SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

%. w 1 .i City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 75 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments mandated and a failure to require it would leave the Permit far short of either complying with the regulations or meeting MEP. Response: As explained in Board staff's response to Comments 12 and 13,we disagree with DeltaKeeper's claim that the regulations require MS4 dischargers to report flow, and concentration and mass loads for discharged pollutants. 52. Comment: (DK Comment 6) Comments Regarding the Water Quality-Based Program. The Permit states that"[p]ermittees shall implement a water quality based control program for pollutants of concern that have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards."Tentative Permit at 44. Urban waterways have already been identified as "impaired" on the 303(d) list and as toxic hot spots pursuant to the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program. These impairments and toxic hot spots are occurring in waters that are habitat and identified"critical habitat" for species protected pursuant to state and federal endangered species acts. Storm water discharges have already been identified as causing or contributing to these impairments and toxic hot spots. The water quality based control programs in the Permit fall far short of what is minimally required to address these existing impairments and toxic hot spots and cannot reasonably be considered to comply with an MEP standard. Eighteen months to three years is far too long to wait before implementation of specific BMPs to control existing pesticide, pathogen and dissolved oxygen impairment in habitat occupied by protected species. Especially, since there are a number of obvious on-the-shelf BMPs that are clearly effective and can be immediately implemented to reduce these existing impacts. For example, the Permittees can immediately begin enforcing the prohibition against disposal of green waste in the storm sewer system. This may not completely eliminate the problem,but the discharge of prodigious quantities of organic matter into local waterways is clearly a significant contributor to low dissolved oxygen levels following rainfall. Pet waste control ordinances can be immediately developed and/or enforced since it is obvious that this is a significant source of the enormous increase in pathogen concentrations following rainfall. Years of delay in instituting obvious BMPs cannot be considered MEP. While requirements to work with the Regional Board and other agencies in developing TMDLs is both welcome and necessary, development and implementation of effective control efforts cannot wait until the development of TMDLs, which may not occur for many years. The April draft of the 2002 Revision of the Clean Water act Section 303(d)List of Water Quality Limited Segments contains no proposed schedule for developing and implementing the TMDLs for local waterway. We note that the Permit states that the Permittees will participate in stakeholder forams and collaborative technical studies necessary to assist the Regional Board in completing the TMDLs. And that these studies may include,but shall not be limited to, additional monitoring/toxicity studies for pesticides,pathogens and dissolved oxygen in Mosher Slough, Five-Mile Slough, Calaveras River, Smith Canal, Stockton Deep-water Channel, Joaquin River. Mormon Slough and Walker Slough. "May"is a discretionary word. Additional monitoring, studies and implementation of BMPs must not be dependent upon a TMDL that may or may not be developed at some future unspecified date. Additional studies must be required as soon as technically feasible.