City Comments On Appendices ABC

City of Tucson
Comments on Municipal Stormwater Permit:
Appendices A, B and C
These comments are grouped according to the major Stormwater Management Plan components.
I. Public Education and Outreach
II. Public Involvement and Participation
III. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination:
Municipal Employee Training
The separation of permit requirements into three sections is confusing. The City requests that
requirements be grouped according to the Stormwater Management Plan components.
Under Appendix A, Measurable Goals, the requirement to provide training to staff directly involved with
stormwater every two years compared to the requirement for annual training for staff with no direct
stormwater responsibilities is confusing. The City proposes instead to provide stormwater training for
inspectors with stormwater responsibilities annually and to select groups with no stormwater
responsibility every two years.
Appendix C requires that “Each municipal facility (excluding offices and administrative buildings) that
handles, stores, or otherwise uses 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.” The
use of the term Hazardous Materials can lead to confusion without a definition.
Appendix A uses alternative language: “…used oils and other hazardous or toxic materials and wastes
associated with municipal operations and facilities.” This language is more inclusive and the City
requests that this language be substituted for the term “hazardous materials” used in Appendix C.
Alternatively, the City requests that the presence of hazardous materials be among the factors used to
prioritize Higher Risk Facilities, as required in Appendix C under Municipal Facilities Pollution
Prevention/Good Housekeeping Practices.
Appendix A has a measurable goal for the City to inspect priority outfalls that discharge to an impaired
or outstanding Arizona Water. As previously discussed, Lakeside Lake is a man made lake located within
Atterbury Wash. There is one location that meets the definition of outfall into the lake. The City requests
that this language be modified to allow the City to develop an IDDE program for the developed areas in
the Lakeside Watershed, with the schedule to be worked out during meetings with ADEQ and City Staff.
Appendix A includes a measurable goal for satisfactorily resolving 80% of all cases within 1 calendar
year. This goal is stated in a way that places compliance on the Court system, rather than the
Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). City requests that language be revised to state that 80% of
all enforcement actions under the City’s stormwater ordinance be either resolved or turned over to the
City court system for further action.
Appendix C under Practices for Preventing Illicit Discharges, requires the SWMP to include a list of
discharges “that are or will be allowed to discharge to the stormdrain system.” The City request that the
list of discharges that do not have to be prohibited (from the Fact Sheet) be added to Appendix C.
Appendices A, B and C Comments 1
Appendix B Annual Report:
1. Municipal Employee Training:
The table needs additional rows to determine if the measurable goal of providing training to select
groups of employees either annually or every two years is being met. Please provide a row for number
of staff with direct stormwater responsibilities and another for the number of staff in the selective
group identified with the potential to directly impact, identify, report, or stop illicit stormwater
2. Spill Prevention
The City requests that rather than “the number of municipal facilities identified with “hazardous
materials,’” that row should read “the number of municipal facilities identified as Higher Risk Facilities.”
The City further requests that the next row be changed accordingly.
The last row under Spill Prevention requests that date of the last review of site specific materials
handling and spill response procedures. Since each facility would have a separate “site-specific”
procedures, this would be many dates, possibly a different one for each facility. The City suggests
revision to read: Number of site specific spill response procedures updated.
3. Outfall Inspections
The City suggests revising the table by adding a new first row headed “ Total number of major outfalls
identified to date.” In addition, several other revisions to the Annual Report Table are requested:
Please revise the current row 6 to state: Number of major outfalls sampled for dry weather flow. This
will distinguish this from stormwater quality monitoring (wet weather).
Please revise Row 9 to read “Amount of stormwater drainage system inspected (length).” This change
will distinguish between inspection of traditional storm drains and the City’s MS4.
Row 10 may not provide the information needed to ensure that the requirement to include
investigations of storm drain cross connections in inspections is met. It calls for the number of storm
drain cross connection investigations. An investigation may only be warranted in select instances, and
often once the cause is discovered, what started out as a cross-connection investigation frequently turns
out to be something else. In the 15 year history of the stormwater program, only a handful of true
“storm drain cross connections” have been identified, largely because the City’s storm drain system is
almost fully visible and exposed in above ground channels. The City proposes to discuss any storm drain
cross connection in the text of the Annual Report, rather than in the table. Please delete row 10.
Please revise row 14 to read: “% of cases resolved or transferred to Court System within …”
Number of illicit connections eliminated.
Please revise row 15 to read “Number of illicit discharge reports received” rather than received from the
public. This number would be a better reflection of how successful the entire IDDE program is at
reaching not just the general public, but other agencies as well.
IV. Municipal Facilities Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
Municipally Owned and Operated Facilities:
Lists of Facilities that shall be included in the inventory are not consistent. Appendix C includes Public
swimming pools (pool maintenance/repair and chemical storage), however Appendix A does not.
Appendices A, B and C Comments 2
Appendix A and C use different nomenclature – C refers to POTWs and sludge handling areas – A refers
to Public Septic Systems (sanitary waste handling). The City requests that this type of facility be removed
from the list as the City does not own or operate a POTW, Public Septic System and has no immediate
plans to start. If, during the course of the permit the City begins this activity, then the permit should be
reopened to address this major change.
The City requests that if City-owned facility implements measures that would qualify for a “no exposure
certification” if an industrial permit were required, that the City be allowed to classify the facility as low
risk. The “no-exposure” status would need to be documented and periodic inspections preformed to
ensure that the no-exposure conditions remain unchanged.
The IDDE requirements in Appendix A state that “an assessment shall be conducted at each of the
(Higher Risk Facilities or Priority Facilities) at least annually.” The measurable goal for Municipal Facility
Inspections is to have each of these facilities inspected beginning in year three of the permit, biennially.
Please avoid the term biennially, as it has been misunderstood in the past. Twice a year or every two
years is preferred. Appendix A goes on to require the City to identify which facilities shall be inspected
annually. Please resolve this apparent discrepancy. To conduct a functional assessment, requires an
System Maintenance
Due date is established for the requirement to develop a control measure field manual for municipal
maintenance activities. The City proposes to assemble this manual in year three of the permit term.
Municipal System Maps:
Retention/Detention Basins. The requirement to show infrastructure for each retention/detention basin
is problematic for Tucson. Most basins are privately owned, and few, if any have established
infrastructure. The usual discharge point is to a street or to a wash, and the basin receives sheet flow or
flow from roadways. In addition, the City has an inspection program for privately owned
retention/detention basins. To date the City has identified an estimated 1100 of these basins. Because
many of these basins are small and within small developments, it may be impossible to locate each and
every basin in the City.
Annual Report Requirements for Municipal Facilities
Inventory, Map of Database of MS4 Owned and Operated Facilities
The second and third bullet report on the same process, of identifying and assessing facilities. The City
suggests these be combined. Another row should be added providing the number of higher risk facilities.
Infrastructure Maintenance
First row, the City suggests that this should be broken into several rows based on the type of drainage
structure cleaned. The City requests a separate row for miles of drainage channel cleaned, amount of
closed conduit cleaned, street cleaning, and street cleaning after events.
Next to last row, the City anticipates that it will take some time to determine the total number of catch
basins. The City requests this be changed to number of catch basins identified to date.
V. Industrial and Commercial Facilities (Non-municipally owned)
Annual Report Requirements:
The measurable goal of inspecting 20% of industrial facilities requires the addition of a row providing the
total number of facilities on the priority list.
Appendices A, B and C Comments 3
Please modify the last row under Industrial and Commercial Facilities (Non-municipally owned) to read
“% of cases resolved or turned over to the City court system for further action within one (1) calendar
year of original enforcement action.”
VI. Construction
Planning and Land Development
Appendix C requires that the City include “the committee members of the Planning and Land
Development Program. “ The City does not have a committee that meets this description or would serve
this purpose; please remove.
Plan Review and Approval
In Appendix A, the measurable goal states that the City should require a copy of the ADEQ authorization
document …prior to issuing construction approval or authorization. Please reword to reflect that the City
will require a copy of the ADEQ authorization document at the pre-construction meeting, prior to the
commencement of construction. This is the appropriate time to require this document in our process.
Currently, a NOI is required before the SWPPP is approved. In addition, the final SWPPP elements often
cannot be completed (as required by the submittal of the NOI) until a contractor is on board. The
project must “go to bid” without a final SWPPP. By requiring submittal of the final SWPPP at the preconstruction meeting, as well as ADEQ’s authorization document, the City does not delay project bidding
and provides a more efficient process for an industry hard hit in the current economy. The Tucson
Mayor and Council have been clear in their direction to efficiently handle construction permitting issues.
Appendix A requires (in two places) that the City’s “escalated enforcement protocol focus on having the
highest level of enforcement action resolved within 1 year of the initial inspection/violation.” The City
requests that this be reworded to state “…resolved or turned over to the City Court System” within 1
Annual Report Requirements
In order for ADEQ to track percentage of the appropriate City staff are getting training, the table should
be modified to include an additional row to identify how many of the City’s staff should have
stormwater training.
For Row 5: It should be noted that many construction projects go through multiple reviews. In order to
determine what percentage of the active construction sites are being inspected, a row should be added
for the number of active construction projects.
An additional row should be added to include number of corrective actions resolved or turned over to
the City court system.
VII. Post Construction
Review of Master Plan
The City requests further information on what is meant by Master Plan. The City did a stormwater
management study in the early 1990s that was termed a Stormwater Master Plan. However, this plan
was in no way enforceable. The City has a General Plan which is approved by Mayor and Council, and a
Land Use Code that is in support of this plan. For various Land Use Codes, there are development
standards which must be met prior to construction approval. The City does conduct regular reviews of
its General Plan; however, for the foreseeable future, the City will be focused on Core Services, which
includes Transportation, Parks, and public services such as water delivery and trash pickup. A review of
the City’s General Plan is not expected for several more years, until the economy picks up and the City
has sufficient funds to conduct planning activities.
Appendices A, B and C Comments 4
Post Construction Controls
Appendix A includes language stating that the City (MS4) shall inspect at least 75% of sites that receive
city permits. The type of permit is not provided. The City requests that the following be added for
clarity: “…city permits for earthwork, or other ground disturbing activities.” To determine if the City is
meeting this requirement, the Annual Report table should be modified to include the number of ground
disturbing permits issued.
It should be noted that the City has an inspection program for privately owned retention/detention
basins. To date the City has identified an estimated 1100 of these basins. Because many of these basins
are small and within small developments, it may be impossible to locate each and every basin in the
Appendices A, B and C Comments 5