring location; 2. Monitoring location identification number (see subsection titles); 3. Address or physical location of the monitoring locations; 4. Latitude and longitude of monitoring locations; 5. Size (acres) of drainage area associated with each monitoring location; 6. Estimated acreage of individual land uses with each drainage area; and, 7. Type of monitoring equipment The City provided information regarding items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 in the Annual Report dated September 2011. Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (EEC) was contracted by the City under the request for proposal process for stormwater program development to conduct a study that would update the City’s pollutant loading model. The study included delineating drainage areas for each outfall and FPS location, estimating the total acreage of each drainage area, and estimating the acreage of each land use within each drainage area that results in a discharge to a water of the United States (see Section 11.0). EEC evaluated each outfall and FSP for the following land uses: streets, residential, commercial, industrial, lawns/parks, hillside/mountain, desert, and agricultural. Please note that the streets land use did not include streets incorporated in commercial and residential areas. This information was incorporated into the City’s Standard Operating Procedures for Stormwater Montioring manual. The following sections provide information for each sampling sampling location.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 7-1


7.1 AS-US60 The total drainage area for this location is approximately 149.3 acres and is broken down as follows: •

Residential – 128.5

Agricultural – 0.0

Commercial – 20.8

Industrial – 0.0

Lawns/Parks – 0.0

Desert – 0.0

Hillside/Mountain – 0.0

City Streets – 0.0

7.2 SS-US60 The total drainage area for this location is approximately 6.5 acres and is broken down as follows: •

Residential – 0.0

Agricultural – 0.0

Commercial – 0.0

Industrial – 0.0

Lawns/Parks – 0.0

Desert – 0.0

Hillside/Mountain – 0.0

City Streets – 6.5

7.3 54-EMF The total drainage area for this location is approximately 29.3 acres and is broken down as follows: •

Residential – 29.3

Agricultural – 0.0

Commercial – 0.0

Industrial – 0.0

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 7-2


Lawns/Parks – 0.0

Desert – 0.0

Hillside/Mountain – 0.0

City Streets – 0.0

7.4 UN-EMF The total drainage area for this location is approximately 352.4 acres and is broken down as follows: •

Residential – 352.4

Agricultural – 0.0

Commercial – 0.0

Industrial – 0.0

Lawns/Parks – 0.0

Desert – 0.0

Hillside/Mountain – 0.0

City Streets – 0.0

7.5 FF-ACES The total drainage area for this location is approximately 73.78 acres. Land use data was not evaluated for this location since this sampling location did not meet the definition of an “outfall” or “FSP” as provided in the scope of work for the EEC study. However, this sampling location is interior to the Falcon Field Airport which is a regulated industry under the ADEQ’s Multi-Sector General Permit. As such, all this area is known to be industrial use.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 7-3


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 7-4


8.0

STORM EVENT RECORDS

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to summarize all measurable storm events (0.10 inches or greater) at each monitoring location until such a time that stormwater samples have been collected at that particular monitoring location during that particular season. The information is to include the following: •

Date of each event;

Amount of precipitation of each event;

Indication of whether or not a sample was collected as part of the event;

Information on conditions that prevented the collection of a sample.

Attached in this section is a table summarizing storm event records obtained under the 2010 MS4 Permit.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 8-1


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 8-2


STORM EVENT RECORDS - REPORTING PERIOD 2012-2013 Storm Monitoring Station AS-US60

SS-US60

54-EMF

UN-EMF

FF-ACES

Storm Information Storm Start Date/Time

Storm Event Stop Date/Time

Duration

7/11/12 23:59 8/17/12 2:16 8/21/12 21:48 11/10/12 0:10 12/13/12 20:31 7/11/12 23:44 7/13/12 10:37 7/14/12 15:04

7/12/12 2:16 8/17/12 5:37 8/22/12 0:53 11/10/12 1:48 12/15/12 21:07 7/12/12 0:50 7/13/12 10:37 7/14/12 17:26

2:17 3:21 3:05 1:38 48:36 1:06 0:00 2:22

7/20/12 22:44 7/21/12 17:32 11/10/12 0:07 12/13/12 21:28 7/12/12 0:02 7/13/12 10:05 7/14/12 15:17

7/20/12 22:46 7/21/12 19:11 11/10/12 8:31 12/16/12 8:53 7/12/12 0:53 7/13/12 10:05 7/14/12 16:45

7/28/12 17:28

Season (S/W)

(1)

Composite Sample Information

S S S W W S S S

Event Rainfall (inches) 0.26 0.09 0.26 0.07 0.88 0.09 0.01 0.75

Flood (2) Event (Y/N) N N N N N N N N

Normal (3) Storm (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Insufficient (4) Rainfall (Y/N) N Y N Y N Y Y N

0:02 1:39 8:24 59:25 0:51 0:00 1:28

S S W W S S S

0.02 0.49 0.15 0.98 0.07 0.01 1.25

N N N N N N N

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y N Y N N N Y

SC

SC

7/28/12 20:37

3:09

S

0.32

N

Y

Y

NR

11/10/12 0:08 12/13/12 21:36 7/4/12 11:46 7/10/12 21:33 7/11/12 23:53 7/14/12 4:31 7/14/12 15:43

11/10/12 2:05 12/15/12 21:05 7/4/12 12:01 7/10/12 21:33 7/12/12 0:54 7/14/12 4:31 7/14/12 16:46

1:57 47:29 0:15 0:00 1:01 0:00 1:03

W W S S S S S

0.11 0.70 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 1.83

N N N N N N N

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y N Y Y Y Y N

SC

SC

7/21/12 17:27

7/21/12 18:11

0:44

S

0.10

N

Y

N

NR

11/9/12 20:21 12/13/12 21:39 7/4/12 11:36 7/11/12 19:41 7/13/12 10:16 7/14/12 15:47

11/10/12 2:05 12/15/12 21:03 7/4/12 12:06 7/12/12 0:47 7/13/12 10:16 7/14/12 16:34

5:44 47:24 0:30 5:06 0:00 0:47

W W S S S S

0.09 0.86 0.03 0.06 0.01 1.20

N N N N N N

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y N Y Y Y N

7/21/12 17:03 11/10/12 0:10 12/13/12 21:38

7/21/12 18:25 11/10/12 1:38 12/16/12 10:40

1:22 1:28 61:02

S S W

0.67 0.07 0.67

N N N

Y Y Y

N Y N

Storm Event Records

Sample Collection Notes (5) Result Partial bottle. Insufficient for all analyses. SC

Discrete Sample Information Sample Collection Notes (5) Result Discrete summer sampling season complete. SC

SC

Composite summer sampling season complete.

NR

SC

Composite winter sampling season complete.

SC

SC

Composite summer sampling season complete.

DS

NA NA

SC

Discrete summer sampling season complete.

Composite winter sampling season complete.

SC

Discrete winter sampling season complete.

Composite summer sampling season complete.

DS SC

Sampler did not notify. FIeld crews responded and determined sufficient flow resulting from storm event to sample. No rainfall data available between 7/17 and 7/31, but subsequent evaulation of other nearby rain stations indicated a wide-range storm that produced enough rain in this part of the city to justify the collection of a sample. Discrete sampling season complete.

Composite winter sampling season complete.

SC

Discrete winter sampling season complete.

Composite summer sampling season complete.

DS SC

Discrete summer sampling season complete.

Discrete winter sampling season complete.

SC

Composite winter sampling season complete.

SC

SC

Composite summer sampling season complete.

DS

NA SC

Discrete winter sampling season complete.

Composite winter sampling season complete.

SC

Discrete summer sampling season complete.

SC

Discrete winter sampling season complete.

Page 1 of 2


Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Seasons: Summer (S): June 1st through October 30th (highlighted yellow). Winter (W): November 1st through May 31st (highlighted blue). Flood Event: Storm intensity exceeding the 100 Year, 2-Hour storm event (i.e. >2.2 inches in two hours). Normal Storm: Storm intensity up to and including the 100-year 2-hour duration storm event (i.e. < 2.2 inches in two hours). Insufficient Rainfall: Rainfall intensity below design storm requirments (i.e. less than 0.10 inches per hour). Where sufficient rainfall did occur, indicate one of the following results and/or describe in the "Notes" section: DS (Dangerous Storm): Adverse climatic conditions existed that created a dangerous condition for stormwater monitoring staff (e.g. local flooding, high winds, lightening, etc.). Generally for discrete sampling only. DWF (Dry-Weather Flow): Dry-weather flows were identified prior to event that may contain quantities and concentrations of pollutants that would significantly alter stormwater samples. EM (Equipment Malfunction): Equipment failed to enable to collect a composite sample or failed to notify stormwater monitoring personnel that a representative storm had occurred. HE (Human Error): Sampling was not conducted due to human error. HT (Hold Time): Permit requires sampling events for each location to be at least 72 hours since the last storm event discharge (i.e. flow in response to rainfall). IF (Insufficient Flow): Storm did not result in a level reading of two or more inches at the monitoring location. IM (Insufficient Manpower); Storm occurred during off-hours where a less than 20% chance of rain was forecasted and/or appropriate stormwater monitoring personnel were unavailable to respond. IS (Insufficient Sample): Did not collect enough aliquots to qualify as a flow proportional composite sample. NR (Not Required): Samples have been collected for all analyses for current season. SC (Sample Collected): Sample was collected during this storm event.

Storm Event Records

Page 2 of 2


9.0

SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA

The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide a summary of monitoring data (by location) using a table format as provided in Appendix B of that permit. Instructions stated that the City was to use a separate table for each monitoring location, to enter the analytical results for the stormwater samples collected for each season of the reporting period for each year, to enter subsequent monitoring data for each location on the same form, and to include, as an attachment, the laboratory reports for stormwater samples. The information in the table provided was to include the following: •

The monitoring location identification number;

The receiving water;

Designated uses; and,

The lowest surface water quality standards applicable to the receiving water.

Attached in this section are tables summarizing stormwater monitoring data obtained under the 2010 MS4 Permit. The laboratory analytical reports are included as an attachment to this Annual Report (see Section 13.4 and Attachment A). During this reporting period, the City worked with its contract laboratory to improve analytical methods in order to address method detection limit that are above the respective surface water quality standard (SWQS). The detection limits for several parameters were successfully lowered for several parameters which can be identified between the winter 2011-12 and summer 2012 analytical results in the attached tables. The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to collect samples for a full set of analyses (includes volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and pesticides) once each wet season every other year and the remaining parameters once each wet season every year beginning in Winter 2010. Due to the time needed to relocate the four of the sampling locations and re-equipping the remaining location and the lack of rainfall once they did become active, the first set of samples were not collected until the summer 2011 sampling period. Also, due programming and trouble-shooting issues during the 2011 sampling period, the City was unable to collect the “full set” from most

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 9-1


locations. Therefore, the first “full set” of analyses for all stations was collected during the winter 2011-2012 sampling season. The City will therefore be collecting samples for the full set of analyses during the following seasons: •

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 9-2


SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA - MONITORING STATION AS-US60 Units(1)

Parameter

SWQS Salt(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

NA

2097

2286

1643

1686

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Conventional Parameters Average Flow Rate(3) pH

gpm

Temperature

Degrees Celsius

Hardness

Standard Units

(4)

9.0/6.5

7.7

7.3

7.5

7.9

28.9

13.5

30.3

17.0

mg/L

NA(5) NA

96.5

48.0

163

70.0

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

mg/L

NA

342

136

580

176

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

mg/L

NA

114

135

228

168

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

mg/L

NA

47.1

27.8

111

41.4

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

mg/L

NA

294

148

501

254

MPN

575

1299.7

1732.9

>2419

1120.0

ug/L

41

20

8

50

20

Antimony

ug/L

747

7

4

12

6

Arsenic

ug/L

280

2

2

4

2

Barium

ug/L

98,000

112

78

150

88

Beryllium

ug/L

1,867

2

2

1

1

Cadmium

ug/L

(7)

2

1

1

Chromium(8) Copper

ug/L

700 NA

2 15

13

7

6

ug/L

1,300(7)

62

34

100

66

Lead

ug/L

12

10

13

17

Mercury

ug/L

15(7) 2.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.20

Nickel

ug/L

7

7

17

9

Selenium

ug/L

Silver

ug/L

Thallium

ug/L

Zinc

ug/L

Microbiological Escherichia coli (E. coli) Inorganics Cyanide, total (6) Total Metals

28,000(7) 4,667 (7)

4,667 75

(7)

280,000

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

247

135

440

297

1.50

0.79

2.84

2.00

1.99

1.90

4.11

2.35

7.10

2.70

9.40

5.61

Nutrients Nitrate plus Nitrite as N

mg/L

NA (9)

Ammonia as N

mg/L

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as N

mg/L

36.1 NA

Total Phosphorus

mg/L

NA

1.27

0.55

0.98

0.68

Orthophosphate (Total)

mg/L

NA

0.350

0.260

1.10

0.31

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

mg/L

NA

5

10

10

10

Total Oil and Grease

mg/L

NA

5

5

5

5

Organic Toxic Pollutants

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station AS-US60

Page 1 of 20


Units(1)

Parameter

SWQS Salt(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)(10) Acrolein

ug/L

34

50

50

15

--

Acrylonitrile

ug/L

3,800

1

10

17

--

Benzene

ug/L

3,733

0.5

20

2

--

Bromoform

ug/L

15,000

1

25

5

--

Carbon tetrachloride

ug/L

1,307

0.5

20

2.5

--

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

3,800

0.5

20

2

--

Chlorodibromomethane

ug/L

NA

0.5

50

2

--

Chloroethane

ug/L

NA

2.5

20

5

--

2-chloroethylvinyl ether

ug/L

180,000

5

5

1

--

Chloroform

ug/L

9,333

0.5

20

2

--

Dichlorobromomethane (Bromodichloromethane) 1,2-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

18,667

0.5

50

2

--

ug/L

1,200

1

20

2

--

1,3-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

2,500

1

20

2

--

1,4-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

2,000

1

20

2

--

1,1-dichloroethane

ug/L

NA

0.5

50

2

--

1,2-dichloroethane

ug/L

59,000

0.5

20

2

--

1,1-dichloroethylene

ug/L

15,000

0.5

50

5

--

1,2-dichloropropane

ug/L

26,000

0.5

20

2

--

1,3-dichloropropylene

ug/L

NA

1.5

40

2

--

Ethylbenzene

ug/L

23,000

0.5

20

2

--

Methyl bromide

ug/L

NA

1

50

2

--

Methyl chloride

ug/L

NA

1

50

5

--

Methylene chloride

ug/L

NA

5

20

5

--

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

ug/L

4,700

0.5

20

5

--

Tetrachloroethylene

ug/L

6,500

0.5

20

2

--

Toluene

ug/L

8,700

0.5

20

2

--

1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

ug/L

18,667

0.5

20

2

--

1,1,1-trichloroethane

ug/L

2,600

0.5

20

2

--

1,1,2-trichloroethane

ug/L

3,733

0.5

20

2

--

Trichloroethylene

ug/L

280

1

20

2

--

Trimethylbenzene

ug/L

NA

2

20

2

--

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

2,800

1

100

2

--

ug/L

186,667

3

10

10

--

Semi-Volatile Acid Compounds(10) 2-chlorophenol

ug/L

2,200

40

40

20

--

2,4-dichlorophenol

ug/L

1,000

40

40

20

--

2,4-dimethylphenol

ug/L

1,000

40

40

20

--

4,6-dinitro-o-cresol

ug/L

310

200

200

100

--

2,4-dinitrophenol

ug/L

110

200

200

20

--

2-nitrophenol

ug/L

NA

60

60

30

--

4-nitrophenol p-chloro-m-cresol

ug/L

4,100

100

100

50

--

ug/L

15

Pentachlorophenol

ug/L

Phenol

ug/L

2,4,6-trichlorophenol

ug/L

Xylene

(11)

(12)

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station AS-US60

40

40

20

--

9.070 7,300

200

200

100

--

40

40

20

--

130

40

40

20

--

(9)

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Page 2 of 20


Units(1)

Parameter

SWQS Salt(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Semi-Volatile Base/Neutrals(10) Acenaphthene

ug/L

850

40

40

20

--

Acenaphthylene

ug/L

NA

40

40

20

--

Anthracene

ug/L

280,000

40

40

20

--

Benz(a)anthracene

ug/L

0.2

40

40

0.2

--

Benzo(a)pyrene

ug/L

0.2

40

40

0.05

--

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

ug/L

NA

40

40

0.1

--

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

ug/L

NA

40

20

0.1

--

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

ug/L

1.9

40

40

0.05

--

Chrysene

ug/L

19

40

40

0.1

--

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

ug/L

1.9

40

40

0.1

--

3,3-dichlorobenzidine

ug/L

3

40

40

20

--

Diethyl phthalate

ug/L

26,000

60

40

20

--

Dimethyl phthalate

ug/L

17,000

80

80

40

--

Di-n-butyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

40

40

20

--

2,4-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

1,867

40

40

20

--

2,6-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

3,733

40

40

20

--

Di-n-octyl phthalate

ug/L

373,333

40

40

20

--

1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)

ug/L

1.8

40

40

20

--

Fluroranthene

ug/L

2,000

40

40

20

--

Fluorene

ug/L

37,333

40

40

20

--

Hexachlorobenzene

ug/L

6

40

40

20

--

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/L

45

40

40

20

--

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

ug/L

3.5

40

40

20

--

Hexachloroethane

ug/L

490

40

40

20

--

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

ug/L

1.9

40

40

0.1

--

Isophorone

ug/L

59,000

40

40

20

--

Naphthalene

ug/L

3,200

40

40

20

--

Nitrobenzene

ug/L

467

40

40

20

--

N-nitrosodimethylamine

ug/L

0.03

40

40

20

--

N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine

ug/L

88,667

40

40

20

--

N-nitrosodiphenylamine

ug/L

NA

40

40

20

--

Phenanthrene

ug/L

60

40

40

20

--

Pyrene

ug/L

28,000

40

40

20

--

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

ug/L

1,700

40

40

20

--

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station AS-US60

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Page 3 of 20


Units(1)

Parameter

SWQS Salt(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Pesticides Aldrin

ug/L

3

0.5

0.5

1

--

Alpha-BHC

ug/L

NA

0.5

0.5

1

--

Beta-BHC

ug/L

NA

0.5

0.5

1

--

Gamma-BHC (Lindane)

ug/L

NA

0.5

0.5

1

--

Delta-BHC

ug/L

NA

0.5

0.5

1

--

Chlordane

ug/L

2.4

0.5

0.5

10

--

4,4’-DDT

ug/L

1.1

0.5

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDE

ug/L

1.1

0.5

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDD

ug/L

1.1

0.5

0.5

1

--

Dieldrin

ug/L

0.2

0.5

0.5

1

--

Alpha-endosulfan

ug/L

0.5

0.5

1

--

(13)

0.2

(13)

Beta-endosulfan

ug/L

0.5

1

--

ug/L

0.2 0.2

0.5

Endosulfan sulfate

0.05

0.5

1

--

Endrin

ug/L

0.09

0.5

0.5

1

--

Endrin aldehyde

ug/L

0.09

0.5

0.5

1

--

Heptachlor

ug/L

0.6

0.5

0.5

1

--

Heptachlor epoxide

ug/L

0.6

0.5

0.5

1

--

PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)

ug/L

(14)

2

1

1

20

--

PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)

ug/L

2(14)

1

1

20

--

PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221)

ug/L

(14)

1

1

20

--

(14)

1

1

20

--

(14)

1

1

20

--

(14)

1

1

20

--

(14)

1

1

20

--

10

10

20

--

PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)

ug/L

PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)

ug/L

PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)

ug/L

PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)

ug/L

Toxaphene

ug/L

2 2 2 2

2 0.7

Notes: Bold values were reported at levels above the laboratory method reporting limit (MRL). Non-bold values are the MRL. Shaded results were detected above the SWQS. See attached laboratory analytical reports for flagged data. 1) Analytical results shall be reported in the units specified for each category or parameter. 2) Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQSs) established for Salt River segment extending from City of Mesa NW WRF outfall at 33°26'45"/111°56'35" to Tempe Town Lake at 33°26'01"/111°54'55". Partial Body Contact (PBC, shaded in brown) and Aquatic and Wildlife Effluent Dependent Water (A&Wedw, shaded in pink). Shaded Cells (results columns): Red - Detected above SWQS; Orange - Not detected, but reported above EDW SWQS; Green - Not detected, but reported above PBC SWQS. 3) Average flow rate for the sampling period (no more than 6 hours). 4) pH range (maximum/minimum). 5) Comparison of temperature at point of discharge is upgradient from the nearest stream segment having established SWQSs and is thus not relevant at proposed sampling locations. 6) Based on free-cyanide. 7) SWQS for total metals is provided and based on partial body contact. The SWQS for disolved metal concentration for effluent dependent water is dependant on the hardness value for each sample and will in most cases be below the SWQS for partial body contact. 8) Based on total chromium. 9) Depends on pH. Reported values are for pH of 7.0. Where field parameters (i.e. discrete samples) are not collected during the same storm event, the SWQS associated with a pH 7.0 will be used. 10) Methods: These parameters may be run using the following methods: VOCs, 624 or 8260; SVOCs, 625 or 8270; and PCB / Pesticides, 608/625 or 8081/8082 if the laboratory can pass QA with the method. 11) SWQSs reported for total xylenes. 12) Also known as p-nitrophenol. 13) SWQSs report as total endosulfan. 14) SWQSs reported as PCBs

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station AS-US60

Page 4 of 20


SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA - MONITORING STATION SS-US60 Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

NA

NA

666

1207

448

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Conventional Parameters Average Flow Rate(3) pH

gpm

Temperature

Degrees Celsius

Hardness

Standard Units

(4)

9.0/6.5

7.8

7.2

7.2

7.4

26.5

13.0

30.0

19.0

mg/L

NA(5) NA

NA

28.0

17.0

42.0

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

mg/L

NA

NA

62.0

79.0

97.0

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

mg/L

NA

NA

53.0

59.0

110

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

mg/L

NA

NA

9.20

11.0

30.6

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

mg/L

NA

NA

56

96

196

MPN

575

8820.0

1986.3

2419.2

613

ug/L

84

20

8

20

20

Antimony

ug/L

747

NA

2

3

2

Arsenic

ug/L

280

NA

2

2

1

Barium

ug/L

98,000

NA

35

42

56

Beryllium

ug/L

1,867

NA

2

1

1

Cadmium

ug/L

(7)

2

1

1

Chromium(8) Copper

ug/L

700 NA

NA NA

9

4

5

ug/L

1,300(7)

NA

24

40

31

Lead

ug/L

NA

4

5

6

Mercury

ug/L

15(7) 5

NA

0.2

0.2

0.20

Nickel

ug/L

NA

3

4

6

Selenium

ug/L

NA

2

2

1

Silver

ug/L

NA

2

1

1

Thallium

ug/L

Zinc

ug/L

Microbiological Escherichia coli (E. coli) Inorganics Cyanide, total (6) Total Metals

28,000(7) 33 (7)

4,667 75

(7)

280,000

NA

2

1

1

NA

88

110

131

Nutrients Nitrate plus Nitrite as N

mg/L

NA

NA

0.4

0.49

2.00

Ammonia as N

mg/L

NA

NA

1.01

1.17

1.86

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as N

mg/L

NA

NA

1.60

1.40

4.10

Total Phosphorus

mg/L

NA

NA

0.28

0.33

0.45

Orthophosphate (Total)

mg/L

NA

NA

0.2

0.2

0.23

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

mg/L

NA

10

10

10

10

Total Oil and Grease

mg/L

NA

5

5

5

5

Organic Toxic Pollutants

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station SS-US60

Page 5 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)(10) Acrolein

ug/L

467

50

50

50

--

Acrylonitrile

ug/L

37,333

10

10

50

--

Benzene

ug/L

3,733

2

20

2

--

Bromoform

ug/L

18,667

5

50

5

--

Carbon tetrachloride

ug/L

1,307

2.5

25

2.5

--

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

18,677

2

20

2

--

Chlorodibromomethane

ug/L

NA

2

20

2

--

Chloroethane

ug/L

NA

5

50

5

--

2-chloroethylvinyl ether

ug/L

NA

5

1

5

--

Chloroform

ug/L

9,333

2

20

2

--

Dichlorobromomethane (Bromodichloromethane) 1,2-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

18,667

2

20

2

--

ug/L

5,900

2

20

2

--

1,3-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

NA

2

20

2

--

1,4-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

6,500

2

20

2

--

1,1-dichloroethane

ug/L

NA

2

50

2

--

1,2-dichloroethane

ug/L

186,667

2

20

2

--

1,1-dichloroethylene

ug/L

46,667

5

50

5

--

1,2-dichloropropane

ug/L

84,000

2

20

2

--

1,3-dichloropropylene

ug/L

NA

2

40

2

--

Ethylbenzene

ug/L

93,333

2

20

2

--

Methyl bromide

ug/L

NA

2

20

2

--

Methyl chloride

ug/L

NA

5

50

5

--

Methylene chloride

ug/L

NA

5

50

5

--

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

ug/L

93,333

2

20

2

--

Tetrachloroethylene

ug/L

9,333

2

20

2

--

Toluene

ug/L

373,333

2

20

2

--

1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

ug/L

18,667

2

20

2

--

1,1,1-trichloroethane

ug/L

1,866,667

2

20

2

--

1,1,2-trichloroethane

ug/L

3,733

2

20

2

--

Trichloroethylene

ug/L

280

2

20

2

--

Trimethylbenzene

ug/L

NA

2

20

2

--

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

2,800

2

20

2

--

ug/L

186,667

10

100

10

--

Semi-Volatile Acid Compounds 2-chlorophenol

ug/L

4,667

NA

10

10

--

2,4-dichlorophenol

ug/L

2,800

NA

10

50

--

2,4-dimethylphenol

ug/L

18,667

NA

10

10

--

4,6-dinitro-o-cresol

ug/L

3,733

NA

20

50

--

2,4-dinitrophenol

ug/L

1,867

NA

50

50

--

2-nitrophenol

ug/L

NA

NA

15

15

--

4-nitrophenol p-chloro-m-cresol

ug/L

NA

NA

25

25

--

ug/L

48,000

NA

10

10

--

Pentachlorophenol

ug/L

50

50

--

Phenol

ug/L

36.760 180,000

NA NA

10

10

--

2,4,6-trichlorophenol

ug/L

130

NA

10

10

--

Xylene

(11)

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

(10)

(12)

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station SS-US60

(9)

Page 6 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Semi-Volatile Base/Neutrals(10) Acenaphthene

ug/L

56,000

NA

10

10

--

Acenaphthylene

ug/L

NA

NA

10

10

--

Anthracene

ug/L

280,000

NA

10

10

--

Benz(a)anthracene

ug/L

0.2

NA

10

0.2

--

Benzo(a)pyrene

ug/L

0.2

NA

10

0.05

--

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

ug/L

NA

NA

10

0.1

--

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

ug/L

NA

NA

10

0.1

--

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

ug/L

1.9

NA

10

0.05

--

Chrysene

ug/L

19

NA

10

0.1

--

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

ug/L

1.9

NA

10

0.1

--

3,3-dichlorobenzidine

ug/L

3

NA

10

2.9

--

Diethyl phthalate

ug/L

746,667

NA

10

10

--

Dimethyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

10

20

--

Di-n-butyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

10

10

--

2,4-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

1,867

NA

10

10

--

2,6-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

3,733

NA

10

10

--

Di-n-octyl phthalate

ug/L

373,333

NA

10

10

--

1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)

ug/L

1.8

NA

10

2.2

--

Fluroranthene

ug/L

37,333

NA

10

10

--

Fluorene

ug/L

37,333

NA

10

10

--

Hexachlorobenzene

ug/L

747

NA

10

10

--

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/L

187

NA

10

10

--

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

ug/L

11,200

NA

10

10

--

Hexachloroethane

ug/L

850

NA

10

10

--

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

ug/L

1.9

NA

10

0.1

--

Isophorone

ug/L

186,667

NA

10

10

--

Naphthalene

ug/L

18,667

NA

10

10

--

Nitrobenzene

ug/L

467

NA

10

10

--

N-nitrosodimethylamine

ug/L

0.03

NA

10

10

--

N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine

ug/L

88,667

NA

10

10

--

N-nitrosodiphenylamine

ug/L

NA

NA

10

10

--

Phenanthrene

ug/L

NA

NA

10

10

--

Pyrene

ug/L

28,000

NA

10

10

--

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

ug/L

9,333

NA

10

10

--

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station SS-US60

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Page 7 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Pesticides Aldrin

ug/L

4.5

NA

0.5

1

--

Alpha-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Beta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Gamma-BHC (Lindane)

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Delta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Chlordane

ug/L

3.2

NA

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDT

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDE

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDD

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.5

1

--

Dieldrin

ug/L

4

NA

0.5

1

--

Alpha-endosulfan

ug/L

(13)

NA

0.5

1

--

3

(13)

Beta-endosulfan

ug/L

NA

0.5

1

--

Endosulfan sulfate

ug/L

3

NA

0.5

1

--

Endrin

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.5

0.14

--

Endrin aldehyde

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.5

0.18

--

Heptachlor

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.5

0.28

--

Heptachlor epoxide

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.5

0.13

--

(14)

3

PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)

ug/L

11

NA

10

9

--

PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)

ug/L

11(14)

NA

10

5.6

--

PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221)

ug/L

11(14)

NA

10

4

--

PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)

ug/L

(14)

NA

10

6.8

--

PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)

ug/L

(14)

NA

10

3.5

--

(14)

NA

10

2.9

--

(14)

NA

10

3.3

--

NA

10

1.6

--

PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)

ug/L

PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)

ug/L

Toxaphene

ug/L

11 11

11

11 11

Notes: Bold values were reported at levels above the laboratory method reporting limit (MRL). Non-bold values are the MRL. Shaded results were detected above the SWQS. See attached laboratory analytical reports for flagged data. 1) Analytical results shall be reported in the units specified for each category or parameter. 2) Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQSs) for EMF are based on that provided in A.A.C. R18-11-105(1) per 2010 MS4 Permit ADEQ Response to Comments. Partial Body Contact (PBC, shaded in brown) and Aquatic & Wildlife Ephemeral (A&We, shaded in blue). Shaded Cells (results columns): Red - Detected above SWQS; Orange - Not detected, but reported above Ephemeral SWQS; Green - Not detected, but reported above PBC SWQS. 3) Average flow rate for the sampling period (no more than 6 hours). 4) pH range (maximum/minimum). 5) No surface water quality standard established for maximum allowable increase in ambient water temperature for ephemeral waters. 6) Based on free-cyanide. 7) SWQS for total metals is provided and based on partial body contact. The SWQS for disolved metal concentration for ephemeral water is dependant on the hardness value for each sample and will in most cases be below the SWQS for partial body contact. 8) Based on total chromium. 9) Depends on pH. Reported values are for pH of 7.0. Where field parameters (i.e. discrete samples) are not collected during the same storm event, the SWQS associated with a pH 7.0 will be used. 10) Methods: These parameters may be run using the following methods: VOCs, 624 or 8260; SVOCs, 625 or 8270; and PCB / Pesticides, 608/625 or 8081/8082 if the laboratory can pass QA with the method. 11) SWQSs reported for total xylenes. 12) Also known as p-nitrophenol. 13) SWQSs report as total endosulfan. 14) SWQSs reported as PCBs

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station SS-US60

Page 8 of 20


SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA - MONITORING STATION 54-EMF Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

NA

194

289

3106

82

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Conventional Parameters Average Flow Rate(3) pH

gpm

Temperature

Degrees Celsius

Hardness

Standard Units

(4)

9.0/6.5

7.6

7.4

7.0

7.4

28.5

12.0

29.5

14

mg/L

NA(5) NA

151

44.8

25.0

30.0

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

mg/L

NA

336

72.0

93.0

53.0

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

mg/L

NA

252

156

219

118

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

mg/L

NA

NA

17.2

14.0

20.1

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

mg/L

NA

291

160

232

105

MPN

575

613.1

816.4

1553.1

2400.0

ug/L

84

20

8

20

20

Antimony

ug/L

747

10

2

3

1

Arsenic

ug/L

280

4

1

3

1

Barium

ug/L

98,000

124

47

120

47

Beryllium

ug/L

1,867

1

1

1

1

Cadmium

ug/L

(7)

1

1

1

Chromium(8) Copper

ug/L

700 NA

1 16.0

7

9

4

ug/L

1,300(7)

33

28

39

19

Lead

ug/L

10.0

4

17

7

Mercury

ug/L

15(7) 5

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.20

Nickel

ug/L

41

6

12

5

Selenium

ug/L

28,000(7) 33

Silver

ug/L

Thallium

ug/L

Zinc

ug/L

Microbiological Escherichia coli (E. coli) Inorganics Cyanide, total (6) Total Metals

(7)

4,667 75

(7)

280,000

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

263

102

150

88

Nutrients Nitrate plus Nitrite as N

mg/L

NA

0.95

1.19

0.87

2.00

Ammonia as N

mg/L

NA

4.70

1.23

1.82

1.00

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as N

mg/L

NA

NA

2.70

1.80

2.90

Total Phosphorus

mg/L

NA

0.62

0.73

1.71

0.58

Orthophosphate (Total)

mg/L

NA

NA

0.240

0.36

0.23

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

mg/L

NA

5

10

10

10

Total Oil and Grease

mg/L

NA

5

5

5

5

Organic Toxic Pollutants

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station 54-EMF

Page 9 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)(10) Acrolein

ug/L

467

50

50

4

--

Acrylonitrile

ug/L

37,333

1

10

50

--

Benzene

ug/L

3,733

0.5

20

2

--

Bromoform

ug/L

18,667

1

50

5

--

Carbon tetrachloride

ug/L

1,307

0.5

25

2.5

--

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

18,677

0.5

20

2

--

Chlorodibromomethane

ug/L

NA

0.5

20

2

--

Chloroethane

ug/L

NA

2.5

50

5

--

2-chloroethylvinyl ether

ug/L

NA

5

5

1

--

Chloroform

ug/L

9,333

0.5

20

2

--

Dichlorobromomethane (Bromodichloromethane) 1,2-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

18,667

0.5

20

2

--

ug/L

5,900

1

20

2

--

1,3-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

NA

1

20

2

--

1,4-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

6,500

1

20

2

--

1,1-dichloroethane

ug/L

NA

0.5

20

2

--

1,2-dichloroethane

ug/L

186,667

0.5

20

2

--

1,1-dichloroethylene

ug/L

46,667

0.5

50

5

--

1,2-dichloropropane

ug/L

84,000

0.5

20

2

--

1,3-dichloropropylene

ug/L

NA

1.5

40

2

--

Ethylbenzene

ug/L

93,333

0.5

20

2

--

Methyl bromide

ug/L

NA

1

50

2

--

Methyl chloride

ug/L

NA

1

50

5

--

Methylene chloride

ug/L

NA

5

50

5

--

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

ug/L

93,333

0.5

20

2

--

Tetrachloroethylene

ug/L

9,333

0.5

20

2

--

Toluene

ug/L

373,333

0.5

20

2

--

1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

ug/L

18,667

0.5

20

2

--

1,1,1-trichloroethane

ug/L

1,866,667

0.5

20

2

--

1,1,2-trichloroethane

ug/L

3,733

0.5

20

2

--

Trichloroethylene

ug/L

280

1

20

2

--

Trimethylbenzene

ug/L

NA

2

20

2

--

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

2,800

1

20

2

--

ug/L

186,667

3

100

10

--

Semi-Volatile Acid Compounds(10) 2-chlorophenol

ug/L

4,667

NA

23

10

--

2,4-dichlorophenol

ug/L

2,800

NA

23

10

--

2,4-dimethylphenol

ug/L

18,667

NA

23

10

--

4,6-dinitro-o-cresol

ug/L

3,733

NA

110

50

--

2,4-dinitrophenol

ug/L

1,867

NA

23

50

--

2-nitrophenol

ug/L

NA

NA

34

15

--

4-nitrophenol p-chloro-m-cresol

ug/L

NA

NA

57

25

--

ug/L

48,000

NA

23

10

--

Pentachlorophenol

ug/L

110

50

--

Phenol

ug/L

36.760 180,000

NA NA

23

10

--

2,4,6-trichlorophenol

ug/L

130

NA

23

10

--

Xylene

(11)

(12)

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station 54-EMF

(9)

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Page 10 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Semi-Volatile Base/Neutrals(10) Acenaphthene

ug/L

56,000

NA

23

10

--

Acenaphthylene

ug/L

NA

NA

23

10

--

Anthracene

ug/L

280,000

NA

23

10

--

Benz(a)anthracene

ug/L

0.2

NA

23

0.2

--

Benzo(a)pyrene

ug/L

0.2

NA

23

0.05

--

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

ug/L

NA

NA

23

0.1

--

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

ug/L

NA

NA

23

0.1

--

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

ug/L

1.9

NA

23

0.05

--

Chrysene

ug/L

19

NA

23

0.1

--

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

ug/L

1.9

NA

23

0.1

--

3,3-dichlorobenzidine

ug/L

3

NA

23

2.9

--

Diethyl phthalate

ug/L

746,667

NA

23

10

--

Dimethyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

23

20

--

Di-n-butyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

23

10

--

2,4-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

1,867

NA

23

10

--

2,6-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

3,733

NA

23

10

--

Di-n-octyl phthalate

ug/L

373,333

NA

23

10

--

1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)

ug/L

1.8

NA

23

2.2

--

Fluroranthene

ug/L

37,333

NA

23

10

--

Fluorene

ug/L

37,333

NA

23

10

--

Hexachlorobenzene

ug/L

747

NA

23

10

--

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/L

187

NA

23

10

--

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

ug/L

11,200

NA

23

10

--

Hexachloroethane

ug/L

850

NA

23

10

--

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

ug/L

1.9

NA

23

0.1

--

Isophorone

ug/L

186,667

NA

23

10

--

Naphthalene

ug/L

18,667

NA

23

10

--

Nitrobenzene

ug/L

467

NA

23

10

--

N-nitrosodimethylamine

ug/L

0.03

NA

23

10

--

N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine

ug/L

88,667

NA

23

10

--

N-nitrosodiphenylamine

ug/L

NA

NA

23

10

--

Phenanthrene

ug/L

NA

NA

23

10

--

Pyrene

ug/L

28,000

NA

23

10

--

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

ug/L

9,333

NA

23

10

--

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station 54-EMF

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Page 11 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Pesticides Aldrin

ug/L

4.5

NA

0.5

1

--

Alpha-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Beta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Gamma-BHC (Lindane)

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Delta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.5

1

--

Chlordane

ug/L

3.2

NA

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDT

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDE

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.5

1

--

4,4’-DDD

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.5

1

--

Dieldrin

ug/L

4

NA

0.5

1

--

Alpha-endosulfan

ug/L

(13)

NA

0.5

1

--

3

(13)

Beta-endosulfan

ug/L

NA

0.5

1

--

Endosulfan sulfate

ug/L

3

NA

0.5

1

--

Endrin

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.5

0.14

--

Endrin aldehyde

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.5

0.18

--

Heptachlor

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.5

0.28

--

Heptachlor epoxide

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.5

0.13

--

(14)

3

PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)

ug/L

11

NA

10

9

--

PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)

ug/L

11(14)

NA

10

5.6

--

PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221)

ug/L

11(14)

NA

10

4

--

PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)

ug/L

(14)

NA

10

6.8

--

PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)

ug/L

(14)

NA

10

3.5

--

(14)

NA

10

2.9

--

(14)

NA

10

3.3

--

NA

10

1.6

--

PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)

ug/L

PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)

ug/L

Toxaphene

ug/L

11 11

11

11 11

Notes: Bold values were reported at levels above the laboratory method reporting limit (MRL). Non-bold values are the MRL. Shaded results were detected above the SWQS. See attached laboratory analytical reports for flagged data. 1) Analytical results shall be reported in the units specified for each category or parameter. 2) Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQSs) for EMF are based on that provided in A.A.C. R18-11-105(1) per 2010 MS4 Permit ADEQ Response to Comments. Partial Body Contact (PBC, shaded in brown) and Aquatic & Wildlife Ephemeral (A&We, shaded in blue). Shaded Cells (results columns): Red - Detected above SWQS; Orange - Not detected, but reported above Ephemeral SWQS; Green - Not detected, but reported above PBC SWQS. 3) Average flow rate for the sampling period (no more than 6 hours). 4) pH range (maximum/minimum). 5) No surface water quality standard established for maximum allowable increase in ambient water temperature for ephemeral waters. 6) Based on free-cyanide. 7) SWQS for total metals is provided and based on partial body contact. The SWQS for disolved metal concentration for ephemeral water is dependant on the hardness value for each sample and will in most cases be below the SWQS for partial body contact. 8) Based on total chromium. 9) Depends on pH. Reported values are for pH of 7.0. Where field parameters (i.e. discrete samples) are not collected during the same storm event, the SWQS associated with a pH 7.0 will be used. 10) Methods: These parameters may be run using the following methods: VOCs, 624 or 8260; SVOCs, 625 or 8270; and PCB / Pesticides, 608/625 or 8081/8082 if the laboratory can pass QA with the method. 11) SWQSs reported for total xylenes. 12) Also known as p-nitrophenol. 13) SWQSs report as total endosulfan. 14) SWQSs reported as PCBs

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station 54-EMF

Page 12 of 20


SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA - MONITORING STATION UN-EMF Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

NA

NA

690

35,748

591

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Conventional Parameters Average Flow Rate(3) pH

gmp

Temperature

Degrees Celsius

Hardness

Standard Units

(4)

9.0/6.5

11.3

7.5

7.6

7.3

24.0

14.5

31.0

16.5

mg/L

NA(5) NA

NA

33.5

32.0

41.0

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

mg/L

NA

NA

102

69.0

101

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

mg/L

NA

NA

120

201

106

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

mg/L

NA

NA

20.0

11.0

15.4

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

mg/L

NA

NA

198

105

131

MPN

575

1,986.30

12,303.30

1732.9

1410.0

ug/L

84

20

20

20

20

Antimony

ug/L

747

NA

3

3

2

Arsenic

ug/L

280

NA

1

3

1

Barium

ug/L

98,000

NA

45

89

55

Beryllium

ug/L

1,867

NA

1

1

1

Cadmium

ug/L

(7)

1

1

1

Chromium(8) Copper

ug/L

700 NA

NA NA

5

7

5

ug/L

1,300(7)

NA

31

33

30

Lead

ug/L

NA

5

16

6

Mercury

ug/L

15(7) 5

NA

0.2

0.2

0.20

Nickel

ug/L

NA

4

9

6

Selenium

ug/L

NA

2

2

1

Silver

ug/L

NA

1

1

1

Thallium

ug/L

Zinc

ug/L

Microbiological Escherichia coli (E. coli) Inorganics Cyanide, total (6) Total Metals

28,000(7) 33 (7)

4,667 75

(7)

280,000

NA

1

1

1

NA

97

160

139

Nutrients Nitrate plus Nitrite as N

mg/L

NA

NA

2

0.69

2.00

Ammonia as N

mg/L

NA

NA

1.48

1.26

1.48

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as N

mg/L

NA

NA

3.00

1.30

2.95

Total Phosphorus

mg/L

NA

NA

0.44

0.51

0.39

Orthophosphate (Total)

mg/L

NA

NA

0.28

0.22

0.23

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

mg/L

NA

10

10

10

10

Total Oil and Grease

mg/L

NA

5

5

19.1

5

Organic Toxic Pollutants

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Location UN-EMF

Page 13 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)(10) Acrolein

ug/L

467

50

30

50

--

Acrylonitrile

ug/L

37,333

10

1

50

--

Benzene

ug/L

3,733

2

2

2

--

Bromoform

ug/L

18,667

5

5

5

--

Carbon tetrachloride

ug/L

1,307

2.5

2.5

2.5

--

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

18,677

2

2

2

--

Chlorodibromomethane

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Chloroethane

ug/L

NA

5

5

5

--

2-chloroethylvinyl ether

ug/L

NA

5

1

5

--

Chloroform

ug/L

9,333

2

2

2

--

Dichlorobromomethane (Bromodichloromethane) 1,2-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

18,667

2

2

2

--

ug/L

5,900

2

2

2

--

1,3-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

1,4-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

6,500

2

2

2

--

1,1-dichloroethane

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

1,2-dichloroethane

ug/L

186,667

2

2

2

--

1,1-dichloroethylene

ug/L

46,667

5

5

5

--

1,2-dichloropropane

ug/L

84,000

2

2

2

--

1,3-dichloropropylene

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Ethylbenzene

ug/L

93,333

2

2

2

--

Methyl bromide

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Methyl chloride

ug/L

NA

5

5

5

--

Methylene chloride

ug/L

NA

5

5

5

--

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

ug/L

93,333

2

2

2

--

Tetrachloroethylene

ug/L

9,333

2

2

2

--

Toluene

ug/L

373,333

2

2

2

--

1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

ug/L

18,667

2

2

2

--

1,1,1-trichloroethane

ug/L

1,866,667

2

2

2

--

1,1,2-trichloroethane

ug/L

3,733

2

2

2

--

Trichloroethylene

ug/L

280

2

2

2

--

Trimethylbenzene

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

2,800

2

2

2

--

ug/L

186,667

10

10

10

--

Semi-Volatile Acid Compounds 2-chlorophenol

ug/L

4,667

NA

10

20

--

2,4-dichlorophenol

ug/L

2,800

NA

10

20

--

2,4-dimethylphenol

ug/L

18,667

NA

10

20

--

4,6-dinitro-o-cresol

ug/L

3,733

NA

50

100

--

2,4-dinitrophenol

ug/L

1,867

NA

50

100

--

2-nitrophenol

ug/L

NA

NA

15

30

--

4-nitrophenol p-chloro-m-cresol

ug/L

NA

NA

25

50

--

ug/L

48,000

NA

10

20

--

Pentachlorophenol

ug/L

50

100

--

Phenol

ug/L

36.760 180,000

NA NA

10

20

--

2,4,6-trichlorophenol

ug/L

130

NA

10

20

--

Xylene

(11)

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

(10)

(12)

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Location UN-EMF

(9)

Page 14 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Semi-Volatile Base/Neutrals(10) Acenaphthene

ug/L

56,000

NA

10

20

--

Acenaphthylene

ug/L

NA

NA

10

20

--

Anthracene

ug/L

280,000

NA

10

20

--

Benz(a)anthracene

ug/L

0.2

NA

0.2

0.2

--

Benzo(a)pyrene

ug/L

0.2

NA

0.05

0.05

--

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

ug/L

NA

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

ug/L

NA

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

ug/L

1.9

NA

0.05

0.05

--

Chrysene

ug/L

19

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

ug/L

1.9

NA

0.1

0.1

--

3,3-dichlorobenzidine

ug/L

3

NA

10

2.9

--

Diethyl phthalate

ug/L

746,667

NA

10

20

--

Dimethyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

20

40

--

Di-n-butyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

10

20

--

2,4-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

1,867

NA

10

20

--

2,6-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

3,733

NA

10

20

--

Di-n-octyl phthalate

ug/L

373,333

NA

10

20

--

1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)

ug/L

1.8

NA

10

2.2

--

Fluroranthene

ug/L

37,333

NA

10

20

--

Fluorene

ug/L

37,333

NA

10

20

--

Hexachlorobenzene

ug/L

747

NA

10

20

--

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/L

187

NA

10

20

--

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

ug/L

11,200

NA

10

20

--

Hexachloroethane

ug/L

850

NA

10

20

--

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

ug/L

1.9

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Isophorone

ug/L

186,667

NA

10

20

--

Naphthalene

ug/L

18,667

NA

10

20

--

Nitrobenzene

ug/L

467

NA

10

20

--

N-nitrosodimethylamine

ug/L

0.03

NA

10

20

--

N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine

ug/L

88,667

NA

10

20

--

N-nitrosodiphenylamine

ug/L

NA

NA

10

20

--

Phenanthrene

ug/L

NA

NA

10

20

--

Pyrene

ug/L

28,000

NA

10

20

--

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

ug/L

9,333

NA

10

20

--

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Location UN-EMF

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Page 15 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Pesticides Aldrin

ug/L

4.5

NA

0.05

1

--

Alpha-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.05

1

--

Beta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.05

1

--

Gamma-BHC (Lindane)

ug/L

NA

NA

0.05

1

--

Delta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.05

1

--

Chlordane

ug/L

3.2

NA

0.05

1

--

4,4’-DDT

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.05

1

--

4,4’-DDE

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.05

1

--

4,4’-DDD

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.05

1

--

Dieldrin

ug/L

4

NA

0.05

1

--

Alpha-endosulfan

ug/L

(13)

NA

0.05

1

--

3

(13)

Beta-endosulfan

ug/L

NA

0.05

1

--

Endosulfan sulfate

ug/L

3

NA

0.05

1

--

Endrin

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.05

0.14

--

Endrin aldehyde

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.05

0.18

--

Heptachlor

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.05

0.28

--

Heptachlor epoxide

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.05

0.13

--

(14)

3

PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)

ug/L

11

NA

1

9

--

PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)

ug/L

11(14)

NA

1

5.6

--

PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221)

ug/L

(14)

NA

1

4

--

(14)

NA

1

6.8

--

(14)

NA

1

3.5

--

(14)

NA

1

2.9

--

(14)

NA

1

3.3

--

NA

1

1.6

--

PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)

ug/L

PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)

ug/L

PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)

ug/L

PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)

ug/L

Toxaphene

ug/L

11 11 11

11

11 11

Notes: Bold values were reported at levels above the laboratory method reporting limit (MRL). Non-bold values are the MRL. Shaded results were detected above the SWQS. See attached laboratory analytical reports for flagged data. 1) Analytical results shall be reported in the units specified for each category or parameter. 2) Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQSs) for EMF are based on that provided in A.A.C. R18-11-105(1) per 2010 MS4 Permit ADEQ Response to Comments. Partial Body Contact (PBC, shaded in brown) and Aquatic & Wildlife Ephemeral (A&We, shaded in blue). Shaded Cells (results columns): Red - Detected above SWQS; Orange - Not detected, but reported above Ephemeral SWQS; Green - Not detected, but reported above PBC SWQS. 3) Average flow rate for the sampling period (no more than 6 hours). 4) pH range (maximum/minimum). 5) No surface water quality standard established for maximum allowable increase in ambient water temperature for ephemeral waters. 6) Based on free-cyanide. 7) SWQS for total metals is provided and based on partial body contact. The SWQS for disolved metal concentration for ephemeral water is dependant on the hardness value for each sample and will in most cases be below the SWQS for partial body contact. 8) Based on total chromium. 9) Depends on pH. Reported values are for pH of 7.0. Where field parameters (i.e. discrete samples) are not collected during the same storm event, the SWQS associated with a pH 7.0 will be used. 10) Methods: These parameters may be run using the following methods: VOCs, 624 or 8260; SVOCs, 625 or 8270; and PCB / Pesticides, 608/625 or 8081/8082 if the laboratory can pass QA with the method. 11) SWQSs reported for total xylenes. 12) Also known as p-nitrophenol. 13) SWQSs report as total endosulfan. 14) SWQSs reported as PCBs

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Location UN-EMF

Page 16 of 20


SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA - MONITORING STATION FF-ACES Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

NA

NA

896

6392

698

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Conventional Parameters Average Flow Rate(3) pH

gpm

Temperature

Degrees Celsius

Hardness

Standard Units

(4)

9.0/6.5

11.2

7.6

8.5

8.6

24.0

15.0

28.5

14.0

mg/L

NA(5) NA

NA

24.2

24.0

14.0

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

mg/L

NA

NA

72.0

50.0

20.0

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

mg/L

NA

NA

24.0

204

76.0

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

mg/L

NA

NA

19.7

7.00

3.70

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

mg/L

NA

NA

97

120

50

MPN

575

146.7

44.8

334.8

345.0

ug/L

84

20

20

20

20

Antimony

ug/L

747

NA

1

3

1

Arsenic

ug/L

280

NA

1

2

1

Barium

ug/L

98,000

NA

41

76

27

Beryllium

ug/L

1,867

NA

1

1

1

Cadmium

ug/L

(7)

1

2

1

Chromium(8) Copper

ug/L

700 NA

NA NA

10

8

8

ug/L

1,300(7)

NA

20

23

9

Lead

ug/L

Mercury

ug/L

Nickel

ug/L

Selenium

ug/L

Silver

ug/L

Thallium

ug/L

Zinc

ug/L

Microbiological Escherichia coli (E. coli) Inorganics Cyanide, total (6) Total Metals

(7)

15 5

28,000(7) 33 (7)

4,667 75

(7)

280,000

NA

16

23

8

NA

0.2

0.2

0.20

NA

6

9

4

NA

1

2

1

NA

1

1

1

NA

1

1

1

NA

246

190

111

Nutrients Nitrate plus Nitrite as N

mg/L

NA

NA

2

0.42

2.00

Ammonia as N

mg/L

NA

NA

1.16

1.28

0.46

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as N

mg/L

NA

NA

2.40

1.30

1.23

Total Phosphorus

mg/L

NA

NA

0.35

0.41

0.21

Orthophosphate (Total)

mg/L

NA

NA

0.2

0.2

0.20

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

mg/L

NA

10

10

10

10

Total Oil and Grease

mg/L

NA

5

5

5

5

Organic Toxic Pollutants

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station FF-ACES

Page 17 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)(10) Acrolein

ug/L

467

50

30

50

--

Acrylonitrile

ug/L

37,333

10

1

50

--

Benzene

ug/L

3,733

2

2

2

--

Bromoform

ug/L

18,667

5

5

5

--

Carbon tetrachloride

ug/L

1,307

2.5

2.5

2.5

--

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

18,677

2

2

2

--

Chlorodibromomethane

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Chloroethane

ug/L

NA

5

5

5

--

2-chloroethylvinyl ether

ug/L

NA

5

1

5

--

Chloroform

ug/L

9,333

2

2

2

--

Dichlorobromomethane (Bromodichloromethane) 1,2-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

18,667

2

2

2

--

ug/L

5,900

2

2

2

--

1,3-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

1,4-dichlorobenzene

ug/L

6,500

2

2

2

--

1,1-dichloroethane

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

1,2-dichloroethane

ug/L

186,667

2

2

2

--

1,1-dichloroethylene

ug/L

46,667

5

5

5

--

1,2-dichloropropane

ug/L

84,000

2

2

2

--

1,3-dichloropropylene

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Ethylbenzene

ug/L

93,333

2

2

2

--

Methyl bromide

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Methyl chloride

ug/L

NA

5

5

5

--

Methylene chloride

ug/L

NA

5

5

5

--

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

ug/L

93,333

2

2

2

--

Tetrachloroethylene

ug/L

9,333

2

2

2

--

Toluene

ug/L

373,333

2

2

2

--

1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

ug/L

18,667

2

2

2

--

1,1,1-trichloroethane

ug/L

1,866,667

2

2

2

--

1,1,2-trichloroethane

ug/L

3,733

2

2

2

--

Trichloroethylene

ug/L

280

2

2

2

--

Trimethylbenzene

ug/L

NA

2

2

2

--

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

2,800

2

2

2

--

ug/L

186,667

10

10

10

--

Semi-Volatile Acid Compounds 2-chlorophenol

ug/L

4,667

NA

20

20

--

2,4-dichlorophenol

ug/L

2,800

NA

20

20

--

2,4-dimethylphenol

ug/L

18,667

NA

20

20

--

4,6-dinitro-o-cresol

ug/L

3,733

NA

100

100

--

2,4-dinitrophenol

ug/L

1,867

NA

100

100

--

2-nitrophenol

ug/L

NA

NA

30

30

--

4-nitrophenol p-chloro-m-cresol

ug/L

NA

NA

50

50

--

ug/L

48,000

Pentachlorophenol

ug/L

Phenol

ug/L

2,4,6-trichlorophenol

ug/L

Xylene

(11)

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

(10)

(12)

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station FF-ACES

NA

20

20

--

36.760 180,000

NA

100

100

--

NA

20

20

--

130

NA

20

20

--

(9)

Page 18 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Semi-Volatile Base/Neutrals(10) Acenaphthene

ug/L

56,000

NA

20

20

--

Acenaphthylene

ug/L

NA

NA

20

20

--

Anthracene

ug/L

280,000

NA

20

20

--

Benz(a)anthracene

ug/L

0.2

NA

0.2

0.2

--

Benzo(a)pyrene

ug/L

0.2

NA

0.05

0.05

--

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

ug/L

NA

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

ug/L

NA

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

ug/L

1.9

NA

0.05

0.05

--

Chrysene

ug/L

19

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

ug/L

1.9

NA

0.1

0.1

--

3,3-dichlorobenzidine

ug/L

3

NA

20

2.9

--

Diethyl phthalate

ug/L

746,667

NA

20

20

--

Dimethyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

40

40

--

Di-n-butyl phthalate

ug/L

NA

NA

20

20

--

2,4-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

1,867

NA

20

20

--

2,6-dinitrotoluene

ug/L

3,733

NA

20

20

--

Di-n-octyl phthalate

ug/L

373,333

NA

20

20

--

1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)

ug/L

1.8

NA

20

2.2

--

Fluroranthene

ug/L

37,333

NA

20

20

--

Fluorene

ug/L

37,333

NA

20

20

--

Hexachlorobenzene

ug/L

747

NA

20

20

--

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/L

187

NA

20

20

--

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

ug/L

11,200

NA

20

20

--

Hexachloroethane

ug/L

850

NA

20

20

--

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

ug/L

1.9

NA

0.1

0.1

--

Isophorone

ug/L

186,667

NA

20

20

--

Naphthalene

ug/L

18,667

NA

20

20

--

Nitrobenzene

ug/L

467

NA

20

20

--

N-nitrosodimethylamine

ug/L

0.03

NA

20

20

--

N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine

ug/L

88,667

NA

20

20

--

N-nitrosodiphenylamine

ug/L

NA

NA

20

20

--

Phenanthrene

ug/L

NA

NA

20

20

--

Pyrene

ug/L

28,000

NA

20

20

--

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

ug/L

9,333

NA

20

20

--

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station FF-ACES

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Page 19 of 20


Units1

Parameter

SWQS EMF(2)

Summer 2011

Winter 2011-12

Summer 2012

Winter 2012-13

Summer 2013

Winter 2013-14

Summer 2014

Winter 2014-15

Summer 2015

Pesticides Aldrin

ug/L

4.5

NA

0.007

1

--

Alpha-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.0110

1

--

Beta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.00740

1

--

Gamma-BHC (Lindane)

ug/L

NA

NA

0.00650

1

--

Delta-BHC

ug/L

NA

NA

0.0160

1

--

Chlordane

ug/L

3.2

NA

0.08

1

--

4,4’-DDT

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.00650

1

--

4,4’-DDE

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.00650

1

--

4,4’-DDD

ug/L

1.1

NA

0.0490

1

--

Dieldrin

ug/L

4

NA

0.0290

1

--

Alpha-endosulfan

ug/L

(13)

NA

0.00830

1

--

(13)

3

Beta-endosulfan

ug/L

NA

0.00650

1

--

Endosulfan sulfate

ug/L

3

NA

0.0410

1

--

Endrin

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.00720

0.14

--

Endrin aldehyde

ug/L

0.7

NA

0.00890

0.18

--

Heptachlor

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.0140

0.28

--

Heptachlor epoxide

ug/L

0.9

NA

0.00670

0.13

--

(14)

3

PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)

ug/L

11

NA

0.45

9

--

PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)

ug/L

11(14)

NA

0.28

5.6

--

PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221)

ug/L

(14)

NA

0.2

4

--

(14)

NA

0.34

6.8

--

(14)

NA

0.18

3.5

--

(14)

NA

0.15

2.9

--

(14)

NA

0.17

3.3

--

NA

0.5

1.6

--

PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)

ug/L

PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)

ug/L

PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)

ug/L

PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)

ug/L

Toxaphene

ug/L

11 11 11

11

11 11

Notes: Bold values were reported at levels above the laboratory method reporting limit (MRL). Non-bold values are the MRL. Shaded results were detected above the SWQS. See attached laboratory analytical reports for flagged data. 1) Analytical results shall be reported in the units specified for each category or parameter. 2) Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQSs) for EMF are based on that provided in A.A.C. R18-11-105(1) per 2010 MS4 Permit ADEQ Response to Comments. Partial Body Contact (PBC, shaded in brown) and Aquatic & Wildlife Ephemeral (A&We, shaded in blue). Shaded Cells (results columns): Red - Detected above SWQS; Orange - Not detected, but reported above Ephemeral SWQS; Green - Not detected, but reported above PBC SWQS. 3) Average flow rate for the sampling period (no more than 6 hours). 4) pH range (maximum/minimum). 5) No surface water quality standard established for maximum allowable increase in ambient water temperature for ephemeral waters. 6) Based on free-cyanide. 7) SWQS for total metals is provided and based on partial body contact. The SWQS for disolved metal concentration for ephemeral water is dependant on the hardness value for each sample and will in most cases be below the SWQS for partial body contact. 8) Based on total chromium. 9) Depends on pH. Reported values are for pH of 7.0. Where field parameters (i.e. discrete samples) are not collected during the same storm event, the SWQS associated with a pH 7.0 will be used. 10) Methods: These parameters may be run using the following methods: VOCs, 624 or 8260; SVOCs, 625 or 8270; and PCB / Pesticides, 608/625 or 8081/8082 if the laboratory can pass QA with the method. 11) SWQSs reported for total xylenes. 12) Also known as p-nitrophenol. 13) SWQSs report as total endosulfan. 14) SWQSs reported as PCBs

Summary of Monitoring Data - Monitoring Station FF-ACES

Page 20 of 20


10.0 ASSESSMENT OF MONITORING DATA The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to: 1. Provide an evaluation of the sampling results for each monitoring location, including an assessment of any improvements or degradation of stormwater quality from each drainage area; 2. Compare the sampling results for each monitoring location with the applicable SWQSs; 3. Note any exceedance of SWQSs for the water of the United States receiving discharges during the reporting year; and, Additionally, the 2010 MS4 Permit provides that where monitoring data results show a recurring (more than once) exceedance of a SWQS at a monitoring location, the City shall investigate and make all reasonable efforts to identify potential source(s) of the pollutant(s) and to report this information in the annual report (see Section 4.2 and Section 8.3 of the 2010 MS4 Permit). Furthermore, in the fourth year annual report (due September 30, 2014), the City was to include a discussion of possible explanations for stormwater quality trends, including the implementation of stormwater management practices to reduce the discharge of pollutants to and from the storm sewer system. 10.1 SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SWQSs associated with the water of the United States that has a potential to receive discharges from each monitoring location is provided with the summary of monitoring data tables in Section 9.0. 10.2 EXCEEDANCES OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Exceedances of SWQSs for are identified in the summary of monitoring data tables in Section 9.0. Exceedances of established SWQSs are shaded in red. In some cases, the results were non-detection but the established method detection limits were reported above the SWQS. These are shaded in either orange for Aquatic & Wildlife SWQSs or green for Partial Body Contact SWQSs.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 10-1


10.3 STORMWATER QUALITY EVALUATION - BY LOCATION The evaluation of stormwater quality for each monitoring location is provided below. An overall evaluation of stormwater quality based on the pollutants detected above applicable SWQSs is provided in Section 10.4. 10.3.1 Station AS-US60 Analytical results indicate that concentrations of E. coli, copper, lead, and zinc were detected above the applicable SWQSs. E. coli results average 1,643 under the Most Probable Number (MPN) method with a standard deviation of 500. Copper results average of 65 parts per billion (ppb) with a standard deviation of 23. Lead results average 13 ppb with a standard deviation of 3. Zinc concentrations average 11 ppb with a standard deviation of 96. Concentrations of lead are consistent with the other sites, and the reason these exceed the SWQSs at this location is solely due to the fact that this site discharges to an effluent dependent water where the other sites discharge to an ephemeral water. Concentrations of copper at this location trend to be higher than the other locations and may be attributed to a denser population and a lower degree of on-site retention in the associated drainage area. The results do not appear to show a pattern for determining an improvement or degradation of stormwater quality. 10.3.2 Station SS-US60 Analytical results indicate that concentrations of E. coli and copper were detected above the applicable SWQSs. E. coli results average 3,560 MPN with a standard deviation of 3,169, indicating sporadic results. Copper results average of 32 ppb with a standard deviation of 7 indicating a strong consistency between sampling events. The results do not appear to show a pattern for determining an improvement or degradation of stormwater quality. 10.3.3 Station 54-EMF Analytical results indicate that concentrations of E. coli and copper were detected above the applicable SWQSs. E. coli results average 1,346 MPN with a standard deviation of 702. Copper results average of 30 ppb with a standard deviation of 7 indicating a strong consistency between sampling events. The results do not show a pattern for determining an improvement or degradation of stormwater quality.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 10-2


10.3.4 Station UN-EMF Analytical results indicate that concentrations of E. coli and copper were detected above the applicable SWQSs. E. coli results average 4,358 MPN with a standard deviation of 4,592, indicating sporadic results. Copper results average of 31 ppb with a standard deviation of 1 indicating a strong consistency between sampling events. The results do not show a pattern for determining an improvement or degradation of stormwater quality. 10.3.5 Station FF-ACES Analytical results indicate that concentrations of copper detected above the applicable SWQSs. Copper results average of 17 ppb with a standard deviation of 6 indicating a strong consistency between sampling events. The results do not show a pattern for determining an improvement or degradation of stormwater quality. 10.4 SWQS EXCEEDANCE INVESTIGATIONS When a reoccurring exceedance of a SWQS is identified, the City will conduct dryweather screening to visually inspect the outfall/FSP for flow (similar to that for an IDDE investigation). If flow is present, then the City would conduct a dry-weather investigation as described in the City’s Environmental Program Training Standard Operating Procedures which may include: •

Conducting a drainage area investigation;

Conducting a storm drain network investigation;

Conducting a subsurface investigation (e.g. video survey); or

Conducting additional monitoring.

If dry-weather flow is absent, or if the source of the flow is identified but determined not be a contributing source of the pollutant(s) exceeding the SWQS, the City will conduct a modified drainage area investigation which goes beyond looking for dry-weather flows. In order to address the metals and E. coli concentrations detected at sampling stations AS-US60, SS-US60, 54-EMF, and UN-EMF, the City conducted dry-weather screening

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 10-3


at each of the outfall/FSP locations. This investigation took place in May 2012. No dryweather flow was identified. The City also conducted a modified drainage area investigation of each of these drainage areas. In conducting these investigations, City personnel drove through the drainage area in order to identify potential sources of the pollutants of interest, including roadway frontages, alleyways, and streets. This also included creating an inventory of all commercial and industrial operations that exist in these areas and conducting a cursory inspection of these operations to determine if a point source could be linked to these operations. Based on the City’s drainage area investigation no point sources for metals or E. coli could be identified. The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to, where a source is identified that can be linked to a reoccurring exceedance of a SWQS, immediately either work to eliminate the source; or, modify existing control measures or implement additional control measures within the control of the City that may reduce a recurring discharge of the identified pollutant(s) to the maximum extent practicable in the area the exceedance has been identified. Since the City was unable to determine a source of these contaminates, no subsequent actions were taken by the City. Please note, for sampling station FF-ACES, this is installed in an interior location at the Falcon Field Airport. This facility is permitted under the ADEQ MSGP. As such, the “outfalls” at this facility are monitored for dry-weather flows annually, and an inspection of the facility is conducted annually to meet the requirements of the MSGP. As such, the City will not be conducting any additional investigations regarding SWQS exceedances for the purposes of this permit if/when and exceedance is identified.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 10-4


11.0 ESTIMATE OF POLLUTANT LOADING The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide an estimate of the pollutant loadings each year from the City’s MS4 to waters of the United States for the following constituents: •

Biological Oxygen Demand;

Chemical Oxygen Demand;

Total Suspended Solids;

Total Dissolved Solids;

Total Nitrogen;

Total Ammonia;

Total Organic Nitrogen;

Total Phosphorous; and,

Metals.

The 2010 MS4 Permit also requires the City to include a description of the procedures for estimating pollutant loads and concentrations, including any modeling, data analysis, and calculation methods and to compare the pollutant loadings estimated each year to previous estimates of pollutant loadings. 11.1 POLLUTANT LOADING MODELING, DATA ANALYSIS, AND CALCULATIONS To meet the conditions of the 1997 Phase I Permit conditions, the City developed a model to estimate total pollutants discharged from the City’s MS4 using the “simple method” as described in EPA’s “Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 2 of the NPDES Permit Applications for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.” As provided in the USEPA guidance, the regulation required system wide (cumulative) annual pollutant load calculation for each of the required pollutants, but that the single pollutant load values provide limited insights into potential problem areas and what BMPs might yield the best results. Consequently, the City decided to use the simple method to estimate “individual” pollutant loadings from drainage areas as referenced in the USEPA guidance. The individual pollutant loadings were then aggregated to derive a cumulative annual

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 11-1


pollutant loading for the entire MS4. The pollutant loading model developed by the City was managed in an Excel® format. The City contracted Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (EEC) to update the model by: •

Conducting an assessment of rainfall data;

Conducting an assessment of the drainage areas associated with each of the outfall and FSP locations;

Evaluating weighted average of runoff coefficient data associated with land uses;

Re-developing the City’s model to incorporate the results of the above studies; and,

Providing a report summarizing the steps taken in preforming these analyses.

In addition, EEC worked with the City in re-designing the Event Mean Concentration (EMC) table that was used in the 1997 Phase I Permit. 11.1.1 Event Mean Concentration Sampling data duirng the 2010 MS4 Permit (September 2010 through August 2015) will be used to calculate the EMC as provided in the equation below.

EMC =

Sum of Sampling Data Number of Data Points

The EMC table was modified to include parameters required in the 2010 MS4 Permit and to remove parameters that were previously modeled as part of the 1997 Phase I permit but were not required to be modeled in the 2010 MS4 Permit. 11.1.2 Rainfall Data Evaluation Rainfall data obtained from the FCDMC rain gages located within the City’s incorporated area were analyzed in two ways. 1. Using data from the last five years, excluding any rain events that exceeded the 100-year 2-hour storm event - estimated at 6.99 inches. City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 11-2


2. Using all available FCDMC data for the 12 rain gauges and did not exclude rain events exceeding the 100-year 2-hour storm event – estimated at 7.12 inches Due to highly variable rainfall events from year to year and the impact of particularly dry or wet years is greater in smaller datasets, EEC recommended using 7.12 inches of rainfall for the average annual rainfall in the pollutant loading model. 11.1.3 Drainage Area Runoff Volumes Drainage areas runoff volumes were determined or each outfall and FSP using the following formula.

V= Where: V= P= CF = WC = A=

P * CF * WC * A 12

Annual volume discharged from drainage area (acre-feet). Annual precipitation (7.12 inches/year, see Section 7.2.2). Correction factor that adjusts for storms where no runoff occurs (0.9 used per USEPA guidance). Weighted average runoff coefficient. Drainage area.

11.1.3.1 Drainage Area Evaluation EEC evaluated the drainage areas of approximately 170 outfall and FSP locations identified by the City. The drainage area evaluation included deliniating the drainage areas included topography, storm drain line, and flow direction arrow data that was provided to EEC in the form of GIS layers of the City’s storm sewer system. This evaluation also included the use of aerial photos along with best professional judgment used to make assumptions on the probable grading and drainage patterns. The total acreage of each drainage area was then estimated and new GIS layers illustrating each drainage area were created. The drainage area evaluation also included determining various land uses whithin each drainage area. The land use areas were determined using City GIS land use data and information from the City’s the Storm Drain Master Plan. The land uses were simplified

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 11-3


into eight categories corresponding to land uses including streets, residential, commercial, industrial, lawns/parks, hillside/mountain, desert, and agricultural. Streets within residential and large commercial and industiral areas were not separated out from the surronding land uses. The streets land use was generally limited to drainage areas that primarily drained only City streets. 11.1.3.2 Weighted Average Runoff Coefficient EEC reveiwed published runoff coefficients and recommended using those provided in the FCDMC hydrology manual for the purposes of the City’s pollutant loading model. EEC also recommended using the runoff coefficients as listed in the FCDMC Manual corresponding with the selected land uses for the 2-year storm event. The only exception to this was the ‘Residential’ coefficients, since the FCDMC runoff coefficients published for residential land use did not include adjacent streets. For these, the average between the 2 and 10 year events was used. Based on EEC’s evaluation and recommendations, the City’s pollutant loading model has incorporated the weighted average runoff coefficients as provided below. Land Use Residential (very low or low density) Residential (medium or high density) Commercial Industrial Lawn/Parks Desert Hillside / Moutain City Streets

Wighted Average Runoff Coefficients 0.41 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.18 0.37 0.48 0.75

11.1.4 Annual Pollutant Loading Estimate The City uses the following to calculate the annual loading. L = V * C * 0.00136 L= V= C=

Annual pollutant load (tons/year). Annual volume discharged (acre-feet). Pollutant Event Mean Concentration determined from the sampling program (mg/L).

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 11-4


0.00136 = Conversion factor The pollutant loading is calculated for each required constituent, and volume discharged was the sum of individual drainage areas that discharged stormwater to the Salt River or the EMF. A copy of the pollutant loading estimates for each parameter required to be modeled is attached to back of this section. 11.2 COMPARISON OF POLLUTANT LOADING ESTIMATES A comparison between the 2011-2012 reporting year and this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pollutant loading estimates indicate consistency in the total pollutant loads and does not show a pattern for determining an improvement or degradation of stormwater quality.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 11-5


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 11-6


Pollutant Loading Estimates FALSE

II

IV

Ultimate Receiving Water Pollutant

BOD5 COD High Level TDS TSS Total Nitrogen (Nitrite + Nitrate) as N Total Ammonia as N Total Kjeldal Nitrogen (TKN) as N Phosphorous Total Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryillum Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selinium Silver Thalium Zinc Total Pollutant Load (tons)

EMC (mg/l) 56.81 148.7 129.8 149 0.531 1.579 3.199 0.625 0.003 0.002 0.0750 0.0000 0.0003 0.006 0.0390 0.012 0.0000 0.008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1816

Annual Load To Salt River (tons) 177.23 463.9 404.9 465 1.657 4.926 9.980 1.950 0.009 0.005 0.2340 0.0000 0.0009 0.020 0.1217 0.037 0.0000 0.025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5665 1,530

Annual Load To EMF (tons) 102.27 267.7 233.7 268 0.956 2.842 5.759 1.125 0.005 0.003 0.1350 0.0000 0.0005 0.011 0.0702 0.021 0.0000 0.014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3269 883

I Total Annual Load (tons) 279.50 731.6 638.6 733 2.612 7.768 15.739 3.075 0.014 0.008 0.3690 0.0000 0.0015 0.031 0.1919 0.058 0.0000 0.039 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8934 2,413


(This page intentionally left blank)


12.0 ANNUAL EXPENDITURES The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide a brief statement of the expenditures incurred each reporting period (July 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; June 30) related exclusively to implementing and maintaining the stormwater management program, including associated monitoring and reporting activities. Additionally, the 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to provide the estimated budget for implementing and maintaining the stormwater program in the subsequent reporting period and to include a statement of the funding sources used to support program expenditures. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stormwater program during this reporting period was funded in part from an Environmental Fee that is assessed to City residents and businesses as part of their utility bills and the remaining was funded from the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s General Fund. An Annual Expenditure Report is included as an attachment to this Annual Report (see Section 13.9 and Attachment E).

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 12-1


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 12-2


13.0 ATTACHMENTS The 2010 MS4 Permit requires the City to attach the following to the Annual Reports: 1. Drainage system maps 2. List of major outfalls and field screening points 3. List of changes to the major outfalls and field screening points inventory (new, out of service, other changes), including drainage area and coordinates for the monitoring locations listed in Table 1 of the permit (4th year report) 4. Laboratory reports for stormwater monitoring performed in the reporting period 5. New or revised ordinances associated with stormwater management 6. New or revised public outreach documents Other attachments include: 1. Household hazardous waste reports; 2. Updated City facility inventory; and, 3. Annual expenditure reports. 13.1 DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAPS The City considers the exact location of its utility infrastructure to be confidential and for use by City personnel only. As such, the City cannot supply this information as an attachment to this document. The City would be able to supply this information to the ADEQ upon official request and only under a signed confidentiality agreement or provide a presentation of this information to the ADEQ upon request. 13.2 LISTING OF OUTFALLS & FIELD SCREENING POINTS No changes to the listing of outfalls and FSPs were made during this reporting period. See the Stormwater Annual Report for reporting period July 2012 – June 2013 for the most recent version of this information, so this information has not been supplied in this year’s report. 13.3 LIST OF CHANGES TO OUTFALL & FIELD SCREENING POINTS No changes to the listing of outfalls and FSPs were made during this reporting period. See the Stormwater Annual Report for reporting period July 2012 – June 2013 for the

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 13-1


most recent version of this information, so this information has not been supplied in this year’s report. 13.4 STORMWATER MONITORING ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS During this reporting period, the City collected a total of twenty (20) wet-weather stormwater samples for laboratory analysis. The analytical reports associated with those samples are included as Attachment A. These reports are arranged by Order ID/Sample Number. 13.5 NEW OR REVISED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES During this reporting period, the City Council approved revisions to City’s Stormwater Code through ordinance to include the adoption of the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa County – Erosion Control manual detailing best management practices and associated City amendments, which will apply to any stormwater best management practice (BMP) installed on all projects conducted by the City and under contract to the Engineering Department or another City department and/or any City property; including, public right-of-way areas (e.g. city owned and operated streets, catch basins, scuppers, etc.). A copy of the City’s revised Stormwater Code is provided in Attachment B. 13.6 NEW OR REVISED PUBLIC EDUCATION & OUTREACH DOCUMENTS Public education and outreach materials developed by the STORM organization are available at the STORM website at the following addresses: http://www.azstorm.org/brochures/ http://www.azstorm.org/storm-drain-dan/ http://www.azstorm.org/other-fun-stuff/ During this reporting period, the City revised their stormwater webpage to include the development of fact sheets as provided in Section 3.3.1. This included the development of a website and brochure that addresses pool water discharges and fact sheets addressing residential car washing activities and landscape irrigation runoff. The City also developed an Environmental Requirements for Construction Activities webpage which includes links to the “Environmental Requirements for Construction Activities in the City of Mesa” manual, a link to the Flood Control District of Maricopa County,

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 13-2


Drainage Design Manual, Erosion Control manual dated November 28, 2012 and adopted through ordinance by the City for use on City construction projects and private construction projects for construction activities occurring in the public right-of-way, and a fact sheet addressing street wash water runoff. The website addresses for access to these documents are provided below. •

Pool, landscape, and residential car wash water : http://www.mesaaz.gov/environ/I_can_help.aspx

Environmental Requirements for Construction webpage: http://www.mesaaz.gov/environ/construction.aspx

discharge

webpage Activities

13.7 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE EVENT REPORTS Reports for the four HHW events conducted this reporting period are provided in Attachment C. 13.8 UPDATED CITY FACILITY INVENTORY During this reporting period, the City completed the stormwater evaluation of the identified City facilities. A copy of tables providing information on the risk of pollutant discharges from City facilities is provided on the City Facility Stormwater Evaluation and City Basins and Dual Use Parks tables in Attachment D. 13.9 ANNUAL EXPENDITURE REPORTS Expenditures associated with the City’s stormwater management program for the current reporting year and the estimated expenditures for the subsequent reporting year are provided in Attachment E.

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 13-3


(This page intentionally left blank)

City of Mesa, Storm Water Annual Report

Page 13-4


ATTACHMENT A WET-WEATHER SAMPLING LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS


(This page intentionally left blank)


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 120522006 Collection Date: 7/28/2012 Collection Time: 6:55:00 PM Collector: P. Shinaberry

Receive Date: 7/28/2012 Customer Sample#: Project ID: 54 Discrete-Full Site: 54th St @ EMF

Sample Number: 12050385

RESULTS Parameter

Analysis Date

Analyst

< 0.001 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

0.004

< 0.004 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

< 0.02 mg/L

8/7/2012

PSERIA

1553.1 mpn/100ml < 5 mg/L

7/28/2012 7/31/2012

mrexing NSILIDE

Method No

MRL

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

EPA624TAL

0.001

Acrolein

EPA624TAL

Acrylonitrile

EPA624TAL

0.02

Qualifier

Result

Cyanide, Total

SM4500-CN E

E. Coli, MPN Oil and Grease

SM9223B EPA 1664A

2.2 5

Petroleum Hyrodcarbons, Total

EPA 1664A

10

< 10 mg/L

8/7/2012

TAL

pH-Field

SM4500H B

1

7.04 S.U.

7/28/2012

PSHINAB

SM2550B

1

29.5 째C

7/28/2012

PSHINAB

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012 8/5/2012

TAL TAL

1,1-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

1,1-Dichloroethylene

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012 8/5/2012

TAL TAL

1,2-Dichloropropane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichloropropene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Benzene Bromodichloromethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012 8/5/2012

TAL TAL

Bromoform

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Carbon Tetrachloride

EPA624(8260)

0.0025

< 0.0025 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Chlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Chlorodibromomethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Chloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Temperature-Field

EPA624(8260)

Page 1 of 3


Chloroform

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Ethyl Benzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Methyl Bromide

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Methyl Chloride Methylene chloride

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.005 0.005

< 0.005 mg/L < 0.005 mg/L

8/5/2012 8/5/2012

TAL TAL

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Toluene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

8/5/2012

TAL

Vinyl Chloride Xylene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.01

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.01 mg/L

8/5/2012 8/5/2012

TAL TAL

EPA624(8260)

Quality Control QC BATCH

mg/L

BLANK Parameter Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

QC12073103

Standard Parameter Cyanide, Total

Actual Conc.

Standard Conc.

%REC

QC BATCH

mg/L 0.2587

mg/L 0.25

103

QC12080802

ICV

Cyanide, Total

0.2475

0.25

99

QC12080802

CCV

Oil and Grease SPIKE RESULTS Parameter

40

90

Spike True Value

Final Result

%REC

mg/L 0.25

mg/L 0.2513

40

36.5

0.25

0.2476

99

36.1 Sample Conc.

Cyanide, Total

mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

Cyanide, Total

< 0.02 mg/L

QC12073103 %RPD

QC TYPE

LCS Sample Number

QC BATCH

100

11110353

QC12080802

MS

91

11110353

QC12073103

MS

11110353

QC12080802

MSD

1.48

QUALIFIERS

COMMENTS

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 2 of 3

Date Signed: 11/7/2012


Page 3 of 3


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 120522008 Collection Date: 7/12/2012 Collection Time: 12:45:00 AM Collector: P. Shinaberry

Receive Date: 7/12/2012 Customer Sample#: Project ID: Alma Comp-Full Site: Alma School/ADOT Channel

Sample Number: 12050387

RESULTS Parameter

Result

Analysis Date

Analyst

4.11 mg/L

7/12/2012

PSERIA

2.84 mg/L

7/18/2012

JPATTIS

111 mg/L

7/12/2012

PSERIA

7/16/2012

NSILIDE

7/17/2012 7/20/2012

PSERIA TAL

Method No

MRL

SM4500-NH3D

1

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total

EPA 300.0

0.2

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

SM5210B

2 50

163 mg/L CaCO3 0.012 mg/L 0.004 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

Qualifier

D1

Chemical Oxygen Demand

SM5220D

Hardness, Total Antimony, Total

SM2340C EPA 200.8

1 0.003

Arsenic, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

Barium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.150 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Beryllium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Cadmium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Chromium, Total Copper, Total

EPA 200.8 EPA 200.8

0.001 0.001

0.007 mg/L 0.100 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

Lead, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.013 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Nickel, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.017 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Selenium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Silver, Total Thallium, Total

EPA 200.8 EPA 200.8

0.001 0.001

< 0.001 mg/L < 0.001 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

Zinc, Total

EPA 200.8

0.01

0.440 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Mercury, Total

EPA245.1

0.0002

< 0.0002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

501 mg/L

SM4500-Norg

1

9.40 mg/L

7/28/2012

TAL

Orthophosphate

EPA 300.0

0.2

1.10 mg/L

7/13/2012

TAL

Phosphorus, Total Solids, Suspended Total

EPA365.3 SM2540D

0.25 10

0.98 mg/L 228 mg/L

7/25/2012 7/12/2012

PSERIA NSILIDE

Solids, Total Dissolved

SM2540C

20

580 mg/L

7/17/2012

NSILIDE

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

Page 1 of 4


Quality Control QC BATCH

mg/L

BLANK Parameter Nitrogen, Ammonia Total Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total Biochemical Oxygen Demand Hardness, Total

< 1 mg/L

QC12071204

< 0.2 mg/L

QC12072002

< 2 mg/L QC12071803 < 1 mg/L CaC QC12071703

Phosphorus, Total

< 0.25 mg/L QC12072601

Solids, Suspended Total

< 10 mg/L

QC12071205

Standard Parameter Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

Actual Conc.

Standard Conc.

%REC

QC BATCH

mg/L 0.520

mg/L 0.5

QC TYPE

104

QC12071204

ICV

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total Chloride

0.509 5.235

0.5 5

102 105

QC12071204 QC12072002

CCV LFB

Chloride

4.886

5

98

QC12072002

ICV

Chloride

5.117

5

102

QC12072002

CCV

Fluoride

1.085

1

109

QC12072002

LFB

Fluoride

1.004

1

100

QC12072002

ICV

Fluoride

1.053

1

105

QC12072002

CCV

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total Nitrogen, Nitrate Total

1.041 0.970

1 1

104 97

QC12072002 QC12072002

LFB ICV

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total

1.008

1

101

QC12072002

CCV

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total

1.095

1

110

QC12072002

LFB

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total

1.005

1

101

QC12072002

ICV

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total

1.045

1

105

QC12072002

CCV

Sulfate

21.200

20

106

QC12072002

LFB

Sulfate Sulfate

19.593 21.038

20 20

98 105

QC12072002 QC12072002

ICV CCV

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

170

198

86

QC12071803

LCS

Chemical Oxygen Demand

493

500

99

QC12071605

ICV

Chemical Oxygen Demand

494

500

99

QC12071605

CCV LCS

Hardness, Total

102

100

102

QC12071703

Phosphorus, Total

0.5007

0.5

100

QC12072601

ICV

Phosphorus, Total Solids, Suspended Total

0.5191 184

0.5 200

104 92

QC12072601 QC12071205

CCV LCS

QC12071901

LCS

Solids, Total Dissolved

501

495

101

Duplicate Parameter Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Actual Conc.

Duplicate Conc.

%RPD

Sample Number

mg/L 232 mg/L

mg/L 253

8.66

12070276

QC12071803

< 3.2 mg/L

0.836

3.64

12050383

QC12072002

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total Solids, Suspended Total SPIKE RESULTS Parameter Hardness, Total Nitrogen, Ammonia Total Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total Phosphorus, Total Hardness, Total

2320 mg/L

2240

3.51

Sample Conc.

Spike True Value

Final Result

mg/L 25.0 mg/L CaC

mg/L 50

mg/L 77.1

0.5

0.598

20

19.898

0.5 50

2.106 77.7

< 0.1 mg/L < 3.2 mg/L < 6.25 mg/L 25.0 mg/L CaC

12070266

QC12071205 Sample Number

QC BATCH

104

12050383

QC12071703

MS

104

12070394

QC12071204

MS

95

12050383

QC12072002

MS

80 105

0.78

12050383 12050383

QC12072601 QC12071703

MS MSD

%REC

%RPD

QC BATCH

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

< 0.1 mg/L

0.5

0.616

108

2.97

12070394

QC12071204

MSD

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total

< 3.2 mg/L

20

18.458

88

7.51

12050383

QC12072002

MSD

Phosphorus, Total

< 6.25 mg/L

0.5

2.102

79

0.19

12050383

QC12072601

MSD

QUALIFIERS Page 2 of 4


D1

Sample diluted due to matrix interference.

COMMENTS D2 = Sample diluted due to high concentration of target analyte. M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low, associated blank spike was acceptable. KC TDS QC Duplicates resulted in 5.3% RPD, which is acceptable per laboratory/ADHS policy. See raw data for details. KC 8/15/12

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 3 of 4

Date Signed: 8/15/2012


Page 4 of 4


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 120522010 Collection Date: 7/12/2012 Collection Time: 2:10:00 AM Collector: C. Schaumburg

Receive Date: 7/12/2012 Customer Sample#: 2012-AS-S-01D Project ID: Alma Discrete-Full

Sample Number: 12050389

Site: Alma School/ADOT Channel RESULTS

Analysis Date

Analyst

< 0.001 mg/L

7/13/2012

TAL

0.015

< 0.015 mg/L

7/13/2012

TAL

0.017

< 0.017 mg/L

7/13/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

EPA 1664A

2.2 5

>2419 mpn/100ml < 5 mg/L

7/12/2012 7/24/2012

NSILIDE NSILIDE

Petroleum Hyrodcarbons, Total

EPA 1664A

10

< 10 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

pH-Field

SM4500H B

1

7.48 S.U.

7/12/2012 CSCHAUMB

SM2550B

1

30.3 째C

7/12/2012 CSCHAUMB

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

1,1-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

1,1-Dichloroethylene

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

1,2-Dichloropropane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichloropropene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Benzene Bromodichloromethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

Bromoform

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Carbon Tetrachloride

EPA624(8260)

0.0025

< 0.0025 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Chlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Chlorodibromomethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Chloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Parameter

Method No

MRL

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

EPA624TAL

0.001

Acrolein

EPA624TAL

Acrylonitrile

EPA624TAL

Cyanide, Total

SM4500-CN E

E. Coli, MPN Oil and Grease

SM9223B

Temperature-Field

EPA624(8260)

Page 1 of 3

Qualifier

Result


Chloroform

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Ethyl Benzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Methyl Bromide

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Methyl Chloride Methylene chloride

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.005 0.005

< 0.005 mg/L < 0.005 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Toluene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Vinyl Chloride Xylene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.01

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.01 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

EPA624(8260)

Quality Control

Standard Parameter Oil and Grease SPIKE RESULTS Parameter Oil and Grease

QC BATCH

mg/L

BLANK Parameter Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

QC12072404

Actual Conc.

Standard Conc.

%REC

mg/L 34.1

mg/L 40

85

Sample Conc. mg/L < 5 mg/L

QC BATCH QC12072404

Spike True Value

Final Result

%REC

mg/L 40

mg/L 36.1

82

%RPD

QC TYPE LCS Sample Number

QC BATCH

12050397

QC12072404

QUALIFIERS

COMMENTS

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 2 of 3

Date Signed: 11/27/2012

MS


Page 3 of 3


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 120522012 Collection Date: 7/14/2012 Collection Time: 4:53:00 PM Collector: P. Shinaberry

Receive Date: 7/16/2012 Customer Sample#: 2012-FF-S-01C Project ID: FF Comp-Full

Sample Number: 12050391

Site: Falcon Field RESULTS

Parameter Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

Method No

MRL

Qualifier

Result

Analysis Date

Analyst

SM4500-NH3D

0.5

D2

1.28 mg/L

7/26/2012

PSERIA

D1

0.42 mg/L

7/18/2012

JPATTIS

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

EPA 300.0

0.4

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

EPA625TAL

0.02

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine

EPA625TAL

0.0022

< 0.0022 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol

EPA625TAL EPA625TAL

0.02 0.02

< 0.02 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

2,4-Dimethylphenol

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

2,4-Dinitrophenol

EPA625TAL

0.1

< 0.1 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

2,4-Dinitrotoluene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

2,6-Dinitrotoluene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

2-Chlorophenol 2-Nitrophenol

EPA625TAL EPA625TAL

0.02 0.03

< 0.02 mg/L < 0.03 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

3,3-Dichlorobenzidine

EPA625TAL

0.0029

< 0.0029 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

EPA625TAL

0.1

< 0.1 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

4-Nitrophenol

EPA625TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene

EPA625TAL EPA625TAL

0.02 0.02

< 0.02 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

Anthracene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Diethyl phthalate

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Dimethyl phthalate

EPA625TAL

0.04

< 0.04 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Di-n-butylphthalate

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Di-n-octyl phthalate Flouranthene

EPA625TAL EPA625TAL

0.02 0.02

< 0.02 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

Flourene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Hexachlorobenzene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Hexachlorobutadiene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Hexachloroethane

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total

Page 1 of 5


Isophorone

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Naphthalene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Nitrobenzene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

n-Nitrosodimethylamine n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine

EPA625TAL EPA625TAL

0.02 0.02

< 0.02 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

p-Chloro-m-cresol

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Pentachlorophenol

EPA625TAL

0.1

< 0.1 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Phenanthrene

EPA625TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012

TAL

Phenol Pyrene

EPA625TAL

0.02 0.02

< 0.02 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

7/20/2012 7/20/2012

TAL TAL

EPA625TAL

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

SM5210B

2

7.00 mg/L

7/21/2012

PSERIA

Chemical Oxygen Demand

SM5220D

50

120 mg/L

7/17/2012

NSILIDE

Hardness, Total

SM2340C

1

24.0 mg/L CaCO3

7/17/2012

PSERIA

Antimony, Total

EPA 200.8

0.003

< 0.003 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Arsenic, Total Barium, Total

EPA 200.8 EPA 200.8

0.001 0.001

0.002 mg/L 0.076 mg/L

9/18/2012 9/18/2012

TAL TAL

Beryllium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Cadmium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.002 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Chromium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.008 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Copper, Total Lead, Total

EPA 200.8 EPA 200.8

0.001 0.001

0.023 mg/L 0.023 mg/L

9/18/2012 9/18/2012

TAL TAL

Nickel, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.009 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Selenium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Silver, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Thallium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

9/18/2012

TAL

Zinc, Total Mercury, Total

EPA 200.8 EPA245.1

0.01 0.0002

0.190 mg/L < 0.0002 mg/L

9/18/2012 7/24/2012

TAL TAL

SM4500-Norg

0.5

1.30 mg/L

8/6/2012

TAL

4,4'-DDD

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

4,4'-DDE

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

4,4'-DDT Aldrin

EPA608TAL EPA608TAL

0.001 0.001

< 0.001 mg/L < 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012 7/25/2012

TAL TAL

alpha-BHC

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Aroclor 1016

EPA608TAL

0.0033

< 0.0033 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Aroclor 1221

EPA608TAL

0.004

< 0.004 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Aroclor 1232

EPA608TAL

0.0068

< 0.0068 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1248

EPA608TAL EPA608TAL

0.009 0.0035

< 0.009 mg/L < 0.0035 mg/L

7/25/2012 7/25/2012

TAL TAL

Aroclor 1254

EPA608TAL

0.0056

< 0.0056 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Aroclor 1260

EPA608TAL

0.0029

< 0.0029 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

beta-BHC

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Chlordane

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

delta-BHC

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

Page 2 of 5


Dieldrin

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Endosulfan I (Alpha)

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Endosulfan II (Beta)

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Endosulfan sulfate Endrin

EPA608TAL EPA608TAL

0.001 0.00014

< 0.001 mg/L < 0.00014 mg/L

7/25/2012 7/25/2012

TAL TAL

Endrin aldehyde

EPA608TAL

0.00018

< 0.00018 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Heptachlor

EPA608TAL

0.00028

< 0.00028 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Heptachlor epoxide

EPA608TAL

0.00013

< 0.00013 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Lindane

EPA608TAL

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

7/25/2012

TAL

Toxaphene Orthophosphate

EPA608TAL EPA 300.0

0.0016 0.2

< 0.0016 mg/L < 0.2 mg/L

7/25/2012 7/16/2012

TAL TAL

Benzo (a) pyrene

EPA 8310

0.00005

< 0.00005 mg/L

7/27/2012

TAL

Benzo(a)anthracene

EPA 8310

0.0002

< 0.0002 mg/L

7/27/2012

TAL

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

EPA 8310

0.0001

< 0.0001 mg/L

7/27/2012

TAL

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

EPA 8310

0.0001

< 0.0001 mg/L

7/27/2012

TAL

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene

EPA 8310 EPA 8310

0.00005 0.0001

< 0.00005 mg/L < 0.0001 mg/L

7/27/2012 7/27/2012

TAL TAL

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

EPA 8310

0.0001

< 0.0001 mg/L

7/27/2012

TAL

Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

EPA 8310

0.0001

< 0.0001 mg/L

7/27/2012

TAL

Phosphorus, Total

EPA365.3

0.25

0.41 mg/L

7/25/2012

PSERIA

Solids, Suspended Total Solids, Total Dissolved

SM2540D

10 20

204 mg/L 50.0 mg/L

7/17/2012 7/17/2012

NSILIDE NSILIDE

SM2540C

Quality Control QC BATCH

mg/L

BLANK Parameter Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

< 0.5 mg/L

QC12072602

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total

< 0.4 mg/L

QC12072002

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Chemical Oxygen Demand

< 2 mg/L < 50 mg/L

QC12072201 QC12071702

Hardness, Total Phosphorus, Total

< 1 mg/L CaC QC12071703 < 0.25 mg/L QC12072601

Solids, Suspended Total

< 10 mg/L

QC12071805

Standard Parameter

Actual Conc. mg/L

Standard Conc. mg/L

%REC

QC BATCH

QC TYPE

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

0.507 0.510

0.5 0.5

101 102

QC12072602 QC12072602

ICV CCV

Chloride

5.235

5

105

QC12072002

LFB

Chloride

4.886

5

98

QC12072002

ICV

Chloride

5.117

5

102

QC12072002

CCV

Fluoride

1.085

1

109

QC12072002

LFB

Fluoride

1.004

1

100

QC12072002

ICV

Fluoride Nitrogen, Nitrate Total

1.053 1.041

1 1

105 104

QC12072002 QC12072002

CCV LFB

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total

0.970

1

97

QC12072002

ICV

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total

1.008

1

101

QC12072002

CCV

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total

1.095

1

110

QC12072002

LFB

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total

1.005

1

101

QC12072002

ICV

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total

1.045

1

105

QC12072002

CCV

Sulfate

21.200

20

106 Page 3 of 5

QC12072002

LFB


Sulfate

19.593

20

98

QC12072002

ICV

Sulfate

21.038

20

105

QC12072002

CCV

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

180

198

91

QC12072201

LCS

Chemical Oxygen Demand

495

500

99

QC12071702

ICV

Chemical Oxygen Demand

505

500

101

QC12071702

CCV

Hardness, Total

102

100

102

QC12071703

LCS

Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus, Total

0.5007 0.5191

0.5 0.5

100 104

QC12072601 QC12072601

ICV CCV

Solids, Suspended Total

190

200

95

QC12071805

LCS

Solids, Total Dissolved

501

495

101

QC12071901

LCS

Duplicate Parameter Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Actual Conc.

Duplicate Conc.

%RPD

Sample Number

QC BATCH

mg/L 14.0 mg/L

mg/L 14

0.00

12050383

QC12072201

< 3.2 mg/L 219 mg/L

0.836 221

3.64 0.91

12050383 12050383

QC12072002 QC12071805

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total Solids, Suspended Total SPIKE RESULTS Parameter Chemical Oxygen Demand Hardness, Total

Sample Conc. mg/L 443 mg/L < 0.1 mg/L < 3.2 mg/L

Phosphorus, Total

< 6.25 mg/L

Chemical Oxygen Demand Hardness, Total

443 mg/L

Sample Number

QC BATCH

95

12070286

QC12071702

MS

104

12050383

QC12071703

MS

12070667 12050383

QC12072602 QC12072002

MS MS

12050383

QC12072601

MS

12070286

QC12071702

MSD

Final Result

mg/L 1000

mg/L 1397

50

77.1

0.5 20

0.603 19.898

106 95

0.5

2.106

80

1000

1394

95

0.21

25.0 mg/L CaC

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total

%RPD

Spike True Value

25.0 mg/L CaC

%REC

50

77.7

105

0.78

12050383

QC12071703

MSD

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

< 0.1 mg/L

0.5

0.638

113

5.64

12070667

QC12072602

MSD

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total

< 3.2 mg/L

20

18.458

88

7.51

12050383

QC12072002

MSD

Phosphorus, Total

< 6.25 mg/L

0.5

2.102

79

0.19

12050383

QC12072601

MSD

QUALIFIERS D1

Sample diluted due to matrix interference.

D2

Sample diluted due to high concentration.

COMMENTS TDS QC Duplicates resulted in 5.3% RPD, which is acceptable per laboratory/ADHS policy. See raw data for details. KC 8/15/12

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 4 of 5

Date Signed: 10/18/2012


Page 5 of 5


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 120522014 Collection Date: 7/21/2012 Collection Time: 6:25:00 PM Collector: C. Schaumburg

Receive Date: 7/21/2012 Customer Sample#: 2012-FF-S-01D Project ID: FF Discrete-Full

Sample Number: 12050393

Site: Falcon Field RESULTS

Parameter

Analysis Date

Analyst

< 0.005 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/24/2012

PSERIA

344.8 mpn/100ml < 5 mg/L

7/21/2012 7/25/2012

mrexing NSILIDE TAL

Method No

MRL

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

EPA624TAL

0.005

Acrolein

EPA624TAL

Acrylonitrile

EPA624TAL

Qualifier

Result

Cyanide, Total

SM4500-CN E

E. Coli, MPN Oil and Grease

SM9223B EPA 1664A

220 5

Petroleum Hyrodcarbons, Total

EPA 1664A

10

< 10 mg/L

7/31/2012

pH-Field

SM4500H B

1

8.51 S.U.

7/21/2012 CSCHAUM

SM2550B

1

28.5 째C

7/21/2012 CSCHAUM

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012 7/30/2012

TAL TAL

1,1-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

1,1-Dichloroethylene

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012 7/30/2012

TAL TAL

1,2-Dichloropropane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichloropropene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Benzene Bromodichloromethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012 7/30/2012

TAL TAL

Bromoform

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Carbon Tetrachloride

EPA624(8260)

0.0025

< 0.0025 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Chlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Chlorodibromomethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Chloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Temperature-Field

EPA624(8260)

Page 1 of 3


Chloroform

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Ethyl Benzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Methyl Bromide

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Methyl Chloride Methylene chloride

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.005 0.005

< 0.005 mg/L < 0.005 mg/L

7/30/2012 7/30/2012

TAL TAL

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Toluene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/30/2012

TAL

Vinyl Chloride Xylene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.01

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.01 mg/L

7/30/2012 7/30/2012

TAL TAL

EPA624(8260)

Quality Control BLANK Parameter Cyanide, Total

QC BATCH

mg/L

< 0.02 mg/L QC12072501

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

QC12072503

Standard Parameter Cyanide, Total

Actual Conc.

Standard Conc.

%REC

QC BATCH

mg/L .2519

mg/L 0.25

101

QC12072501

ICV

Cyanide, Total

.2500

0.25

100

QC12072501

CCV

Oil and Grease SPIKE RESULTS Parameter

40

97

Spike True Value

Final Result

mg/L 0.25

mg/L .2458

40

37.9

0.25

.2440

93

38.8 Sample Conc.

Cyanide, Total

mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

Cyanide, Total

< 0.02 mg/L

QC12072503

LCS Sample Number

QC BATCH

93

12050393

QC12072501

MS

87

12060257

QC12072503

MS

12050393

QC12072501

MSD

%REC

%RPD

QC TYPE

0.73

QUALIFIERS

COMMENTS AC&AC: CCV used in lieu of LCS for validation. See TAL final report for detail.

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 2 of 3

Date Signed: 11/7/2012


Page 3 of 3


(This page intentionally left blank)


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 120522018 Collection Date: 7/21/2012 Collection Time: 7:27:00 PM Collector: C. Schaumburg

Receive Date: 7/21/2012 Customer Sample#: 2012-SS-S-01D Project ID: SS Discrete-Full

Sample Number: 12050397

Site: Superstition Springs/US 60 RESULTS

Parameter

Analysis Date

Analyst

< 0.005 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/24/2012

PSERIA

2419.2 mpn/100ml < 5 mg/L

7/21/2012 7/24/2012

mrexing NSILIDE TAL

Method No

MRL

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

EPA624TAL

0.005

Acrolein

EPA624TAL

Acrylonitrile

EPA624TAL

Qualifier

Result

Cyanide, Total

SM4500-CN E

E. Coli, MPN Oil and Grease

SM9223B EPA 1664A

220 5

Petroleum Hyrodcarbons, Total

EPA 1664A

10

< 10 mg/L

7/31/2012

pH-Field

SM4500H B

1

7.23 S.U.

7/21/2012 CSCHAUM

SM2550B

1

30.0 째C

7/21/2012 CSCHAUM

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

1,1-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,1-Dichloroethylene

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

1,2-Dichloropropane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichloropropene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Benzene Bromodichloromethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

Bromoform

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Carbon Tetrachloride

EPA624(8260)

0.0025

< 0.0025 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Chlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Chlorodibromomethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Chloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Temperature-Field

EPA624(8260)

Page 1 of 3


Chloroform

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Ethyl Benzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Methyl Bromide

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Methyl Chloride Methylene chloride

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.005 0.005

< 0.005 mg/L < 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Toluene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Vinyl Chloride Xylene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.01

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.01 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

EPA624(8260)

Quality Control BLANK Parameter Cyanide, Total

QC BATCH

mg/L

< 0.02 mg/L QC12072501

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

QC12072404

Standard Parameter Cyanide, Total

Actual Conc.

Standard Conc.

%REC

QC BATCH

mg/L .2519

mg/L 0.25

101

QC12072501

ICV

Cyanide, Total

.2500

0.25

100

QC12072501

CCV

Oil and Grease SPIKE RESULTS Parameter

40

85

Spike True Value

Final Result

mg/L 0.25

mg/L .2458

40

36.1

0.25

.2440

93

34.1 Sample Conc.

Cyanide, Total

mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

Cyanide, Total

< 0.02 mg/L

QC TYPE

QC12072404

LCS Sample Number

QC BATCH

93

12050393

QC12072501

MS

82

12050397

QC12072404

MS

12050393

QC12072501

MSD

%REC

%RPD

0.73

QUALIFIERS

COMMENTS AC&AC: CCV results were used in lieu of the LCS for validation. See final TAL report for detail.

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 2 of 3

Date Signed: 11/6/2012


Page 3 of 3


(This page intentionally left blank)


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 120522022 Collection Date: 7/21/2012 Collection Time: 6:57:00 PM Collector: C. Schaumburg Sample Number: 12050401

Receive Date: 7/21/2012 Customer Sample#: Project ID: Univ Discrete-Full Site: Univ Dr @ EMF RESULTS

Parameter

Analysis Date

Analyst

< 0.005 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.05

< 0.05 mg/L

7/24/2012

TAL

0.02

< 0.02 mg/L

7/24/2012

PSERIA

1732.9 mpn/100ml 19.1 mg/L

7/21/2012 7/25/2012

mrexing NSILIDE TAL

Method No

MRL

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

EPA624TAL

0.005

Acrolein

EPA624TAL

Acrylonitrile

EPA624TAL

Qualifier

Result

Cyanide, Total

SM4500-CN E

E. Coli, MPN Oil and Grease

SM9223B EPA 1664A

220 5

Petroleum Hyrodcarbons, Total

EPA 1664A

10

< 10 mg/L

7/31/2012

pH-Field

SM4500H B

1

7.60 S.U.

7/21/2012 CSCHAUM

SM2550B

1

31.0 째C

7/21/2012 CSCHAUM

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

1,1-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,1-Dichloroethylene

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

1,2-Dichloropropane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,3-Dichloropropene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Benzene Bromodichloromethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.002

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

Bromoform

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Carbon Tetrachloride

EPA624(8260)

0.0025

< 0.0025 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Chlorobenzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Chlorodibromomethane

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Chloroethane

EPA624(8260)

0.005

< 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Temperature-Field

EPA624(8260)

Page 1 of 3


Chloroform

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Ethyl Benzene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Methyl Bromide

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Methyl Chloride Methylene chloride

EPA624(8260) EPA624(8260)

0.005 0.005

< 0.005 mg/L < 0.005 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Toluene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

EPA624(8260)

0.002

< 0.002 mg/L

7/31/2012

TAL

Vinyl Chloride Xylene, Total

EPA624(8260)

0.002 0.01

< 0.002 mg/L < 0.01 mg/L

7/31/2012 7/31/2012

TAL TAL

EPA624(8260)

Quality Control BLANK Parameter Cyanide, Total

QC BATCH

mg/L

< 0.02 mg/L QC12072501

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

QC12072503

Standard Parameter Cyanide, Total

Actual Conc.

Standard Conc.

%REC

QC BATCH

mg/L .2519

mg/L 0.25

101

QC12072501

ICV

Cyanide, Total

.2500

0.25

100

QC12072501

CCV

Oil and Grease SPIKE RESULTS Parameter

40

97

Spike True Value

Final Result

mg/L 0.25

mg/L .2458

40

37.9

0.25

.2440

93

38.8 Sample Conc.

Cyanide, Total

mg/L < 0.02 mg/L

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

Cyanide, Total

< 0.02 mg/L

QC12072503

LCS Sample Number

QC BATCH

93

12050393

QC12072501

MS

87

12060257

QC12072503

MS

12050393

QC12072501

MSD

%REC

%RPD

QC TYPE

0.73

QUALIFIERS

COMMENTS AC&AC: CCV used in lieu of LCS for validation. See final TAL report for detail.

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 2 of 3

Date Signed: 11/7/2012


Page 3 of 3


(This page intentionally left blank)


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 121025004 Collection Date: 12/14/2012 Collection Time: 1:37:00 AM

Receive Date: 12/14/2012 Customer Sample#:

Collector: AC Sample Number: 12100753

Project ID: 54 Comp-Partial Site: 54th St @ EMF RESULTS

Parameter

Result

Analysis Date

Analyst

1.00 mg/L

12/19/2012

PSERIA

< 2.00 mg/L

12/22/2012

TAL

20.1 mg/L

12/15/2012

NS/KH

105 mg/L

12/17/2012

NSILIDE

Method No

MRL

Qualifier

SM4500-NH3D

0.5

D2

EPA 300.0

2

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

SM5210B

2

Chemical Oxygen Demand

SM5220D

50

Hardness, Total

SM2340C

1

Antimony, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Arsenic, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Barium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.047 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Beryllium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Cadmium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Chromium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.004 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Copper, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.019 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Lead, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.007 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Nickel, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.005 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Selenium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Silver, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Thallium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

L4

< 0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Zinc, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

B1

0.088 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

< 0.00020 mg/L

12/24/2012

TAL PSERIA

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Total

30.0 mg/L CaCO3 12/17/2012

B1/L3

L3

NSILIDE

EPA245.1

0.0002

SM4500-Norg

0.5

2.90 mg/L

12/19/2012

Orthophosphate

EPA 300.0

0.2

0.23 mg/L

12/14/2012

TAL

Phosphorus, Total

EPA365.3

0.2

0.58 mg/L

12/18/2012

PSERIA

Solids, Suspended Total

SM2540D

10

118 mg/L

12/17/2012

NSILIDE

Solids, Total Dissolved

SM2540C

20

53.0 mg/L

12/17/2012

NSILIDE

Mercury, Total Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

R1

Quality Control

Page 1 of 5


Quality Control mg/L

BLANK Parameter

QC BATCH

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

< 0.5 mg/L

QC12121905

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

< 2 mg/L

QC12122009

Chemical Oxygen Demand

< 50 mg/L

QC12121707

Hardness, Total Antimony, Total Arsenic, Total

Barium, Total Beryllium, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Lead, Total

Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Thallium, Total

QC12121705 < 1 mg/L CaCO3 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 0.002 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502

< 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.001 mg/L QC13020502 0.002 mg/L QC13020502 < 0.5 mg/L QC12121906

Zinc, Total Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

Phosphorus, Total Solids, Suspended Total Standard Parameter

< 0.2 mg/L

QC12121803

< 10 mg/L QC12121704 Actual Conc. Standard Conc. %REC

QC BATCH

QC TYPE

mg/L

mg/L

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

0.494

0.5

99

QC12121905

ICV

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

0.480

0.5

96

QC12121905

CCV

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

175

198

88

QC12122009

LCS

Chemical Oxygen Demand

493

500

99

QC12121707

ICV

Chemical Oxygen Demand

504

500

101

QC12121707

CCV

Hardness, Total

100.04

100

100

QC12121705

LCS

Antimony, Total

0.05520

0.05

110

QC13020502

LFB

Antimony, Total

0.01099

0.01

110

QC13020502

ICV

Antimony, Total

0.05091

0.05

102

QC13020502

CCV

Arsenic, Total

0.05227

0.05

105

QC13020502

LFB

Arsenic, Total

0.00966

0.01

97

QC13020502

ICV

Arsenic, Total

0.04907

0.05

98

QC13020502

CCV

Barium, Total

0.05323

0.05

106

QC13020502

LFB

Barium, Total

0.01066

0.01

107

QC13020502

ICV

Barium, Total

0.05032

0.05

101

QC13020502

CCV

Beryllium, Total

0.06075

0.05

122

QC13020502

LFB

Beryllium, Total

0.01062

0.01

106

QC13020502

ICV

Beryllium, Total

0.05147

0.05

103

QC13020502

CCV

Cadmium, Total

0.05218

0.05

104

QC13020502

LFB

Cadmium, Total

0.01019

0.01

102

QC13020502

ICV

Cadmium, Total

0.04988

0.05

100

QC13020502

CCV

Chromium, Total

0.06158

0.05

123

QC13020502

LFB

Chromium, Total

0.00963

0.01

96

QC13020502

ICV

Chromium, Total

0.05016

0.05

100

QC13020502

CCV

Copper, Total

0.05345

0.05

107

QC13020502

LFB

Copper, Total

0.00995

0.01

100

QC13020502

ICV

Copper, Total

0.05238

0.05

105

QC13020502

CCV

Lead, Total

0.04971

0.05

99

QC13020502

LFB

Lead, Total

0.00999

0.01

100

QC13020502

ICV

Lead, Total

0.05112

0.05

102

QC13020502

CCV

Nickel, Total

0.06042

0.05

121

QC13020502

LFB

Nickel, Total

0.00942

0.01

94

QC13020502

ICV

Page 2 of 5


Nickel, Total

0.04926

0.05

99

QC13020502

CCV

Selenium, Total

0.05217

0.05

104

QC13020502

LFB

Selenium, Total

0.00970

0.01

97

QC13020502

ICV

Selenium, Total

0.04770

0.05

95

QC13020502

CCV

Silver, Total

0.04683

0.05

94

QC13020502

LFB

Silver, Total

0.00968

0.01

97

QC13020502

ICV

Silver, Total

0.04665

0.05

93

QC13020502

CCV

Thallium, Total

0.03704

0.05

74

QC13020502

LFB

Thallium, Total

0.00927

0.01

93

QC13020502

ICV

Thallium, Total

0.05090

0.05

102

QC13020502

CCV

Zinc, Total

0.05429

0.05

109

QC13020502

LFB

Zinc, Total

0.00985

0.01

99

QC13020502

ICV

Zinc, Total

0.04997

0.05

100

QC13020502

CCV

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

5.09

5

102

QC12121906

LFB

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

25.09

25

100

QC12121906

CCV

Phosphorus, Total

0.4014

0.4

100

QC12121803

ICV

Phosphorus, Total

0.3988

0.4

100

QC12121803

CCV

Solids, Suspended Total

194

200

97

QC12121704

LCS

Solids, Total Dissolved

476 Actual Conc.

495 Duplicate Conc.

96 %RPD

QC12121804 Sample Number

LCS

mg/L

mg/L

Duplicate Parameter

QC BATCH

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

20.1 mg/L

19.4

3.54

12100753

QC12122009

Solids, Suspended Total

168 mg/L

176

4.65

12100762

QC12121704

< 20 mg/L 8 Sample Conc. Spike True Value

28.57 Final Result

Solids, Total Dissolved SPIKE RESULTS Parameter

mg/L

12100764 %REC %RPD

QC12121804 Sample Number QC BATCH

mg/L

mg/L

Antimony, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04751

95

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Arsenic, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04913

98

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Barium, Total

0.027 mg/L

0.05

0.07809

102

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Beryllium, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.06363

127

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Cadmium, Total

0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.05312

104

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Chemical Oxygen Demand

< 50 mg/L

500

476

93

12120371

QC12121707

MS

Chromium, Total

0.008 mg/L

0.05

0.07716

138

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Copper, Total

0.009 mg/L

0.05

0.05429

91

12100764

QC13020502

MS

66

104

12100764

QC12121705

MS

Hardness, Total

14.0 mg/L CaCO3 50

Lead, Total

0.008 mg/L

0.05

0.05857

101

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Nickel, Total

0.004 mg/L

0.05

0.07219

137

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

< 2.5 mg/L

2.5

3.505

100

12100753

QC12121905

MS

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

2.90 mg/L

5

8.03

103

12100753

QC12121906

MS

Phosphorus, Total

0.21 mg/L

0.4

0.6278

105

12100764

QC12121803

MS

Selenium, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04901

98

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Silver, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04856

97

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Thallium, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.03914

78

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Zinc, Total

0.111 mg/L

0.05

0.15532

90

12100764

QC13020502

MS

Antimony, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04459

89

6.34

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Arsenic, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04800

96

2.33

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Barium, Total

0.027 mg/L

0.05

0.07342

93

6.16

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Beryllium, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.06581

132

3.37

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Cadmium, Total

0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.05180

102

2.52

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Chemical Oxygen Demand

< 50 mg/L

500

478

94

0.42

12120371

QC12121707

MSD

Chromium, Total

0.008 mg/L

0.05

0.07722

138

0.08

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Copper, Total

0.009 mg/L

0.05

0.05307

88

2.27

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

65

102

1.53

12100764

QC12121705

MSD

Hardness, Total

14.0 mg/L CaCO3 50

Lead, Total

0.008 mg/L

0.05

0.05704

98

2.65

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Nickel, Total

0.004 mg/L

0.05

0.07483

142

3.59

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Page 3 of 5


Nitrogen, Ammonia Total

< 2.5 mg/L

2.5

3.545

102

1.13

12100753

QC12121905

MSD

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total

2.90 mg/L

5

7.99

102

0.50

12100753

QC12121906

MSD

Phosphorus, Total

0.21 mg/L

0.4

0.6295

105

0.27

12100764

QC12121803

MSD

Selenium, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04844

97

1.17

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Silver, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04665

93

4.01

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Thallium, Total

< 0.001 mg/L

0.05

0.04005

80

2.30

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

Zinc, Total

0.111 mg/L

0.05

0.15114

81

2.73

12100764

QC13020502

MSD

QUALIFIERS B1

Analyte in method blank at or above the MRL.

D2

Sample diluted due to high concentration.

L3

Blank spike rec above method acceptance limits.

L4

Blank spike rec below method acceptance limits.

R1

RPD/RSD exceeded the method acceptance limit.

COMMENTS L3 = Cr LFB recovered above method acceptance limits. Other spiked batch QC acceptable. B1 = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit.

R1= RPD exceeded the method acceptance limits due to the very low TDS in the sample.

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 4 of 5

Date Signed: 7/12/2013


Page 5 of 5


(This page intentionally left blank)


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 121025005 Collection Date: 12/14/2012 Collection Time: 1:40:00 AM

Receive Date: 12/14/2012 Customer Sample#:

Collector: AC Sample Number: 12100754

Project ID: 54 Discrete-Partial Site: 54th St @ EMF RESULTS

Parameter

Analysis Date

Analyst

< 0.020 mg/L

12/18/2012

PSERIA

2400.0 mpn/100ml

12/14/2012 GSMITH2

Method No

MRL

SM4500-CN E

0.02

SM9223B

220

Oil and Grease

EPA 1664A

5

< 5.0 mg/L

12/18/2012

NSILIDE

Petroleum Hyrodcarbons, Total

EPA 1664A

10

< 10.0 mg/L

12/28/2012

TAL

pH-Field

SM4500H B

1

7.35 S.U.

12/14/2012 DCAMERO

SM2550B

1

14.0 째C

12/14/2012 DCAMERO

Cyanide, Total E. Coli, MPN

Temperature-Field

Qualifier

Result

Quality Control mg/L

BLANK Parameter

Cyanide, Total Oil and Grease Standard Parameter

QC BATCH

< 0.02 mg/L QC12121901 < 5 mg/L QC12121805 Actual Conc. Standard Conc. %REC

QC BATCH

QC TYPE

mg/L

mg/L

Cyanide, Total

0.2380

0.25

95

QC12121901

ICV

Cyanide, Total

0.2400

0.25

96

QC12121901

CCV

33.3 Sample Conc.

40 Spike True Value

83 Final Result

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

0.25

0.2575

40

33.2

0.25

0.2585

103

Oil and Grease SPIKE RESULTS Parameter Cyanide, Total

< 0.02 mg/L

Oil and Grease

< 5 mg/L

Cyanide, Total

< 0.02 mg/L

QC12121805 %REC %RPD

LCS Sample Number

QC BATCH

103

12100761

QC12121901

83

12120371

QC12121805

MS

12100761

QC12121901

MSD

QUALIFIERS

COMMENTS

Page 1 of 2

0.39

MS


REVIEWED BY: _____________________________________________

Page 2 of 2

Date Signed: 7/12/2013


CITY OF MESA COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 640 NORTH MESA DRIVE MESA, ARIZONA 85211 Environmental Laboratory License AZ0410 LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: MATTHEW REXING Ph (480)644-5403 QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR: KIM CAGGIANO Ph (480)644-5404

Attn: Scott Bouchie OrderID: 121026004 Collection Date: 12/13/2012 Collection Time: 10:58:00 PM

Receive Date: 12/14/2012 Customer Sample#:

Collector: AC Sample Number: 12100762

Project ID: Alma Comp-Partial Site: Alma School/ADOT Channel RESULTS

Parameter

Result

Analysis Date

Analyst

2.35 mg/L

12/19/2012

PSERIA

< 2.00 mg/L

12/22/2012

TAL

41.4 mg/L

12/15/2012

NS/KH

254 mg/L

12/17/2012

NSILIDE

Method No

MRL

Qualifier

SM4500-NH3D

1

D2

EPA 300.0

2

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

SM5210B

2

Chemical Oxygen Demand

SM5220D

50

Hardness, Total

SM2340C

1

Antimony, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.006 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Arsenic, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.002 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Barium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.088 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Beryllium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Cadmium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

< 0.001 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Chromium, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.006 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Copper, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.066 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Lead, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.017 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Nickel, Total

EPA 200.8

0.001

0.009 mg/L

2/1/2013

GSMITH2

Selenium, Total

EPA 200.8