SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 78 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments process development projects will be required to meet Development Standards. The process shall also include identification of the roles and responsibilities of various municipal departments in implementing the Development Standards, as will as any other measures necessary for the implementation of Development Standards." Permit at 53. As we have previously related, SUSMPs must be implemented now. Implementation of Development Standards must not be pushed years into the future as the Regional Board and Permittees disagree over what constitutes equivalent criteria. Response: The Permittees have an existing program for new development that requires structural and non-structural controls. The Permittees are required to continue to implement this program until the numeric sizing criteria(SUSMPs) are implemented. These provisions are consistent with the State Board's directions and Order No. WQ 2000-11. We believe that the cut-off date as the date of discretionary approval of tentative tract/parcel map or permit is advantageous. This provides an opportunity for the municipalities to require treatment or infiltration devices and long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities included as part of the local conditions for project approval. Based on the experiences of other regional boards, it does not appear that such a cut-off date will create any sudden rush to get development approved. , 54. Comment: (DK Comment 8(a)) General Concerns: Our comments on the Monitoring and Reporting Program are constrained by the skeletal nature of the Monitoring and Reporting Program. Many of the essential components of the monitoring plan will not be submitted by the Permittees until 1 April 2003 (Work Plan and Detention Basin Monitoring Plan), 1 September 2003 (Bioassessment Monitoring Program), 1 April 2004 (Water Quality Based Monitoring Programs and an unspecified date for the BMP Effectiveness Study. The piece mealing of the Monitoring and Reporting Program is indicative of dysfunctional nature of the current permitting process for MS4s. The Permittees submitted a grossly inadequate monitoring plan in their Report of Waste Discharge. We are now told that essential components of the Monitoring and Reporting Program will be submitted over the next several years. Given past experience, we have no confidence that these subsequent submittals will be more acceptable than previous monitoring plan submittals. Indeed, history suggests that they are likely to be found unacceptable and returned for revision,possibly several times. There is nothing in the Permit that guarantees that essential components of the Monitoring and Reporting Program will be implemented during the life of the Permit. This is unacceptable and violates regulatory requirements contained in 40 CFR § 122.21, 122.26, 122.4. 122.41, 122.44, 122.48 et seq. The Permit states that the above discussed Monitoring and Reporting Program components will be submitted subject to the approval of the Regional Board Executive Officer. The Monitoring and Reporting Program is an essential component of the Permit. As we previously discussed, this effort to expand the types of modifications which can be issued without resorting to a formal permitting process violates 40 C.F.R. § 122.63. The Permittees' existing Permit required that "the City shall submit a technical report outlining the non-conventional BMP effectiveness studies proposed to be conducted. The report shall include an implementation schedule. The report shall outline how the special studies shall enable the City to