SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

1%.0 1.w City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 77 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments We disagree with DeltaKeeper's assertion that the Regional Board cannot delegate approval authority for the water quality-based program plans to the Executive Officer. These plans are comparable to those that would be required by a CWC § 13267 letter or a Cleanup and Abatement Order. Plans required by these orders are not required to be approved by the Regional Board unless they are contested by the Permittee. Likewise, there is no requirement for the Regional Board to exclusively approve plans simply because the plans are required by an NPDES permit. We recognize that there may be a need for additional studies. However, the lack of specificity in the Tentative Order reflects the fact that the specific locations and target pollutants for additional studies are unclear at this time. This is not a problem from an enforcement perspective because any additional studies or mitigation deemed necessary by Board staff can be addressed through CWC § 13267 letters or Cleanup and Abatement Orders. These orders can include provisions for the Permittees' SWMP to be revised to include the requirements of additional studies and additional BMPs to be implemented, if applicable. 53. Comment: (DK Comment 7) Comments Regarding the Planning and Development Program. The State Water Board has specifically held in at least two documents that SUSMPs constitute MEP and must be complied with now. A letter from the Chief Counsel of the State Board, Craig M. Wilson, to the RWQCB Executive Officers dated 26 November 2000, and State Board Order WQ 2000-11 both set forth the equivalence between SUSMPs and MEP, and the requirement that SUSMP measures be in place now. The Permit must require that the Permittees immediately implement SUSMPs and not simply require the Permittees to submit their local Development Standards to the Regional Board for review by 1 December 2003. If the Permittees submit inadequate standards in December 2003, it could be years before the issue is resolved and SUSMPs implemented. If the Permittees develop standards they believe are equivalent,they can submit those equivalent Development Standards for consideration at a later date. In the interval, SUSMP standards must be implemented now. SUSMP requirements are primarily numeric volume-based sizing criteria. They are effective in reducing particulate forms of pollution. They are demonstratively ineffective in controlling dissolved,bio-available forms of pollution. Therefore,they do not rise to an MEP standard for controlling dissolved pesticides,metals, etc. There are a number of established on-the-shelf BMPs for controlling these dissolved pollutants, including filters,vegetative swales, end-of-pipe treatments, etc. Consequently, SUSMP requirements must be supported by front-loaded or back loaded BMPs to control dissolved constituents. The Permit must include requirements directing the Permittees to develop and include additional BMPs beyond SUSMP criteria in their Development Standards. Without inclusion of requirements to control dissolved pollutants, the Permit fails to meet MEP, comply with anti-degradation requirements and regulations concerning new sources and new dischargers of impairing pollutants to impaired waterways. The Permit requires that the Permittees develop a process by which Development Standards will be implemented. The Permit states that"[t]he Process shall identify at what point in the planning