SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

• • _7 - STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER AND REVISION TO THE CWC WATER CODE SECTION 13308 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER MUSCO OLIVE PRODUCTS AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY the original stream channel into these constructed wetlands areas to serve as a source of seeds for wetlands plant species. Planting a one-half-acre area of Riparian habitat below the outfall apron of the realigned stream channel where it discharges into the original channel downstream of the new 114 million gallon storage pond dam. The Discharger proposes to plant 1,250 shoots of willow and/or cottonwood and to irrigate the seedlings as needed for a period of two years. The SEP Plan includes success criteria and monitoring for three to five years, depending on satisfaction of the success criteria. Staff have reviewed the Discharger's SEP proposal and determined that it does not comply with the State Water Resources Control Board's Draft Water Quality Enforcement Policy for SEPs as follows: 1. The proposed SEP does not"go above and beyond the obligation of the Discharger" because the proposed measures will primarily function as storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs)to prevent erosion and siltation that would otherwise result from construction of the new stream channel. As such, they are essentially mitigation measures that should be included in the project's CEQA document and the Discharger's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The proposed SEP does not"directly benefit or study groundwater or surface water quality or quantity, and the beneficial uses of the waters of the State". 2. The proposed SEP appears to be ". . . an action. . . that is otherwise required of the Discharger by any rule or regulation of any entity". The California Department of Fish and Game, in issuing Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No. R2-2001-523 for the storage pond project on 9 April 2002 required that: "Precautions to minimize turbidity/siltation shall be taken into account during project planning and implementation. This may require the placement of silt fencing, straw bale dikes, or other siltation barriers so that silt and/or other deleterious materials are not allowed to pass to downstream reaches.... The sediment barriers shall be maintained in good operating condition throughout the construction period and during the following rainy season". 3. The San Joaquin District Attorney has filed suit against the Discharger for discharges of wastewater to the ephemeral stream. The proposed SEP is inappropriate because the case has not yet been resolved and some sort of environmental mitigation may be required. As stated above, an SEP may not be approved for an action that is otherwise required. Staff's assessment of the cost of the proposed SEP finds that the cost of the project may have been overestimated by an amount up to $30,000. In addition, during a meeting on 30 April 2002, staff indicated to the Discharger that an SEP appeared inappropriate in the settlement of this case. Staff are already spending an inordinate amount of time in overseeing Musco's compliance with its TSO, reviewing the request for an increase in the flow limit contained in the TSO, reviewing the RWD, and if it is complete, preparing tentative WDRs for the September Regional Board meeting. Staff simply do not have the time to negotiate an appropriate SEP, determine clear milestones, a budget, and final