SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 57 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments questions of whether WQSs will be met and pollutants will be reduced to the MEP, yet none of these documents are available for review prior to Permit approval. These documents would be available for consideration had Permittees complied with their previous permit. As a practical matter,the Permit should be delayed until the Permittee's submit a work plan and propose new BMPs that will ensure that water quality standards can be met. Finally, the permit fails to adequately analyze for the cumulative impacts of the pollutants authorized by the permit as required by CEQA policy. The cumulative impacts ignored by the Permit include impacts to: the quality of the receiving waters, the beneficial uses of the receiving waters,human health, and the aquatic species who depend on the receiving waters including numerous endangered and threatened species (discussed above). The Permit contains no analysis or discussion of other sources or discharges of the various pollutants authorized by the Permit. The permit contains no analysis or discussion of the cumulative impacts on these resources of the Board's pollutant permitting program as a whole. In light of the numerous affected water bodies that currently do not support their beneficial uses, it is clear that the cumulative impacts of these pollutants and of the Board's permitting program authorizing their discharge are significant. Response: The Tentative Order implements the federal Clean Water Act and the state Board has determined that the CEQA exemption contained in Section 13389 is applicable(see State Board Order No. WQ 2000-11). The Porter-Cologne Act exempts, in relevant part, the Regional Board's issuance of the MS4 permit from compliance with CEQA. Water Code Section 13389 provides that regional boards shall not "be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21100) of Division 13 of the Public Resources Code prior to the adoption of any waste discharge requirements, except requirements for new sources as defined in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act..." As described in Response to DeltaKeeper Comment 8, storm water discharges are not a new source within the meaning of the Clean Water Act. The Regional Board therefore does not need to comply with the documentary requirements of CEQA for the issuance of the City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin MS4 permit. DeltaKeeper also asserts in adopting the Tentative Order, the Regional Board must comply with all of the non-documentary policy provisions of CEQA, such as preparation of a cumulative impacts analysis and the imposition of mitigation measures to address any identified adverse impacts. The Regional Board need do no additional CEQA analysis. To the extent that the Tentative Order has prescribed that the Permittees implement certain requirements, (e.g., SUSMPs), there is no basis for expecting that they will have a significant adverse environmental impact requiring the imposition of mitigation measures. To the extent that the Permittees propose to undertake activities as part of their SWMP or other aspects of the Tentative Order, the Permittee as the public agency undertaking a project, is responsible for compliance with any CEQA analysis. 12. Comment: (DK Comment 2(f)(3))reasonable potential analyses are required for NPDES permits in issuing a municipal storm water permit.