SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 66 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments Contrary to the unsupportable conclusion in Finding 53,the proposed Permit violates the anti- degradation provisions of 40 CFR 131.12 and the State Board Resolution 68-16. An anti- degradation analysis must be performed as required. Finding 53 must be deleted. Response: There is no basis for stating that the Tentative Order will do any of the five things stated in the comment. Regarding Items 2) thru 5), as explained in Finding 6, the Permittees have the land use authority to approve urban developments that may generate pollutants and runoff that could impair receiving water quality and beneficial uses. Where land use planning and urban development are concerned, the Regional Board does not have jurisdiction. The Regional Board can require pollutant controls for new development(which are included in the Tentative Order),but it does not have the authority to order the cessation of development. See also the Response to DeltaKeeper Comment 5 in which it is explained that Finding 53 (changed to Finding 54) has been revised and which explains that a full anti-degradation analysis is not required. 26. Comment: (DK Comment 36)Finding 68 should be modified to reflect the fact that the Permit does not contain an acceptable SWMP because the Permittees' failed to submit an acceptable SWMP and that the proposed Permit is deficient until the SWMPs are approved by the Regional Board. Response: Regional Board staff did not expect the Permittees to be able to anticipate the multitude of new provisions in the Tentative Order when they prepared their SWMP. The Permittees have therefore not failed to submit an acceptable SWMP, but it is anticipated they will submit an acceptable SWMP within the timeframe established in the permit. The Tentative Order is neither deficient nor incomplete. 27. Comment: (DK Comment 4(a)) DeltaKeeper suggests that three new Discharge Prohibitions for Storm water Discharges be added: 1) Discharges of non-storm water pollutants are prohibited, unless authorized by a separate NPDES permit or otherwise not prohibited by this Order; 2)Post- development runoff containing pollutant loads which cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable is prohibited; and 3) in addition to the above prohibitions, discharges from MS-4s are subject to all Basin Plan prohibitions. Response: The prohibitions presented in the Tentative Order are consistent with the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. 28. Comment: (DK Comment 4(b))B(2)Discharge Prohibitions for Non-Storm water Discharges. The word significant is not in the regulations and must be eliminated from the prohibition that reads "[p]ursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1), the following categories of non-storm water discharges need only be prohibited from entering a MS4 if such categories of discharge are identified by the Permittees as a significant source of pollutants to water of the United States:.." The word significant only applies to firefighting discharges. Regarding the list of non-storm water discharges under B(2): The Permittees must factually document any conclusion that these categories do not represent a source of pollutants to waterways. For example: Landscape Irrigation is an identified source of pesticides,nutrients and pathogen