SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 65 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments Response: The Regional Board has implicit authority to incorporate any components of the referenced program into the SWMP. The requested modification is therefore unnecessary. 23. Comment: (DK Comment 3(g))Finding 48 should be modified to reflect the fact that the word "adequate"is conclusionary and unsupported in the record. Many of the elements and details of the monitoring program have yet to be developed. There is actually a reduction in the number of sites and storm events that are proposed to be monitored. Response: Finding 48 (changed to Finding 49)has been modified to remove any unsupported conclusions. 24. Comment: (DK Comment 3(h))Finding 50 is conclusionary and factually incorrect. The performance standards contained in the Permit have no relationship to quantifiable improvements in receiving water quality. Performance standards in the Permit may provide information on whether or not the permittees' have implemented their BMPs. But, they provide virtually no information on whether the BMPs are successful in reducing violations of water quality standards. An example of a water quality-based performance standard would be a requirement that bioaccumulative or bioavailable pollutants be reduced by 20, or 40 or 60 percent over the life to the Permit. Even the new development and redevelopment standards are volume-based and lack percentage reductions. Performance standards must be measurable and enforceable. Without a nexus between performance standards and BMPs and water quality, it is highly incorrect to suggest that performance standards measure MEP. References to MEP in Finding 50 should be removed. Response: Finding 50 (changed to Finding 51)has been modified to better explain the role of performance standards in measuring BMP effectiveness. 25. Comment: (DK Comment 3(i))Finding 53 states that"[tjhe Order provides for an increase in urban storm water discharge due to continuing development within each Permittee's jurisdiction. Therefore, it is possible that future degradation of receiving water quality may occur. The continued implementation of the Permittees' S WMP that comply with the requirements of this Order will reduce the potential for discharges from MS4s to cause or contribute to the degradation of the receiving water quality. Therefore, this Order is consistent with the anti-degradation provisions of 40 CFR 131.12 and the State Board Resolution 68-16." The proposed Permit will: 1) cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in violation of 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1); 2) allows new dischargers and new sources, as defined in the regulations, to cause or contribute to non-attainment of water quality standards in violation of 40 CFR 122.4(i); 3) allows increased loads of pollutants identified as causing or contributing to water quality limited segments identified on the California 303(d) list(including bioaccumulative pollutants); 4) allows continuing and increased loads of pollutants identified as causing Toxic Hot Spots and 5) allows increases of pollutants identified as causing toxicity and lethality in waters identified as habitat to species protected under state and federal endangered species acts.