SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 10 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments 7. Comment: Paragraph IV.0 of the Fact Sheet refers to a Regional Board staff report dated September 28, 2001. This staff report and its recommendations have been superseded and changed by a subsequent State Water Board staff report. This paragraph should be revised to reflect the most current State Water Board staff report. Response: The Tentative Order and the fact sheet have been revised to reference the State Board's 2 April 2002 staff report entitled Revision of the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)List of Water Quality Limited Segments for recommended 303(d) listings. 8. Comment: Findings 33 & 34 note that it is not feasible to establish numeric limits at this time. It is not appropriate to establish numeric limits. Such a finding is not found in any of the recent municipal storm water permits, such as in Los Angeles, Orange County or San Diego. Furthermore and pursuant to CWA 402(p) the standard ofNPDES compliance for MS4s is to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The use of effluent limits is a discretionary option available to the regulatory community but even such discretionary power must be consistent with the Porter- Cologne Act. Therefore, any requirements to meet water quality standards must be proceeded by analysis of economic feasibility,practical technology, and commensurate water quality benefits. The argument found in Findings 33 and 34 that it is not feasible to establish numeric effluent limits has little to no relevance here. Response: Under the Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner Opinion (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159, a State is not required,but has the discretion to require, strict compliance with state water quality standards through the establishment and imposition of numeric effluent limitations in MS4 permits (191 F.3d 1159, 1166-67). Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA states that"[p]ermits for discharges from municipal storm sewers . . . shall require . . . such other provisions as the Administrator. . . determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants." Thus, the permitting authority has the discretion to determine what pollution controls are appropriate in a particular case. However, the State Board in Order WQ 2001-15 has reiterated its endorsement of language that requires that storm water management plans in MS4 permits be"designed to achieve compliance with water quality standards. Compliance is to be achieved over time, through an iterative approach requiring improved BMPs." Order WQ 2001-15,p. 7. The State Board recognizes, however, that "[e)xceptions to this general rule are appropriate where site-specific conditions warrant." Order WQ 2001-15, p. 8, fit. 16. While the iterative approach of improved BMPs has been endorsed by the State Board, it is not inappropriate to consider requiring compliance with numeric effluent limitations where such limitations are feasible. Thus, it is appropriate to acknowledge that such limitations are not being imposed at this time because they are not feasible. 9. Comment: Finding#54 requires that a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan(SUSMP)be developed in accordance with State Board adopted Order WQ 2000-11. While the City understands the need to develop a program consistent with the goals of Order WQ 2000-11, the requirement to develop a SUSMP identical to that adopted for the Los Angeles area is unreasonable and unjustified. There are significant differences in climate,hydrology, and geology between Los Angeles and the Central Valley and Stockton. For example, the City has a number of areas with high ground water and soils that do not allow percolation. In such areas, the use of infiltration devices or basins is not