NYC Stormwater Management Program Plan

NYC Stormwater Management Program Environmental Protection Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 Revised February 2022 Table of Contents NYC Stormwater Management Program Plan Updates Executive Summary 6 Background 11 1.0 Legal Authority and Program Administration 13 2.0 Public Education and Outreach 15 3.0 Public Involvement and Participation 16 4.0 Mapping 18 5.0 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) 20 6.0 Construction and Post-Construction 21 7.0 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities 23 8.0 Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources 26 9.0 Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash 28 10.0 Monitoring and Assessment of Controls 30 11.0 Special Conditions for Impaired Waters 31 12.0 Recordkeeping and Reporting 31 Conclusion Introduction 37 The City of New York MS4 Permit 38 Impaired Waters and Pollutants of Concern 39 Related Stormwater Management Efforts 41 NYC MS4 Stormwater Management Program Plan Chapter 1 Legal Authority and Program Administration 46 1.1 Stormwater Management Program Administration 49 1.2 Legal Authority 51 1.3 Enforcement Response Plan 51 1.4 Reliance on Third Parties 52 1.5 Fiscal Analysis 53 1.6 Notification of Entities Regulated Under MS4 Permit Chapter 2 Public Education and Outreach 58 2.1 Educational Programs 61 2.2 Pollutants and Waterbodies of Concern 62 2.3 Target Audiences 63 2.4 Education and Outreach Strategies 66 2.5 Public Reporting of Illicit Discharges or Water Quality Impacts 66 2.6 Proper Management and Disposal of Pollutants of Concern 68 2.7 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 3 Public Involvement and Participation 72 3.1 Related Programs 72 3.2 Key Stakeholders 72 3.3 Public Engagement during SWMP Development 73 3.4 Progress Reports and the Draft Plan 75 3.5 Ongoing Public Involvement and Participation 76 3.6 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 4 Mapping 80 4.1 Related Programs 80 4.2 Historical MS4 Map 83 4.3 Delineation Methodologies for Preliminary and Final MS4 Maps 84 4.4 Preliminary (2018) MS4 Map and Associated Information 84 4.5 Final (2020) MS4 Map and Associated Information 88 4.6 Continued MS4 Map Update Process 88 4.7 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 5 llicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) 92 5.1 Non-Stormwater Discharges 92 5.2 Illicit Discharge Detection 93 5.3 Illicit Discharge Trackdown, Elimination, and Notification 96 5.4 Spill Prevention and Citywide Response 97 5.5 Sanitary Pipe Seepage Controls 99 5.7 Staff Training 100 5.8 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 6 Construction and Post-Construction 105 6.1 SWPPP Review and Approval 108 6.2 DEP Issued Stormwater Permit 111 6.4 Threshold Study Results and Unified Stormwater Rule 112 6.5 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table of Contents Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities 116 7.1 Associated Practices 117 7.2 Inventory and Prioritization of Municipal Facilities and Operations 118 7.3 Self-Assessments of Municipal Facilities and Operations 120 7.4 City Staff Training 121 7.5 NYSDEC Multi-Sector General Permit for Municipal Facilities 122 7.6 Green Infrastructure Feasibility for Planned Municipal Upgrades 123 7.7 Requirements for Third-Party Contractors 123 7.8 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 8 Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources 128 8.1 Related Programs 128 8.2 Industrial and Commercial Facility Inventory 130 8.3 No Exposure Facility Inspections (Category 2) 130 8.4 Unpermitted Facility Assessments (Category 3) 132 8.5 SPDES MSGP Facility Inspections (Category 4) 134 8.6 Industrial and Commercial Tracking System 134 8.7 Inspection Staff Training 135 8.8 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 9 Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris 140 9.1 Floatables Management Programs 143 9.2 Evaluation of Floatable Control Programs 146 9.3 Loading Rate Work Plan 146 9.4 Review of Available Technologies and Controls 148 9.5 Methodology for Selecting Technologies and Controls 149 9.6 Media Campaigns 152 9.7 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 10 Monitoring and Assessment of Controls 154 10.1 Related Programs 156 10.2 MS4 Monitoring Program 158 10.3 MS4 Monitoring Program Phase 1 Procedures 159 10.4 Assessment of MS4 Monitoring Program 160 10.5 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Chapter 11 Special Conditions for Impaired Waters 163 11.1 Impaired Waters and Pollutants of Concern 167 11.2 Impaired Waters without Total Maximum Daily Loads 168 11.3 Impaired Waters with NYSDEC Approved Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plans 168 11.4 Coney Island Creek MS4 Waterbody Plan Chapter 12 Recordkeeping and Reporting 177 12.1 Recordkeeping and Data Management 177 12.2 Annual Report Process and Schedule 178 12.3 Monitoring and Assessment of Controls 178 12.4 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Definitions and Acronyms 180 Definitions 185 Acronyms Appendices 190 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) 207 Appendix 2.1 311 Complaints related to MS4/ Stormwater Management Issues 212 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 283 Appendix 5.1 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program 291 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 427 Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 445 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 461 Appendix 12.1 CIT System Framework Certification List of Tables Number Title Page(s) Table 2.1 Summary of Existing Education and Outreach Programs 58-61 Table 2.2 Addressing Pollutants of Concern (POC) through the Public Education and Outreach Program 61-62 Table 2.3 Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for Public Education and Outreach 68 Table 3.1 Summary of BMPs, Measureable Goals, and Measures for Public Involvement and Participation 76 Table 4.1 Overview of Drainage Area Delineation Methods 83 Table 4.2 Summary Zoning Districts Present in the MS4 Area and Associated Land Use 85 Table 4.3 Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities for MSW and Associated Activities in the MS4 Area 87 Table 4.4 Summary of BMPs Measureable Goals, and Measures for Mapping 88 Table 5.1 Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for the IDDE Program 100 Table 6.1 Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals and Measures for the C/PC Program 112 Table 7.1 Initial Inventory and Pre-Assessment Priority Rating of Municipal Facilities to date 117 Table 7.2 Typical On-Site Operations at City-owned Facilities 118 Table 7.3 Typical Off-Site City Operations 119 Table 7.4 Summary BMPs, Measurable Goals and Measures for the PP/GH Program 124 Table 8.1 Sectors of Industrial/Commercial Facilities Subject to NYSDEC’s MSGP 128 Table 8.2 Inspection Frequency Criteria for MSGP Facilities 133 Table 8.3 Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals and Measures for the I/C Program 136 Table 9.1 Summary of Litter and Floatables Education, Outreach and Stewardship Programs 140 Table 9.2 Floatables Controls Implemented by other Municipalities in Separate Sewer Areas 147 Table 9.3 Summary of BMPs Measurable Goals and Measures for the Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Program 152 Table 10.1 Summary of MS4 Monitoring Program Phases 156 Table 10.2 Phase 1 Monitoring Locations 157 Table 10.3 Summary of BMPs Measurable Goals, and Measures for the MS4 Monitoring Program 160 Table 11.1 Summary of Waterbodies in NYC and Their Listed Impairments in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit 168 Table 11.2 Summary of POC Source Categories and Control Measures for Coney Island Creek 169 Table 11.3 Existing Land Use within the Coney Island Creek Drainage Area 170 Table 12.1 Summary of BMPs Measurable Goals, and Measures for Recordkeeping and Reporting 179 List of Figures Number Title Page(s) Figure 1.1 Agency Roles and Responsibilities Matrix 48 Figure 5.1 IDDE Program Effectiveness Between 1998-2017 91 Figure 5.2 Main DEP IDDE Programs 94 Figure 6.1 Overview of C/PC Permitting Process 103-104 Figure 6.2 Preliminary SMP Hierarchy 111 Figure 7.1 Map of Municipal Facilities in the PP/GH inventory to date 120 Figure 8.1 DEP Screening Process to Categorize Facilities Listed in the I/C Facility Inventory 130 Figure 8.2 DEP Assessment Process for Unpermitted Facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory 132 Figure 8.3 Characteristics of High, Medium, and Low Priority MSGP Facilities 133 Figure 8.4 DEP Inspection Process for Facilities with MSGP Coverage Listed in the I/C Facility Inventory 134 Figure 9.1 Percent of Acceptably Clean Streets between Fiscal Years 1975-2017 144 Figure 9.2 Location of Floatables Monitoring Program Sites 144 Figure 9.3 Percent of Floatables Monitoring Program Sites Rated Poor, 2011-2016 145 Figure 9.4 Total Floatables Collected by Boom and Skim Program 145 Figure 11.1 Waterbodies Impaired for Pathogens, Floatables, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus 167-168 On August 1, 2015, the City of New York (the City) received a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). This 2015 MS4 Permit required the City to develop and submit to NYSDEC for review and approval, a written Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan. On August 1, 2018, the City timely submitted the first version of this SWMP Plan to NYSDEC, which approved the Plan on March 14, 2019. This SWMP Plan summarizes how the City complies with MS4 Permit requirements. If the City identifies any necessary programmatic changes, the City implements those changes as soon as practicable. The City then periodically updates this Plan to reflect such revisions, detailing significant changes to the Plan in the MS4 Annual Report due to NYSDEC on September 30 of each year. The MS4 Annual Report also includes the latest updates on MS4 compliance, including metrics on the implementation of permit requirements. Accordingly, as the City has refined and adapted its program, it has also revised a number of sections of the SWMP to reflect those updates. The City noted the updates in the 2019, 2020, and 2021 MS4 Annual Reports. In the fall of 2021, the City undertook a holistic update of this document to reflect the current status of program implementation and the City’s compliance with the 2015 MS4 Permit, and to also bring the document up to date from the 2018 version. The City plans to highlight major programmatic changes, e.g., the establishment of the Harbor Protectors Program in 2021, in the next MS4 Annual Report, due September 30, 2022. NYC Stormwater Management Program Plan Updates Jamaica Bay 1 Executive Summary Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 2 3 New York City is shaped by water. The waters of the New York City Harbor set boundaries for the City’s boroughs and define our history. Hundreds of years ago, freshwater wetlands, salt marshes, streams, and rivers supported communities, commerce, and wildlife. By the industrial age, the rivers became a means for supporting the manufacturing and maritime industries. Wetlands and marshes were filled in and the resulting manmade tributaries became some of the nation’s busiest commercial waterways. The development and rapid urbanization of NYC, as one of the world’s great waterfront cities, is intrinsically linked to the waters around it. This growth eventually adversely impacted the environment and quality of life. As New York’s population grew, open trenches and early sewers conveyed increasing quantities of waste directly to the nearest waterbody. Over a century and a half of industrial pollution and sewage degraded the once flourishing environment. These water quality and ecosystem degradations were exacerbated by the physical alterations to many waterways surrounding NYC and the legacy industrial pollution. As a result, wildlife disappeared, waterborne diseases spread, and communities of people moved away from the waters’ edge. New York City officials responded with investments in the first wastewater resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) at Coney Island (1886), 26th Ward (1894), and Jamaica (1903). New York City loves the water. The City’s early investments in sewers and wastewater treatment ushered in a century of innovation in engineering, research, monitoring, marine science, urban planning, and design and construction. The first water quality studies began in the early 1900s and, by 1909, the City had established its Harbor Survey Program. This program helped identify the need for new infrastructure projects. By the time the United States Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, the City was on its way to reversing the effects of neglect. The Clean Water Act delegated much of the responsibility for setting water quality standards to the states, making the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) a critical partner in the City’s efforts to reduce pollution and introduce a new generation of New Yorkers to the Harbor. Since 2002, the City has completed billions of dollars in capital projects such as wastewater resource recovery facility (WRRF) upgrades; sewer separation and sewer system upgrades; combined sewer overflow abatement; reduction of nitrogen in wastewater; green infrastructure installations; and marshland restoration. In recent years, the City has committed billions more to both grey and green infrastructure projects to reduce combined sewer overflows. Thanks to these investments, water quality related to municipal sewage and waste is significantly better today than it was in 1909, and the waters surrounding NYC are recovering and making a dramatic comeback. Whales are returning to the harbor, wetland and oyster restoration projects are thriving, and New Yorkers are able to enjoy recreational activities in their local waterways. This NYC Stormwater Management Program Plan continues the legacy of innovation while reflecting a new era of critical thinking and planning. With this Plan, the City continues to identify sources of stormwater pollution and to implement a range of policies and programs to reduce it, all with the goal of improving and protecting the waters for the generations of New Yorkers to come. Coney Island beach and swimmers (1922) 4 New York City (NYC) Land Area. The total area of NYC is approximately 305 square miles organized into five boroughs: Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. Population. According to the NYC Department of City Planning, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 census, New York City’s population was 8,804,190 on April 1, 2020, a record high. Sewer System. About 60 percent of NYC uses a combined sewer system to convey stormwater runoff. The rest of NYC uses either the municipal separate storm sewer system, a private sewer system, or no sewer system at all (often referred to as direct drainage or overland flow). Impervious Area. Impervious surfaces cover approximately 70% of NYC’s land area and generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff. Brooklyn Bridge 5 How do sewer systems handle stormwater? The City has two types of sewer systems that keep stormwater from flooding streets and homes: a combined sewer system and a separate sewer system. While these systems look the same at the street level, there are some important differences. In a Combined Sewer System, both wastewater and stormwater are carried by a single pipe to a wastewater resource recovery facility (WRRF). During times of heavy precipitation, the combined sewer system may be overwhelmed and discharge into waterbodies. This discharge is known as a combined sewer overflow (CSO). Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Manhole Manhole Catch Basin Outfall Pipe River Separate Storm Sewer System To Wastewater Treatment Plant Combined Sewer System Manhole Catch Basin To Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall Pipe River Combined Sewer Overflow In a Separate Storm Sewer System, wastewater and stormwater are carried by separate pipes. Wastewater is conveyed to a WRRF where it is treated, while untreated stormwater is discharged into a waterbody. A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a separate storm sewer system that is owned by a municipality, in this case the City of New York. Combined Sewer System A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) that discharges to Surface Waters of the State and: • is owned or operated by a state, city, town, village, or other public entity • is designed or used to collect or convey stormwater; • is not a combined sewer; and • is not part of a publicly owned wastewater resource recovery facility. 6 Background When it rains in New York City, stormwater flows over impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, rooftops, and parking lots before reaching a sewer. Along the way, stormwater can come in contact with pollutants such as oils, pathogens, and sediments. In areas with a separate storm sewer system, this pollution is carried into nearby waterbodies. This is harmful to water quality and can negatively impact the local ecology or limit recreational uses like boating. The Clean Water Act, which Congress passed in the 1970s to help protect and restore the health of waterbodies across the country, regulates pollution from stormwater as well as other sources. To reduce stormwater pollution, beginning in the 1990s, federal and state authorities required cities with an MS4 to obtain permits to discharge stormwater into local waterbodies. The City of New York MS4 Permit On August 1, 2015, the City of New York (the City) received a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit from NYSDEC for the City’s MS4. This permit requires the City to implement measures to reduce pollution in stormwater runoff. While this was the City’s first comprehensive MS4 Permit, the City had been implementing stormwater management activities and projects for many years under the stormwater provisions of the SPDES Permits for its 14 WRRFs. Through its consolidated assessment and listing methodology, NYSDEC lists on its 303(d) list certain bodies of water as impaired. A waterbody is considered impaired when it fails to meet its NYSDEC-designated use (e.g., swimming, fishing, or recreational boating). In Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit, NYSDEC listed impaired waters in NYC along with their relevant pollutants of concern (POCs) at the time of permit issuance on August 1, 2015. POCs are pollutants causing the impairment of an impaired water segment. The POCs that have been identified for waterbodies in NYC are: � Pathogens—Pathogens are disease-producing agents such as bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms. � Floatables—Floatables are manmade materials such as plastics, papers, or other products, which have made their way to a waterbody. � Nutrients—Nutrients, including phosphorus and nitrogen, can lead to algae blooms that deplete oxygen in the water and can kill aquatic life. Algal bloom in Silver Lake 7 Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Floatables-Impaired Waterbodies Waterbodies Impaired for Floatables Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Pathogens-Impaired Waterbodies Waterbodies Impaired for Pathogens 8 Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Waterbodies Impaired for Nitrogen Nitrogen-Impaired Waterbodies Phosphorus-Impaired Waterbodies Waterbodies Impaired for Phosphorus 9 The MS4 Permit regulates drainage areas (collectively called the MS4 area) where one or more of the following statements apply: � Stormwater drains to separate storm sewers owned or operated by the City that discharge to surface waters of the State through MS4 outfalls, or that connect to combined sewer overflow outfalls downstream of a CSO regulator (a device used in NYC’s combined sewers to control the diversion of sewage flow to the WRRFs during dry and wet weather); � Stormwater drains to high-level storm sewers and Bluebelts that ultimately discharge to surface waters of the State through MS4 outfalls; or � Stormwater drains by overland flow from a City operation or facility directly to surface waters of the State. Scale (# col/100 mL) >2000201-20000-100 100-200 1985 2016 Water Quality Improvements in NYC Related Stormwater Management Efforts New York City has long been at the forefront of innovative stormwater management, including construction of the award-winning Staten Island Bluebelts and a $1.6 billion commitment to design and construct green infrastructure that naturally collects stormwater across the urban landscape. Ongoing programs to manage stormwater runoff include: � Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan � Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan � Bluebelt Initiatives � NYC Green Infrastructure Program � CSO Mitigation Program and Long-Term Control Plans As a testament to the City’s substantial investments over the last four decades, NYC’s waterbodies are healthier than they have been in more than 100 years of testing. 10 Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) Standard Because of the unique nature of stormwater (an MS4 has limited control of its inputs and cannot treat them as a wastewater resource recovery facility can treat its influent before discharging it to a waterbody), the Clean Water Act1 established the MEP standard as the appropriate compliance standard for the MS4s. The New York State Environmental Conservation Law also establishes the same standard.2 Rather than requiring strict compliance with water quality standards through traditional end-of-pipe control techniques or numeric effluent limits, the MEP standard requires that the City implement all technically feasible and cost-effective best management practices (BMPs) that will reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4. 1 3 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) 2 ECL § 17-0808(3)(c) NYC MS4 Stormwater Management Program Plan The MS4 Permit issued on August 1, 2015 required the City to develop a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan that included numerous programs designed to reduce pollution in stormwater runoff. This Plan describes the ways in which the City satisfies the requirements of the MS4 Permit by managing stormwater discharges into and from the City’s separate storm sewers as well as the major components of the SWMP and its associated best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the MS4. The programs described in this Plan satisfy the MS4 Permit requirements to meet the maximum extent practicable (MEP) standard. The City submitted the Plan to NYSDEC on August 1, 2018, and NYSDEC approved the Plan on March 14, 2019. Since 2018, the City has been publishing an annual report on SWMP implementation that includes a section on program updates. This section has updates to the SWMP that the City is proposing as part of refining and adapting its program. The City updates the Plan text annually but implements as soon as practicable any necessary changes identified during the reporting year. Chapters of this Plan include a description of City programs related to MS4 Permit compliance; new initiatives or program enhancements developed for MS4 Permit compliance; and measurable goals for future assessment of the program. This Plan also refers at times to Appendices, which include documents that the MS4 Permit required or that provide additional information. Chapters in this Plan: 1 Legal Authority and Program Administration 2 Public Education and Outreach 3 Public Involvement and Participation 4 Mapping 5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6 Construction and Post-Construction 7 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities 8 Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources 9 Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris 10 Monitoring and Assessment of Controls 11 Special Conditions for Impaired Waters 12 Recordkeeping and Reporting Flushing Bay 1.0 Legal Authority and Program Administration Administration of the SWMP The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) led the development of the SWMP with contributions and assistance from the Stormwater Controls Working Group, a team of representatives from the following New York City agencies, a subset of which have obligations under the MS4 Permit: � Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) � Department of City Planning (DCP) � Department of Design and Construction (DDC) � Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) � Department of Buildings (DOB) � Department of Corrections (DOC) � Department of Education (DOE) � Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) � Department of Transportation (DOT) � Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR or Parks) � Department of Sanitation (DSNY) � Fire Department (FDNY) � Police Department (NYPD) � Small Business Services (SBS) � NYC Law Department (LAW) � Economic Development Corporation (EDC) � Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) � Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) Interagency collaboration is a critical component for the successful implementation of the SWMP. The MS4 Permit required an interdisciplinary approach and diverse technical skill sets to address a broad range of water quality issues. Furthermore, strong communication among agencies enables implementation of a comprehensive set of stormwater management practices, which help protect local waterbodies. To enhance interagency coordination, agency representatives participate in sub-teams that focus on certain program elements of the SWMP. Some sub-teams consist only of DEP staff, e.g., Industrial and Commercial; others include staff from other agencies, e.g., Public Outreach and Education, Mapping, Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping, Construction and Post Construction, and Floatables. The agencies that contributed to the development of the SWMP continue to work together on implementation of the programs. Legal Authority The MS4 Permit required the City to have adequate legal authority to implement and enforce the SWMP. A review conducted by the City in 2016 concluded that the New York City Charter provided adequate legal authority to the Mayor and mayoral agencies to manage their operations and facilities, and to ensure coordination and information sharing to enable the City’s compliance with the MS4 Permit. The review also identified three programs that required supplemental legislation and regulations (rules) to achieve the full legal authority necessary to implement the MS4 Permit: IDDE; Construction and Post-Construction; and Industrial and Commercial. Accordingly, the City Council approved comprehensive legislation that consolidated, clarified, and supplemented the City’s existing legal authority. Mayor de Blasio signed the legislation on May 30, 2017, promulgating Local Law 97 of 2017, or the NYC Stormwater Law.1 This law enabled the City to promulgate rules necessary to address each of the three areas identified as requiring additional authority. DEP proposed and adopted these rules in accordance with the Citywide Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA), which requires a process that provides New Yorkers with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed draft(s) of the rule. Regulatory Program Proposed Rules Published Final Rules Effective IDDE September 26, 2017 March 30, 2018 Construction and Post Construction2 July 30, 2018 June 1, 2019 Industrial and Commercial July 30, 2018 June 1, 2019 Enforcement Response Plan The City developed an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP), as required by the MS4 permit. The ERP establishes methods and procedures for responses to potential violations of the IDDE, Construction and Post-Construction, and Industrial and Commercial Programs. The ERP is a protocol for investigating and documenting violations of the regulatory requirements of these three programs and, where appropriate, enforcing against the violators. 1 Local Law 91 of 2020 extended to the combined sewer area DEP’s legal authority to regulate land development activities. 2 In February 2022, the City revised the rules for the Construction and Post-Construction program in the Unified Stormwater Rule (USWR), which reduced the soil disturbance threshold for construction permitting to 20,000 square feet and added triggers for coverage: creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface and roadway maintenance of 20,000 square feet or more. A g e n c ie s w it h M S 4 P e rm it O b lig at io n s C o lla b o ra to rs 11 12 Possible enforcement responses include a range of techniques to address various levels of non-compliance, such as verbal warnings, written summonses (previously referred to as notices of violation or NOVs), citations with civil and administrative penalties, criminal penalties, stop work orders, cease and desist orders, and withholding or revocation of plan approvals or permits. When issuing an enforcement response, the City considers the violator’s history, and the violation’s severity and type. For persistent non-compliance, repeat, or escalating violations, the City issues progressively stricter responses. Reliance on Third Parties Third-party entities (i.e., contractors) sometimes perform work on behalf of the City. In cases in which a third-party entity works on developing or implementing any portion of the SWMP, that entity must comply with applicable MS4 Permit requirements. Each City agency contracting with a third party is responsible for providing the third party with a copy of the MS4 Permit and confirming that the third party complies with applicable MS4 Permit requirements. Notification of Entities Regulated Under the MS4 Permit Many of the new or enhanced programs initiated as part of the SWMP affect specific stakeholders. In order to ensure that these stakeholders were well informed of their new requirements, the City sent out formal notifications to the following entities within 3 months of the August 1, 2015 effective date of the permit: � Industrial and Commercial Facilities currently covered by the NYSDEC Industrial Activities Multi- Sector General Permit (MSGP) � Industrial and Commercial Facilities not currently covered under the MSGP that may require coverage � Construction Sites covered by the NYSDEC Construction Activities General Permit (CGP) Dragon Boat Practice in Flushing Bay DRAFT 3/12/18 13 2.0 Public Education and Outreach When the MS4 permit was issued in 2015, the City already had many education and outreach initiatives that informed a broad range of stakeholders about stormwater, as well as the sources of pollutants associated with stormwater and their potential impacts on water quality. Collectively, these programs laid the foundation for the Public Education and Outreach Program for the SWMP. Key programs include the Water Resources Annual Art and Poetry Contest, NYC Park Stewardship, Community Clean-ups, SAFE Events, Adopt-a-Highway/Greenway, 311, and many more. The Public Education and Outreach Program educates New Yorkers on the proper management and disposal of used oil and grease, toxic materials, pharmaceuticals, household cleaners, pet wastes, pathogens, floatables, and nutrients. The target audiences for this program include but are not limited to students, educators, residents, business community, community groups, and environmental advocates. The City uses several strategies to educate the public: � Information and reporting hotline � City MS4 website, agency websites, and social media � Public signage � Cooperative efforts with local organizations and environmental advocates � Curriculum development and other resources for teachers � Electronic communication � Informational materials � Public access to waterbodies � Paid media � Special programming � Stewardship and volunteerism � Workshops, trainings, presentations, and other events In addition to educating New Yorkers on proper management and disposal practices, the City encourages the public to use the 311 service to report the presence of illicit discharges or water quality impacts associated with discharges into or from the MS4. 311 is accessible in many languages and through several platforms. The public can report or seek information related to catch basins, illegal dumping, dirty conditions, dry weather discharges, and other issues. Key measurable goals Key measures of the Public Education and Outreach Program include number of events, participants, and materials distributed. NYC students participate in a DEP education program 14 311 is New York City's main source of government information and non emergency services. It provides the public with quick, easy access to all New York City government services and information. The public may connect with 311 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year by: � Visiting 311 online at nyc.gov/311; � Calling 311 or (212) NEW-YORK, (212) 639-9675, from outside New York City; � Texting 311-692; � Downloading the NYC 311 mobile app for Apple or Android devices; or � Tweeting to @nyc311 311 is accessible to non-English speakers, available online in over 50 languages and by phone in over 170 languages. 311 facilitates transparency and accountability. Service requests and agency responses are available to public as open data online. Currently, the public can use 311 to access information on many topics relevant to stormwater pollution and water quality. The public is also encouraged to use 311 to report information relevant to stormwater pollution. Through 311, the public can report: � Waterway Complaint—Report floatables, trash, oil, gasoline, sewage, or an unusual color in a waterway; report a potential illicit discharge from an MS4 outfall. � Dry Weather Sewage Discharge Complaint—Report water flowing through a sewer outfall pipe during dry weather. � Dumping in Catch Basin or Sewer—Report grease, gasoline, natural gas, cement, oil, sewage, chemicals, or other liquids going into a sewer or catch basin. � Oil Spill—Report an oil spill. � Illegal Dumping Complaint—Report the dumping of large amounts of trash. � Catch Basin Complaint—Report a storm drain that is missing its cover, clogged, sunken, raised, damaged, or defective. Wolfe's Pond Bluebelt Cleanup, Staten Island http://www1.nyc.gov/311/index.page 15 3.0 Public Involvement and Participation Involving the public in the development and implementation of the SWMP is a fundamental requirement in the City’s MS4 Permit. Whether they are NYC residents who recreate in local waterbodies, real-estate developers who build in MS4 areas, groups who organize waterbody cleanups, or environmentalists who advocate for a healthier harbor, a wide variety of stakeholders participate in the City’s efforts to improve water quality. The City has identified key stakeholders through their demonstrated interest in the MS4 Permit, participation in other water quality programs, and/or their potential to be affected by SWMP implementation. These stakeholders fall into several categories: � Students and educators � General public and residents � Environmental stakeholders � Neighborhood associations and other community based groups � Governmental entities (e.g., New York City Housing Authority, Metropolitan Transit Authority, School Construction Authority) � Elected officials and Community Boards � Industrial and commercial business community � Design, construction, and development community The City created a robust engagement strategy with support and input on the SWMP from the key stakeholders. This strategy included: � Identifying communication methods to reach stakeholders such as emails, press releases, mailed letters, flyers, media campaigns, website updates, and social media; � Holding stakeholder meetings to keep stakeholders informed and to solicit feedback; � Listening, acknowledging, and responding to public input; � Creating informational and educational materials; � Working with stakeholders to create public programs and events; � Providing draft documents to obtain public feedback before final submission to NYSDEC; � Leveraging other water quality related engagement efforts to reach a broader audience; and � Reducing potential conflicts among stakeholders by seeking to build consensus around issues. At the request of the public, the City formed a Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) in 2016. The SAG was open to the general public and enabled participants to provide substantive feedback throughout the drafting of this Plan. At SAG meetings, the City provided the following for each provision of the SWMP: � Progress on the development of the City’s legal authority to administer all permit requirements; � Summary of ongoing stakeholder engagement; and � Detailed review of specific SWMP programs as they were developed. These focused meetings created a space for participants to engage with the latest planning and analysis the City had completed. The City evaluated and responded to comments and suggestions received during these meetings (see Appendix 3.1). The City continues to engage the public as it implements and updates the SWMP. In addition to administering the programs listed in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach, the City conducts outreach and continues to facilitate public reporting on stormwater-related concerns through 311. Each year the City publishes and publicly presents a draft MS4 Annual Report for public review and comment. Additional information about the SWMP is available on the DEP website; the public is also encouraged to email MS4@dep.nyc.gov for more information. Key measurable goals Key measures reported include a summary of comments received on the draft Annual Reports and SWMP implementation, and a list of involvement and participation programs and activities. mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 16 What is an MS4 outfall? An MS4 outfall is any point where a separate storm sewer system owned or operated by the City of New York discharges either to Surface Waters of New York State or to another MS4 (an MS4 owned or operated by another regulated entity). Outfalls include discharges from pipes, ditches, swales, and other points of concentrated flow. However, areas of non-concentrated (sheet) flow which drain to Surface Waters of the State or to an MS4 owned or operated by an entity other than the City are not considered MS4 outfalls. On August 1, 2020, the City submitted an updated MS4 Map, further refining the MS4 drainage areas and outfalls. This map was the final map due under the 2015 MS4 permit. Going forward, the map will be updated once every five years. The current MS4 Map is available to the public at www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4. Key measurable goals Key measures reported for the MS4 Mapping Program include number and percent of MS4 Outfalls mapped and status of the MS4 map. East River 4.0 Mapping The City has many programs to document and map important information about NYC. Much of the information gathered by these programs is available to the public through NYC Open Data at opendata.cityofnewyork. us. As part of the SWMP, the City has mapped most MS4 outfalls and drainage areas. Over the past decade, DEP developed a Sewer Network Geodatabase, which digitally captures important information about DEP’s water and sewer network in a Geographic Information System (GIS). DEP also conducted extensive analysis and modeling of the City’s combined sewer system as part of an effort to reduce CSOs. As a result, DEP had a good understanding of the areas draining to combined sewer outfalls. When the MS4 Permit was issued in 2015, the City used these existing DEP datasets to create a Historical MS4 Map. This map represented the City’s best understanding of the MS4 area and outfalls at that time and the City used it throughout the development of the SWMP. However, the Historical MS4 Map was unrefined, contained some inaccuracies, and did not incorporate sewer infrastructure of other City agencies. As required by the MS4 Permit, the City submitted to NYSDEC a Preliminary MS4 Map showing the known MS4 drainage area and outfalls as of August 1, 2018. The Preliminary MS4 Map, which contained supplemental information relevant to stormwater management, was available to the public in an interactive online format. http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/ https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/ Interface of the Interactive MS4 Map for NYC Hendrix Creek 17 18 5.0 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) An illicit discharge is an unauthorized non-stormwater discharge to the storm sewer system. Examples of illicit discharges include sanitary connections to storm sewers, illegal dumping, and spills that enter the sewer. These discharges can include POCs such as pathogens that can degrade water quality. The City has several long-standing programs that together comprise our efforts to detect, identify, and eliminate illicit discharges: The Shoreline Survey Program is an outfall reconnaissance inventory that identifies and characterizes shoreline outfalls in NYC. Under this program, DEP surveys the entire shoreline every ten years, with progress made each year. If DEP observes a dry weather discharge, which could be an illicit discharge, it conducts an investigation to track down the source and takes steps to abate the problem. The Sentinel Monitoring Program monitors waterbodies throughout NYC for pathogens. Under this program, DEP collects samples at monitoring stations on a quarterly basis. DEP compares sampling results to a NYSDEC established water quality baseline (i.e., 200cfu/100ml for fecal coliform). If sampling results are above the baseline, DEP investigates the adjacent shoreline through a mini-shoreline survey to determine whether there is a contaminated dry weather discharge that would require source trackdown and abatement actions. The Harbor Survey Program samples ambient waterbody stations to assess the health of waterbodies throughout NYC. DEP coordinates the review and analysis of these data among the various monitoring programs and may use the data to initiate a mini-shoreline survey. 311 provides a mechanism for the public to report illicit discharges to the City. Waterway complaints, illegal dumping, and oil spills are examples of reports the public can make through 311. The City responds to 311 reports based on the type of complaint. Typically, a City employee will go to the location of a complaint, look for evidence, and try to identify the source. The Emergency Spill Response Units in DEP and FDNY respond to spills citywide. DEP responds to spills that enter the sewer system 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Throughout NYC, the FDNY Hazmat Unit and the DEP Division of Emergency Response and Technical Assessment (DERTA) respond to hazardous materials spills. DSNY may assist in spill response when requested to do so by emergency response personnel. IDDE Program Effectiveness Between 1998 and 2017 Shows the effectiveness of existing DEP programs at identifying and eliminating illicit discharges through the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Programs. Abated 4.35 million gallons per day (MGD) 97.57% DEP has successfully abated the overwhelming majority of discovered illicit discharges. Under Investigation 0.03 million gallons per day (MGD) 1.94% 19 Illicit Discharge Trackdown and Elimination Once a potential illicit discharge is identified, DEP initiates a trackdown to find the source and takes steps to eliminate the discharge. The trackdown process is a series of complex steps taken both in the office and in the field. DEP identifies areas that drain to the suspected outfall using sewer maps; pulls manholes in the streets to look for flow; samples discharges present in storm sewers to test for pollutants; and conducts dye tests. Each trackdown investigation is unique; some can take a few hours, while others can take days or months depending on the location, the number of sources, and the logistics and complexity of the drainage area. If the source of an illicit discharge is found, DEP issues a Commissioner’s Order requiring the responsible party, which can range from a homeowner to an industrial facility, to take corrective action. DEP works with the responsible party to ensure corrective action is taken as quickly as possible. DEP also revisits the site to ensure compliance. DEP reports to NYSDEC when an illegal connection is detected and again when the source is confirmed. DEP also notifies Community Boards, elected officials, and community groups when illicit discharges are confirmed. The public can also be notified through the NYSDEC NY-Alert System and community leaders. The Integrated Sentinel Monitoring Report, which DEP publishes annually on its website, includes water quality data; field investigation status and results; and an annual summary of spills and illegal dumping into the sewer system. IDDE Education, Outreach, and Training The City conducts outreach to inform the general public, businesses, and City employees about illicit discharges and how to properly dispose of waste. � General public: The City provides information on illicit discharges through the DEP website. DSNY SAFE disposal events and Special Waste Drop-off Sites are a resource for the public to properly dispose of waste and ensure it does not enter the MS4. � Industry and businesses: The City conducts targeted outreach on illicit discharges through meetings, door to-door visits, workshops, mailers, and on-site visits to educate the business community on proper waste disposal. � City employees: The City trains operational staff on preventing and identifying illicit discharges during routine work activities through the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping (PP/GH) Program. The City also trains employees implementing the IDDE Program on illicit discharge identification, proper procedures for reporting and responding, and applicable health and safety guidelines. Key measurable goals Key measures of the IDDE Program include the number of MS4 outfalls inventoried; number of illicit discharges detected and number eliminated; number of outreach programs and activities; and number of staff trained. Wildlife in Bowery Bay DRAFT 3/12/18 https://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/3783/safe-disposal-events 20 Construction is part of the fabric that supports the growth and change of NYC. Development of new sites and redevelopment of old sites redefine the City every day. To reduce the impact that construction and development may have on stormwater runoff, NYSDEC administers the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-020-001) (NYSDEC CGP). The MS4 Permit required the City to develop and administer an enhanced regulatory program based on the existing NYSDEC CGP program. The City developed the Construction and Post-Construction Program (C/PC Program), which was applicable in the MS4 area.3 SWPPP Review and Approval A stormwater pollution prevention plan, or SWPPP, is a plan prepared by a developer to manage stormwater runoff from a construction site. SWPPPs include elements that prevent pollution both during construction and after a project is completed. The NYSDEC CGP requires developers to prepare SWPPPs; the MS4 Permit requires the City to review and approve these SWPPPs. Stormwater Permits To ensure developers follow their approved SWPPPs, the City issues Stormwater Construction Permits and Stormwater Maintenance Permits. The Stormwater Construction Permit requires that the people who work on the project manage the construction site according to the SWPPP so that eroded soil and other construction wastes do not become a source of stormwater pollution. During construction, DEP may inspect a site to verify compliance with the SWPPP. For many projects, in addition to practices that control stormwater during the construction process, the SWPPP also includes stormwater management practices (SMPs) that will be implemented to reduce the pollutants being washed from the site after construction is complete. When construction is complete, the owner must apply for and maintain a Stormwater Maintenance Permit, which requires long-term operation and maintenance of the SMP(s) that have been constructed. DEP may periodically inspect sites to verify that SMPs are properly maintained and functioning as designed. 3 Local Law 91 of 2020 extended this program to the combined sewer area, effective March 2021. Results of the Threshold Study and Unified Stormwater Rule The MS4 Permit required the City to complete a Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management (Threshold Study) to determine the appropriate amount of soil disturbance that should trigger the need for review, approval, and permitting under the C/PC Program in the MS4 area. The City completed the Threshold Study in 2018 and recommended adoption of a 20,000 square foot soil disturbance threshold for both construction and post-construction requirements for public and private development and redevelopment projects on tax lots and right-of-way within the MS4 area. In February 2022, the City finalized rulemaking that includes the reduced threshold as part of the Unified Stormwater Rule (USWR). DEP updated the definition of a covered development project to reflect the reduced threshold as well as additional triggers for DEP construction permitting: creation of 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface and roadway maintenance of an area of 20,000 square feet or more. This USWR will align the Chapter 19.1 (Title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York) Construction/ Post-Construction permitting program water quality requirements with Chapter 31 stormwater quantity and flow rate requirements, encouraging covered development projects greater than or equal to 20,000 SF (or projects that create 5,000 SF or more of impervious surface) to use green infrastructure to meet requirements of both Chapters, where feasible. Key measurable goals Key measures for the C/PC Program include number of SWPPPs reviewed and approved; number and type of permits issued; and number and type of enforcement actions. Woodrow Bluebelt, Staten Island 6.0 Construction and Post-Construction 21 Self-Assessments of Municipal Facilities and Operations As part of the PP/GH Program, the City assesses municipal operations and facilities in the MS4 area with the potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff. The City prepared an initial inventory of 736 municipal facilities based on the Historical MS4 Map, but the inventory continues to fluctuate each year. Facilities can be consolidated or separated, newly occupied or vacated, or newly confirmed as being in the MS4 area or not. Since the inventory is dynamic in nature, the City updates the inventory each year in the MS4 Annual Report. The City categorizes these facilities and operations using a standardized self-assessment protocol that evaluates their potential to contribute to stormwater pollution, referred to as pollution potential. Facilities and operations are given priority ratings of high, medium, or low, which determine the frequency of self-assessments: high priority site assessments must be done every two years, medium every five years, and low every seven years. A facility or operation may increase or decrease in priority with each assessment based on its pollution potential at that time, and is then subject to the applicable timeline for the next self assessment based on the revised priority. The standardized self-assessment protocol aids agencies in determining sources of POCs potentially generated by their facilities and operations; evaluating the adequacy of their current PP/GH practices; and identifying management practices, policies, and procedures that may be implemented. The City developed guidance on additional PP/GH practices, referred to as stormwater control measures (SCMs). Agencies can select appropriate actions from this suite of SCMs for implementation at their facilities and operations. SCMs include options with a range of solutions and effectiveness, which may involve both structural and non-structural controls. Structural controls include oil and water separators, grit chambers, or other devices that remove pollutants. Non-structural controls include operational practices, signage, staff education, and other procedures. The appropriate controls are subject to agency decision-making, which will consider potential effects on agency operations and individual circumstances at each facility. The list of the SCMs, which incorporated interagency and public feedback is available on DEP’s website. The City has an extensive network of municipal facilities and operations that serve New Yorkers and keep vital infrastructure functioning properly. Most City agencies with municipal facilities and operations already had existing practices that helped prevent stormwater pollution. Building upon these existing practices, the City developed a comprehensive Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping (PP/GH) Program that: � Maintains an inventory of municipal facilities and assesses these facilities and operations for the potential to contribute pollution to stormwater runoff � Provides guidance on stormwater control measures (SCMs) to reduce stormwater pollution from municipal facilities and operations � Trains key staff on pollution prevention and good housekeeping practices � Considers the feasibility of incorporating runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure in planned municipal upgrades This program is standardized for consistency across facilities and operations, both on-site and off-site, and equips City staff with the necessary information and tools for each agency to implement the program. NYC Parks – Leaf Collection 7.0 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities http://on 22 City Staff Training The City developed PP/GH training for agency staff that addresses ways to reduce the discharge of pollutants from municipal facilities and operations. The City delivers training to agency-identified staff responsible for the implementation of SCMs in day-to-day municipal operations; agency trainers responsible for providing in-person trainings on pollution prevention; and agency site assessors responsible for conducting the self-assessments. Green Infrastructure Feasibility for Planned Municipal Upgrades Each individual agency considers and, if feasible and cost-effective, incorporates runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure (GI) during planned municipal upgrades, including within municipal rights-of-way. Examples of GI include bioswales, green streets, grass swales, rain gardens, curb cuts to reroute flow to below grade infiltration areas, or other low-cost improvements that provide runoff treatment or reduction. Consideration of feasibility includes physical site conditions, hydrogeological and environmental analyses, costs, and expected life cycles of available technologies. The City has developed criteria for agencies to use during municipal upgrade planning as a consistent method for assessing feasibility of GI implementation. Key measurable goals Key measures of the PP/GH Program include training of agency staff, completion of self assessments, implementation of SCMs, and green infrastructure projects evaluated and implemented. DEP Catch Basin Cleaning in Queens 23 8.0 Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources NYSDEC requires certain industrial facilities to obtain coverage for stormwater discharges under the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Multi Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Industrial Activities (GP-0-17-004) (MSGP). While NYSDEC continues to administer the MSGP program, DEP has implemented an Industrial and Commercial (I/C) Program in the MS4 area through the following actions: � Maintaining a facility inventory � Assessing unpermitted facilities for contributions of POCs to impaired waters � Inspecting privately owned facilities with MSGP coverage and taking enforcement actions, if appropriate � Developing a database tracking system � Training inspection staff Industrial and Commercial Facility Inventory Using the Historical MS4 Map, various databases, and information from NYSDEC, DEP created an Industrial and Commercial Facility Inventory (I/C Facility Inventory). The I/C Facility Inventory includes privately owned industrial and commercial sites that may conduct activities within the industrial sectors covered by the MSGP permit, and other industrial/commercial facilities that might generate a significant amount of POCs. DEP screened the facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory, and categorized the facilities for DEP action. The inventory serves as the basis for the I/C Program and will be updated every five years. Category Facility Characteristics Category 1: No Further Action Not subject to MSGP facilities that are out of business, not draining to the MS4; covered under individual SPDES permit; or filed a Notice of Termination (NOT) with NYSDEC Category 2: Facilities with NYSDEC No Exposure Certification NYSDEC No Exposure Certification Category 3: On-Site Assessment for Potential Referral to NYSDEC Meets the criteria set forth in Part IV.H.1.a.iii of the MS4 Permit; discharges stormwater to the MS4; not covered under an existing MSGP or individual SPDES permit; and aerial photos show evidence of industrial and commercial activity Category 4: Ongoing MSGP Inspections Based on Priority Rating NYSDEC MSGP coverage I/C Facility Inventory Categories 24 Unpermitted Facility Assessments DEP has assessed approximately 1,300 unpermitted facilities in the original I/C Facility Inventory (Category 3). DEP began facility assessments in 2019, following NYSDEC approval of the SWMP and the necessary rulemaking. P R E - A S S E S S M E N T A S S E S S M E N T P O S T- A S S E S S M E N T Complete Facility Assessment Report � Verify checklist completed and necessary information collected Notify Facilities � Summary of assessment findings � General information on NYSDEC SPDES requirements � DEP’s required referral to NYSDEC, if applicable Notify NYSDEC (if applicable) � DEP will periodically notify NYSDEC of assessment findings � NYSDEC will work with each facility to issue an appropriate permit � I/C measures will be included in Annual Reports Update I/C Facility Inventory � Upload all documents to the I/C System � Assign facility appropriate category Schedule Assessment Review Site Specific Information � Aerial maps � Data from screening process � MS4 Map � Any other available information Notify Facilities � Send follow-up notification letter with DEP contact information and information on what to expect during the assessment Introduction � Offer Credentials � Communicate reason for and extent of assessment Facility Walkthrough � Confirm/update facility information � Assess drainage � Assess the presence of pollution sources � Evaluate potential stormwater impact Wrap-Up Meeting � Discuss preliminary findings � Explain next steps in the process 25 Permitted MSGP Facility Inspections DEP inspected privately owned facilities with MSGP coverage in the I/C Facility Inventory based on information and prioritization provided by NYSDEC (Category 4). For each facility, DEP used findings from the initial inspection, and other available information, to determine potential water quality impacts and to prioritize the facility for future inspections. DEP inspects high priority facilities every year; medium priority facilities every three years; and low priority facilities every five years. DEP reviews on-site SWPPPs and related records as part of each inspection. If DEP determines that a facility is not in compliance with the MSGP, DEP can take enforcement action. P R E - I N S P E C T I O N O N - S I T E I N S P E C T I O N P O S T- I N S P E C T I O N Complete Facility Assessment Report � Verify checklist completed and necessary information collected Notify Facilities � Send follow-up letter on compliance status � Include a copy of the Facility Inspection Report, if appropriate � Include summary of infractions and corrective actions, if applicable Confirm or revise priority for future inspections � Use the prioritization factors for facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory with MSGP Coverage Update I/C System � Upload all documents Notify NYSDEC � DEP will send information to NYSDEC throughout the year � I/C measures will be included in Annual Reports Review Site Specific Information � Priority Rating � Latest facility MSGP data from NYSDEC � Five-year violation record � Any other available information Introduction � Offer credentials � Communicate reason for extent of inspection On-site Record Review � Facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) � Self-inspection/monitoring reports � Training materials � Any other available information Facility Walkthrough � Visually inspect industrial areas � Confirm activities described in SWPPP � Check if controls defined in SWPPP are implemented and effective Wrap-Up Meeting � Discuss preliminary findings � Resolve outstanding questions � Explain next steps in the process Key measurable goals Key measures of the I/C program include number of MSGP facilities inspected by priority, status of unpermitted assessment program, and number and type of enforcement actions completed. 26 9.0 Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Trash and debris from urban areas can be transported by stormwater runoff into local waterbodies. Once waterborne, this trash and debris is often referred to as “floatables.” The SWMP relies on many existing programs to control trash and debris stemming from the MS4. Key programs to manage trash and debris include street sweeping, catch basin hoods and maintenance, and booms and nets that catch materials discharged from outfalls. The City-Wide CSO Floatables Plan of 19974 reported an estimated 96% capture rate of street litter citywide through these programs and treatment of combined sewage. The City developed a work plan to determine the loading rate of trash and debris discharged from the MS4. Additionally, City facilities and operations within the MS4 control trash and debris as part of their PP/GH practices. 4 HydroQual, Inc. 1997. City-Wide CSO Floatables Plan, prepared for the City of New York, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Environmental Engineering, June 1997 The City also administers a variety of public participation programs that encourage the public to help manage trash and debris. These include a suite of stewardship programs (e.g., Adopt-a-Bluebelt, Adopt-a-Highway/Greenway, Adopt a-Basket) and 311, which enable New Yorkers to report dirty conditions to the City. The City has also implemented several public awareness campaigns in connection with the SWMP: � B.Y.O. Campaign. Shorthand for “bring your own,” the B.Y.O. Campaign encouraged New Yorkers to live a less disposable lifestyle by using reusable bags, mugs, and bottles. By encouraging New Yorkers to use reusable items, the campaign helped reduce the initial generation of waste that may end up as floatable debris in the City’s waterways. DEP skimmer boat collects trash and debris 27 � #TalkTrashNewYork. The City developed a basketball-themed message that reminded New Yorkers that keeping NYC clean is a team effort. DSNY partnered with DPR and the New York Knicks for #TalkTrashNewYork, an anti-litter campaign promoting clean streets, sidewalks, beaches, and parks across the City. � Don’t Trash Our Waters. Seeking to raise public awareness of the connection between trash, litter, and water quality, the City developed the campaign message, “Don’t Trash Our Waters.” This campaign featured a series of charismatic underwater characters, designed to remind New Yorkers that trash on the street ends up in our harbor and hurts local wildlife such as dolphins, seals, whales, turtles, and oysters. In addition to raising awareness, the campaign also aimed to change littering behavior by imploring New Yorkers to “put it in the can.” Loading Rate Study The City developed and NYSDEC approved a work plan to determine the loading rate of trash and debris discharged from the MS4 to waterbodies impaired by floatables. The work plan combines field measurements with model analysis to determine loading rates for specific waterbodies as well as the whole MS4. The City is measuring trash and debris discharged from sample catch basins representing site categories that are likely to have different trash loading rates. To enhance the field measurements, the City will use an existing model to check the results of the field monitoring and to account for downstream in-water controls such as booms. These data and model results will then be used to estimate a loading rate for the whole MS4. The work plan is included as Appendix 9.1. Identifying and Selecting Additional Controls As part of the development of the SWMP, the City also identified controls and technologies used by other entities. Between 2016 and 2017, DEP surveyed eight municipalities to identify available types of technologies used for floatables control and to assess which may be applicable in the NYC MS4 area. The City is currently implementing or has previously evaluated nearly all of the controls used by other municipalities. Following the results of the loading rate study, the City will propose a method to site, select, and size additional controls to reduce floatables from the MS4. This method will identify and prioritize areas for additional controls and may consider factors such as waterway characteristics, neighborhood characteristics, and existing controls. Key measurable goals Key measures of the Floatables Control Program are the number of catch basins inspected and cleaned, the number of catch basin hoods installed/ replaced, and the miles of street swept. The status of the loading rate study is also reported. 28 10.0 Monitoring and Assessment of Controls To assess the quality of stormwater runoff from the MS4, the City developed an MS4 Monitoring Program that combines data collected from existing monitoring programs with additional MS4 outfall or manhole water quality and flow data. This program is designed to enable an adaptive management approach toward monitoring and assessing water quality in impaired waters. The City’s routine ambient water monitoring programs described below provided useful data for the development of the MS4 Monitoring Program. These monitoring programs will continue, and the City may use the data to complement the MS4 Monitoring Program. � Harbor Survey Program. DEP and its City agency predecessors began monitoring water quality in New York Harbor waters in 1909. Today, the Harbor Survey Program assesses changes in water quality in New York Harbor over long periods to measure the effectiveness of the City’s various water pollution control programs. This program routinely measures dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, enterococci, Secchi depth (transparency), chlorophyll “A,” total suspended solids (TSS), and total nitrogen (TN). � Sentinel Monitoring Program. DEP monitors waterbodies throughout NYC for pathogens in accordance with the SPDES permits of DEP’s 14 WRRFs. Under this program, initiated in 1998, DEP collects samples at monitoring stations on a quarterly basis. DEP compares sampling results to the NYSDEC-established water quality baseline. If sampling results are above baseline criteria, DEP investigates the adjacent shoreline through a mini-shoreline survey to determine whether there is a contaminated dry weather discharge that would require source trackdown and abatement actions. � Shoreline Survey. DEP identifies and characterizes shoreline outfalls in NYC. Under this program, DEP surveys the entire shoreline every ten years, with progress made each year. If DEP observes a dry weather discharge, it conducts an investigation, which may include sampling, to track the source and take steps to abate the problem. � Field Sampling Analysis Program (FSAP) Sampling Program. The FSAP was a citywide synoptic sampling program with the objective of evaluating the water quality of CSO-impacted waterbodies. This program was a temporary sampling program for DEP’s CSO Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) program that targeted wet weather events and took simultaneous water quality samples at multiple locations in a short period. Each impacted waterbody was governed by a plan that addressed waterbody-specific considerations. The FSAP focused on target bacteria (i.e., fecal coliform and enterococci), TSS, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), temperature, conductivity/salinity, and DO associated with CSO and stormwater discharges. � Beach Sampling. City bathing beaches are regulated, monitored, and permitted by the City and State. Under Article 167 of the City Health Code and Section 6-2.19 of the City Sanitary Code, DOHMH is responsible for beach surveillance and monitoring for all permitted City beaches. This monitoring includes routine enterococci measurements at beaches for compliance with water quality standards. DOHMH compiles the results of routine water quality monitoring and compliance inspections in an Annual Surveillance and Monitoring Beach Report. � Community-led Monitoring. Many schools, universities, citizen scientists, recreational water users, and environmental organizations conduct their own water quality testing in NYC waters. The City considers established community-led monitoring data in evaluations of long-term trends of water quality and comparisons. For example, during the development of several CSO LTCPs, organizations such as Riverkeeper, Bronx River Alliance, and the New York City Water Trail Association’s Citizens Water Quality Testing Program conducted sampling and submitted data and analysis to the City. The City reviewed this information in relation to its own analyses, noted comparisons and differences, and in some cases used it for modeling calibration processes. DEP compared stakeholder data with City data and provided a summary of the comparison during public meetings, on the DEP website, and in the final CSO LTCP that DEP submitted to NYSDEC. Organizations besides those listed above that collect long-term water quality data are encouraged to notify the MS4 team with information on their monitoring program at MS4@dep.nyc.gov. mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 29 MS4 Monitoring Program The City designed the MS4 Monitoring Program to help assess the pollutant contribution from the MS4 area and its influence on New York Harbor water quality. In Phase 1, which began in February 2019 and is ongoing, the City collects flow and water quality data at a set of MS4 outfalls during wet weather to assess the influence of land use on stormwater discharge and pollutant concentrations. In NYC, tidal flows influence the majority of outfalls, with tidal waters sometimes reaching miles upstream. This influx of harbor water impedes stormwater discharges from outfalls and, therefore, presents challenges for measuring stormwater impacts on receiving waterbodies. In order to avoid tidal influence in the sewer, the City collects some samples from manholes upstream of the representative MS4 outfalls. The Phase 1 monitoring strategy and work plan focus on outfalls representative of six land use types within NYC: mixed; high-density residential; low-density residential; industrial; open space; and highway. The City had anticipated that Phase 2 would proceed as described in Appendix 10.1. However, the City may, upon evaluation of Phase 1 monitoring data and the challenges associated with implementing Phase 1, re-evaluate the need to develop a targeted outfall monitoring program for Phase 2 and re-work the program to best enable the City to analyze long-term trends. Key measurable goals To track the implementation of the MS4 Monitoring Program, the City will report on the status of implementation, as well as an assessment of the program results and recommended adjustments. MS4 outfall in Staten Island 30 Pollutant of Concern Targeted MS4 Source Categories Proposed Control Measures and Projects for CIC Floatables � Highly impervious area (littering) � Catch basin marking and stenciling � Source control � Public education and outreach Pathogens � Illicit discharges � Pet waste � Catch basin marking and stenciling � Pet waste management � Source tracking and control � Sentinel Monitoring � Public education and outreach 11.0 Special Conditions for Impaired Waters The City administers the SWMP to reduce or remove pollutants in stormwater runoff from the MS4 area draining to surface waters of the State, including impaired waters. The MS4 Permit identifies special conditions for specific impaired waterbodies: � Impaired waters without Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) The City must ensure no net increase of the POC causing the impairment from non- negligible land use changes or changes to stormwater management practices within the MS4 area draining to the impaired waters. SWMP implementation and the City’s C/ PC Program SWPPP review process address this requirement. � Impaired waters with NYSDEC approved Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plans (CSO LTCPs) Impaired waters with NYSDEC-approved CSO LTCPs that do not predict compliance with applicable water quality standards, and where stormwater contributions from the MS4 are expected to be a significant contributor to the impairment, require the City to implement enhanced BMPs. The City must develop specific waterbody plans for each qualifying waterbody. NYSDEC approved the Coney Island Creek CSO LTCP on April 4, 2018 and, based on the City’s recommendation in the LTCP, directed the City to develop enhanced BMPs for Coney Island Creek under its MS4 program. The waterbody plan for Coney Island Creek, summarized below, includes the likely source categories for POCs causing the impairments, additional or customized BMPs, and opportunities for GI pilots. Currently, no other waterbody meets the criteria for the requirement of a specific waterbody plan. If other waterbodies meet the criteria in the future, the City will develop additional waterbody-specific plans and summarize them in future MS4 Annual Reports. Coney Island Waterbody Plan The two POCs causing impairments in Coney Island Creek are floatables and pathogens. The table below shows the targeted sources of these POCs in relation to the MS4 area draining to Coney Island Creek, and proposed control measures. In addition, DEP identified potential GI opportunities in Coney Island Creek MS4 areas, and has collaborated with other agencies (e.g., DPR, NYCHA, DOE) to evaluate the feasibility of adding GI pilot projects at those sites. Summary of POC Source Categories and Control Measures for Coney Island Creek 31 12.0 Recordkeeping and Reporting Each agency maintains its own records generated while implementing the SWMP. To consolidate information for MS4 reporting and information requests, the City developed a Consolidated Information Tracking System (CIT System or CITS). This system allows each agency to input data and supporting documentation about SWMP activities. The public can request SWMP-related records by emailing MS4@dep.nyc.gov. Each year, the City publishes a draft of the MS4 Annual Report on the DEP website and presents it to the public by July 1. The draft MS4 Annual Report includes a brief description of the SWMP activities completed during the reporting year, measurable goals, and specific reporting requirements included in the MS4 Permit. The draft MS4 Annual Report also includes activities planned for the next year, and, if applicable, any proposed changes to this Plan. Once the City addresses the public comments and edits the draft report, the City submits the final Annual Report to NYSDEC and publishes it on the DEP website by September 30. The program assessment included in each section of the annual report serves as the Annual Effectiveness Assessment. The assessment of each program includes a summary of the program activities during the reporting period, stated BMPs, and the status of the measurable goals for each BMP. The City reviews effectiveness of the SWMP through achievement of its measurable goals. Conclusion The SWMP builds upon coordination among City agencies to leverage existing programs and implement new initiatives for stormwater management. The City created the SWMP in collaboration with stakeholders and the public, who are encouraged to continue supporting the City’s efforts in implementing the SWMP. As one of the world’s great waterfront cities, NYC is continuing to lead the way in innovative programs to protect and improve water quality in the twenty-first century and beyond. Visit www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 for more information. Coney Island Creek aerial view mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 32 Jack's Pond Bluebelt, Staten Island 33 Introduction Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 34 Flushing Bay dragon boat race 35 Newtown Creek The character of New York City, as one of the world’s great waterfront cities, is connected to the waterbodies that surround it. The City of New York (NYC or the City) has long been at the cutting-edge of innovative practices to improve water quality including upgrades at our wastewater resource recovery facilities (WRRFs), construction of the award-winning Staten Island Bluebelts, and a $1.6 billion commitment to design and construct green infrastructure (GI) that naturally collects stormwater across our urban landscape. As a testament to the City’s substantial investments over the last four decades, New York City’s waterbodies are cleaner than they have been in more than a century of testing. The City remains committed to protecting the overall health of our harbor while working to improve conditions in impaired waterbodies. In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the waters of the United States by regulating the discharge of pollutants to waterbodies across the country. Starting in the 1990s, cities and other urbanized areas with municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) were required to obtain permits for stormwater discharges, which are intended to reduce pollution from stormwater. Separate storm sewers carry stormwater runoff directly to a local waterbody. In a dense, urban environment, stormwater runoff can absorb and convey pollutants such as trash, pathogens, oil, and grease. A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) that discharges to surface waters of the state and: � is owned or operated by a state, city, town, village, or other public entity; � is designed or used to collect or convey stormwater; � is not a combined sewer; and � is not part of a publicly owned WRRF. 36 How do sewer systems handle stormwater? The City has two types of sewer systems that keep stormwater from flooding streets and homes: a combined sewer system and a separate sewer system. While these systems look the same at the street level, there are some important differences. In a Combined Sewer System, both wastewater and stormwater are carried by a single pipe to a wastewater resource recovery facility (WRRF). During times of heavy precipitation, the combined sewer system may be overwhelmed and discharge into waterbodies. This discharge is known as a combined sewer overflow (CSO). Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Manhole Manhole Catch Basin Outfall Pipe River Separate Storm Sewer System To Wastewater Treatment Plant Combined Sewer System Manhole Catch Basin To Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall Pipe River Combined Sewer Overflow In a Separate Storm Sewer System, wastewater and stormwater are carried by separate pipes. Wastewater is conveyed to a WRRF where it is treated, while untreated stormwater is discharged into a waterbody. A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a separate storm sewer system that is owned by a municipality, in this case the City of New York. Combined Sewer System 37 The City of New York MS4 Permit On August 1, 2015, the City received its first State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) MS4 Permit (No.NY-0287890) from NYSDEC. The MS4 Permit significantly expanded the City’s previous obligations to reduce pollutants discharging to the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) through robust requirements in the form of minimum control measures and BMPs and timelines for submitting key deliverables to NYSDEC. Numerous City agencies have significant responsibilities under the MS4 Permit. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for coordinating the interagency efforts to meet the City’s MS4 Permit requirements. The MS4 Permit regulates drainage areas (collectively called the MS4 area) where one or more of the following statements apply: � Stormwater drains to separate storm sewers owned or operated by the City that discharge to surface waters of the State through MS4 outfalls, or that connect to combined sewer overflow outfalls downstream of a CSO regulator (a device used in NYC’s combined sewers to control the diversion of sewage flow to the WRRF during dry and wet weather); � Stormwater drains to high-level storm sewers and Bluebelts that ultimately discharge to surface waters of the State through MS4 outfalls; or � Stormwater drains by overland flow from a City operation or facility directly to surface waters of the State. New York City (NYC) Land Area. The total area of NYC is approximately 305 square miles organized into five boroughs: Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. Population. According to the NYC Department of City Planning, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 census, New York City’s population was 8,804,190 on April 1, 2020, a record high population Sewer System. About 60 percent of NYC uses a combined sewer system to convey stormwater runoff. The rest of NYC uses either the municipal separate storm sewer system, a private sewer system, or no sewer system at all (often referred to as direct drainage or overland flow). Impervious Area. Impervious surfaces cover approximately 70% of NYC’s land area and generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff. 38 Impaired Waters and Pollutants of Concern Through its consolidated assessment and listing methodology, NYSDEC lists certain bodies of water as impaired. A waterbody is considered impaired when it fails to meet its NYSDEC-designated use (e.g., swimming, fishing, or recreational boating). In Appendix 21 of the MS4 Permit, NYSDEC identifies impaired waters in NYC as well as the relevant pollutants of concern (POCs) for each waterbody. POCs are those pollutants causing the impairment of an impaired water segment. The POCs that have been identified for waterbodies in NYC are: � Pathogens - Pathogens are disease-producing agents such as bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms. � Floatables - Floatables are manmade materials such as plastics, papers, or other products, which have made their way to a waterbody. � Nutrients – Nutrients, specifically phosphorus and nitrogen, can lead to algae blooms that deplete oxygen in the water, which kills aquatic life. Refer to Chapter 11: Special Conditions for Impaired Waters for more information on impaired waterbodies. 1 Appendix 2 of the MS4 permit includes the list of waterbodies as of the effective date of the permit, August 1, 2015. Floatables-Impaired Waterbodies Waterbodies Impaired for Floatables Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Pathogens-Impaired Waterbodies Waterbodies Impaired for Pathogens Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Waterbodies Impaired for Nutrients Nitrogen-Impaired Waterbodies Phosphorus-Impaired Waterbodies 39 Related Stormwater Management Efforts The City has several existing programs to manage stormwater runoff, which improve and protect water quality in local waterbodies. Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan In response to local legislation, DEP created a protection plan for the Jamaica Bay watershed. The Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan was completed in October 2007 and established a pathway towards restoring and maintaining the water quality and ecological integrity of the Bay by evaluating threats and coordinating environmental remediation and protection efforts in a focused and cost-effective manner. The protection plan also included the design, construction, and monitoring of several GI pilot projects. Bluebelt Initiatives The Bluebelt initiative began in Staten Island over 20 years ago and has expanded into the Bronx and Queens. The award-winning Bluebelt Program preserves natural drainage corridors such as streams, ponds, and wetlands and optimizes them to control and filter stormwater runoff. Managed by DEP, the program includes Bluebelt construction and drainage system maintenance and management. Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan Released in December 2008, the Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan was the product of an interagency task force and provided a foundation for improving water quality in New York Harbor, increasing recreation opportunities, and restoring coastal ecosystems. The plan consisted of three primary objectives: to implement the most cost-effective and feasible source controls; to resolve the feasibility of promising technologies; and to explore funding options for source controls. Developed with significant input from environmental stakeholders, the plan set clear milestones for the strategic implementation of cost-effective stormwater source controls and laid a framework for GI in NYC. Jamaica Bay Restoration 40 NYC Green Infrastructure Program Building upon the successes and lessons of earlier efforts, the City established the NYC Green Infrastructure Program (GI Program). GI practices such as green roofs and rain gardens collect, treat, and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The goal of the GI Program is to reduce CSOs into the waterbodies of NYC by using GI technologies to manage stormwater from impervious surfaces. DEP works with partner agencies to design, construct, and maintain GI on City streets, sidewalks, and other public property. The GI Program also offers grants to private property owners to install various types of GI. The GI Program includes a research and development effort, which reviews GI performance over time, ensures performance-based maintenance and operations, and conducts cost-benefit analyses of various GI designs. The data analysis supports the City’s water-quality related compliance programs and fills data gaps that DEP has identified through previous monitoring activities. This work is critical to the success of GI implementation in both combined and separate sewer areas of NYC. Combined Sewer Overflow Mitigation Program and the Long Term Control Plans As part of the SPDES Permits for all 14 DEP WRRFs located in NYC, to mitigate the impact of CSOs on water quality, the City implements CSO BMPs to address operation and maintenance procedures, maximize use of existing systems and facilities, and conduct planning efforts to maximize CSO capture. DEP annually reports on its progress in implementing CSO BMPs. Since the 1980s, DEP has invested in infrastructure projects that have reduced CSO volumes by over 80%. In 2012, a consent order between DEP and NYSDEC initiated development of 11 Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs), which are comprehensive evaluations of long term solutions to reduce the impacts of CSO events and to continue to improve water quality in NYC’s waterbodies. Each LTCP is unique and seeks to develop approaches for the individual waterbody to achieve applicable State water quality standards. LTCPs are or will be implemented using a hybrid green and grey infrastructure approach to address, measure, and mitigate the effects of CSO events. The LTCP process has included robust community engagement with environmental stakeholders, neighborhood associations, recreational water users, elected officials, and community boards. Green Infrastructure Paerdegat Basin CSO facility 41 NYC MS4 Stormwater Management Program Plan Most chapters of this Plan include a description of relevant City programs in place prior to the issuance of the 2015 MS4 Permit; new initiatives and/or program enhancements developed for the MS4 Permit; and measurable goals for future assessment of the program. The Plan also refers at times to Appendices, which include documents that either are required by the MS4 Permit or provide additional information. Since 2018, the City has published an annual report on SWMP implementation, which includes a section on program updates that the City is proposing as part of refining and adapting its program. The City updates the SWMP Plan text annually but implements as soon as practicable any necessary changes identified during the reporting year. This Plan consists of the following chapters: Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration Describes the City’s legal authority and administrative processes to implement the SWMP including interagency coordination during SWMP development and implementation; legislative and regulatory authority; the City’s enforcement response plan; reliance on third parties; fiscal analysis; and notification of entities regulated under the MS4 Permit. This chapter sets forth the City’s compliance with Part III and Part IV.K of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach Describes the City’s Public Education and Outreach Program including existing programs; target audiences; pollutants and waterbodies of concern; education and outreach strategies; public reporting of illicit discharges or water quality impacts; proper management and disposal of pollutants of concern; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.A of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 3: Public Involvement and Participation Describes the City’s Public Involvement and Participation Program including existing programs; key stakeholders; public engagement during SWMP development; public comments on the Progress Reports and this Plan; ongoing public involvement and participation; mechanisms for public reporting and stormwater related requests; Annual Report public review process; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.B of the MS4 Permit. What are these yellow boxes? Keep an eye out for these yellow boxes that appear throughout the Plan. They include information about public engagement and how you can stay involved. The MS4 Permit required the City to develop a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan by August 1, 2018. The SWMP is comprised of numerous programs designed to reduce the risk of pollution in stormwater runoff. This SWMP Plan (Plan) describes the ways in which the City satisfies the requirements of the MS4 Permit by managing stormwater discharges into and from the City’s separate storm sewers. The programs described in this Plan satisfy the MS4 Permit requirements to meet the MEP standard. The City submitted the Plan to NYSDEC on August 1, 2018, and NYSDEC approved the Plan on March 14, 2019. 42 Chapter 4: Mapping Describes the City’s Mapping Program including existing programs; the Historical MS4 Map; delineation methods for the MS4 Map; the Preliminary MS4 Map; the Final MS4 Map; the MS4 Map update process; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.C of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Describes the City’s IDDE Program including non stormwater discharges; illicit discharge detection; illicit discharge trackdown, elimination, and notification; spill prevention and citywide containment and response; sanitary pipe seepage controls; public education and participation; staff training and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.D of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction Describes the City’s Construction and Post-Construction Program including the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) review and approval process; the process to obtain DEP-issued Stormwater Construction Permits and Stormwater Maintenance Permits; education, certification, training; results of the Threshold Study; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.E and IV.F of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 7: Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping (PP/GH) for Municipal Facilities and Operations Describes the City’s PP/GH Program including associated programs and controls for pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer application; inventory and prioritization of municipal facilities and operations; self-assessments of municipal facilities and operations; City staff training program; Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) programs for municipal facilities; GI feasibility for planned municipal upgrades; requirements for third-party contractors; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.G of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 8: Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources Describes the City’s program to address industrial and commercial stormwater sources including associated inspection programs; industrial and commercial facility inventory; unpermitted facility assessments; MSGP facility inspections, including no exposure facility inspections; tracking system; inspection staff training; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.H of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 9: Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Describes the City’s Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Control Program including floatables management programs; evaluation of existing programs; loading rate work plan; available technologies and controls; methodology for selecting technologies and controls; media campaigns; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.I of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 10: Monitoring and Assessment of Controls Describes the City’s Monitoring and Assessment Program including associated monitoring programs; MS4 monitoring program; MS4 monitoring procedures; assessment of the MS4 monitoring program; measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.J of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 11: Special Conditions for Impaired Waters Describes the City’s program for Impaired Waters including identification of impaired waterbodies and POCs; special conditions for impaired waterbodies without total maximum daily loads; special conditions for impaired waterbodies with approved CSO LTCPs; Coney Island Creek’s Waterbody Plan; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part II of the MS4 Permit. Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting Describes recordkeeping and data management for the SWMP; the MS4 Annual Report process and schedule; the Annual Effectiveness Assessment; and measurable goals for program assessment. This chapter corresponds to Part IV.J, Part IV.L, and Part IV.M of the MS4 Permit. 43 Chapter 1 Legal Authority and Program Administration Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 Statue of Liberty 44 45 On August 1, 2015, NYC received from NYSDEC a SPDES permit (No. NY-0287890) that authorizes the discharge of stormwater from the MS4. The MS4 Permit requires the City to implement measures, which protect and improve water quality, in order to reduce pollution in stormwater runoff. Part III of the 2015 MS4 Permit required the City to develop and implement a SWMP Plan, which describes the SWMP and associated BMPs the City performs to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to the MEP. The federal Clean Water Act and the New York State Environmental Conservation Law established the MEP standard as the appropriate compliance standard for MS4s because of the unique nature of stormwater. Implementation of the SWMP achieves the MEP requirement. Part III of the MS4 Permit also required the City to: � Develop adequate legal authority to implement and enforce the SWMP � Establish enforcement measures and tracking � Ensure adequate resources to comply with the MS4 Permit � Notify entities regulated under the MS4 Permit This chapter outlines the development of the SWMP including administrative documents; delineates City agency roles and responsibilities; describes the collaborative planning process; details the City’s legal authority to implement the SWMP; and includes the Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) (Appendix 1.1), third party certification requirements, Fiscal Analysis (Appendix 1.4), and requirements for notification of entities regulated under the MS4 Permit. Jamaica Bay 46 1.1 Stormwater Management Program Administration Before NYSDEC issued the permit in 2015, the Mayor’s Office initiated the Stormwater Controls Working Group, a team of representatives from the following New York City agencies that collaborate on MS4 programs. A subset of these agencies have obligations under the MS4 Permit. � Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) � Department of City Planning (DCP) � Department of Design and Construction (DDC) � Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) � Department of Buildings (DOB) � Department of Corrections (DOC) � Department of Education (DOE) � Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) � Department of Transportation (DOT) � Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR or Parks) � Department of Sanitation (DSNY) � Fire Department (FDNY) � Police Department (NYPD) � Small Business Services (SBS) � NYC Law Department (LAW) � Economic Development Corporation (EDC) � Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) � Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) During the City’s negotiations with NYSDEC on the MS4 permit, this group met regularly to discuss permit-related matters. After NYSDEC issued the first MS4 Permit in 2015, DEP led the overall development of the SWMP, and the Stormwater Controls Working Group continued to meet regularly to discuss stormwater program development. The City also created technical sub-teams comprised of interagency staff with relevant responsibilities for program elements of the SWMP. Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) Standard Because of the unique nature of stormwater (an MS4 has limited control of its inputs and cannot treat them as a wastewater wastewater resource recovery facility can treat its influent before discharging it to a waterbody), the Clean Water Act1 established the MEP standard as the appropriate compliance standard for the MS4s. The New York State Environmental Conservation Law also establishes the same standard.2 Rather than requiring strict compliance with water quality standards through traditional end-of-pipe control techniques or numeric effluent limits, the MEP standard requires that the City implement all technically-feasible and cost-effective best management practices (BMPs) that will reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4. 1 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) 2 ECL § 17-0808(3)(c) A g e n c ie s w it h M S 4 P e rm it O b lig a ti o n s C o lla b o ra to rs The City’s SWMP planning efforts began during MS4 Permit negotiations with NYSDEC in 2013. There was coordination among agencies throughout SWMP development. This coordination has continued through SWMP implementation and negotiations on a renewal of the MS4 Permit. Initial SWMP Development In 2013, under Executive Order 429, the Mayor charged DEP with responsibility for coordinating efforts among City agencies with respect to all matters relating to the MS4 Permit requirements. Executive Order 429 also directed all mayoral agencies and the Department of Education (DOE) to collaborate with DEP. This collaboration included requirements that agencies: � provide to DEP all information necessary for permit compliance; � implement controls included in the SWMP that fall within their responsibilities and work with the New York City Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to identify funding for SWMP implementation; � create and maintain adequate records and prepare any reports required by the MS4 Permit; and � provide technical assistance and support to DEP within their areas of expertise, including training and education of agency staff and other parties. 47 During SWMP development, there were eight sub-teams for different programs: three within DEP—Industrial and Commercial, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE), and Monitoring; and five in collaboration among various City agencies—Public Outreach & Participation, Mapping, Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping, Construction & Post-Construction, and Floatables. The sub-teams convened, as necessary, to decide on approaches, policies, and specific program elements. Additionally, the City met regularly with NYSDEC to provide updates on the status of SWMP development from 2015 to 2018. The City submitted multiple deliverables prior to the SWMP Plan due date of August 1, 2018, as documented in Appendix 1.2. Prior to the SWMP Plan submittal, the City also coordinated with NYSDEC regarding the transfer of necessary data and information related to the Industrial and Commercial and Construction and Post-Construction programs, particularly related to NYSDEC SPDES MSGP, Permit No. GP-0-17- 004, and SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity GP-0-20-001 (Construction General Permit or CGP). Further, throughout SWMP development, the City solicited input from stakeholders through regular public meetings, informal discussions, and targeted outreach meetings. Refer to Chapter 3: Public Involvement and Participation for more information or Appendix 3.1: Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses. Current SWMP Implementation Local Law 97 of 2017 (NYC Stormwater Law) revised section 1403 of the New York City Charter and codified DEP’s role in coordinating the City’s compliance with the MS4 Permit. DEP administers the overall SWMP, while each City agency is responsible for implementing specific SWMP components applicable to its own activities, facilities, and/or operations. Each Chapter of this Plan identifies the agencies responsible for implementing the initiatives and programs described. Figure 1.1 lists agencies and their corresponding roles in SWMP development and implementation. Appendix 1.3 provides an organizational chart specifying the agencies and key personnel. Email questions, comments, and suggestions for this Plan to MS4@dep.nyc.gov. Some agencies have entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with DEP, delineating responsibilities under the MS4 Permit. Additionally, some agencies have New York City Charter-required stormwater management responsibilities relevant to the MS4 Permit. These agencies have a more substantial role in stormwater management by virtue of their obligations and duties under the New York City Charter: � DEP is responsible for providing water, disposing of sewage, and controlling water pollution. These responsibilities include responding to emergencies caused by releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances and managing the location, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, and operation of DEP-owned sewers, including intercepting sewers. DEP is also responsible for planning, managing, and maintaining DEP’s sewer and drainage systems, and for the management and control of discharges and runoff from public and private property, including stormwater discharges. In addition, DEP is authorized to coordinate the actions of City agencies in complying with the MS4 Permit. � DPR is responsible for managing and caring for all parks, squares, public spaces, playgrounds, playground fixtures, and other recreation properties, except those within the jurisdiction of DOE or other agencies. Maintenance and care of these areas extends to the sidewalks that immediately adjoin them. DPR is also responsible for planting and maintaining trees and other plantings in public places belonging to the City. � DOB is responsible for enforcing provisions of the building code, zoning resolution, multiple dwelling law, labor law, and other laws, rules, and regulations that relate to the construction, alteration, maintenance, use, occupancy, safety, sanitary conditions, mechanical equipment, and inspection of buildings or structures in NYC. � DOT is responsible for constructing, maintaining, and repairing public roads, streets, highways, parkways, bridges, and tunnels. These responsibilities include regulating, grading, curbing, flagging, and guttering of streets; and designing, constructing, and repairing of public roads, streets, highways, and parkways. These responsibilities also include paving, repaving, resurfacing, and repairing all public roads, streets (including marginal streets and places), highways, and parkways, and the relaying of pavement. mailto:MS4%40dep.nyc.gov?subject= 48 � DSNY is responsible for keeping streets clean and disposing of waste. These responsibilities include sweeping, cleaning, sprinkling, flushing, washing and sanding streets; removing and disposing of street sweepings, recyclables, organics, garbage, refuse, rubbish, and waste; and removing ice and snow from the streets. DSNY is also responsible for planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining transfer stations, garages, salt sheds, and other facilities necessary for performing its responsibilities. A u th o ri ty a n d A d m in is tr at io n P ro g ra m A d m in is tr a ti o n L e g a l A u th o ri ty E n fo rc e m e n t R e sp so n se P la n F is c a l A n a ly si s R e lia n c e o n T h ir d P a rt ie s S to rm w at e r M an ag e m e n t P ro g ra m P u b lic E d u c at io n a n d O u tr e a c h P u b lic In vo lv e m e n t a n d P a rt ic ip at io n M a p p in g ID D E C o n st ru c tio n a n d P o st C o n st ru c tio n C o n tr o ls P P /G H In d u st ri a l/ C o m m e rc ia l S o u rc e s C o n tr o l o f F lo at a b le a n d S e tt le a b le T ra sh a n d D e b ri s M o n ito ri n g a n d A ss e ss m e n t S p e c ia l C o n d iti o n s fo r Im p a ri e d W at e rs R e c o rd ke e p in g a n d R e p o rt in g City Law ü « ü ü « ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DCAS ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DCP ü ü ü ü ü DDC ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DEP « ü « « ü « « « « « « « « « « « DOB ü ü ü ü ü DOC ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DOE ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DOHMH ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DOT ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DPR ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü DSNY ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü FDNY ü ü ü ü ü ü ü NYPD ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü SBS ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü � SBS is responsible for all functions and operations of the City relating to business and economic development; the enhancement of economic development and financial opportunity for minority and women owned business enterprises; and ensuring equal employment opportunity by City contractors. These responsibilities include the power and duty to exercise the functions of the City relating to the development, redevelopment, construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, management, administration, and regulation of public markets, wharf property, waterfront property, and airports within NYC. Agency Roles and Responsibilities Matrix Figure 1.1 Lead Participating 49 1.2 Legal Authority This section describes the City’s legal authority to implement and enforce the SWMP. The City provided NYSDEC with two submissions (dated February 1, 2016 and August 1, 2017), which detailed the City’s existing legal authority and included a timeline to complete the remaining elements of the legal authority necessary to implement the MS4 Permit requirements. Existing Legal Authority as of Permit Issuance Pursuant to MS4 Permit Part III.B.1., within six months of August 1, 2015, the City was required to provide a description of its existing legal authority to control discharges to the MS4. On February 1, 2016, the City fulfilled this permit requirement by submitting a description to NYSDEC of the City’s existing legal authority as of that date. The City provided an update to NYSDEC on August 1, 2017. Both of these submissions are available on the DEP website. The City concluded that the structure of government established in the New York City Charter provided adequate legal authority to the Mayor and mayoral agencies to manage their operations and facilities, and to ensure coordination and sharing of information for the City’s compliance with the MS4 Permit. Enhanced Legislative Authority In its February 2016 submission to NYSDEC, the City identified three programs, which the MS4 Permit requires the City to administer, that required supplemental legislation in order to develop the full legal authority necessary to the City’s meeting its permit obligations: � Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) � Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control and Post-Construction Stormwater Management � Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources For all three programs, the City must act in a regulatory capacity to oversee and/or enforce requirements regarding activities in the MS4 area that have the potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff and the waterbodies surrounding NYC. Both the Industrial/ Commercial and Construction/Post-Construction programs involve the City’s assumption of responsibility for administering, within the MS4 area, portions of existing New York State stormwater programs. The IDDE program, with minor updates continued DEP’s robust existing program to detect and address illicit discharges to the sewer system citywide. Accordingly, in its February 2016 submission, the City proposed a plan to design a comprehensive legislative and regulatory program tailored to enable the City to implement fully these Permit-required programs. On May 10, 2017, the New York City Council approved comprehensive legislation that consolidates, clarifies, and supplements the City’s legal authority to regulate stormwater discharges to enable the City to act in a regulatory capacity to control pollutant discharges into and from its MS4. Mayor de Blasio signed the legislation on May 30, 2017. This NYC Stormwater Law is also available on the City website.1 Enhanced Regulatory Authority The NYC Stormwater Law provided the City with sufficient legal authority to complete the rulemaking necessary for the three regulatory programs. The rulemaking process is described on the next page. The City proceeded with the rulemaking in phases: � IDDE » DEP published proposed IDDE rules on September 26, 2017 and held the public hearing on October 25, 2017. » DEP published the final rule, titled Regulation of Discharges into Storm Sewers and Catch Basins, on February 28, 2018. The rule took effect Friday, March 30, 2018. These rules are equivalent to the State’s model IDDE law, as required by the MS4 Permit. � Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control and Post Construction Stormwater Management » DEP published proposed rules for the Construction/Post Construction program on July 30, 2018 and held a public hearing on October 10, 2018. » DEP published the final rule, titled “Industrial, Commercial, Construction, and Post-Construction Stormwater Sources,” on April 1, 2019, after NYSDEC approval of the SWMP. The rules went into effect on June 1, 2019.2 » In February 2022, the City revised the rules for the Construction and Post-Construction program in the Unified Stormwater Rule (USWR), which reduced the soil disturbance threshold for construction permitting to 20,000 square feet and added triggers for coverage: creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface and roadway maintenance of 20,000 square feet or more.3 � Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources » DEP published proposed rules for the Industrial and Commercial program on July 30, 2018 and held a public hearing on October 10, 2018. » DEP published the final rule, titled “Industrial, Commercial, Construction, and Post-Construction Stormwater Sources,” on April 1, 2019, after NYSDEC approval of the SWMP. The rules went into effect on June 1, 2019. 1 https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local laws/ll97of2017.pdf 2 Local Law 91 of 2020 extended this program to the combined sewer area, effective March 2021. 3 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/unified-stormwater-rule.page https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/DEP-s-Citywide-Parcel-Based-Impervious-Area-GIS-St/uex9-rfq8 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/unified-stormwater-rule.page 50 Step 1: Agency drafts rule The New York City Charter gives certain agencies the authority to propose rules. When an issue arises, agencies analyze the problem and investigate various solutions. If it is determined that a new rule would be the best course of action, a proposal will be drafted. Agencies also sometimes pro pose rules because they are mandated by law to do so. Step 3: Agency holds public hearing The agency holds a public hearing to discuss the proposed rule and review all of the testimony that has been submitted. Testimony includes any writ ten comments submitted on the NYC Rules web site or, through the mail, and spoken testimony provided at the public hearing. Step 4: Agency publishes final rule Once all testimony has been reviewed, the agency will modify the rules based on the public’s feedback, if necessary, then draft a final version. A copy is posted on NYC Rules, published in the City Record, and submitted to the City Council. Step 5: Final rule is adopted and becomes law The rule takes effect no earlier than 30 days after publication of the final version. Step 2: Agency notifies public of proposed rule Before an agency can issue a rule, the public must be given the opportunity to review the proposed rule and provide commentary, either by submitting suggestions in writing or by speaking at a public hearing. To that end, the agency must submit official notice to the City Record, the City Council, community boards, media outlets, and civic organizations, as well as the NYC Rules website. The official notice must include: • Purpose and text of the proposed rule • Explanation of the legal authority given to the agency • Time and place of public hearing • Deadline for submitting comments on NYC Rules web site or in writing Agencies are required to provide notice of the rule at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing, or the end of the comment period, whichever comes first. Rulemaking Process 51 1.3 Enforcement Response Plan As required by MS4 Permit Part III.C, the City developed an enforcement response plan (ERP), which sets forth the City’s potential responses to violations as needed to achieve compliance with requirements of the IDDE, Construction and Post-Construction, and Industrial and Commercial programs (Permit Parts IV.D, IV.E, IV.F and IV.H, respectively). The ERP is a protocol for investigating and documenting violations of the regulatory requirements of these three programs and, where appropriate, enforcing against the violators. As the agency responsible for administering the above-referenced programs on behalf of the City, DEP implements the ERP in cooperation with other City agencies, including DCP, DOB, and SBS. DEP based its approach on progressive enforcement, as required by the permit Part III.C.1, addressing “persistent non-compliance, repeat or escalating violations, or incidents of major environmental harm” through “progressively stricter responses,” taking into consideration the violator’s responsiveness and history of violations, as well as the severity and type of violation. Enforcement responses include verbal warnings, written summons (formerly known as notices of violation or NOVs), citations with civil and administrative penalties, criminal penalties, stop-work orders, cease and desist orders, and withholding of plan approvals or permits. 1.4 Reliance on Third Parties Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, the City must provide adequate assurance, through a signed certification statement, that any third-party entity (e.g., consulting firms, construction contractors) that develops or implements any portion of the SWMP complies with the MS4 Permit requirements applicable to the work performed. The MS4 Permit also requires any third party entities performing municipal operations, including but not limited to street sweeping, snow removal, and lawn/grounds care, to comply with relevant MS4 Permit provisions. Each City agency using a third-party entity to develop or implement any portion of the SWMP or to perform any municipal operation must provide the third party with a copy of the MS4 Permit and must ensure that the third party entity complies with MS4 Permit requirements. The City developed two boilerplate certifications, a General Certification and a Certification of Deliverable, for use with third-party entities that perform, on behalf of City agencies, contracted services to develop or implement any portion of the SWMP. These certifications are also used by third-party entities that perform pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations, which include “any operation or facility serving a New York City governmental purpose and over which New York City has operational control.” � Certifications for Existing Contracts For existing contracts with such third parties, City agencies have provided the third parties with a copy of the MS4 Permit and have obtained a signed General Certification from each third-party contractor stating that the third party will comply with applicable MS4 Permit requirements. The General Certification also identifies the deliverables that will be subject to individual certification and for which the third party entity will need to provide a Certification of Deliverable to the agency. The Certification of Deliverable confirms that the third party developed the relevant deliverable in compliance with all applicable requirements of the MS4 Permit. � Certifications for Future Contracts For all future contracts with such third parties, City agencies will include appropriate language in each contract that requires the third party to certify that it will comply with applicable MS4 Permit requirements. Each contract will also delineate the deliverables for which the third party must provide a Certification of Deliverable. [placeholder for summary of analysis from the agencies] 52 1.5 Fiscal Analysis Part III.D of the MS4 Permit required that the City secure the resources necessary to meet all requirements of the permit, and include an analysis of the capital, operational, and maintenance expenditures necessary to meet such requirements during the five-year permit term, including costs related to developing and implementing the SWMP. This analysis included a description of the source of funds proposed to meet the necessary expenditures, including any legal restrictions on the use of such funds. On August 1, 2018, the City timely submitted to NYSDEC its analysis of the resources needed to meet the MS4 Permit obligations and the source(s) of those funds. The City’s fiscal analysis is provided in Appendix 1.4. New Creek Bluebelt, Staten Island 53 1.6 Notification of Entities Regulated Under MS4 Permit Part III. E of the MS4 Permit required the City to provide notice to entities that are subject to two new regulatory programs the City administers under the SWMP. For both programs, one relating to industrial facilities and the other to certain construction activities, the City provided all such notices by November 1, 2018 within three months of the City’s August 1, 2018 submission to NYSDEC of this Plan. Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources. DEP commenced implementation of its program to inspect industrial and commercial sites and to enforce the MSGP in June , 2019.. In connection with this program, DEP provided the following one-time notifications in 2018: � Existing MSGP-permitted facilities. DEP used facility data as from NYSDEC’s Dropbox to obtain facility contact information and mailed a notification letter to each owner/operator indicating that DEP would be inspecting the facility for compliance with MSGP requirements. � Unpermitted facilities that may require SPDES permits for stormwater discharges from industrial activities. DEP created a list of industrial and commercial sites, as described in Chapter 8: Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources. DEP sent a notification to each facility on this list, stating that DEP would be assessing the facility to determine whether 1) DEP should refer the facility to NYSDEC for possible SPDES MSGP or individual SPDES permit coverage, and 2) whether DEP observed illicit discharges during the assessment. � Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control. DEP developed a new program to regulate stormwater discharges from construction activities, which took effect on June 1, 2019. � Existing CGP-permitted properties in 2018. DEP contacted, via email or by ordinary mail if email was not available, owners and operators with coverage under the CGP, as provided by NYSDEC, to inform them that all new construction projects in the MS4 area that met the criteria for the CGP would also require a Construction Stormwater Permit from DEP. DEP offered a Fact Sheet with a general location map of the MS4 area, information to access the online application system, and information about the general requirements of the permit. Refer to Chapter 6: Construction and Post Construction for details about this new program. � Future owners and operators. DEP offers sewer connection applicants information on obtaining a Stormwater Construction Permit in the MS4 area. By notifying applicants making storm sewer connections, DEP confirms that future owners or operators of construction Dolphins in New York Harbor 54 55 Chapter 2 Public Education and Outreach Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 56 Visitor Center at Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 57 This chapter describes the City’s Public Education and Outreach Program, which is designed to provide information to the public and target audiences about: � Impacts of stormwater discharges on waterbodies � Pollutants of concern and their sources � Actions to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff � Ways to report illicit discharges and water quality issues � Hazards associated with illicit discharge and improper disposal of waste DEP partners with NYCHA for Earth Day When the MS4 Permit was issued in 2015, the City already had many education and outreach initiatives that informed a broad range of stakeholders about wastewater treatment, sewer systems, green infrastructure, stormwater management, sources of pollutants associated with stormwater, and the potential impact on water quality of pollutants carried in stormwater. These initiatives are designed to empower the public to take measures to reduce sources of pollutants that adversely impact water quality. The MS4 Public Education and Outreach Program built upon and expanded numerous public education programs, designed for diverse audiences, with a long record of accomplishments in support of stormwater education. Part IV.A of the MS4 Permit requires the City to implement a public education and outreach program. 58 Program Name Agency Description 311 DOITT 311 provides the public with quick, easy access to all City services and information; it is the City’s main source of government information and non-emergency services. Adopt-a-Basket DSNY Local businesses or community groups monitor local litter baskets. When the baskets are three-quarters full, adopters remove plastic liners, tie them, leave them next to the basket, and insert a new liner. This effort helps prevent trash from piling on top of the basket and spilling onto side walks and streets. Adopt-a-Bluebelt DEP Local community groups, companies, and individuals enhance Staten Island's open spaces by acting as sponsors who adopt parts of the Bluebelt. For more information, visit: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/the-bluebelt-program.page Harbor Protectors (formerly Adopt-a-Catch Basin) DEP Local organizations participate in a volunteer program that helps keep neighborhood catch basins clear of trash and debris. This effort helps reduce localized flooding and keeps trash and debris out of waterbodies. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor-protectors.page Adopt-a-Highway/Greenway DOT Sponsors adopt highway or greenway segments and perform litter removal and beautification. Water Resources Annual Art and Poetry Contest DEP Second through twelfth grade students in New York City and in the upstate watersheds of the City’s drinking water supply create original art and poetry that express their knowledge and reflect an appreciation for our shared water resources. Recently highlighted themes included water quality, green infrastructure, climate change, stormwater, and pollution prevention. For more information visit: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental education/artpoetry.shtml Automotive Associations DEP DEP provides automotive associations with information on proper waste disposal as well as vehicle washing and refueling. Summary of the City’s Stormwater-Related Education and Outreach Programs Table 2.1 2.1 Educational Programs Prior to SWMP development, the City already had multiple education and outreach programs that sought both to increase the general environmental literacy of New Yorkers and to educate them specifically about issues related to stormwater. New materials are periodically created to enhance existing programs, while new programs are created as needs or opportunities are identified. Collectively, these programs are the foundation for the Public Education and Outreach Program for the SWMP. The programs that address stormwater, water quality, illicit discharges, pollution sources, or pollution prevention and other stewardship activities are described in Table 2.1. The City will continue to engage the public and seek to target residents, students, educators, businesses, and community groups with new and enhanced programs and resources. NYC students participate in Water Resources Annual Art and Poetry Contest https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/the-bluebelt-program.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor-protectors.page http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental education/artpoetry.shtml 59 Program Name Agency Description Business Outreach DEP DEP reaches out to various businesses through meetings, door-to-door visits, workshops, mailers, and on-site visits. DEP also works with its primary partners and their members (Local Development Corporations, Business Improvement Districts, Chambers of Commerce, Merchant Associations and Trade Associations) to distribute materials. Catch Basin Marking DEP Catch basin markers inform the public that the catch basins drain directly to local waterbodies and that nothing should be dumped into them. DEP’s current sewer design standards require the cast iron curb pieces of new catch basins to be stamped with a message that reads: “Dump No Waste! Drains to Waterways.” Additionally, in the Staten Island Bluebelt drainage areas, DEP installs “no dumping” medallions on the catch basins without the stamp in the curb piece. Trash It. Don’t Flush It. (formerly Cease the Grease) DEP DEP distributes information to food service establishments, businesses, and residences throughout the City on how to properly dispose of used cooking oil. In addition, school programs and online education modules are filled with lessons, student activities, and additional resources that focus on the proper disposal of grease and the importance of protecting our vital infrastructure. Trash Free NYC Waters (formerly Clean Streets = Clean Beaches) DEP & DSNY This annual educational initiative aims to improve the cleanliness and aesthetic of City beaches by reducing littering on streets and in parks. Community Clean-ups DSNY DSNY supports local community groups and block associations in their volunteer efforts to keep their neighborhoods clean through local block and street area clean-ups by offering free loans of clean-up tools and equipment. Community Right-to-Know Workshops DEP DEP conducts annual workshops for facilities regulated under DEP’s Community Right-to-Know (RTK) Program. Facilities regulated under the RTK program must annually report any chemicals that they handle or store on their premises and which meet the reporting thresholds. DEP provides participants at these workshops with an overview of the MS4 Program as well as literature and web resources pertaining to the program. Environmental Education DEP DEP educators develop, implement, and assess a vast array of multi-dis ciplinary educational resources for Pre-K through college graduate students, formal and non-formal educators, curriculum specialists, and administrators. Resources include, but are not limited to, class lessons with inquiry-based activities, professional development opportuni ties, funding, field trips, student research and curriculum development assistance, presentations and tours, online education modules and print materials, and theatrical performances. For more information, visit: nyc.gov/dep/education or email educationoffice@dep.nyc.gov Forgot your bag? DPR DPR will place dispensers with signage in targeted areas identified during its inspections to improve cleanliness and educate the public about pet waste clean-up, helping to ensure that we provide New Yorkers and visi tors alike with clean, green and safe parks. Table 2.1 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental education/index.shtml mailto:educationoffice%40dep.nyc.gov?subject= 60 Table 2.1 Program Name Agency Description IDDE Outreach and Education DEP DEP partners with local organizations, elected officials, and community boards to educate the public on DEP’s IDDE Program. This engagement includes efforts in Coney Island Creek such as Community Workshops and an MS4 Outfall Sign Pilot to educate the public on how to report potential illicit discharges. For more information see Chapter 11: Special Conditions for Impaired Waters. Visitor Center at Newtown Creek DEP Located at the Newtown Creek WRRF, the Visitor Center provides a pop ular venue for teaching youth and adults about the New York City water cycle, water quality, distribution, consumption, wastewater treatment, stormwater management, climate change, harbor water quality, and stewardship (such as water conservation, proper disposal of litter, and care for the urban forest). Park Stewardship DPR DPR coordinates volunteer opportunities that enable volunteers to help restore natural areas, care for street trees, clean and beautify parks, and monitor wildlife. These activities can include the care and restoration of natural areas through removal of invasive plants and floatable debris along coastlines. In addition, the program provides training to dedicated Super Stewards, to advance their independent care of local community green spaces. For more information, visit: https://www.nycgovparks.org/reg/advanced-stewardship SAFE Disposal Events DSNY DSNY hosts SAFE (Solvents, Automotive, Flammables, and Electronics) Disposal Events throughout the year in all five boroughs, to help residents safely dispose of harmful household products. School Sustainability Coordinator Trainings DOE The DOE Office of Sustainability hosts borough-based trainings annually for school Sustainability Coordinators, teachers, and other school staff. Workshops address an array of topics such as waste reduction/recycling, energy conservation, green space and infrastructure, water quality and current issues, environmental education, and stewardship in partnership with City agencies and nonprofit organizations. These trainings provide an opportunity to promote educational resources/programs to educators. Special Waste Drop-Off Sites DSNY DSNY maintains a special waste drop-off site in each borough. The sites are open from 10 am to 5 pm every Saturday and the last Friday of the month. Residents can drop off harmful household products including batteries, latex paint, and electronics. STEAM Initiatives Program DDC DDC hosts a diverse and inclusive pipeline of public education and out reach initiatives for New York City’s youth to engage in a myriad of disci plines ultimately enhancing students’ awareness in fields such as Science, Technology, Engineering, Art/Architecture, and Mathematics (STEAM) in our educational system. Our customized outreach programs enhance stu dent awareness of these fields, beginning in middle school and proceeding through high school and college. These programs further enrich the broad er goals of STEAM: to bring awareness on the importance of STEAM in our educational system. Additionally, DDC has developed a Coastal Resiliency curricula. Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of New York City and in the process raised awareness of the effect global climate change and extreme weather can have on coastal areas. New York City has begun to develop ways to protect the shoreline. DDC curricula "Saving The Shore" focuses on the redesign” of New York City’s waterfront.For more information, visit: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ddc/steam/steam.page https://www.nycgovparks.org/reg/advanced-stewardship https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ddc/steam/steam.page 61 Pollutants of Concern Impact to Waterbodies Targeted Sources Desired Behaviors Floatables Trash and debris may carry toxins and pathogens that pose a risk to human health. Fish and wildlife may be harmed by becoming entangled in or ingesting trash and debris. Trash and debris are also unsightly and may deter recreational use of waterbodies. � Littering � Illegal Dumping � Improper disposal of waste � Choose reusable items (bags, bottles, mugs) over single use items � Keep streets clean � Report illegal dumping � Follow DSNY guidelines for proper disposal including recycling and waste reduction. Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phos phorus can cause harmful algae blooms and create low oxygen conditions that harm aquatic life. � Lawn/plant fertilizer � Illicit discharges of sanitary waste � Pet waste � Green waste � Use fertilizer sparingly and never before storms � Always apply fertilizer in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions on product label � Follow DEP rules to properly connect sanitary waste to the sanitary sewer � Properly dispose of pet waste � Never dump anything in a catch basin Pathogens Pathogens can cause disease and make waters unfit for recreation. Pathogens can also contaminate aquatic wildlife and then cause illness in people who consume the fish and shellfish. � Pet waste � Illicit discharges of sanitary waste � Follow DEP rules and regulations to properly connect sanitary waste to the sanitary sewer � Properly dispose of pet waste � Report illegal dumping 2.2 Pollutants and Waterbodies of Concern This Public Education and Outreach Program aims to educate New Yorkers on the proper management and disposal of potential pollutants. Many programs focus on actions the public can take to reduce pollutants at the source. Table 2.2 describes these pollutants, their potential impact, and desired behaviors that can reduce those impacts in more detail. Addressing Pollutants through the Public Education and Outreach Program Table 2.2 Program Name Agency Description The Natural Classroom DPR Using the City park system as an outdoor classroom, school teach ers with the support of Urban Park Rangers offer programs on climate change adaptation, urban forestry, water quality testing, conservation, ecology, and ichthyology. Weekend, Pop-up, and Custom Adventures DPR Residents participate in programs that connect them to and educate them about nature. Example programs include canoeing, fishing, and opportunities to contribute to conservation, restoration, and environmen tal stewardship of local parks and waters. For more information, visit: https://www.nycgovparks.org/programs/rangers The City cares about the quality and health of all of its bodies of water. In this Plan, the City puts particular focus on waterbodies of concern listed as impaired in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit, and their associated impairments. For more information on impaired waters, refer to Chapter 11: Special Conditions for Impaired Waters. https://www.nycgovparks.org/programs/rangers 62 Pollutants of Concern Impact to Waterbodies Targeted Sources Desired Behaviors Oil and Grease Oil and grease can be toxic to plants, aquatic life, and wildlife that live in or near contami nated waterbodies. Oil and grease can also have a negative effect on the sewer system. � Spills and leaks from vehi cles or improper storage � Improper disposal of products � Illegal dumping � Properly maintain vehicles � Properly store materials � Follow DSNY guidelines for proper disposal of waste � Follow DEP guidelines for proper disposal of oil and grease � Report illegal dumping Toxic or harmful substances Toxic or other harmful substances can harm and kill plants, aquatic life, and wildlife that live in or near contaminated waterbodies. These substances are also hazardous to recreational users of waterbodies. � Improper disposal of mate rials, such as household cleaners, paint, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals � Follow DSNY guidelines for proper disposal of waste � Report illegal dumping Students Pre-kindergarten through college-level students gain the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and commitment to work individually and collectively toward solutions for current environmental problems. Students can then inform family and friends of their potential impact on the environment and on their own neighborhoods and the City, sharing and applying lessons learned from school programs as they continue their education, make career choices, and engage in stewardship activities. Educators Classroom teachers and non-formal educators (e.g., environmental organizations, youth groups, and cultural institutions) play a key role in helping address and reduce sources of pollutants. Through ongoing professional development opportunities; print and online material; funding for bus tours and special projects; and curriculum development assistance and other resources, DEP programs help to provide knowledge, skills, and partnership opportunities that are designed to engage a diverse audience. Educator trainings, including topics such as climate change, wastewater treatment, green infrastructure, stormwater management, and the NYC water cycle, are aligned with New York State and New York City learning standards. Residents Residents can have a tangible impact on NYC and local waterbodies when they are educated on the importance of keeping streets clean and properly disposing of household waste. Business Community Businesses with the potential to be sources of pollutants, including litter, oil, grease, and toxic materials, are an ideal group to receive education about proper storage and disposal of materials and can then serve as potential partners in educating their customers. Community Groups Community groups, such as neighborhood organizations, cultural organizations, elected officials, and religious organizations, can play a big role in keeping NYC communities clean and healthy. They provide another avenue to reach residents and businesses. Community groups provide an excellent forum for education on general environmental literacy, and the ways in which communities can help reduce the presence of pollutants in NYC waterbodies. Environmental Advocates Environmental advocates are important partners in the mission to protect and restore waterbodies. The City will continue to engage environmental advocates to get feedback on programs as they are developed. 2.3 Target Audiences The Public Education and Outreach Program includes initiatives that target specific audiences as identified below. Chapter 3: Public Involvement and Participation includes a list of key stakeholders who provided input throughout the development of the SWMP. Public Education and Outreach and Public Involvement and Participation are naturally connected to one another. As one stakeholder put it, "Meaningful public involvement and participation depends on an educated public." One of the key goals of the Public Education and Outreach program is to encourage these target audiences and key stakeholders to work with one another and the City to improve water quality. 63 Information and Reporting Hotline In New York City, 311 is the best way to connect with the City on stormwater-related issues. 311 provides the public with quick, easy access to all NYC government services and information while also helping agencies improve service delivery. Agency Websites and Social Media Many City agencies maintain websites and social media presence (i.e., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Flickr) that communicate important information to the public. DEP developed a designated MS4 webpage at www.nyc. gov/dep/ms4 to ensure permit related submittals, reports, and materials are easily accessible. This webpage also contained a schedule of public meetings during SWMP development. In addition, DSNY’s website1 contains information on proper set-out for disposal and collection of trash, debris and waste material, and sidewalk/street cleaning. DPR2 posts information on park facilities, events, and activities. Public Signage Various signs are posted throughout the City in open display to educate the public. Some examples of public signs are catch basin markings, outfall signs, and Newtown Creek Nature Walk signs. 1 http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/home 2 https://www.nycgovparks.org/ Cooperative Efforts with Local Organizations and Environmental Advocates Local organizations and environmental advocates are effective and innovative public educators. The City’s support of local organizations may include providing guidance and professional development training, or staff time and materials, depending on the type of partnership; professional development workshops; print materials, funding for bus tours and special projects; and teaching lessons to complement the curriculum. Curriculum Development and Other Resources for Teachers The City provides educators with a variety of multidisciplinary resources, including STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), and resources related to stormwater, climate change, green infrastructure, harbor water quality, wastewater treatment, and stewardship. These resources include online educational modules and background information about various water topics, teacher lessons, student activities, bibliographies, and additional resources for partner organization support. DEP also assists educators with the development of their own curricula, designed for their specific needs. Artwork by Brian, 6th grade student at the Bay Academy I.S. 98, Brooklyn, for DEP’s 31st Annual Water Resources Art & Poetry Contest 2.4 Education and Outreach Strategies The City has identified several strategies to conduct education and outreach to target audiences. These strategies include the creation of new educational and informational materials such as handouts, flyers, behavior-change campaigns, and new webpages. These new efforts seek to increase the public's understanding of both environmental topics and stormwater specific issues. The City continues to partner with local organizations, schools, environmental groups, and others to implement strategies that relate to the SWMP. http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/home https://www.nycgovparks.org/ 64 Electronic Communication The City maintains an email account (MS4@dep.nyc.gov) for the public to report and request stormwater-related information. This email account is included in public presentations and listed on distributed educational material. Informational Materials The City has developed a variety of materials, such as fact sheets and brochures, designed to educate the public on the MS4 Permit programs, stormwater pollutants, and steps to reduce pollutants. DEP makes these materials available through the DEP website.3 Public Access to Waterbodies The City has public access locations, which are essential for outdoor recreation such as hiking, fishing, boating, and scenic viewing. For example, the DPR Urban Park Rangers conduct tours and programming through the Natural Classroom, Ranger Conservation Corps, Weekend Adventures, and Adventure Course & Custom Adventures. DEP’s Newtown Creek Nature Walk, located at the Newtown Creek WRRF in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, allows young people and adults to learn about the City’s water resources. Paid Media The City occasionally uses paid media, such as advertising on buses, subways, billboards, and digital platforms, when opportunities arise. Prior to and during SWMP development, the City ran several media campaigns related to pollution prevention, as described in Chapter 9: Control of Floatables and Settleable Trash and Debris. 3 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/ms4.shtml Special Programming The City has several special programs that seek to educate and communicate information relevant to stormwater, water quality, pollution sources, and pollution prevention. Example programs include Trash It. Don’t Flush It. (formerly Clean Streets = Clean Beaches) and the annual Water Resources Art and Poetry Contest. Stewardship and Volunteerism The City encourages and supports public stewardship and volunteerism, which, depending on the activity, can range from providing guidance and staff time, to training volunteers and providing resources. Workshops, Trainings, Presentations, and Other Events The City conducts workshops, trainings, and presentations to help educate target audiences on SWMP implementation; stormwater management; and pollutant impacts, sources, and prevention. DEP does outreach at the request of the public and customizes the messages to specific audiences. For additional information, please visit the DEP website.4 DEP also partners with other City agencies, including DOE, to provide training programs for their staff to support and enhance their own stormwater outreach and education efforts. 4 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental education/index. shtml Clean Streets = Clean Beaches event at MCU Park Catch Basin Stenciling Program The City launched a new program, Harbor Protectors, to encourage stakeholders to clear catch basin gratings and stencil catch basins with educational messages. The City provides guidance and materials, and works with environmental advocates, neighborhood associations, and others to identify appropriate locations. Anyone interested can contact the City at MS4@dep.nyc.gov for more information or visit the Harbor Protectors webpage: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor protectors.page mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/ms4.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental education/index.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental education/index.shtml mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor-protectors.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor-protectors.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor-protectors.page 65 The City engaged targeted stakeholders on public education and outreach during the development of the SWMP. These stakeholders included: � General Public � Stormwater Advisory Group � Formal and non-formal educators � Environmental organizations � Community-based groups The public suggested that the City focus education efforts on schools and teachers located in the MS4 area; use social media platforms to raise awareness of MS4 issues; and incorporate more graphics in presentations and education materials. The City: � Provided educational resources to schools and teachers interested in teaching about stormwater and stewardship � Increased social media posts on MS4-related content Students participate in a tour at the Visitor Center at Newtown Creek 66 2.5 Public Reporting of Illicit Discharges or Water Quality Impacts The City encourages the public to use 311 to report the presence of illicit discharges, or water quality impacts associated with discharges from the MS4. 311 is accessible in many languages and through several platforms. The public can report or seek information related to fire hydrants, catch basins, illegal dumping, dirty conditions, dry weather discharges, and other issues. The public can make illicit discharge or water quality reports by calling 311 or by visiting 311 online. The City is continually improving 311 and will work to better facilitate public reporting of issues relevant to water quality. Refer to Appendix 2.1 for 311 Complaints related to MS4/Stormwater Management Issues. All 311 service requests since 2010 are available to the public through NYC Open Data.5 Throughout the development of the SWMP, the City regularly engaged the public on the topics of preventing and reporting illicit discharges. This engagement included status updates on IDDE investigations. In response to public input, the City began posting the Sentinel Monitoring Program6 annual reports, which summarize IDDE field investigations. The City also created new guidance on how to report potential illicit discharges through 311, and began notifying elected officials, community boards, and community leaders when it identified illicit discharge sources. 5 https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Social-Services/311-Service-Requests from-2010-to-Present/erm2-nwe9 6 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page 2.6 Proper Management and Disposal of Pollutants of Concern The City conducts a variety of educational activities aimed at residents, businesses, schools, and non-profits to facilitate the proper management of waste, including used oil, toxic materials, pharmaceuticals, household cleaners, and pet waste. Information on these efforts is available on the DSNY website and through 311. Additionally, DSNY helps residents dispose of harmful household products safely. These efforts include organizing and promoting SAFE (Solvents, Automotive, Flammables, and Electronics) Disposal Events and directing residents to businesses or recyclers that take back harmful products such as batteries, electronics, motor oil, and pharmaceuticals. Students from the New York Harbor School participate in an education program https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Social-Services/311-Service-Requests-from-2010-to-Present/erm2-nwe9 https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Social-Services/311-Service-Requests-from-2010-to-Present/erm2-nwe9 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page 67 311 is New York City's main source of government information and non emergency services. It provides the public with quick, easy access to all New York City government services and information. The public may connect with 311 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year by: � Visiting 311 online at nyc.gov/311; � Calling 311 or (212) NEW-YORK, (212) 639-9675, from outside New York City; � Texting 311-692; � Downloading the NYC 311 mobile app for Apple or Android devices; or � Tweeting to @nyc311 311 is accessible to non-English speakers, available online in over 50 languages and by phone in over 170 languages. 311 facilitates transparency and accountability. Service requests and agency responses are available to public as open data online. Currently, the public can use 311 to access information on many topics relevant to stormwater pollution and water quality. The public is also encouraged to use 311 to report information relevant to stormwater pollution. Through 311, the public can report: � Waterway Complaint—Report floatables, trash, oil, gasoline, sewage, or an unusual color in a waterway; report a potential illicit discharge from an MS4 outfall. � Dry Weather Sewage Discharge Complaint— Report water flowing through a sewer outfall pipe during dry weather. � Dumping in Catch Basin or Sewer—Report grease, gasoline, natural gas, cement, oil, sewage, chemicals, or other liquids going into a sewer or catch basin. � Oil Spill—Report an oil spill. � Illegal Dumping Complaint—Report the dumping of large amounts of trash. � Catch Basin Complaint—Report a storm drain that is missing its cover, clogged, sunken, raised, damaged, or defective. Wolfe's Pond Bluebelt cleanup, Staten Island http://www1.nyc.gov/311/index.page http://nyc.gov/311 68 Best Management Practice (BMP) Measurable Goals Measures Provide an ongoing public education and awareness program Develop, implement, and assess an ongoing public education and outreach program List of education and outreach programs/events and relevant metric(s) for each (e.g., number of participants, events, or materials distributed) List of planned educational and outreach programs/activities to be undertaken in the next reporting cycle Develop and implement educational and informational activities related to illicit discharges for businesses and the general public List of education and outreach programs/events and relevant metric(s) for each (e.g., number of participants, events, or materials distributed) List of planned educational and outreach programs/activities to be undertaken in the next reporting cycle Facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges Promote, publicize, and facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges and potential water quality impacts Summary of public reports received by 311 2.7 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 2.3 lists measurable goals and measures for identified Public Education and Outreach BMPs. MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to assess the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, as described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals allows the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for Public Education and Outreach Table 2.3 Students participate in DEP education programs 69 Chapter 3 Public Involvement and Participation Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 70 DEP education office partners with nonformal educators on tour 71 Whether they are NYC residents who recreate in local waterbodies, real-estate developers who build in the MS4 area, groups who organize waterbody cleanups, or environmentalists who advocate for a healthier harbor, a variety of stakeholders participate in the City’s efforts to improve water quality. In accordance with Part IV.B of the MS4 Permit, the City is implementing a public involvement and participation program designed to: Stakeholders at an LTCP meeting where SWMP updates were shared � Seek input from key individuals and groups in development, implementation, review, and major revision of the SWMP; � Provide opportunities for the public to participate in development and implementation of the SWMP; � Provide opportunities for, and response to, public comments on this Plan and MS4 Annual Reports; � Provide opportunities for public involvement and participation in stormwater-related activities; and � Provide a mechanism for the public to report and request stormwater-related information. This chapter outlines the City’s Public Involvement and Participation strategies during the development of this Plan, and identifies goals for involving the public during SWMP implementation. 72 3.1 Related Programs Prior to SWMP development, the City had existing programs to encourage public involvement and participation in improving water quality. Examples include the Long Term Control Plan’s Public Participation Plan, legislative processes and rulemaking, and 311 for reporting concerns and requesting information. Additionally, the City offers several stewardship programs that encourage public involvement and participation such as Adopt-a Bluebelt, the Natural Classroom, NYC Parks Stewardship, Adopt-a-Highway/Greenway, Adopt-a-Basket, and SAFE Disposal Events. All of these programs enable New Yorkers to actively contribute to cleaner waterbodies. Refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach for details. 3.2 Key Stakeholders During SWMP development, the City identified key stakeholders through their demonstrated interest in the MS4 Permit, participation in other water quality programs, and/or their potential to be affected by the SWMP implementation. These stakeholders fall into several categories: � Students and educators � General public and residents � Environmental stakeholders � Neighborhood associations and other community-based groups � Governmental entities (e.g., New York City Housing Authority, Metropolitan Transit Authority, School Construction Authority) � Elected officials and Community Boards � Industrial and commercial business community � Design, construction, and development community 3.3 Public Engagement during SWMP Development Public involvement in SWMP development began prior to the first MS4 Permit’s issuance in 2015. Several organizations and individuals submitted comments on the draft MS4 Permit, requested briefings from the City, and actively sought to contribute to this Plan. Beginning in August 2015 and continuing through this Plan’s submittal in August 2018, the City held stakeholder meetings, responded to public comments, and created a plan to encourage ongoing participation. The City created a robust engagement strategy with support and input from the key stakeholders identified in Section 3.2. This strategy included: � Identifying communication methods to reach stakeholders: emails, press releases, mailed letters, flyers, media campaigns, website updates, and social media; � Holding meetings to keep stakeholders informed and to solicit feedback; � Listening, acknowledging, and responding to public input; � Creating informational and educational materials; � Working with stakeholders to create public programs and events; � Providing draft documents to obtain public feedback before final submission to NYSDEC; � Leveraging other water quality related engagement efforts to reach a broader audience; and � Reducing potential conflicts among stakeholders by seeking to build consensus around issues. Throughout SWMP development, stakeholders submitted questions and provided input through a variety of means: � Verbal comments and questions at stakeholder meetings and events; � Written responses received during formal comment periods; and � Emails received at MS4@dep.nyc.gov. Trash Free NYC Waters Working Group mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 73 At the request of the public, the City formed a Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) in 2016. The SAG was open to the general public and enabled them to provide substantive feedback throughout the drafting of this Plan. At SAG meetings, the City provided the following for each element of the SWMP: � Progress on the development of the City’s legal authority to administer all permit requirements; � Summary of ongoing stakeholder engagement; and � Detailed review of specific SWMP programs as they were developed. These focused meetings created a space for participants to engage with the latest planning and analysis completed by the City. Comments and suggestions received during these meetings were evaluated and responded to by the City. The City’s responses to the public’s comments and suggestions are summarized in Appendix 3.1. The City also conducted targeted outreach during SWMP development to stakeholder groups that expressed specific interest in this Plan’s development, may have responsibilities under the MS4 Permit, or are located in the area of a Priority MS4 Waterbody. These groups include: � Environmental stakeholders represented by the SWIM Coalition; � Industrial and commercial business community; � Design, construction, and private development community; and � Elected officials, community boards, and neighborhood associations that represent Coney Island Creek. More information on the City’s targeted outreach is provided in the “Public Involvement” call-out boxes located throughout this Plan. Appendix 3.1 includes a list of approximately 65 stakeholder meetings held between MS4 Permit issuance in 2015 and submittal of this Plan in 2018. The City also engaged with the public throughout the rulemaking process associated with the SWMP, as described in Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration. The public had the opportunity to review the proposed rules and provide input either in writing or by speaking at public meetings and hearings. 3.4 Progress Reports and the Draft Plan The City submitted annual Progress Reports to NYSDEC in 2016 and 2017. These reports summarized the progress made on SWMP development to date. Prior to each annual submission to NYSDEC, the City released a draft report to the public online and presented the content at a public meeting. The City accepted feedback from stakeholders through verbal comments at the meeting and written comments by email. The final annual Progress Reports submitted to NYSDEC included City responses to the public comments received. Appendix 3.1 includes the City’s responses for each of the annual Progress Reports. The City published the final 2016 and 2017 Progress Reports on the DEP website. On April 4, 2018, the City released on the DEP website a draft of this Plan for public review and comment. The City presented the content of the draft Plan at multiple stakeholder meetings, and accepted public feedback on the draft. The public provided verbal comments during the meetings or submitted written comments to MS4@dep. nyc.gov during the public review period from April 4, 2018 to May 15, 2018. The City incorporated feedback from the public into the Plan submitted to DEC on August 1, 2018. DEC approved the Plan on March 14, 2019. Appendix 3.1 includes the City's responses to public comments received on the draft Plan. The City began each Stormwater Advisory Group meeting with a brief update on Public Involvement and Participation. During SWMP development, the City frequently met with the Stormwater Infrastructure Matters (SWIM) Coalition on specific permit provisions. Comprised of environmental stakeholders, SWIM is “a coalition dedicated to ensuring swimmable waters around New York City through natural, sustainable stormwater management practices in our neighborhoods.” These smaller meetings gave the City an opportunity to receive detailed feedback from environmental advocates who organize around stormwater management and water quality issues. mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 74 DEP staff meet with stakeholders on the Threshold Study 75 3.5 Ongoing Public Involvement and Participation The City continues to involve the public in the implementation of the SWMP. These efforts include outreach programs, described in more detail in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach, which provide robust opportunities for both public involvement and participation; 311 and City websites, which enable the public to make reports and requests related to stormwater; and the MS4 Annual Report, which allows the public review and comment on SWMP implementation. Mechanisms for Public Reporting and Stormwater-Related Requests The City facilitates public reporting using various strategies. These include, but are not limited to, 311, City agency websites, electronic communication, workshops, and presentations. These strategies are also part of the Public Education and Outreach Program and are described in further detail in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach. To report stormwater-related concerns or receive information about stormwater, the public can contact 311. The public may also obtain stormwater related information by visiting the DEP website or emailing the MS4 team at MS4@dep.nyc.gov. DEP staff present at SWIM Meeting mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 76 Best Management Practice (BMP) Measurable Goals Measures Provide and promote the opportunity to report and receive stormwater information Identify mechanism for public to report and request stormwater related information including contact process to receive and respond to requests Summary of public reports and requests received by MS4@dep.nyc.gov Provide public opportunity to participate in SWMP implementation Seek public input on SWMP imple mentation and provide public access to Annual Reports Date and location of draft Annual Report posted for public review and comment period Date and time of draft Annual Report stakeholder meeting and number of participants Summary of comments received on draft Annual Report and City responses List of involvement and participation activities (e.g., pro grams, events, key stakeholder meetings) Status and location of final Annual Report and the Plan List of planned participation and involvement programs/ activities to be undertaken in next reporting cycle Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for Public Involvement and Participation Table 3.1 MS4 Annual Report Public Review Process The City submits to NYSDEC by September 30 each year, an MS4 Annual Report that summarizes the City’s MS4 permit-related activities performed during the previous calendar year (reporting period January 1 – December 31). Prior to submitting the report, the City publishes a draft report online for public review and comment and, by July 1 of each year, holds a public meeting to present the draft report and receive public input. The City notifies key stakeholders through an email announcement that the draft report is available online for review and includes the date, time, and location of the meeting. The City complies with the requirements of Article 7 of the New York State Public Officers Law. The final MS4 Annual Report includes a summary of all public comments received, the City’s responses, and a description of any changes the City will incorporate into the SWMP as a result of the public’s input. Once submitted to NYSDEC, the final MS4 Annual Report is available on DEP’s website and can be made available to the public at DEP’s office. For comments received after the City has submitted a final Annual Report to NYSDEC, the City will provide responses to the commenter, and will include a summary of these comments and responses in the following draft MS4 Annual Report. 3.6 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 3.1 lists measurable goals and measures for identified Public Involvement and Participation BMPs. MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, as described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases its Annual Effectiveness Assessment on the achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals allows the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 77 Chapter 4 Mapping Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 78 Sweet Brook Bluebelt, Staten Island 79 The MS4 Permit regulates drainage areas (collectively called the MS4 area) where one or more of the following statements apply: • Stormwater drains to separate storm sewers owned or operated by the City that discharge to Surface Waters of the State through MS4 outfalls, or that connect to combined sewer overflow outfalls downstream of a CSO regulator (a device used in NYC’s combined sewers to control the diversion of sewage flow to the WRRF during dry and wet weather); • Stormwater drains to high-level storm sewers and Bluebelts that ultimately discharge to Surface Waters of the State through MS4 outfalls; or • Stormwater drains by overland flow from a City operation or facility directly to Surface Waters of the State. Under Part IV.C of the MS4 Permit, the City was required to provide a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based map of the MS4 area and outfalls. This chapter describes the City’s Mapping Program that satisfies the following MS4 Permit requirements: � Identify and map the MS4 area, MS4 outfalls, and other supplemental information such as zoning and land use, locations of facilities handling municipal waste, and locations of parks and open space within the MS4 area; � Submit to NYSDEC a Preliminary MS4 Map in 2018 and Final MS4 Map in 2020; and � Update the Final MS4 Map every 5 years. This chapter details the City’s Mapping Program, for which DEP is the coordinating agency. Each agency, including DEP, is responsible for identifying its MS4 drainage areas and outfalls. DEP is responsible for compiling the MS4 Map based on information received from other City agencies regarding City-owned or -operated sites and infrastructure. An interactive version of this map is available at www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4map. An MS4 outfall is any point where a separate storm sewer system owned or operated by the City discharges to Surface Waters of the State or to another MS4 (an MS4 owned or operated by another regulated entity). Outfalls include discharges from pipes, ditches, swales, and other points of concentrated flow. However, areas of non concentrated (sheet) flow which drain to Surface Waters of the State or to an MS4 owned or operated by an entity other than the City are not considered MS4 outfalls. Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Digital Elevation Model of NYC http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4map 80 C OV E R E D BY M S 4 P E R M I T N OT C OV E R E D BY M S 4 P E R M I T P ri va te in fr a st ru c tu re C it y in fr a st ru c tu re Separate Storm Sewered Area City separate storm sewer connected to CSO outfall downstream of regulator Separate Storm Sewered Area City separate storm sewer connected to MS4 outfall High Level Storm Sewered Area City high level storm sewer connected to MS4 outfall City Direct Drainage Area Overland flow from City property to surface water Private Separate Storm Sewered Area Private separate storm sewer connected to private outfall Private Direct Drainage Area Overland flow from private property to surface water Unsewered Area Private dry wells and septic systems Combined Area City combined sanitary and storm sewers con nected to Wastewater Treatment Plant and CSO outfall upstream of regulator C it y in fr a st ru c tu re Sanitary Area (No Storm Sewers) City sanitary sewer connected to a Wastewater Treatment Plant Discrete Storm Sewered Area City separate storm sewer connected to CSO outfall upstream of regulator 4.1 Related Programs The City has many programs that document and map information relevant to NYC. Some of these programs were used and referenced in the City’s efforts to develop the GIS-based map of MS4 outfalls and corresponding drainage areas. Various City agencies own and maintain these datasets. For informational purposes, a description and explanation of each dataset and how it supported the development of the MS4 Map is provided below. Additional datasets provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine Geology Program, and the New York State Digital Orthoimagery Program were also used by City agencies to delineate drainage areas. As the datasets described below were not developed for MS4 Permit compliance, they may be amended or eliminated in the future, and the MS4 mapping process will adjust accordingly. Sewer Network Geodatabase Over the last decade, DEP has developed a GIS-based Sewer Network Geodatabase to maintain and provide detailed information about DEP’s water and sewer infrastructure, including pipes, catch basins, and outfalls. A component of the geodatabase is a geometric network that models the connectivity and flow directions of the sewer network. DEP uses this dataset to delineate drainage areas for each MS4 outfall under DEP’s jurisdiction. DEP regularly updates the Sewer Network Geodatabase as new infrastructure is built and inaccuracies in existing data are discovered and corrected. The GIS dataset represents the best information available, but should not be perceived as a real-time, accurate representation of field conditions. The information contained in GIS data is dynamic, changing over time as updates are received and processed. This dataset is maintained by DEP for internal use. Combined Sewer Overflow Delineation DEP has conducted extensive analysis and modeling of the City’s combined sewer system as part of an effort to reduce CSOs. DEP has delineated sub-catchments tributary to each CSO outfall. Prior to MS4 Permit issuance in 2015, DEP used these datasets, the best available data at the time, to create the Historical MS4 Map. These datasets are maintained by DEP for internal use. Types of Drainage Areas 81 Shoreline Survey Program The Shoreline Survey Program is an outfall reconnaissance inventory that identifies and characterizes shoreline outfalls in NYC. Under this program, the entire shoreline is surveyed every ten years, with progress made each year. DEP catalogues observed outfalls and provides an updated list of outfalls to NYSDEC annually. DEP and other City agencies can use this information to help identify MS4 drainage areas and locations of outfalls. This dataset is maintained by DEP and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. MapPLUTO MapPLUTO merges Property Land Use Tax Lot Output (PLUTO) data with tax lot features from the NYC Department of Finance’s Digital Tax Map. The MapPLUTO dataset contains more than seventy fields derived from data maintained by City agencies, including extensive land use and geographic data at the tax lot level. Agencies can use this dataset to identify the boundaries of agency facilities for drainage area delineations and to provide supplementary information such as land use and borough-block-lot (BBL) parcel numbers. This dataset is maintained by DCP and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. NYC Integrated Property Information System The Integrated Property Information System (IPIS) is a real estate database of City-owned properties and private properties the City leases. Agencies can use this dataset to identify the boundaries of their owned or leased property for drainage area delineations. This dataset is maintained by DCAS and DoITT and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. NYC City-Owned and Leased Properties City-Owned and Leased Properties (COLP) is a comprehensive list of uses on City-owned and leased properties that includes geographic information as well as other related information. This dataset is updated biennially. COLP is produced from data in the IPIS, described above. Similar to IPIS, agencies can use COLP to identify the boundaries of their owned or leased property for drainage area delineations. This dataset is maintained by DCAS and DCP and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. NYC Planimetric Database Planimetric data capture geographic features from aerial photography to map in plan view. Example geographic features found in planimetric data include curbs, elevations, hydrography, open spaces, parking lots, and sidewalks, among others. Often referred to as planimetric features or simply planimetrics, these geographic features, in total, can provide context and location information for a specific area. The planimetric dataset can be used to aid in the estimation of drainage areas and to geo reference paper maps and drawings. Geo-referencing is a process by which an image is referenced to a place in geographic space using common features from aerial imagery, such as DCP’s MapPLUTO, other available data such as planimetric data, building footprints, or known coordinates. This dataset is maintained by DoITT and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. NYC Building Footprints The NYC Building Footprint dataset contains all buildings with well-defined walls and roofs that are greater than 400 square feet in area and taller than 12 feet. Agencies can use this dataset to geo-reference site paper maps and drawings. This dataset is maintained by DoITT and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. Zoning This dataset comprises six classes of zoning features: zoning districts, special purpose districts, special purpose district sub-districts, limited height districts, commercial overlay districts, and zoning map amendments. The City can use this dataset to satisfy the MS4 Permit requirement to describe zoning districts and related land uses within the MS4 area. This dataset is maintained by DCP and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. Contours This dataset consists of a basemap layer containing citywide 2-foot contour lines. Contour lines show the topography of an area by joining points of equal elevation above a given reference point, such as sea level. Agencies can use this dataset to delineate drainage areas based on topography. This dataset is maintained by DoITT and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. NYC 1-foot Digital Elevation Model (DEM) The NYC DEM is derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data collected in the spring of 2010. This DEM, created by the City of New York and University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory, models the elevation of the ground surface, and does not include above ground features such as trees and buildings. Agencies can use this dataset to delineate drainage areas using software such as ESRI® ArcGIS. This dataset was created by DEP and DoITT and is publicly available through NYC Open Data. 82 4.2 Historical MS4 Map DEP created the Historical MS4 Map prior to permit issuance in 2015. To create this map, DEP used the CSO outfall drainage area delineation, described in Section 4.1, and supplemented it with additional information about DEP’s existing sewer system, planned infrastructure, land use data, and information about state- and federally owned land such as open space along the waterfront. Unless this additional information indicated otherwise, DEP identified areas not draining to a CSO outfall as MS4 in the Historical MS4 Map. While the Historical MS4 Map was unrefined and contained some inaccuracies, it represented the City’s best understanding of the MS4 area at the time the Historical MS4 Map was developed. In developing the SWMP, the City relied upon the Historical MS4 Map to define the MS4 area. The City engaged targeted stakeholders on mapping activities during SWMP development. These stakeholders included: � Public � Stormwater Advisory Group � Development Community � Environmental Stakeholders A frequent request from the public was to provide the MS4 Map and associated data in an interactive digital format. In response, the City has posted the MS4 Map online at nyc.gov/dep/ms4map in a format that enables the public to: � Explore the MS4 drainage area and MS4 outfalls � Access attribute tables to view supplemental information � Download datasets through NYC Open Data Plumb Beach http://nyc.gov/dep/ms4map 83 # Option Complexity Data Needs Skill Level Best Use or Application 1 Lot Boundaries Simple Minimal Basic Sites with known discharge point and little other data available, or known to drain via overland flow directly to a waterbody 2 Manual Digitization Medium Moderate Intermediate Sites with some stormwater drainage system data available 3 Spatial Analyst High Moderate Intermediate Sites with drainage features, pipes, inlets, and site-specific topography available 4 Arc Hydro High High Advanced Complex sites with many drainage features, pipes, inlets, and site-specific topography available 4.3 Delineation Methodologies for Preliminary and Final MS4 Maps Overview of Drainage Area Delineation Methods Table 4.1 Agencies operating sites that discharge stormwater via agency MS4 outfalls, via a connection to DEP’s separate storm sewers, or via overland flow directly to waterbodies, are responsible for providing a geographic depiction of each site’s drainage area and agency MS4 outfalls. Agencies may use several different methods to delineate the MS4 area. These methods are summarized in Table 4.1. As agencies completed the delineations of agency sites, they provided these data to DEP for inclusion in the MS4 Map. DEP provided technical guidance to agencies in order to assist in MS4 area delineation DEP identified areas draining to DEP’s MS4 using the ESRI® Arc Hydro extension. Arc Hydro is a set of data models and tools that operates within ESRI® ArcGIS and enables users to delineate and characterize watersheds. This method relies on topographic and stormwater infrastructure information. DEP used the NYC 1-foot DEM, DEP Sewer Network Geodatabase and locations of outfalls from the Shoreline Survey Program, all described in Section 4.1, to delineate the drainage area of DEP MS4 outfalls. In some instances where existing data from these programs was unclear, DEP conducted field investigations to confirm outfall and sewer connection locations. During SWMP development, progress in delineating the MS4 drainage area was presented at stakeholder meetings and in the annual Progress Reports. 84 4.4 Preliminary (2018) MS4 Map and Associated Information The Preliminary MS4 Map represented the MS4 area and outfalls known by the City at the time of submission of this Plan to NYSDEC on August 1, 2018. The map also included supplemental information available at the time of submission, as required by Part IV.C.1 of the MS4 Permit. The Preliminary MS4 Map was available to the public in an interactive format on DEP’s website and included: � MS4 drainage areas and outfalls � Borough, Block, and Lot (BBL) information � Zoning districts and related land uses � Estimates of impervious surface coverage in the MS4 area � Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for municipal solid waste � State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits � Major structural controls for stormwater discharge � Roles and responsibilities of agencies within the MS4 area 4.5 Final (2020) MS4 Map and Associated Information On August 1, 2020, the City submitted to NYSDEC the Final MS4 Map of this permit cycle and supporting documentation, based on the best available information. This MS4 Map is available to the public in an interactive format at nyc.gov/dep/ms4map. Data contained in this map are available for download at https://data.cityofnewyork.us/. The information that is provided in the Final MS4 Map and supporting documentation includes: MS4 Drainage Areas and Outfalls The MS4 Map includes polygons representing areas known to drain to surface waters of the State through MS4 outfalls or by overland flow from a City operation or facility. The MS4 Map also includes known stormwater outfalls owned by the City as a point dataset. Borough, Block, and Lot (BBL) The MS4 Map includes boroughs, blocks, and lots data within the MS4 area, as provided by MapPLUTO, described in Section 4.1. Interface of the Interactive MS4 Map for NYC The information shown on this map is the best available information as of the date of publication, August 1, 2020. nyc.gov/dep/ms4map https://data.cityofnewyork.us/ 85 Summary of Prevalent Zoning Districts Present in the MS4 Area and Associated Land Use Table 4.2 Z o n in g D is tr ic ts Land Use O n e & T w o F am ily B u ild in g s M u lt i F am ily W al k U p B u ild in g s M u lt i F am ily E le va to r B u ild in g s M ix e d R e si d e n ti al & C o m m e rc ia l B u ild in g s C o m m e rc ia l & O ffi ce B u ild in g s In d u st ri al & M an u fa ct u ri n g T ra n sp o rt at io n & U ti lit y P u b lic F ac ili ti e s & In st it u ti o n s O p e n S p ac e & O u td o o r R e cr e at io n P ar k in g F ac ili ti e s V ac an t L an d R ig h t o f W ay Residence R1 ü ü ü R2 ü R3 ü ü ü ü R4 ü ü ü ü ü ü R5 ü ü ü ü ü R6 ü ü ✔ ü ü ü ü ü ü R7 ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Commercial C3 ü ü ü C4 ü ü ü ü ü ü C6 ü ü ü ü ü C8 ü ü ü Manufacturing M1 ü ü ü ü M2 ü ü ü ü ü M3 ü ü ü Other Park ü ROW ü 86 Zoning Districts and Related Land Uses The MS4 Map includes publicly available data on zoning and land use, as provided by MapPLUTO. NYC is divided into three broad zoning districts: Residence (R), Commercial (C), and Manufacturing (M).1 These three districts are further divided into a range of lower-, medium- and higher- density residence, commercial and manufacturing districts. Additionally, use groups denote the permitted uses within each zoning district. Table 4.2 summarizes the most prevalent land uses in each zoning district within the MS4 area. As a whole, open space and recreation is the most prevalent land use in the MS4 area (30%), followed by one- and two- family residential (27%), right-of-way (16%), public facilities & institutions (7%), vacant land (5%), and transportation/utilities (5%). Estimates of Impervious Surface Coverage in the MS4 Area Using the 2020 MS4 drainage area information and impervious surface information from DEP’s 2020 Citywide Parcel-Based Impervious Area GIS Study2, the City estimates the MS4 area to be 49.5% impervious, 4.1% semi-pervious, and 45.0% pervious. The remaining 1.4% of the MS4 area is classified as open water. To determine the impervious surface coverage in NYC, the City used four core datasets – Ortho Imagery (2018), LiDAR (2017), Planimetrics (2016), and MapPLUTO (2018). Using remote sensing and a computer model, DEP identified nineteen land cover classes citywide (water, roof, asphalt, concrete, rubber, metal, wood, brick paver, synthetic turf, tree, bush, grass, gravel, sand, bare soil, pool, rock, solar panel, open water) which were then assigned a level of imperviousness: impervious, semi-pervious, or pervious. To estimate impervious surface coverage in the MS4 area, the City clipped this citywide data to the MS4 area and then calculated the total area for each type within the MS4 area. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities for Municipal Solid Waste The MS4 Map includes locations of City facilities and operations within the MS4 area that treat, store, or dispose of municipal solid waste (MSW). For the purposes of the MS4 Map, these are municipally-owned or -operated facilities with potential exposure to stormwater that handle everyday items that are used and disposed of. MSW includes a vast range of items, such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. NYC has several types of facilities that currently handle MSW: waste transfer stations, composting facilities, and household special waste drop-off sites. NYC has 1 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/about-zoning.page 2 https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/ DEP-s-Citywide-Parcel-Based-Impervious-Area-GIS-St/uex9-rfq8 no operating disposal facilities such as landfills or incinerators. However, the City does have MSW-related regulatory responsibilities at seven closed landfills. Table 4.3 summarizes activities at current MSW treatment, storage, or disposal facilities within the MS4 area, and closed municipal landfills where the City retains control of post-closure landfill requirements. Several facilities Fresh Kills Landfill, Hamilton Avenue Marine Transfer Station, Southwest Brooklyn Marine Transfer Station, East 91st Street Marine Transfer Station, North Shore Marine Transfer Station, and Staten Island Transfer Station have other SPDES Permits that address stormwater discharges and are therefore not subject to the MS4 Permit (per the exemption filed pursuant to Part I.D of the NYC MS4 permit). They are, however, included here for informational purposes. Parks, Recreational Areas, and Open Lands The Preliminary MS4 Map includes data on publicly-owned parks, recreational areas, and other open space or lands from publicly available sources, as described in Section 4.1. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits The NYSDEC SPDES Permit Program is designed to eliminate or prevent the pollution of waterbodies in New York State. Under this program, certain private or public facilities, operations, or activities must obtain a SPDES permit before discharging any pollutant to a water of the State. For more information on the NYSDEC SPDES Permit Program, refer to http://www.dec.ny.gov/ permits/96312.html. The MS4 Map includes data on SPDES-permitted discharges to the MS4, as provided by NYSDEC and City agencies. Major Structural Controls for Stormwater Discharge Major structural controls for stormwater discharge (or major structural controls) are City-owned or operated controls located within the MS4 area that are designed to retain, detain, or infiltrate stormwater and that, if they were to fail, would potentially cause damage or harm to adjacent or downstream areas. The City has identified the controls from the DEP Bluebelt Program as its only major structural controls. The DEP Bluebelt Program restores, preserves, and enhances natural drainage corridors through a series of structural controls such as constructed wetlands, sand filters, and detention basins. The MS4 Map includes locations of these major structural controls draining to the MS4 known as of August 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/about-zoning.page https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/DEP-s-Citywide-Parcel-Based-Impervious-Area-GIS-St/uex9-rfq8 https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/DEP-s-Citywide-Parcel-Based-Impervious-Area-GIS-St/uex9-rfq8 http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/96312.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/96312.html 87 Summary of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities for MSW and Associated Activities in the MS4 Area Table 4.3 Name Borough Agency Type Activities Landfills Fresh Kills Landfill Staten Island DSNY/DPR Closed Landfill Landscape/Grounds Care; Landfill Runoff Pennsylvania Avenue Landfill Brooklyn DEP Closed Landfill Landscape/Grounds Care; Landfill Runoff Fountain Avenue Landfill Brooklyn DEP Closed Landfill Landscape/Grounds Care; Landfill Runoff Pelham Bay Landfill Bronx DPR Closed Landfill Landscape/Grounds Care; Landfill Runoff Brookfield Avenue Landfill Staten Island DPR Closed Landfill Landscape/Grounds Care; Landfill Runoff Ferry Point Landfill Bronx DPR Closed Landfill Landscape/Grounds Care; Landfill Runoff; Golf Course Edgemere Landfill Queens DSNY/DPR Closed Landfill Landscape/Grounds Care; Landfill Runoff Waste Transfer Stations Hamilton Avenue Marine Transfer Station Brooklyn DSNY Waste Transfer Station Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station Southwest Brooklyn Marine Transfer Station Brooklyn DSNY Waste Transfer Station Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station East 91st Street Marine Transfer Station Manhattan DSNY Waste Transfer Station Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station North Shore Marine Transfer Station Queens DSNY Waste Transfer Station Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station Staten Island Transfer Station Staten Island DSNY Waste Transfer Station Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station West 59th St Marine Transfer Station Manhattan DSNY Waste Transfer Station/ Recyclables Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station Compost Facilities Staten Island Composting Facility Staten Island DSNY Compost Facility Material Stockpiles Soundview Park Composting Facility Bronx DSNY Compost Facility Material Stockpiles Rikers Island Composting Facility Bronx DSNY In-vessel Compost Facility (indoors) Material Stockpiles Gowanus Community Compost ing Facility (2 Second Avenue) Brooklyn DSNY Compost Facility (under cover) Material Stockpiles Household Special Waste Drop-Off Sites Bronx Sanitation Household Special Waste Drop-Off Site Bronx DSNY Household Special Waste Drop-Off Sites Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station Brooklyn Sanitation Household Special Waste Drop-Off Site Brooklyn DSNY Household Special Waste Drop-Off Sites Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station Queens Sanitation Household Special Waste Drop-Off Site Queens DSNY Household Special Waste Drop-Off Sites Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station Staten Island Sanitation House hold Special Waste Drop-Off Site Staten Island DSNY Household Special Waste Drop-Off Sites Waste Management; Waste Transfer Station 88 Roles and Responsibilities of Agencies within the MS4 Area Under the internal division of responsibilities agreed upon by the City, each agency is responsible for the MS4 area and infrastructure internal to its sites or otherwise within drainage areas that are under agency jurisdiction, as set forth by the NYC Charter. For more information about agency roles and responsibilities within the MS4 area, refer to Chapter 1 of the SWMP Plan: Legal Authority and Program Administration. Agency responsibilities include mapping the MS4 area and outfalls as detailed in Chapter 4: Mapping; conducting illicit discharge detection and elimination activities as detailed in Chapter 5: IDDE; complying with Construction and Post-Construction requirements as detailed in Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction; and implementing the PP/GH Program as detailed in Chapter 7: Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities. 4.6 Continued MS4 Map Update Process Following submission of the Final MS4 Map to NYSDEC on August 1, 2020, the City will update the online MS4 Map periodically. In compliance with Part IV.C.3 of the MS4 Permit, DEP will provide a geodatabase containing the MS4 Map with all available updates to NYSDEC every five years following submission of the Final MS4 Map in 2020 as long as the MS4 Permit is in effect. These updates will include any additions or deletions to the MS4 drainage area and any newly constructed or discovered MS4 outfalls. Additionally, the updates will include any changes to land use as provided in the MapPLUTO dataset. Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for Mapping Table 4.4 BMP Measurable Goals Measures Map the MS4 Area Map in GIS-format, MS4 outfalls, and drainage areas (Preliminary MS4 Map to be submitted by August 1, 2018 and Final Map to be submitted by August 1, 2020) Status and location of the MS4 Map Number and percent of MS4 outfalls mapped Update Final MS4 Map every 5 years Date of latest MS4 Map update submittal 4.7 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 4.4 lists measurable goals and measures for identified mapping best management practices (BMPs). Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each MS4 Annual Report, as described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals will allow the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. 89 Chapter 5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 Gowanus Canal 90 91 Under Part IV.D of the MS4 Permit, the City must develop, implement, and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges into the MS4. Illicit discharges are non-stormwater, unauthorized discharges to the MS4. This chapter describes the City’s Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program to satisfy the following MS4 Permit requirements: � Prohibit illicit discharges into the MS4 through appropriate enforcement procedures and actions; � Establish a procedure for determining whether non-stormwater discharges are significant contributors of pollutants to surface waters of the State; � Detect and eliminate unauthorized non stormwater discharges into the MS4, including spills and illegal dumping; � Conduct a routine outfall reconnaissance inventory; � Prioritize waterbodies that are shown through sampling activities to have fecal coliform levels over 200 colonies/100 (milliliters) mL for mini-shoreline investigations; � Educate public employees, businesses, and the general public about the hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste; � Describe procedures to prevent, contain, and respond to spills that may discharge to the MS4; � Describe controls to limit infiltration of seepage from municipal sanitary sewers to the MS4; and � Train staff who implement IDDE tasks. Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration discusses the City’s legal authority for the IDDE Program and details the City’s regulatory mechanisms to prohibit illicit discharges into the City’s sewer system. Appendix 1.1: Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) describes procedures for investigating, documenting, and enforcing against illicit discharges pursuant to Part III.C of the MS4 Permit. All City agencies that own or operate facilities within the MS4 area conduct IDDE activities on their properties, while DEP conducts IDDE activities in the right-of-way, at private properties within the City’s legal authority, and at its own properties. To assist agencies, DEP developed an NYC IDDE Agency Guidance Manual on how to track, eliminate, and report illicit discharges. Figure 5.1 Abated 4.35 million gallons per day (MGD) 97.57% DEP has successfully abated the overwhelming majority of discovered illicit discharges. Under Investigation 0.03 million gallons per day (MGD) 1.94% IDDE Program Effectiveness Between 1998-2017 Shows the effectiveness of existing DEP programs at identifying and eliminating illicit discharges through the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Programs. 92 5.1 Non-Stormwater Discharges Non-stormwater discharges into the MS4 are generally not authorized and are considered illicit. However, certain non-stormwater discharges into the MS4 are allowed, including those from firefighting activities, and discharges determined by DEP not to be significant contributors of pollutants to surface waters of the State. Pursuant to 15 RCNY Section 19-02(j), DEP determines, on a case by-case basis, whether a non-stormwater discharge is a significant contributor of pollutants, and the discharge must be approved by the DEP Commissioner. Discharges DEP considers to be significant sources of pollutants and any other non-stormwater discharges into the MS4 such as sanitary connections to storm sewers, illegal dumping, and spills that enter the sewer are considered illicit. To obtain DEP approval to discharge non-stormwater into the MS4, email DEP at MS4@ dep.nyc.gov with the subject line Non-stormwater Discharge Inquiry. 5.2 Illicit Discharge Detection Shoreline Survey DEP’s 14 existing WRRFs’ SPDES Permits require DEP to complete a Shoreline Survey of at least 50 percent of the NYC shoreline every five years. DEP’s existing Shoreline Survey Program includes inland waters such as Van Cortlandt Lake (Bronx), Grasmere Lake (Staten Island), Arbutus Lake (Staten Island), and Wolfes Lake (Staten Island). During the Shoreline Survey, DEP conducts outfall reconnaissance to identify the attributes and locations of outfalls, assesses outfalls for evidence of dry weather discharges, and, if necessary, initiates illicit discharge field investigations, as described in Section 5.4. Because the SPDES Permits require the City to inventory 50 percent of the MS4 outfalls every five years, the City uses its existing Shoreline Survey Program to meet the MS4 Permit requirement that it inventory 100 percent of the MS4 outfalls every 10 years. DEP will meet the MS4 Permit requirement for an annual updated MS4 outfall list in each Annual Report. Sentinel Monitoring Program Established as an enhancement to the Shoreline Survey, the DEP Sentinel Monitoring Program entails the regular monitoring and sampling of waterbodies throughout NYC. The purpose of the program is to detect continuous, intermittent, and/or transitory illicit discharges. Using a set list of Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, DEP goes to sentinel stations quarterly, collects water for samples, and analyzes the samples for pathogens. To ensure data integrity, DEP conducts sampling after a dry weather period of 48 hours and during various tidal cycles and seasons. Refer to Appendix 5.1 for the DEP Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program Standard Operating Procedures. The City engaged targeted stakeholders to discuss the IDDE Program during SWMP development. These stakeholders included: � General Public � Stormwater Advisory Group � Community Boards and Elected Officials in the Coney Island Creek watershed � Neighborhood Associations in the Coney Island Creek watershed � Environmental organizations � Community groups and non-profit partners The public requested access to additional water quality data and information on IDDE investigations, information on how to report potential illicit discharges, and information on how to receive notifications of illicit discharges. The City: � Began posting the Sentinel Monitoring Program quarterly data and the annual Sentinel Monitoring Reports which summarize IDDE field investigations. � Created new guidance on how to report potential illicit discharges through 311. � Began notifying elected officials, community boards, and community leaders when illicit discharge sources are confirmed. 93 Illegal dumping occurs when material, including but not limited to bags, litter, oil, unused concrete, concrete wash waters, construction debris, and appliances, is dumped onto surface drainage ways, open channels, storm inlet/ catch basins, or storm manholes on public or private property. It is illegal to dump, deposit, or otherwise dispose of any dirt, sand, gravel, clay, loam, stone, rocks, rubble, building rubbish, sawdust, shavings, trade or household waste, ashes, manure, garbage, rubbish, or debris of any sort being transported in a dump truck or other vehicle in or upon any street, lot, park, public place, or other area whether publicly or privately owned. In addition, no person may allow anyone under his/her control (agent or employee) to engage in illegal dumping. Penalties for this offense include a fine and vehicle impoundment. The current water quality standard set by NYSDEC, and stated in the MS4 Permit, is 200 fecal coliform/100 mL. If a station’s sampling result exceeds this threshold, then DEP prioritizes its adjacent shoreline for a mini shoreline investigation, which includes field investigations and surveillance to identify a potential source of the contamination. In addition, DEP collects evidence of other types of dry weather discharge, if observed. The Integrated Sentinel Monitoring Report, which DEP first submitted to NYSDEC on June 29, 2018, and by June 30 annually thereafter, includes information on waterbodies with fecal coliform levels over 200 colonies/100 mL and unauthorized non-stormwater discharges to the MS4. This report satisfies the IDDE annual reports listed in Part IV.O, Table 2, of the MS4 Permit. Harbor Survey Program The Harbor Survey Program samples ambient waterbody stations to assess the health of waterbodies throughout NYC. DEP coordinates the review and analysis of these data among the various monitoring programs, and the data may be used to initiate a mini-shoreline survey. Chapter 10: Monitoring and Assessment of Controls, Section 10.1, describes the City’s other existing water quality monitoring programs. 311 311 provides a mechanism for the public to report illicit discharges to the City. Waterway complaints, illegal dumping, and oil spills are examples of reports the public can make through 311. The City responds to 311 reports based on the type of complaint. For more information on 311, refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach. 5.3 Illicit Discharge Trackdown, Elimination, and Notification The City conducts an IDDE investigation if a potential illicit discharge is identified through one of three events: � An outfall discharging dry weather flow is discovered during the Shoreline Survey. � A prioritized mini-shoreline investigation is triggered by the Sentinel Monitoring Program. � A complaint of a potential illicit discharge is received from the public. When one of these events triggers an IDDE investigation, the City conducts appropriate in-sewer and/or aboveground inspections to identify the source of any dry weather discharge entering the City’s sewer system, and takes abatement actions with respect to any confirmed illicit discharge. Figure 5.2 summarizes the processes of the main DEP programs to identify and eliminate illicit discharges. 94 Shoreline Survey In-Water Monitoring Harbor Survey Program Sentinel Monitoring Program Surveillance of NYC shoreline Contaminated dry weather discharges? Illicit discharge confirmed from mini-shoreline survey? Fecal Coliform above 200 fcu/100ml ? Source Trackdown (Phase 1) Source Investigation Source Abatement (Phase 2) No further action No further action No further action Sewer Inspections In-sewer Sampling Dye Testing Sewer Maps Review Yes No No No Yes Yes Sampling ambient waterbody stations to detect possible illicit discharges Sampling ambient waterbody stations to assess overall water quality On-Land Actions Emergency Response Unit Observed evidence of illicit discharge (e.g., oil spill, cement washout, grease in a catch basin, etc.) at reported location? Source elimination and further DEP action depending on the nature of the illicit discharge No further action Source investigation NoYes Responding to notifications from 311, NYSDEC, contrac tors, and public officials Illicit discharge unlikely Source tracking method Decision Protocol type Information sharing Main DEP IDDE Programs Figure 5.2 Source Trackdown DEP Shoreline Survey crews use standard operating procedures (SOPs) for illicit discharge investigations. These SOPs include sewer map reviews, field inspections, sampling procedures, and dye testing procedures. See Appendix 5.1 for the DEP Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program SOPs, which include safety requirements, available equipment, and supporting information. In response to public reports of potential illicit discharges, DEP looks at the location for evidence based on the complaint description (e.g., oil, paint, sewage). DEP’s field investigation includes looking for any type of illicit discharge, attempting to identify the source, and initiating a trackdown, if necessary. Elimination DEP typically issues a Commissioner’s Order after identifying the source of an illicit discharge, requiring the responsible party to cease the discharge and begin abatement. If the responsible party does not make a concerted effort to comply with the Commissioner’s Order, DEP then issues a summons (formerly known as a notice of violation or NOV) for failure to comply. DSNY may also impose penalties for the unlawful discharge of a noxious liquid (which can include concrete wash water) under the Sanitation Code. For 311 complaints, DEP issues a summons after witnessing or seeing clear evidence of an illicit discharge (e.g., a cement facility next to a catch basin with evidence of concrete washout). Refer to Appendix 1.1: Enforcement Response Plan for details on enforcement actions. 95 Notification Within 30 days of the discovery of an illicit discharge, the City notifies NYSDEC and provides a written schedule to conduct the necessary investigative work to determine the source of the discharge and to propose an abatement program (Phase I Schedule). Before the end of the schedule in Phase I, the City submits an illicit discharge abatement plan to NYSDEC, including milestone dates (Phase II Schedule). This procedure complies with Part IV.D.4 of the MS4 Permit. In addition, the City notifies NYSDEC, DOHMH, and adjoining municipalities following confirmation of a Shoreline sampling DEP staff begins sewer investigation DEP staff conducts in-sewer investigation discharge and may notify the public directly through the NY-Alert system at the NYSDEC website when waterways are significantly impacted by untreated or partially treated sewage discharges in their area. In further coordination with NYSDEC, the City reports to NYSDEC dry weather discharges it discovers that fall under the State’s jurisdiction (e.g., from a private outfall). The City reports illicit discharges that are not sewage-related (e.g., chemicals, gas, cement) to NYSDEC through the NYS Spill Hotline and/or email correspondence. 96 5.4 Spill Prevention and Citywide Response In addition to outfall reconnaissance, water quality sampling, and source trackdowns, there are citywide spill prevention and response programs involving various agencies with different levels of responsibilities. Spill Prevention The NYC Community Right-to-Know Law authorizes DEP DERTA to regulate the storage, use, and handling of hazardous substances. As part of the enforcement of the law, DERTA oversees the use and storage of hazardous substances that pose a threat to public health and the environment in NYC. This program manages the reporting and storage of hazardous substances by requiring businesses and facilities throughout the five boroughs to file a report annually detailing the quantity, location, and chemical nature of hazardous substances stored within their facilities. Field sampling DEP DERTA responders 97 After Hurricane Sandy, DERTA prepared and distributed brochures to facilities in storm-prone locations. The brochure provides recommendations for proper storage and handling of their chemicals to prevent spillage during adverse weather conditions. Additionally, through the PP/GH Program, City agencies implement stormwater control measures (SCMs) designed to prevent and contain spills at municipal facilities/ operations. For further details, refer to Chapter 7: Pollution Prevention/ Good Housekeeping. Spill Containment and Response The DEP Industrial Pre-Treatment Program regulates discharges of specific pollutants from certain facilities into the City’s sewer system. In the MS4 area, DEP inspects regulated facilities to evaluate industrial processes; to ensure compliance with Federal and City wastewater regulations; and to assess outdoor storage, handling, and transfer areas. DEP assesses these facilities for proper containment of substances to ensure the prevention of future spills. The City responds to spills in a number of ways, including taking and ordering actions to: � Minimize or mitigate the release of substances discharged into the City’s sewer system. � Clean up or remove released substances from the environment. � Implement security measures, when appropriate, to protect the public. DEP’s Bureau of Wastewater Treatment has an Industrial Waste Emergency Response Unit (ERU) that responds to spills of all types that enter the sewer system. Spills of hazardous substances are covered under the NYC Hazardous Substances Emergency Response Law (also known as the Spill Bill), which authorizes DERTA to respond to chemical release emergencies. In addition, under the Citywide Incident Management System, DERTA remediates conditions caused by releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. FDNY also responds to spills; its Hazardous Materials Unit responds to hazardous materials incidents throughout NYC, and its Fuel Unit responds to FDNY-related fuel spills. Other agencies, such as DSNY, may also assist in spill response when requested to do so by emergency response personnel. 5.5 Sanitary Pipe Seepage Controls The City utilizes administrative and operational controls to limit infiltration of seepage from municipal sanitary sewers to the MS4. Appendix 5.2 describes the Rules, Sewer Design Standards, and Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications for the City. DEP is responsible for maintaining most existing City sewers to keep them operational and in structurally sound condition. DEP’s Collections System Investigation (CSI) Section (formerly Capacity Management Operation and Maintenance or CMOM) investigates complaints and responds to inquiries regarding sewer conditions throughout NYC. Some of these complaints are related to cracks, fractures, open joints, deformation, collapses, missing bricks, and erosion. Additionally, DEP investigates sewer structural conditions for damage to the sewer walls through closed circuit television inspections for smaller pipes, and walkthrough inspections by specially trained personnel for large trunk lines. The results of these inspections are compiled in a report based on the Pipe Assessment Certification Program (PACP), an industry standard grading system for sewer defects. DEP uses a combination of the PACP grading system and other criteria to determine sewer condition and need for rehabilitation. Various methods, such as lining, guniting, and replacement, are used to restore pipes to eliminate seepage. Septic systems treat wastewater—from bathrooms, kitchens, and washing machines—from buildings not served by either a combined or a separate sanitary sewer. The areas of NYC without sewers and that must instead rely on septic systems are mostly located in Queens and Staten Island. Septic systems are underground and typically consist of a septic tank and a drainfield or soil absorption field. Functioning septic systems treat wastewater through natural processes and are not a threat to water quality. However, because household wastewater contains pathogens, nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, and some toxic chemicals, failing septic systems that allow inadequately treated wastewater to leak through the ground or on the surface can lead to increased levels of impairment in a waterbody. Septic waste from failing septic systems entering storm sewers is an example of an illicit discharge. The regulation and oversight of septic systems in NYC are shared among DOB, DOHMH, and NYSDEC depending on the capacity of the septic system. All commercial septic systems and residential systems with a capacity greater than 1,000 gallons of wastewater per day require permits from NYSDEC. However, most residential septic systems are below the 1,000-gallon threshold and are regulated by DOB and, in some instances, DOHMH. Under 1 RCNY §8001-01, DOB regulates the design and installation of new septic systems that receive less than 1,000 gallons of sewage per day, which does not include industrial wastes, and the maintenance of existing septic systems up to that flow limit. Under Health Code § 143.11, Community private sewage disposal systems, DOHMH permits septic systems for multiple dwellings of 15 units or greater. Based on SWMP public comments, 311 added a new service for the public to report failing septic systems through the Septic or Cesspool Complaint (https:// portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-01916). Through 311, DOB responds to public complaints about failing septic systems. If the failing septic system results in standing sewage or a health nuisance, DOHMH can issue a Health Order for the owner to abate the problem. If the failing septic system discharges into a catch basin, DEP can issue a summons. 98 Oil spill in Fresh Creek 99 DEP Cease the Grease program 5.6 Public Education and Participation The City conducts robust public education, outreach, and participation programs associated with stormwater management, as described in Chapters 2 and 3 of this Plan. This section provides a summary of education, outreach, and participation measures targeted at IDDE. General Public � The DEP website provides information on stormwater and the City’s sewer system. � DSNY holds SAFE disposal events throughout the year in all five boroughs to help residents dispose of harmful household products safely. � 311 provides information and assistance and allows residents to report water quality issues including dry weather discharges, illegal dumping, and spills (refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach, Section 2.5). Industrial and Commercial Businesses � The DEP Trash it. Don’t Flush It Program (formerly known as Cease the Grease Program) distributes information to food service establishments (FSEs) throughout NYC about proper grease disposal and the sewer system. � DEP reaches out to various businesses through meetings, door-to-door visits, workshops, mailers, and/ or on-site visits. � DEP works with its primary partners (and their members) including Local Development Corporations, Business Improvement Districts, Chambers of Commerce, Merchant Associations, and trade associations to distribute materials that includes information on proper waste disposal. � DEP provides automotive associations with information on proper waste disposal, as well as vehicle washing and refueling.waste disposal, as well as vehicle washing and refueling. 5.7 Staff Training Agencies with obligations under the MS4 Permit train staff on identifying and preventing illicit discharges, spills, and illegal dumping during routine work activities at municipal facilities/operations. This training is done in coordination with the PP/GH Program. Each agency documents and maintains records of its staff trained and the training provided. Refer to Chapter 7: Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for details on the PP/GH Program. Further, to support agencies with MS4 Permit obligations, DEP has developed an NYC IDDE Agency Guidance Manual to assist agency staff in detecting, tracking, eliminating, and reporting illicit discharges. DEP staff implementing the IDDE Program receive training on illicit discharge identification, proper procedures for reporting and responding, and applicable health and safety guidelines. DEP Shoreline Survey crew members are trained in accordance with DEP's SOPs (Appendix 5.1). New employees for the DEP ERU that respond to spills and 311 complaints are trained by experienced staff in the field. These staff training programs comply with Part IV.D.6 and Part IV.D.11 of the MS4 Permit. 100 BMPs Measurable Goals Measures Detect and eliminate illicit discharges Detect and eliminate illicit discharges including illegal dumping Number of illicit discharges detected Number of illicit discharge abatements Number of and type of enforcement actions and penalties issued Conduct an outfall reconnaissance inventory with 100% completed every 10 years Date updated outfall spreadsheet submitted to NYSDEC Percent of MS4 outfalls for which an outfall reconnaissance inventory (ORI) has been performed Prepare reports Prepare a special Report for waterbodies with fecal coliform above 200 colonies/100 ml and for unau thorized non-stormwater discharges within 3 years of August 1, 2015 and annually thereafter Status and location of Integrated Sentinel Monitoring Report Provide an ongoing public education and awareness program Implement a public education program on potential hazards of illicit discharges List of education activities for public employees List of education and outreach programs/events for the general public and businesses, and relevant met ric(s) for each (e.g. number of participants, events, or materials distributed) List of planned educational and outreach programs/ activities to be undertaken in next reporting cycle Provide training for staff Implement a staff training program on IDDE Number of staff training opportunities/events Number of DEP staff trained on IDDE Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for the IDDE Program Table 5.1 5.8 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 5.1 lists measurable goals and measures for identified IDDE best management practices (BMPs). MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, as described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals and measures for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals will allow the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. 101 Chapter 6 Construction and Post Construction Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 102 Construction site 103 NYSDEC requires construction projects in the MS4 area disturbing an acre or more of soil to obtain coverage for stormwater discharges under the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP0 020-001)(NYSDEC CGP). The City’s permitting program1 complements the NYSDEC CGP program by reviewing and approving stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), inspecting construction activities for stormwater impacts and inspecting operation and maintenance of post-construction stormwater management practices (SMPs). Parts IV.E and F of the MS4 Permit required the City to: � Review and approve Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs); � Maintain an inventory of active construction sites; � Conduct site inspections during construction and enforce proper erosion and sediment control measures as well as proper SMP installation; � Maintain an inventory of post-construction SMPs; � Conduct SMP inspections and enforce long-term maintenance of SMPs; 1 On June 1, 2019, the rules governing DEP’s authority to implement the C/ PC program in the MS4 area went into effect. � Train DEP staff who will perform SWPPP reviews and site inspections during and after construction; � Verify that construction managers and site operators have received erosion and sediment control training from NYSDEC or other qualified entities; � Educate relevant stakeholders about the Construction and Post-Construction (C/PC) Program; and � Conduct a study to determine an appropriate reduction in the lot size soil disturbance threshold for triggering the regulatory requirements of the C/PC Program. Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration discusses the City’s rulemaking process and legal authority for the C/PC Program. DEP administers the C/PC Program by reviewing SWPPPs; issuing stormwater construction and maintenance permits; inspecting and enforcing during and after construction; and responding to public complaints. The C/PC Program includes measures to ensure no net increase of the pollutants of concern (POCs) for which a waterbody is impaired, as required by Part II.B.1 of the MS4 Permit. The C/PC Program applies only to certain new and redevelopment projects, referred to as covered development projects. Figure 6.1 provides an overview of the program. Overview of C/PC Permitting Process Figure 6.1 The C/PC Program requires two types of stormwater permits for covered development projects: Stormwater Construction Permits for all covered development projects, and Stormwater Maintenance Permits for projects requiring post-construction SMPs. The first step in applying for these stormwater permits is submittal of a permit application to DEP. The permit application consists of the information required in NYSDEC’s Notice of Intent (NOI) form, additional information required in DEP’s rules, and the plans and reports that together make up the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). DEP will review and approve SWPPPs; refer to Section 6.1 for details. If DEP approves the SWPPP, the developer then submits the Permit Initiation Form (and, when post-construction SMPs are required, a copy of the maintenance easement) to DEP, and the contractor with primary responsibility for the project site submits the Permit Request Form to DEP for a Stormwater Construction Permit; refer to Section 6.2.1 for details. DEP may inspect a site during construction. After construction, the developer or owner submits a completed NYSDEC Notice of Termination (NOT) form to DEP for review and signature. If post-construction SMPs are required for the covered development project, then the developer or owner must also submit to DEP a Stormwater Maintenance Permit application with the completed NYSDEC NOT; refer to Section 6.2.2 for details. DEP may inspect post-construction SMPs. If DEP issues a Stormwater Maintenance Permit, then the owner must submit an annual certification and renew the permit every five years. 104 Applicant submits SWPPP, informa tion from NYSDEC NOI, and additional information required in DEP rules to DEP DEP provides signed NYSDEC MS4 Acceptance Form to applicant Applicant submits DEP-signed MS4 Acceptance Form and NYSDEC NOI to NYSDEC Owner/Developer submits Permit Initiation Form to DEP SWPPP includes post-construction SMP Owner/developer submits maintenance easement Contractor submits Permit Request Form to DEP DEP issues Stormwater Construction Permit for the project Developer com pletes construc tion and submits a NYSDEC NOT to DEP for signature DEP provides signed NYSDEC NOT form to Own er/Developer Owner/Developer submits DEP signed NOT to NYSDEC SWPPP includes post-construction SMP Owner/developer submits application for Stormwater Maintenance Permit to DEP SMP installed and operating as designed Owner/Developer submits DEP signed NOT to NYSDEC DEP issues Stormwater Maintenance Permit to Owner Owner submits annual certification and 5-year permit renewal to DEP DEP provides feedback Owner/ developer resolves issues DEP reviews permit application DEP provides feedback SWPPP accepted by DEP No No No No Construction DEP may inspect DEP may inspect DEP may inspect DEP may inspect Yes Yes Yes Yes Applicant/Owner/ Developer Action Applicant/Owner/ Developer goes to DEC Decision PointDEP Action START END Under the Unified Stormwater Rule (USWR), a covered development project means development activity, private or public, that involves or results in a soil disturbance of 20,000 square feet or greater, or creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, including disturbances of less than 20,000 square feet or creation of less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately meet those thresholds. See Section 6.4 for additional details. 105 6.1 SWPPP Review and Approval 2 The Unified Stormwater Rule (USWR) expanded the number of projects subject to this program by lowering the soil disturbance threshold to 20,000 square feet or more and including as triggers for coverage, the creation of 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface and roadway maintenance of 20,000 square feet or more. 3 Local Law 91 of 2020, extended requirements of the DEP permitting program to the combined sewer area, effective March 26, 2021; projects in the combined sewer area must obtain SWPPP approval and DEP permitting but need not obtain coverage under the NYSDEC CGP. For a covered development project,2 an applicant must submit to DEP a permit application that includes all the elements required in the NYSDEC notice of intent (NOI) for coverage under the NYSDEC CGP; a complete SWPPP; and the additional information required by the City’s rules. A SWPPP is a plan prepared by a developer to manage stormwater runoff from a construction site. SWPPPs include elements that prevent pollution both during construction and after a project is completed. DEP hosts the Stormwater Permitting and Tracking System (SWPTS), an online application system, for developers to input their applications and follow the status of DEP’s review. The site is accessible at https://deppermits. microsoftcrmportals.com/. DEP ensures each permit application meets the conditions of the NYSDEC CGP and the additional requirements under the City’s rules. Upon approval of an application, DEP provides the developer with a downloadable MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form. For projects in the MS4 area, developers then must submit this form along with the NOI to the NYSDEC main office in Albany to obtain coverage under the NYSDEC CGP.3 If DEP does not approve the application, DEP provides notice to the applicant that delineates the deficiencies in the SWPPP. The applicant may re-submit the SWPPP for DEP approval. Contents of SWPPPs depend on the individual covered development project. All SWPPPs require an erosion and sediment control component for construction activities detailed in Section 6.1.1. Some SWPPPs also require post-construction SMPs that the property owner must implement and maintain following construction, as detailed in Section 6.1.2. SWPPPs for covered development projects draining to impaired waterbodies must meet the no net increase (NNI) requirement detailed in Section 6.1.3. Finally, SWPPPs for covered development projects that are flood management projects must meet the requirements in Section 6.1.4 The City developed a NYC Stormwater Design Manual to provide technical guidance for creating SWPPPs that meet the C/PC Program requirements. This Manual is available on the DEP website. 4 The USWR includes a new NYC Stormwater Manual (SWM) Construction at Avenue V pump station https://deppermits.microsoftcrmportals.com/ https://deppermits.microsoftcrmportals.com/ 106 6.1.1 SWPPP Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Component All SWPPPs must include an erosion and sediment control component, which must meet the requirements in the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.5 The SWPPP must include practices to avoid erosion and control sedimentation for each step in the construction process. The SWPPP should also include site plans that show the location of each process; the practices associated with that process; and the details specifying size, materials, and endurance of each practice 6.1.2 SWPPP Post-Construction Stormwater Management Component Depending on the covered development project, a SWPPP must also include post-construction SMPs that the property owner must implement and maintain to manage stormwater runoff from the developed site after construction is completed. The NYSDEC CGP and the USWR establish which covered development projects require only an erosion and sediment control component and which also require post-construction SMPs. The stormwater management component must describe post-construction SMPs that prevent or reduce pollutants from stormwater runoff to waterbodies. SMPs must meet the performance standards in the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual,6 including an Operation and Maintenance manual that addresses each SMP. DEP also developed a NYC Stormwater Manual7 to address City specific requirements and preferred practices for covered development projects. This NYC Manual is available on the DEP website.8 SWPPPs with stormwater management components should include site plans showing both the pre construction and the proposed post-construction condition of the site. The developer must show the locations, materials, sizes, and inlet and outlet conditions of all SMPs. In supporting documentation, the developer must include calculations demonstrating that the size and operation of the SMP are adequate, and results of any field-testing performed to locate and size the SMP. An operation and maintenance manual must also be included to address the requirements for the long term maintenance of the SMPs. 5 https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29066.html 6 http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html 7 DEP has an updated NYC Stormwater Manual as part of the USWR. 8 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/unified-stormwater-rule.page 6.1.3 No Net Increase (NNI) Requirement Covered development projects involving a non-negligible change in land use (i.e., land disturbances greater than or equal to 20,000 square feet where there is an increase in impervious cover) draining to impaired waters are required to include a pollutant load analysis in the SWPPP. This analysis should demonstrate that there will be no net increase of the POC(s) for which a waterbody is impaired. NYSDEC provided the list of impaired waters in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit and specified the pollutant(s) causing the impairment for each listed waterbody segment. DEP submitted the City’s Draft Procedures for No Net Increase (NNI) Pollutant Load Analysis to DEC on February 1, 2018. The No Net Increase Calculator and additional guidance are available on DEP’s website.9 The City provides status updates on the NNI requirement in MS4 Annual Reports. The POCs listed in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit are floatables, nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens. Refer to Chapter 11: Special Conditions for Impaired Waters for more information on NYC impaired waters and POCs. The SWPPP pollutant load analysis must consist of a narrative that identifies each POC causing impairment in the waterbody and the potential sources of those pollutants; and the management practices that will be used to ensure no net increase of those pollutants to impaired waters. Projects in areas draining to an impaired waterbody must demonstrate compliance for the individual pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired as follows: � Floatables: Design and implement SMPs in accordance with the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual. � Nitrogen: Design and implement practices to show no net increase in total nitrogen load. Provide pollutant calculations using the loading and removal data provided in the NYC Stormwater Manual. � Phosphorus: Design and implement SMPs in accordance with Chapter 10 of the NYS Stormwater Management Manual. � Pathogens: Design and implement SMPs in accordance with the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual, with added enhancements and site management practices to reduce the potential for pathogens to enter the MS4, as detailed in the NYC Stormwater Manual. The NYC Stormwater Manual details how to determine whether a site drains to an impaired waterbody and how to demonstrate no net increase for the POC(s) causing the impairment. 9 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/construction-post-construction program-ms4.page https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29066.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/unified-stormwater-rule.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/construction-post-construction-program-ms4.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/construction-post-construction-program-ms4.page 107 6.1.4 SWPPP Requirements for Flood Management Projects Covered development projects that meet the MS4 Permit definition of a flood management project are required to assess in the SWPPP the impacts on the water quality of the receiving water. Flood management projects refer exclusively to projects designed and functioning to capture, detain, or convey overland flow from a large drainage area to prevent downstream flooding associated with a 100-year or greater storm event. The MS4 Permit excludes projects such as installation and maintenance of storm sewers, high-level storm sewers, Bluebelt storm sewers, drainage inlets, and other projects to improve drainage, alleviate localized flooding, or reduce coastal flooding. Additionally, SWPPPs prepared for major maintenance or rehabilitation of City-owned structural flood control devices in flood management projects shall, if feasible and cost effective, incorporate the recommended controls resulting from the facility assessments conducted under the Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping provisions of the MS4 Permit. Refer to Chapter 7: Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for more details on facility assessments. The City has not identified any existing flood management devices within the MS4 area that meet the MS4 Permit definition. The City engaged targeted stakeholders to discuss the development of the Construction/ Post-Construction Program. These stakeholders included: � General Public � Stormwater Advisory Group � Design, construction, and development community � Environmental organizations In addition, the City partnered with the Urban Green Council (UGC) and the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) to bring together a broader audience of professionals impacted by the Construction/Post-Construction provisions. In response to comments received on this program, the City has: � Included the Owner rather than a Qualified Professional as the defined person to submit annual certifications for Stormwater Maintenance Permits. � Altered the threshold analysis by: » changing the life cycle analysis from a 20-year to 30-year life cycle. » adding 7,500 and 12,500 square foot lot size thresholds into the analysis (the initial analysis included lot sizes in 5,000 square foot increments up to and including 1 acre). � Revised cost estimates per input from developer workshops held in conjunction with REBNY and UGC. Green Roof at Zerega EMS Station 108 Except as noted below, in order to receive a Stormwater Construction Permit from DEP, covered development projects that require a post-construction SMP(s) are required to execute and record a maintenance easement and submit a copy to DEP. The purpose of the maintenance easement is to ensure that future owners of the property are aware of the post-construction SMPs and their ongoing obligation to operate and maintain them in accordance with the operation and maintenance manual in the approved SWPPP. The easement also puts the property owner on notice that DEP may inspect post construction SMPs to confirm that the operation and maintenance meet applicable standards. Public properties with SMPs, public projects, and projects that only require erosion and sediment controls during construction do not require a maintenance easement. However, if a public entity later transfers a public property with an SMP to a private entity, the NYC Corporation Counsel may require a maintenance easement at that time. The maintenance easement must be recorded with the Office of the City Register or, if applicable, the County Clerk, after approval by the NYC Corporation Counsel. In addition, DEP requires a Contractor’s Certification that ensures that the Contractor has reviewed and agrees to implement the approved SWPPP. Subcontractors that are responsible for specific parts of a development activity will need to sign certifications and provide Trained Contractor information as well. Subcontractor certifications and Trained Contractor credentials must be kept with the SWPPP on the site. To receive a permit, a developer must also have a DEP-approved SWPPP, and an NYSDEC acknowledged NOI for coverage under the NYSDEC CGP. Permit Issuance DEP issues a Stormwater Construction Permit once all of the required submittals have been entered in the SWPTS and DEP’s review is completed. Stormwater Construction Permits are valid for 2 years from the date of issuance. A renewal of the Stormwater Construction Permit may be submitted through SWPTS. Once DEP issues the permit and receives a 7-day notification of the construction start date from the contractor or developer, DEP adds the project to DEP’s inventory of active construction sites in the MS4 area. A list of active Stormwater Construction Permits is available at https://deppermits.microsoftcrmportals.com/ Permit Conditions The applicant and all contractors and subcontractors are responsible for implementing the approved SWPPP, complying with DEP rules, and complying with the terms and conditions of the Stormwater Construction Permit. A Stormwater Construction Permit must be renewed every two years from date of issuance. As of June 2019, DEP began accepting applications for two types of stormwater permits for covered development projects: Stormwater Construction Permit and Stormwater Maintenance Permit. Covered development projects that have a NYSDEC SPDES acknowledgement letter indicating that the project had coverage under the CGP before the June 1, 2019 effective date of DEP’s rules are not required to apply for either of DEP’s permits. DEP may periodically inspect permitted sites. Appendix 1.1: Enforcement Response Plan includes DEP’s protocol for investigating, documenting and, where appropriate, enforcing against unauthorized discharges from construction and post-construction pollution sources into the MS4. 6.2.1 Stormwater Construction Permit Stormwater Construction Permits are required for all covered development projects (in addition to coverage under the NYSDEC CGP for projects in the MS4). A developer must obtain a Stormwater Construction Permit prior to construction. Before issuing the permit, DEP must receive two forms through the SWPTS: 1. The Permit Initiation Form that requires the developer to submit the names of the Qualified Inspector, the Contractor, and where required, a fully executed and recorded maintenance easement, as described below; and 2. The Permit Request Form that requires the Contractor to complete a Contractor’s Certification and provide the Trained Contractor information and the NYSDEC SPDES number received with the NYSDEC Acknowledgement upon filing of an NOI. The purpose of these forms is to identify the individuals responsible for SWPPP implementation. These roles and responsibilities include: � The Qualified Inspector, who is responsible for weekly inspections of the construction site. � The Contractor, who is the construction manager or the primary contractor responsible for the development activity. The Contractor must also provide the information for at least one Trained Contractor. � The Trained Contractor, who is responsible for the daily erosion and sediment control inspection. This individual must have taken the NYSDEC erosion and sediment control 4-hour class within the last three years and be employed by the contractor responsible for the job. 6.2 DEP Issued Stormwater Permit https://deppermits.microsoftcrmportals.com/ 109 During construction, unforeseen issues may make it necessary for the developer to amend the SWPPP. Major amendments that require changes to structural components (such as a sediment basin or dam for an impoundment), changes that require new stormwater modeling, or changes to modeling methodology will require review and approval by DEP. If construction begins, but is not completed, the developer must submit a closure plan to DEP as an amendment to the SWPPP. The closure plan must demonstrate that the site will remain stable and that all completed SMPs are operating as designed and in compliance with DEP rules. The developer is also responsible for submitting a Notice of Termination (NOT) to NYSDEC. If construction is temporarily halted and the site is closed, the developer must continue to maintain the site and the SMPs. The developer must also notify DEP through the SWPTS at least 7 days before an anticipated temporary shutdown. Inspections must be performed by a Qualified Inspector at least once every 30 days to assure that the site is stable and that installed erosion and sediment control practices or completed SMPs are maintained during the shutdown. The developer must immediately fix any issues identified by the Qualified Inspector. Construction Inspections During construction, DEP staff performs inspections to evaluate compliance with the approved SWPPP. Considering factors such as the extent of soil disturbance, distance to the receiving waterbody, impairments to the receiving waterbody, land slope, soil erodibility, and past performance of the contractor and developer, DEP prioritizes active construction sites for inspection. DEP conducts construction site inspections as part of a routine program and in response to public complaints. Enforcement When a DEP inspector identifies non-compliance with the SWPPP, the New York City Administrative Code Chapter 5-A of Title 24, or the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) Chapter 19.1 of Title 15, the inspector may utilize a number of measures to require correction of the condition. The measure taken depends upon the severity of the condition and the impact or potential impact on water quality. DEP follows the Enforcement Response Plan (Appendix 1.1) that identifies each potential enforcement measure. The penalty associated with each enforcement action will be determined based on the identified non-compliance, the number of times a similar issue has been identified on the site, and the ability of those responsible for the covered development project to correct the problem. Permit Termination A Stormwater Construction Permit expires if the permitted work is not substantially underway within one year or is not completed by a date specified in the The City currently responds to a variety of public complaints related to construction activities such as excessive debris, noise or dust; work without a permit or outside approved plans; and illegal dumping of construction materials in catch basins. Refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach, Section 2.5, for details on how to report illicit discharges and other potentially harmful water quality impacts through 311. permit. This permit also expires if work is suspended or abandoned for a continuous period of 12 months unless the permit expires earlier. Once the project is constructed, the Qualified Inspector for erosion and sediment control and the developer must sign a NYSDEC NOT stating that the project is complete and the site is stable. Projects that include post-construction SMPs also require the signature of a Qualified Professional who has inspected the SMPs for conformance to the approved SWPPP. A developer working on a project that does not include post-construction SMPs will submit to DEP through the SWPTS a completed NYSDEC NOT for DEP’s signature. If the project includes post-construction SMPs, the developer must submit the NOT with the application for the Stormwater Maintenance Permit. See Section 6.2.2 for details on Stormwater Maintenance Permit application. DEP reviews the NYSDEC NOT and may choose to inspect a site prior to DEP’s signing the NYSDEC NOT. DEP provides the developer with a downloadable copy of the DEP-signed NYSDEC NOT and removes the project from DEP’s inventory of active construction sites. This action by DEP ends the process for projects without post-construction SMPs; however, for MS4 projects, the developer must submit the DEP-signed NYSDEC NOT to the NYSDEC State Office in Albany to terminate coverage under the NYSDEC CGP. Owners of covered development projects with post construction SMPs are required to submit an application for a Stormwater Maintenance Permit at the time of submitting the completed NYSDEC NOT to DEP for signature. See Section 6.2.2 for details and Figure 6.1 for a summary of the permitting process. 6.2.2 Stormwater Maintenance Permit Projects that require post-construction SMPs require an application for the Stormwater Maintenance Permit, which may be submitted through SWPTS. The NYSDEC CGP and the USWR establish which covered development projects require only an erosion and sediment control component and which also require post-construction SMPs. 110 Permit Issuance The application for the Stormwater Maintenance Permit must be submitted through SWPTS and must include: the completed NYSDEC NOT; as-built plans showing constructed SMPs with the invert elevations identified; and up-to-date operation and maintenance manual for each SMP on the site. Additionally, the owner must include the DEP sewer certification with the permit application. Stormwater Maintenance Permits are valid for five years from the date of issuance; they require renewal every five years and an annual certification from the property owner that the practices are operating as designed. Once a Stormwater Maintenance Permit is issued, DEP adds the practice to its inventory of post-construction SMPs.10 DEP issues the Stormwater Maintenance Permit to the developer/owner, along with a signed copy of the NYSDEC NOT for the developer/owner to submit to NYSDEC, as applicable. SMP Modifications To modify an SMP after DEP issues a Stormwater Maintenance Permit, the owner must submit through the SWPTS an application for the modification of the SMP. The application to modify the SMP must include design calculations and supporting documentation to demonstrate that the proposed practice is at least as protective of water quality as the existing practice and that it controls stormwater flows as required by the stormwater maintenance component of the SWPPP. Maintenance Inspections Projects that require a Stormwater Maintenance Permit are subject to inspection by DEP staff. DEP will perform inspections as necessary to ensure compliance with the Stormwater Maintenance Permit and to make sure that the SMP is operated and maintained as designed. DEP may prioritize sites for inspection based on the soils, land use, and the location of the site relative to waterbodies. DEP also performs inspections in response to public complaints. Enforcement If an inspection reveals non-compliance with the Stormwater Maintenance Permit, such as failure to properly maintain SMPs, the property owner may be subject to penalties and sanctions, as authorized in New York City Administrative Code Chapter 5-A of Title 24. The response depends upon the severity of the condition and the impact or potential impact on water quality, and will follow the Enforcement Response Plan (Appendix 1.1). The penalty associated with each enforcement action is based on the identified non-compliance, the number of times a similar issue has been identified on the site, and the ability of those responsible for the operation and maintenance of the SMP to correct the problem. 10 This inventory also includes City-owned SMPs and SMPs approved by NYSDEC since 2003. Annual Certification and Permit Renewal Every year on the anniversary date of the Stormwater Maintenance Permit, the owner must submit to DEP, through the SWPTS, a signed certification that the SMPs are operating as designed. Every five years, the owner of the site must renew the Stormwater Maintenance Permit by submitting an application for renewal with a report certified by a Qualified Professional that the SMPs are operating as designed. If any post-construction SMPs include structural components, such as a dam for an impoundment, a Professional Engineer licensed in New York must perform the inspections and certification. 6.3 Education, Certification, and Training DEP SWPPP reviewers and site inspectors are Qualified Professionals or work directly under the supervision of a Qualified Professional. DEP staff who review SWPPPs and perform inspections receive annual training on review and inspection and may attend the NYSDEC-endorsed 4-hour training at least once every three years. Additionally, DEP offers its staff opportunities to take professional development classes in designing, reviewing, and inspecting construction practices for stormwater management. DEP developed a training program for municipal staff, industry professionals, and other stakeholders on the implementation of the regulations and the use of the SWPTS. Opportunities for the NYSDEC-endorsed 4-Hour Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) Training can be found on websites of the following entities: NYSDEC,11 the NYC Soil and Water Conservation District,12 and the Nassau Soil and Water Conservation District.13 11 http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8699.html 12 http://www.soilandwater.nyc/4-hr-esc-training.html 13 https://www.nassauswcd.org/ http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8699.html http://www.soilandwater.nyc/4-hr-esc-training.html https://www.nassauswcd.org/ 111 The study recommended the adoption of a 20,000 square foot soil disturbance threshold for both construction and post-construction requirements for public and private development and redevelopment projects on tax lots within the MS4 area. This recommendation was supported by a majority of the metrics analyzed (i.e., number of permits, number of managed acres, cost/benefit) and took into account costs to individuals and borough-specific impacts; considered staffing resources needed to accommodate permit review and inspections; and provided flexibility with respect to site constraints (e.g., soil suitability, site availability) through a hierarchy of SMPs. DEP implements this hierarchy (Figure 6.2), as detailed in the NYC Stormwater Manual, as the basis for developers’ selection of post-construction SMPs. During the 2015 permit term, and as the C/PC Program has been implemented at the 1-acre threshold, DEP has sought feedback from the community and has fine-tuned the program based on that feedback. As noted above, the City began implementing the C/ PC program at the reduced threshold upon the effective date of USWR, which updated the definition of a covered development project to reflect the approved, reduced threshold of 20,000 square feet as well as additional triggers for DEP construction permitting: creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface or roadway maintenance that involves 20,000 square feet or more. The USWR aligns the Chapter 19.1 (Rules of the City of New York Title 15) Construction/Post-Construction permitting program water quality requirements with Chapter 31 stormwater quantity and flow rate requirements, encouraging covered development projects to use green infrastructure to meet requirements of both Chapters, where feasible.14 14 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/unified-stormwater-rule.page 6.4 Threshold Study Results and Unified Stormwater Rule The City conducted an analysis to shape the C/PC Program for typical development projects in NYC. The purpose of the Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management (Threshold Study) was to determine an appropriate reduction, in the MS4 area, of the one-acre soil disturbance threshold that triggered the applicability of construction and post-construction stormwater management requirements at new development and redevelopment sites. By reducing the threshold to include more development and redevelopment projects, the C/ PC Program will help further reduce pollution in local waterbodies. In accordance with Part IV.F.4 of the MS4 Permit, the Threshold Study took into consideration a number of metrics including: � the number of potentially affected public and private properties � types of development/zoning � DEP’s administrative resource needs for permitting and inspections � total lot area managed � impervious surface coverage � site and soil conditions and constraints � compliance costs � expected water quality improvements Low High Priority Low Priority On-Site Vegetated Infiltration High Soil Suitability Space Availability High Rain Gardens and Bioretention High High Sub-Surface Infiltration and Green Roof Permeable Pavement, Infiltration Trenches, Turf Fields, Green Roof Low Vegetated Detention with Treatment Vegetated Open Swales, Constructed Wetlands, Bioretention with Underdrains, Ponds, Sheet Flow to Riparian Area Low Low Physical Treatment and Green Roof Sand Filters, Green Roof, Other Approved Filtration Technologies 6.2 SMP Hierarchy15 15 In appendix 6.1, SMPs are referred to as SCMs https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/unified-stormwater-rule.page 112 6.5 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 6.1 lists measurable goals and measures for identified Construction and Post-Construction best management practices (BMPs). MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, which is described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its BMPs Measurable Goals Measures Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Review and Approve SWPPPs Number of SWPPPs reviewed Number of SWPPPs approved with and without post-construction stormwater management facilities Number of Stormwater Construction Permits issued Inspect construction sites and enforce Stormwater Construction Permits Number of active construction sites The percent of active Stormwater Construction Permit sites inspected once The percent of active Stormwater Construction Permit sites inspected more than once Number and type of enforcement actions and penalties issued Number of construction site stormwater control trainings planned or completed Post-Construction Stormwater Management Inspect post-construction sites and enforce Stormwater Maintenance Permits Number of Stormwater Maintenance Permits issued Number of Flood Management Projects and existing structural flood control devices evaluated Number and type of enforcement actions and penalties issued Number of post-construction SMPs, including type of practice and contributing impervious area Number and type of SMPs inspected Number and type of SMPs properly maintained as determined by inspections Number of individuals trained in inspection of long-term operation and maintenance of post-construction SMPs Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for the C/PC Program Table 6.1 achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals allows the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. 113 Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention/ Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 114 DEP Catch Basin Cleaning 115 Pursuant to Part IV.G of the MS4 Permit, the City developed a Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping (PP/GH) Program to manage municipal facilities and operations in ways that reduce or control stormwater pollution. The MS4 Permit requires that the City: � Address municipal operations and facilities that contribute or potentially contribute pollutants of concern (POCs) to surface waters of the State from the MS4 area; � Include a program to control and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the MS4 area associated with the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers from municipal facilities and operations; � Prepare an inventory of municipal operations and facilities with initial prioritization of operations and facilities into high, medium, and low categories; � Prepare a procedure for self-assessment of municipal operations and facilities; � Identify management practices, policies, and procedures that will be implemented to reduce or prevent the discharge of POCs; � Prioritize PP/GH efforts based on receiving waters, facilities, or operations; � Include an employee training program; � Require third-party entities performing municipal operations as contracted services to meet the MS4 Permit requirements; � Indicate if municipal facilities otherwise subject to a NYSDEC Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) will instead be covered under the MS4 Permit; and � Consider and, if feasible and cost effective, incorporate runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure (GI) during planned municipal upgrades. This chapter details the City’s PP/GH Program for municipal facilities and operations to address the MS4 Permit requirements above. This program includes an inventory of municipal operations and facilities, a priority rating of these facilities and on-site or off-site operations, and a standardized protocol for agency self-assessments. In addition, the City implements training to educate staff on stormwater pollution prevention. The City developed guidance for stormwater control measures (SCMs) that agencies can implement to reduce their potential to contribute pollution to the MS4. City agencies also consider the feasibility and costs of green infrastructure for planned municipal upgrades in order to identify additional opportunities to help improve water quality. Lastly, this chapter describes the status of municipal facilities in the MS4 area subject to the MSGP that may opt for coverage under either the MS4 Permit or the MSGP. DOT Staten Island Ferry 116 7.1 Associated Practices Most City agencies with municipal facilities and operations, prior to permit issuance in 2015, had existing management practices that helped prevent stormwater pollution. Those operations are ongoing and, in some instances, satisfy MS4 Permit requirements. Operations and Facilities Operations relevant to the PP/GH Program include, but are not limited to, the following: � Street and bridge maintenance; � Winter road maintenance including de-icing activities and road salt storage facilities; � Catch basin inspection, hooding, and maintenance; � Vehicle and fleet maintenance; � Park and open space maintenance; � Municipal building maintenance; � Solid waste management (i.e., operating or closed municipal landfills or other exposed treatment, transfer, storage, or disposal facilities for municipal waste); � Erosion and sediment control associated with new construction and land disturbances not subject to Part IV.E of the MS4 Permit; � Right-of-way maintenance; � Marine operations; and � Hydrologic habitat modification. The City developed standards for the PP/GH program to effectuate consistency across facilities, equip City staff with the necessary tools to implement the program, and prioritize PP/GH efforts based on the condition of receiving waters and on facilities or operations most in need of modification or improvement. Through the implementation of the PP/GH Program, the City assesses the practices listed above, and enhances them, as necessary. Controls for Pesticide, Herbicide, and Fertilizer Application City agencies conduct operations in accordance with all regulations related to fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide use. DPR, the largest fertilizer applicator among City agencies, conducts operations in accordance with the NYS Dishwasher Detergent and Nutrient Runoff Law, NYS Environmental Conservation Law, and NYS Agriculture and Markets Law. The NYS Dishwasher Detergent and Nutrient Runoff Law addresses fertilizer application to reduce the quantity of nutrients entering the surface waters of the State; it specifies the legal limits of phosphates allowed in lawn fertilizers, the time of year when application of certain fertilizers is prohibited, and under what conditions fertilizer applications are restricted. Reduction and control of fertilizers entering the environment are also achieved through compliance with §18-44 of Title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York and Local Law 37 of 2005. Local Law 37 of 2005 addresses the use of pesticides and herbicides by requiring the reduction, management, notification, recordkeeping, and reporting of pesticide use. In conjunction with Local Law 37 of 2005, the City implements Integrated Pest Management (IPM) at its facilities and operations. IPM is an approach that gives preference to physical, mechanical, cultural, biological, and educational methods to control pests by restricting or eliminating resources to pests; and if necessary, prudent use of the least hazardous pesticides. Existing pesticide regulations and IPM educational programs provided by the City promote awareness of safer pest control methods to municipal staff, pest management professionals, and the public. Under Local Law 37 of 2005, annual reporting of City agencies’ pesticide usage allows the City Council and the Interagency Pest Management Committee to identify areas of concern, and to provide guidance on proper management to curtail hazardous pesticide use. In following the requirements under local laws and IPM, the City has controlled the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on municipal-use grounds, thereby reducing the amount of those substances entering MS4 waterbodies and directly discharging into the environment. The regulatory requirements in place prior to the 2015 MS4 Permit drive the ongoing efforts to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers; those efforts also satisfy Part IV.G.1.b of the MS4 Permit. 117 7.2 Inventory and Prioritization of Municipal Facilities and Operations The City maintains an inventory of municipal facilities and operations located in the MS4 area, per the MS4 Permit. This inventory is dynamic, and agencies are responsible for including inventory updates as part of MS4 annual reporting. Agencies may add or remove facilities from the inventory in a given year due to property acquisitions or relocations, or to reflect MS4 mapping updates, as detailed in Chapter 4: Mapping. During SWMP development, the City established an initial inventory of 736 municipal facilities in the MS4 area based on the Historical MS4 Map, the best available map of the MS4 area at the time. The City expected that the inventory would fluctuate over time. In 2016, using a standardized prioritization protocol, the City determined the pre-assessment priority rating for these facilities. This protocol included identifying relevant operations known or expected to occur at each facility by gathering site-specific information from agencies (Table 7.1); using readily available tools such as Esri ArcGIS© (Geographic Information System), aerial photos, and Google Street View©; using an Excel-based prioritization tool; and applying best professional judgment. The City used this information to evaluate each facility’s “pollution potential” (i.e., potential to contribute to stormwater pollution) and assigned each a pre-assessment priority rating of high, medium, or low. The pre assessment priority rating considered factors such as the presence and quantities of POCs, material exposure, frequency of certain activities, and proximity to impaired waterbodies listed in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit. The priority rating of a facility or operation determines the frequency of on-site self-assessments and may be revised based on subsequent assessment findings. Using a standardized self-assessment protocol, the City refines priority ratings for facilities, based on site-specific data from the ongoing PP/GH self-assessments, as described in Section 7.3. Giving a facility a high priority rating does not necessarily mean that the facility is a contributor of pollutants. Rather it means that, at the time of assessment, the facility has an inherent risk of contributing pollutants, given its location, types and quantities of materials handled/stored, and frequency of certain activities taking place. The most up-to date information on the facility and off-site operation inventory is included in the MS4 Annual Reports. The City of New York has an extensive network of municipal facilities and operations that serve New Yorkers and keep vital infrastructure functioning properly. The MS4 Permit addresses the City’s facilities and operations that drain to the MS4 or contribute overland flow in direct drainage areas. A number of these facilities and operations, such as those related to vehicle and equipment cleaning, may have the potential to be sources of stormwater pollution (pollution potential). Through this PP/GH Program, agencies assess their facilities and operations to understand their pollution potential and implement appropriate stormwater control measures to help reduce pollution to the MS4 and surface waters of the State. Vehicle/Equipment Operations � Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance and Repair � Vehicle/Equipment Cleaning � Vehicle/Equipment Fueling � Truck Bed Management � Vehicle/Equipment Storage Material Storage Facilities � General Outdoor Storage � Above-Ground Storage Tanks � Underground Storage Tanks � Drum Storage and Management � Material Stockpiles Waste Management Facilities � Waste Transfer Stations � Landfills � Shooting Ranges Building Maintenance and Repair � Building Repair and Remodeling � Painting Other Types of Facilities � Animal Recreational Facilities/Stables � Swimming Pools � Marine Operations Typical On-Site Operations at City-owned Facilities Table 7.1 118 The City also used the standardized prioritization protocol during SWMP development to evaluate the pollution potential of common off-site operations relevant to the PP/GH Program: water main and hydrant repair; sidewalk repair; storm sewer system maintenance; winter pavement maintenance; pavement cleaning (sweeping); herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer application; roadway resurfacing; and curbside garbage removal. Some of these off-site operations provide stormwater quality benefits by removing or controlling potential pollution sources, which reduces their inherent risk of contributing pollutants. Additionally, few of these off-site operations include large volume material storage or occur frequently at any specific site, which also reduces their inherent risk of contributing pollutants. Therefore, the City determined these off-site operations had a low pre-assessment priority rating. Based on results of the on-going self-assessments, the City has updated and continues to update the priority ratings of off- site operations, as appropriate. Table 7.2 lists typical off-site operations conducted by the City in the MS4 area. Stormwater Collection System Maintenance � Catch basin/inlet cleaning and repair � Storm sewer/underground facility cleaning/repair � Ditch/open channel cleaning and repair � Green infrastructure/open facility maintenance � Hydrologic habitat maintenance Paved Surface Maintenance � Pavement Cleaning � Winter Pavement maintenance � Pavement/Sidewalk resurfacing and repair � Spill prevention and response � Bridge/elevated structure maintenance Landscaping and Open Space Maintenance � Herbicide/pesticide/fertilizer application � Landscape/ground care � Turf management Other Types of Operations � Solid Waste Collection Typical Off-Site City Operations Table 7.2 7.3 Self-Assessments of Municipal Facilities and Operations The high, medium, or low priority rating, based on pollution potential of a facility or operation, determines the frequency of self-assessments. Facilities and operations with a higher pollution potential are rated as a higher priority. The City is assessing facilities and operations in the inventory according to their priority ranking utilizing a standardized checklist based on a portfolio of stormwater control measures (SCMs). Following the initial assessment conducted with DEP participation, agencies are now responsible for conducting self-assessments of their own facilities and operations, as required by the MS4 Permit. High priority self-assessments are to be scheduled every two years, medium every five years, and low every seven years. A facility or operation may increase or decrease in priority with each assessment, based on the pollution potential evaluated at that time, and will then be subject to the timeline for the next assessment in accordance with its revised priority. The City developed a standardized self-assessment protocol to ensure consistency across all types of municipal facilities and operations, both on-site and off-site. This protocol allows agencies to determine sources of POCs potentially generated by their facilities and operations and to evaluate the adequacy of their current PP/GH practices. The City also developed guidance on additional PP/GH practices consistent with the NYS Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping Assistance Document and EPA MS4 guidance manuals. Agencies select from a suite of SCMs the appropriate practices for implementation at their facilities and operations. The list of the SCMs, which incorporated interagency and public feedback, is available on DEP’s website. After each self-assessment, agencies complete an assessment report with findings, select options from applicable SCMs, and determine timelines for implementation. DOT trucks under cover and within secondary containment 119 The Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) developed by the City include options with a range of solutions and effectiveness, which may involve both structural and non-structural controls. Structural controls include oil and water separators, grit chambers, or other devices that remove pollutants. Non-structural controls include operational practices, signage, staff education, and other procedures. The appropriate controls are subject to agency decision-making, which will consider potential effects on agency operations and individual circumstances at each facility. DSNY salt shed Agency staff who conduct the self-assessments determine the appropriate timelines to follow up with the facility or operation and re-assess the effectiveness of recommendations and selected SCMs. The MS4 Permit requires that the City evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of retrofitting structural flood control devices owned or operated by the City in the MS4 area to provide additional pollutant removal from stormwater. However, the City has determined that the City does not currently own or operate any structural flood control devices as defined in the MS4 Permit. As such, the City has not included this evaluation in the self- assessment protocol but will in the future if any City owned structural flood control devices are constructed. Refer to Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction, Section 6.1.4 for details on structural flood control devices. As required by the MS4 Permit, the City completed prior to August 1, 2018, initial assessments of the facilities and operations with a high priority pre-assessment rating. Most of these on-site operations included material stockpile management, waste management, and vehicle management activities. Of the 11 sites with a pre assessment high priority rating, 3 were re-classified as medium priority as a result of the assessments, which revealed that these facilities had lesser quantities of materials, less exposure of materials, or lower frequency of use, and as a result, a lower pollution potential than originally estimated. Pursuant to these completed in-person assessments, the City refined the prioritization tool and self-assessment protocol for future use and conducted a high-level cost estimate for implementing preferred actions listed in the SCMs. 120 7.4 City Staff Training The City developed PP/GH training for agency staff that addresses ways to reduce the discharge of pollutants from municipal facilities and operations. An employee meets the MS4 Permit requirement for training by taking any of the courses listed below. Each agency tracks its own staff trainings and summarizes these data for each MS4 Annual Report. The City delivers training to the following personnel through a combination of computer-based and in-person trainings: � Agency Staff. Agencies identify staff responsible for the implementation of SCMs in day-to-day municipal operations, both at municipal facilities and off-site. The City provides computer-based training on stormwater pollution prevention for the agency-identified staff. The computer-based training remains accessible online to enable agencies to train or retrain staff, as needed. The computer-based training includes a quiz to gauge comprehension and provides certificates to employees upon their completion of the training. In addition to computer-based training, agencies may offer in-person training provided by agency trainers, as described below. � Agency Trainers. Agencies identify staff who provide in-person trainings for employees who do not have computer access or prefer in-person training. DEP provided initial train-the-trainer sessions for agency trainers on stormwater pollution prevention, the implementation of SCMs, options for training field personnel, and recordkeeping requirements. These trainers are also responsible for training future staff who will conduct in-person trainings. � Agency Site Assessors. Agencies identify site assessors responsible for conducting the self assessments, reprioritizing agency facilities and operations, evaluating SCMs and recommendations, and, as necessary, re-assessing the effectiveness of recommendations and selected SCMs. DEP provided initial in-person classroom trainings for the designated site assessors for each agency. Going forward, agency site assessors will train newly-designated site assessors on the self-assessment protocol. Complete Assessment Report • Identify applicable SCMs • Revise priority rating using the standardized prioritization tool • Keep checklists on record and update as needed Share Assessment Results • Notify appropriate agency personnel of assessment results Agency Staff Implement SCMs and Assessment Recommendations (where appropriate) Schedule Next Self-Assessment based on Priority • High priority every 2 years • Medium priority every 5 years • Low priority every 7 years Preparation � Gather information about facilities and on-site operations � Select representative off-site operations � Engage facility managers and operational supervisors � Schedule self-assessments based on priority On-site Orientation � Review available records � Map the facility and/or operational areas � Identify locations of interest (e.g., stock piles, chemical storage, oil tanks) Facility and Operational Area Walkthrough � Confirm facility operations and maintenance activities � Assess activities using standardized checklist Wrap-up meeting � Discuss preliminary findings with facility managers and operational supervisors PRE-ASSESSMENT SELF-ASSESSMENT POST-ASSESSMENT Self-Assessment Protocol Figure 7.1 121 7.5 NYSDEC Multi-Sector General Permit for Municipal Facilities Municipal facilities in the MS4 area that conduct industrial activities subject to the MSGP may opt for coverage under the MS4 Permit or the MSGP. Currently, the municipal facilities in the MS4 area with existing coverage under the MSGP will maintain such coverage. NYSDEC continues to inspect those MSGP facilities. Refer to Chapter 8: Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources for details on the NYSDEC MSGP program. During self-assessments, agencies may identify additional municipal facilities that conduct industrial activities subject to the MSGP. Agencies that own or operate these facilities may seek coverage under the MSGP or continue coverage under the MS4 Permit. Those agencies will notify NYSDEC of their preference for coverage. The City will indicate any changes in permit status in each MS4 Annual Report and will update the inventory, as needed. In the event that municipal facilities opt for coverage under the MS4 Permit, but would otherwise be subject to MSGP, these facilities will comply with certain requirements of the MSGP and attach their MSGP annual certification and discharge monitoring reports to the MS4 Annual Report. The City engaged targeted stakeholders to discuss the development of the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping Program. These stakeholders included: � General Public � Stormwater Advisory Group � Environmental organizations Stakeholders suggested that the City summarize in the Plan the factors used for facility prioritization, consider flood zones as a factor and publish the stormwater control measures (SCMs) online. As a result, the City: � Held public meetings on the PP/GH Program and the prioritization protocol � Provided a summary of the prioritization process of facilities and off-site operations in Section 7.2 � Revised the prioritization tool to consider flood zones � Published the SCMs on the DEP website DSNY fully-enclosed marine transfer station 122 7.6 Green Infrastructure Feasibility for Planned Municipal Upgrades Each individual agency, as required by Part IV.G.2 of the MS4 Permit, considers and, if feasible and cost-effective, incorporates runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure (GI) during planned municipal upgrades, including within municipal rights of way. Examples of GI include bioswales, green streets, grass swales, rain gardens, curb cuts to reroute flow to below-grade infiltration areas, or other low-cost improvements that provide runoff treatment or reduction. Feasibility considerations include physical site conditions, hydrogeological and environmental analyses, costs, and expected life cycles of available technologies. The City has developed criteria for agencies to use during upgrade planning as a consistent method for assessing feasibility of GI implementation. Agencies incorporate GI if all of the following assessments indicate it may be appropriate and feasible. Green Roof at Parks Department's Five Borough Administrative Building � Evaluation of planned municipal upgrade. For the PP/ GH Program, municipal upgrades are capital projects, as defined by the NYC Charter, for both building construction/renovation and work in the right of way, which meet a cost threshold of $2,000,000. If a municipal upgrade will generate stormwater runoff and POCs after construction is completed, the agency evaluates the feasibility of GI. � Evaluation of project site. A preliminary assessment of physical site conditions, hydrogeological analysis, and an environmental analysis determine feasibility of GI implementation. Analysis of physical site conditions identifies any siting and space constraints, such as the presence of utility lines or adjacent structures that would make the location unsuitable for GI. Hydrogeological analysis per the NYC Stormwater Management Design Manual determines site suitability, including soil conditions, for GI. Environmental analysis determines whether potential implementation of GI could exacerbate existing environmental contamination conditions and if there are existing institutional or engineering controls. � Evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Agencies evaluate construction, operation, and maintenance costs to determine whether a project would be cost-effective. This approach to determining the feasibility of GI implementation during planned municipal upgrades complements current municipal GI programs by developing more consistent and integrated methodologies for citywide planning and implementation. Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction describes the permit requirements for post-construction stormwater management, which will be required for private and public development and re-development projects that meet the definition of a covered development project.1 1 City construction projects that meet the criteria for a Stormwater Construction Permit will follow those permit requirements and are not considered planned municipal upgrades under the PP/GH program. 123 7.7 Requirements for Third-Party Contractors The City requires contractors working at City facilities and conducting City operations to meet PP/GH Program requirements. Refer to Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration for information on reliance on third parties. Summary BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for the PP/GH Program Table 7.4 BMPs Measurable Goals Measures Provide program for pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations and facilities Maintain an inventory of municipal operations and facilities Number of facilities, by priority Number of off-site operations Implement the PP/GH Program Acres of parking lots swept Miles of street swept Number of catch basins inspected, cleaned, and/or maintained Miles of storm sewers inspected Miles of storm sewers cleaned Number of self-assessments completed, by priority ranking Number of facilities electing MS4 coverage that would otherwise be subject to MSGP Provide for staff training Implement a PP/GH training program Number of staff trained in-person Number of staff trained computer-based Consider runoff reduction and green infrastructure Consider runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure Number of runoff reduction/green infrastructure opportunities evaluated Number of runoff reduction/ green infrastructure opportunities implemented 7.8 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 7.4 lists measurable goals and measures for identified PP/GH best management practices (BMPs). MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, as described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals will allow the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. 124 Chapter 8 Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 125 Industrial facility 126 NYSDEC requires certain industrial facilities to obtain coverage for stormwater discharges under the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Industrial Activities (GP-0-17-004) (MSGP). While NYSDEC continues to administer the MSGP program, DEP is responsible for the inspection and enforcement portions of the program at privately owned MSGP covered facilities in the MS4 area. Through the MS4 Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Program (I/C Program), DEP also assesses an inventory of unpermitted facilities to determine their potential need for SPDES permit coverage.1 1 On June 1, 2019, the rules governing DEP’s authority to implement the I/C program went into effect. In accordance with Part IV.H of the MS4 Permit, the City: � Prepared and maintains a facility inventory of all publicly and privately owned industrial and commercial sites that could discharge POCs in stormwater to the MS4. The inventory includes unpermitted facilities that will be assessed for SPDES applicability and facilities currently permitted under the NYSDEC MSGP program; � Developed a plan to assess and inspect unpermitted industrial and commercial facilities to determine if they are significant contributors of POCs to impaired waters � Developed a program to inspect industrial and commercial facilities that are permitted by the NYSDEC MSGP program; � Uses the approved Enforcement Response Plan per Part III.C of the MS4 Permit for all enforcement actions; and � Implements a training program for all staff conducting facility inspections. This chapter describes the I/C Program, which includes the facility inventory, unpermitted and MSGP-permitted facility inspection processes, a database tracking system, and inspection staff training. Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration discusses the City’s rulemaking process and legal authority for the I/C Program. The Enforcement Response Plan in Appendix 1.1 describes DEP’s enforcement response protocol for investigating, documenting, and enforcing against unauthorized or potential discharges to the MS4 as well as a facility’s failure to comply with its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). NYC Waterfront Industrial Site Water Transportation Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards Air Transportation Treatment Works Food and Kindred Products Textile Mills, Apparel, Other Fabric Product Manufacturing Furniture and Fixtures Printing and Publishing Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Leather Tanning and Finishing Fabricated Metal Products Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery Electronic, Electrical, Photographic, and Optical Goods Sector Name Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Sector Name Timber Products Paper and Allied Products Chemical and Allied Products Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials and Lubricants Glass Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Products Primary Metals Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) [Reserved] Oil and Gas Extraction and Refining Mineral Mining and Dressing Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities Landfills and Land Application Sites Automobile Salvage Yards Scrap Recycling Facilities Steam Electric Generating Facilities Land Transportation Sectors of Industrial/Commercial Facilities Subject to NYSDEC’s MSGP Table 8.1 The NYSDEC Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit The Clean Water Act provides that stormwater discharges to waters of the United States (including discharges through the MS4) associated with certain industrial or commercial activities are unlawful, unless authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In New York, EPA has approved the state program enacted through the administration of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program. Industrial facilities engaged in certain industrial activities must obtain permit coverage for stormwater discharges to waters of the United States (including through the MS4) through either an individual industrial SPDES permit or the SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit; or they must provide certification, using the No Exposure Exclusion, that industrial activities are not exposed to stormwater. • Table 8.1 lists the industrial sectors subject to MSGP permitting. • Permits are required for discharges from a conveyance that is used for collecting and carrying stormwater, and that is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas. 127 128 8.1 Related Programs Industrial and commercial facilities citywide are subject to various environmental regulations, including the following DEP programs that inspect certain facilities and enforce relevant regulations. Industrial Pre-Treatment Program The Industrial Pre-Treatment Program regulates discharges of specific pollutants from certain facilities into the City’s sewer system. This program is implemented citywide. In the MS4 area, the City inspects facilities to evaluate industrial processes, ensure compliance with Federal and City wastewater regulations, and assess outdoor storage, handling, and transferring areas. Right-to-Know Program The NYC Community Right-to-Know Law authorizes the DEP Division of Emergency Response and Technical Assessment (DERTA) to regulate the storage, use, and handling of hazardous substances. As part of the enforcement of the Law, DERTA oversees the use and storage of hazardous substances that pose a threat to public health and the environment in NYC. This program manages the reporting and storage of hazardous substances by requiring businesses and facilities throughout the five boroughs to file a report annually detailing the quantity, location, and chemical nature of hazardous substances stored within their facilities. 8.2 Industrial and Commercial Facility Inventory Using the Historical MS4 Map, various databases and information from NYSDEC, during SWMP development, DEP created a facility inventory2 of all publicly and privately owned industrial and commercial sites that may conduct 2 This inventory was revised based on discussions with DEC after publication of the 2020 map. DEC agreed that facilities located over 500 feet and downgradient of the 2020 map boundary will not be included in the inventory. activities within the industrial sectors covered by the MSGP permit, and other industrial/commercial facilities that might generate a significant amount of POCs.3 Table 8.1 on the previous page lists the industrial sectors. The Industrial and Commercial Facility Inventory (I/C Facility Inventory) includes the following information: � General facility information (e.g., name, address, contact information, block and lot, etc.) � Applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes � Information regarding products made or services provided at the facility, such as the facility’s Industrial Sector category � Receiving waterbodies and any associated impairments � Whether the facility generates POCs for which the receiving waterbody is impaired From 2016 to 2018, DEP screened the facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory through a process illustrated in Figure 8.1, and categorized the facilities for initial DEP action. Category 1: No Further Action In accordance with the screening process illustrated in Figure 8.1, DEP classified facilities with one or more of the following characteristics as requiring no further action: � Improperly reported Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes and not subject to MSGP � Not draining to the MS4 � Individual SPDES permit coverage � Notice of Termination (NOT) filed with NYSDEC These facilities remain in the I/C Facility Inventory for comparison with future inventory updates. DEP adds to this category those unpermitted facilities assessed by DEP (Category 3) and found not to require referral for SPDES coverage or not to be draining to the MS4. Category 2: Facilities with NYSDEC No Exposure Certification According to the information in the NYSDEC Dropbox,4 at the time of this Plan’s submittal to DEC on August 1, 2018, there were four facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory with NYSDEC No Exposure Certifications. According to NYSDEC, 3 The City and NYSDEC decided, after this Plan was approved in September 2019, that publicly-owned MSGP-permitted facilities in the MS4 area would continue to be inspected by NYSDEC, not by DEP. 4 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hz3spt98h4d88ue/ AADmNLcYxcpZQFeWUNAxGMi9a?dl=0 Industrial Facility https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hz3spt98h4d88ue/AADmNLcYxcpZQFeWUNAxGMi9a?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hz3spt98h4d88ue/AADmNLcYxcpZQFeWUNAxGMi9a?dl=0 129 Identify facilities that meet the criteria set forth in Part IV.H.1.a.iii of the MS4 Permit Improperly reported Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code and/or not draining to the MS4? Category 1: No Further Action Required Individual SPDES or Notice of Termination (NOT) filed with NYSDEC? NYSDEC No Exposure Certification? Category 2: Facilities with NYSDEC No Exposure Certification Category 4: Ongoing MSGP Inspections Based on Priority Rating Approved Notice of Intent (NOI) filed with NYSDEC for MSGP coverage? Yes Yes Yes No No No No Category 3: On-Site Assessment for Potential Referral to NYSDEC DEP initial screening process to categorize facilities listed in the I/C Facility Inventory Figure 8.1 “No Exposure” means all industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent their exposure to rain, snow, snow melt, and/or runoff. DEP updates the I/C Facility Inventory as NYSDEC issues more No Exposure Certifications. Section 8.3 describes how the I/C Program addresses facilities with No Exposure Certifications. Category 3: On-Site Assessment for Potential Referral to NYSDEC Based on the screening process illustrated in Figure 8.1, DEP classified facilities with all of the following characteristics as requiring an on-site initial assessment: � Meets the criteria set forth in Part IV.H.1.a.iii of the MS4 Permit; � Discharges stormwater to the MS4; � Not covered under an existing MSGP or individual SPDES permit; and � Photographic evidence of industrial and commercial activity. DEP inspects these facilities to assess their industrial activities’ exposure to stormwater and to determine whether the facilities generate significant contributions of POCs to impaired waters. If DEP determines that a facility is not a significant contributor, DEP categorizes the facility as no further action (Category 1). If DEP determines that a facility is a significant contributor, then DEP refers the facility to NYSDEC to determine if SPDES permit coverage is required. After referral, NYSDEC may direct the facility to apply for an individual SPDES permit or may direct the facility to seek coverage under the MSGP by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) or a Certificate of No Exposure application. Facilities that receive MSGP coverage become part of the ongoing inspections under the I/C Program (Category 4). Facilities that receive an individual SPDES permit are categorized as no further action (Category 1), as NYSDEC inspects those facilities. Facilities that receive No Exposure Certification are placed in Category 2. If DEP observes an illicit discharge at the facility site, it will be addressed per Chapter 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination. Section 8.4 details the assessment process for unpermitted facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory. Category 4: Ongoing MSGP Inspections Based on Priority Rating In accordance with the screening process illustrated in Figure 8.1, DEP identified facilities with MSGP coverage as of August 1, 2018. DEP prioritizes facilities with MSGP coverage into high, medium, and low categories based on their potential for water quality impact. Inspection frequency is based on the priority rating. Section 8.5 details prioritization, inspection frequency, and the inspection process for permitted facilities with MSGP coverage. DEP updates the I/C Facility Inventory with any new information from on-site assessments and has updated the inventory based on the 2020 MS4 Map. DEP plans to update the I/C Facility Inventory every five years after submittal of this Plan, using new information from source databases and through NYSDEC coordination. Facilities assessed during this permit cycle as part of Category 3 assessments will not be included in the inventory updates if DEP determines they are not significant contributors of POCs. Further, facilities classified as Category 1 during this permit cycle will not be part of the inventory updates for future Category 3 assessments. 130 8.3 No Exposure Facility Inspections (Category 2) As of Plan submittal, on August 1, 2018, there were four facilities in the MS4 area with a NYSDEC No Exposure Certification. If DEP receives a public complaint about potential stormwater pollution, and determines that the facility is in Category 2, DEP will conduct an inspection. If DEP determines that the facility is a significant contributor of POCs, it will refer the facility to NYSDEC. 8.4 Unpermitted Facility Assessments (Category 3) After June 2019, when DEP had legal authority to administer the I/C inspection and enforcement program, DEP began assessing approximately 1,300 unpermitted facilities listed in the I/C Facility Inventory. The on-site assessments served three main purposes: The City currently responds to a variety of public complaints related to industrial activities such as air quality, noise, odor, waste management, and toxins and hazards. As part of the new I/C Program, DEP inspectors may also respond to stormwater pollution complaints at facilities in the I/C Inventory. Refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach, Section 2.5, for details on how to report illicit discharges or potentially harmful water quality impacts. � Confirm the facility is categorized under the proper SIC Code, � Assess the presence of industrial activities that could contribute significant amount of POCs to stormwater, and � Determine the level of exposure to stormwater and potential for pollution. Through the on-site assessments, DEP determines whether to refer a facility to NYSDEC. If DEP refers a facility, NYSDEC will then determine whether SPDES permit coverage is required. Figure 8.2 is a summary of DEP's assessment procedures. On October 24, 2018, DEP sent initial notifications to the unpermitted facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory, explaining the I/C Program and the DEP facility assessment process. DEP has also been sending a follow-up notification closer to the facility’s anticipated assessment date. DEP performs assessments following the Standard Operating Procedures for the Unpermitted Facility Assessments for the I/C Program. DEP developed these procedures to provide a standard protocol for assessing facilities that do not have MSGP coverage. The procedures are accessible on the DEP website.5 DEP encourages the facility manager or owner to participate in the inspection to provide information, answer questions, and learn about permit applicability. At the end of a facility’s assessment, DEP typically meets with the facility manager or owner to discuss preliminary findings, identify next steps, answer any questions, and provide educational materials. DEP also describes how to seek SPDES permit coverage from NYSDEC, if necessary. After the on-site assessment, DEP prepares a Facility Assessment Report with information on its findings regarding the facility’s stormwater exposure. If DEP determines that the facility is a significant contributor or potential significant contributor of POCs to impaired waters, DEP refers the facility to NYSDEC and shares its Facility Assessment Report with NYSDEC. DEP also sends a follow-up letter to inform the facility of its referral to NYSDEC, to summarize findings of the assessment, and to share the Facility Assessment Report. 5 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater program-ms4.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater-program-ms4.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater-program-ms4.page 131 DEP Assessment Process for Unpermitted Facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory Figure 8.2 P R E - A S S E S S M E N T A S S E S S M E N T P O S T- A S S E S S M E N T Complete Facility Assessment Report � Verify checklist completed and necessary information collected Notify Facilities � Summary of assessment findings � General information on NYSDEC SPDES requirements � DEP’s required referral to NYSDEC, if applicable Notify NYSDEC (if applicable) � DEP will periodically notify NYSDEC of assessment findings � NYSDEC will work with each facility to issue an appropriate permit � I/C measures will be included in Annual Reports (Table 8.3) Update I/C Facility Inventory � Upload all documents to the I/C System � Assign facility appropriate category Schedule Assessment Review Site-Specific Information � Aerial maps � Data from screening process � MS4 Map � Any other available information Notify Facilities � Send follow-up notification letter with DEP and DEC contact information and information on what to expect during the assessment Introduction � Offer Credentials � Communicate reason for and extent of assessment Facility Walkthrough � Confirm/update facility information � Assess drainage � Assess the presence of pollution sources � Evaluate potential stormwater impact Wrap-Up Meeting � Discuss preliminary findings � Explain next steps in the process 132 8.5 SPDES MSGP Facility Inspections (Category 4) MSGP-permitted facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory are prioritized through a process to determine the frequency of inspections. Table 8.2 indicates how often DEP will inspect a facility based on its priority rating. NYSDEC provided for the I/C Program an initial priority rating for the currently permitted MSGP facilities. In 2019, DEP inspected the facilities in accordance with those priority ratings to determine MSGP compliance. DEP used information from its inspections to prioritize those sites for future inspections. In general, DEP uses findings from its inspections to determine the facilities’ potential water quality impact, and prioritizes the facilities as high, medium, or low priority. DEP also prioritizes newly permitted MSGP facilities based on their potential water quality impact (NYSDEC no longer prioritizes MSGP facilities in the MS4 area). The factors contributing to potential water quality impacts include: � Pollutant sources on site � Proximity to a waterbody � Potential for POC discharges or other water quality impacts to impaired waters � Violation history High Priority Significant exposed sources of pollutants of concern Adjacent to an impaired water body listed in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit Limited control of exposed sources Repeated major violations Medium Priority Moderate exposed sources of pollutants of concern Less than 2,000 feet from an impaired waterbody listed in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit Effective control of exposed sources Occasional minor violations Low Priority Limited exposed sources of pol lutants of concern Greater than 2,000 feet from an impaired waterbody listed in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit Effective control of exposed sources No violations Characteristics of High, Medium, and Low Priority MSGP Facilities Figure 8.3 Inspection frequency criteria for MSGP facilities Table 8.2 Priority / Criteria Inspection Frequency High Priority Annual Medium Priority Every 3 years Low Priority Every 5 years Failed Previous Inspection Within one year following pre vious inspection or as per the conditions in the enforcement action until compliance is achieved Figure 8.3 summarizes the characteristics of MSGP permitted facilities that determine their potential water quality impacts and priority ratings for inspection frequency. On October 24, 2018, DEP sent a one-time notification to MSGP-permitted facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory that DEP would conduct inspections on behalf of NYSDEC. 133 The inspections include conducting visual observations to identify any unauthorized discharges, illicit connections, and potential discharges of pollutants to stormwater; evaluating the facility’s compliance with applicable MSGP requirements; and evaluating the facility’s compliance with any other relevant local stormwater requirements. For these inspections, DEP follows the I/C Program Standard Operating Procedures for MSGP Inspections, which are available on the DEP website.6 When DEP had obtained legal authority to administer the I/C program (effective June 1, 2019), DEP began facility inspections. DEP encourages the facility manager or owner to participate in the inspection to provide information, answer questions, and learn about permit compliance. At the end of the inspection, DEP typically reviews preliminary findings, resolves outstanding questions, and explains the next steps. DEP then completes a Facility Inspection Report, which includes the inspection date and time, name and signature of inspector, weather information, information about any discharge observed or previously observed at the site, any 6 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater program-ms4.page incidents of non-compliance, control measures needing maintenance, failed control measures, and new control measures needed. The facility will receive a follow-up letter on MSGP compliance status. This letter may include a copy or summary of the Facility Inspection Report including necessary corrective actions; information on a follow-up inspection; and/or potential enforcement actions. Facilities will continue to submit their MSGP annual reports to NYSDEC, and, in addition, will send copies of these submittals to DEP. Details on how to submit the annual reports to DEP are on the DEP website.7 If a facility is not in compliance with the MSGP, DEP may issue verbal/letter warnings, orders, and/or summons (formerly known as notices of violation or NOVs) with penalties and compliance schedules. Refer to Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan for more details. DEP confirms or revises the facility’s potential water quality impact for future inspections after an inspection is completed. Figure 8.4 summarizes the inspection process for permitted facilities with MSGP coverage. 7 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater program-ms4.page P R E - I N S P E C T I O N O N - S I T E I N S P E C T I O N P O S T- I N S P E C T I O N Complete Facility Assessment Report � Verify checklist completed and necessary information collected Notify Facilities • Follow-up letter on compliance status • Send a copy of the Facility Inspection Report, if appropriate • Summary of infractions and corrective actions, if applicable Confirm or revise priority for future inspections • Use the prioritization characteristics of MSGP-permitted facilities in the I/C Facility Inventory (Figure 8.3) Update I/C System � Upload all documents Notify NYSDEC • DEP will send information to NYSDEC throughout the year • I/C measures will be included in Annual Reports (Table 8.3) Review Site Specific Information • Priority Rating • Latest facility MSGP data from NYSDEC • Five-year violation record • Any other available information Introduction • Offer credentials • Communicate reason and extent of inspection On-site Record Review • Facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) • Self-inspection/monitoring reports • Training materials • Any other available information Facility Walkthrough • Visual inspection of industrial areas • Confirm activities described in SWPPP • Check if controls defined in SWPPP are implemented and effective Wrap-Up Meeting • Discuss preliminary findings • Resolve outstanding questions • Explain next steps in the process DEP Inspection process for facilities with MSGP coverage listed in the I/C Facility Inventory Figure 8.4 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater-program-ms4.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater-program-ms4.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater-program-ms4.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/industrial-commercial-stormwater-program-ms4.page 134 8.6 Industrial and Commercial Tracking System During SWMP development, DEP developed a database tracking system for the I/C Facility Inventory (I/C System) to store facility information; generate assessment and inspection schedules; schedule assessments and inspections; track assessment and inspection results; store facility enforcement history; and track enforcement actions. DEP uses the I/C System to schedule assessments and inspections, and to manage responses to public complaints. DEP stores information about each facility in the I/C System and uses that information to create partially pre-filled inspection checklists. DEP records inspection results and any violations, enforcement actions, and follow up-activities in the I/C System. Based on the inspection results, the system generates follow-up notifications to DEP for the next inspection. 8.7 Inspection Staff Training DEP trains all staff engaged in the I/C Program on how to properly conduct inspections, prepare reports, and issue violations. Training will continue as the program evolves and staff gains experience. DEP bases the trainings on real case studies and provides the opportunity for staff to learn from experienced industrial stormwater professionals. The initial staff training includes the following elements: � Introduction to EPA’s Clean Water Act and industrial stormwater pollution; � Overview of I/C Facility Inventory development; � Case studies of industry inspections; � Field inspection best practices for accessing facilities; � Field inspection process and checklists; � Use of the I/C System; � Site inspections with examples on how to review best management practices (BMPs) ranging from non structural to structural; � Requirements of other stormwater general permits or related local requirements; � Post-inspection procedures and inspection tracking; and � Enforcement. Training also includes case studies of successful and inadequate stormwater control measures (SCMs) and considerations for inspecting a broad range of SCMs— from simple to complex. The training is provided in both classroom and field environments, including having new inspectors shadow more experienced inspectors. Follow up training will be provided every other year to address changes in procedures, techniques, and staffing. DEP certifies that training has been completed by providing a signed training certification to NYSDEC every other year. The City engaged with the business community to raise awareness of the new MS4 Permit requirements and to encourage the business community to engage in the rulemaking process for the I/C Program. The City completed the following during I/C Program development: � Created an I/C Program fact sheet for distribution at public meetings and on the DEP website � Contacted all 1,300 facility owners beginning in June 2017 to invite them to a series of informational meetings in Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx to describe the Industrial Commercial Program. The City used the following methods to contact owners: » Letters and mailings » Door-to-door outreach » Phone calls » Social media posts » Notification letters to NYC City Council Members and local Community Boards to enlist their support in notifying facilities 135 8.8 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 8.3 lists measurable goals and measures for identified Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources BMPs. MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, as described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals allows the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for the I/C Program Table 8.3 BMPs Measurable Goals Measures Provide an industrial and commercial pollution control program Implement an inspection and assessment program for unpermitted industrial and commercial sources Status of the inspection program and stormwater controls for unpermitted industrial and commercial facilities Implement an inspection program for MSGP Permit holders based on priority Number of SPDES MSGP facilities inspected, by priority Number of noncompliant SPDES MSGP facilities Number of repeat noncompliant SPDES MSGP facilities Number and type of enforcement actions completed and penalties issued 136 Chapter 9 Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 NYC catch basin captures trash and debris 137DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW 138 Pursuant to Part IV.I of the MS4 Permit, the City must develop a program to manage floatable and settleable trash and debris, also referred to as floatables. The MS4 Permit requires that the City: � Develop and implement a work plan to determine the loading rate for floatables discharged from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables; � Assess and implement strategies to reduce floatables from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables; � Continue to implement existing controls (e.g., DEP catch basin hooding, inspection and maintenance program); and � Implement an interim media campaign to further educate the public on trash and debris control issues. Consistent with prior studies conducted by DEP, the City defines floatables as manmade materials, such as plastics, papers, or other products, which when improperly disposed of can ultimately find their way to local waterbodies. Floatables include materials that are settleable, floatable, or are neutrally buoyant; such materials may float or sink depending on the ambient conditions to which they are subject. Floatables can create nuisance conditions with regard to aesthetics, recreation, navigation, and waterbody ecology. This chapter details the City’s long-standing programs to address floatables and the proposed methodology for determining the floatable loading rate from the MS4. The loading rate work plan, in addition to past and ongoing evaluations of the City’s programs, will inform the further development of floatables management, including methods for selecting technologies and controls. This chapter also describes the City’s various media campaigns to raise awareness of trash and debris issues. DEP skimmer boat collecting trash and debris from the boom 139 9.1 Floatables Management Programs The City has a variety of long-standing, effective programs that control floatables. Rules and Regulations Enforcement The City administers a variety of rules and regulations to keep the streets clean and free of litter. These statutory controls, which help prevent floatables from reaching local waterbodies through the MS4, include prohibitions of and fines for littering and illegal dumping. The rules and regulations also require property owners to clean the sidewalks, gutters, backyard areaways, and alleys surrounding their properties. DSNY enforces these rules and regulations through the DSNY Enforcement Routing Program. Under the DSNY Enforcement Routing Program, enforcement agents patrol all areas including commercial, industrial, manufacturing, and residential blocks daily during the two specified one-hour time periods1 focusing 1 http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2455/ sidewalk-cleaning-enforcement-or-sticker-request on violations for dirty sidewalks, dirty areas, and failure to clean 18 inches into the street. During these specified enforcement routing times, enforcement agents will issue summonses for observed dirty sidewalks, dirty areas, or 18-inch violations in front of or adjacent to a residential or commercial premise. While these violations are only issued during enforcement routing times, enforcement agents may issue summons for other types of violations at any time. Public Education, Outreach, and Stewardship The City has multiple education and outreach programs that target the issue of litter and floatables. A summary of litter- and floatable-specific programs is included in Table 9.1. Other education and outreach programs such as DOE’s School Sustainability Coordinator Program may also include information related to trash and debris. For a complete list of relevant education programs refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach. Controls Responsible Agencies Description Adopt-a-Bluebelt DEP DEP invites local community groups, companies, and individuals to enhance open spaces by acting as sponsors who adopt parts of the Bluebelt. Harbor Protectors (formerly Adopt-a-Catch Basin) DEP DEP invites local organizations to keep their catch basins clear of debris. Shoreline and Bluebelt Cleanups DEP DEP organizes, supports, and sponsors various shoreline cleanup events throughout NYC. NYC Park Stewardship DPR DPR coordinates volunteer opportunities that enable volunteers to help restore natural areas, care for street trees, clean and beautify parks, and monitor wildlife. These activities can include the care and restoration of natural areas through removal of invasive plants and floatable debris along coastlines. Adopt-a-Highway/Greenway DOT DOT invites sponsors to adopt highway or greenway segments to perform litter removal and beautification. Adopt-a-Basket DSNY DSNY invites local businesses or community groups to monitor and maintain local litter baskets. Community Clean-ups DSNY DSNY supports local community groups and block associations in their volunteer efforts to keep their neighborhoods clean through local block and street clean-ups by offering free loans of clean-up tools and equipment. 311 Various Agencies 311 enables the public to report issues, such as heavily littered streets or clogged catch basins, which are referred to the appropriate agency for inspection and follow-up. Refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach for more information. Agency Websites and social media Various Agencies Various agencies provide educational information on webpages and through outreach campaigns which aim to improve cleanliness and aesthetics of City streets, beaches, and the harbor. Trash Free NYC Waters (formerly Clean Streets = Clean Beaches) DEP, DSNY The City distributes educational literature, places posters, and conducts events to raise awareness of litter and floatable issues. Summary of Litter and Floatables Education, Outreach, and Stewardship Programs Table 9.1 http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2455/ sidewalk-cleaning-enforcement-or-sticker-request http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2455/ sidewalk-cleaning-enforcement-or-sticker-request 140 DEP Catch Basin Hooding, Inspection, and Maintenance Program DEP administers a catch basin inspection, hooding, and maintenance program, which helps prevent trash and debris from reaching waterbodies. Under this program, DEP is responsible for approximately 150,000 catch basins citywide, which are regularly inspected, and if necessary, cleaned or repaired. DEP inspects all catch basins on a three-year cycle and in response to 311 complaints.2 As of 2010, DEP installed hoods in all catch basins that DEP identified as requiring a hood. DEP replaces any missing or damaged hoods within 90 days of discovery. If a catch basin requires extensive repairs before a hood can be installed, DEP will make necessary repairs and install a hood within 24 months. DEP reports annually on catch basins inspected, cleaned, and repaired or re-hooded in the Combined Sewer Overflow Best Management Practices (CSO BMP) Annual Report.3 DEP also reports the percent of catch basins surveyed/inspected and number of catch basins cleaned annually in the Mayor’s Management Report. 2 Pursuant to Local Law 48 of 2015, DEP inspected catch basins on an annual basis from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2019. After July 1, 2019, DEP reevaluated the program to optimize benefits. 3 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/combined-sewer-overflows.page End-of-Pipe and In-Water Containment Systems DEP operates and maintains a number of end-of-pipe/ in-water controls that intercept floatables from combined and separate sewer systems. End-of-pipe/in-water controls located at the mouth of the waterbodies, such as the Bronx River boom, provide a watershed-wide benefit by capturing floatables from upstream CSO and MS4 sources. As of 2021, these controls included a total of 23 nets/booms. DEP also operates four specialized skimmer vessels that collect floatables from these booms and/or from surface waters, as needed and as feasibility permits. DEP reports annually on materials collected from nets/booms and open water skimming in the CSO BMP Annual Report. DEP Bluebelt Program The Bluebelt program preserves natural drainage corridors such as streams and ponds, and optimizes them through the design and construction of stormwater controls to filter stormwater before it empties into the New York Harbor. DEP regularly inspects, maintains, and removes litter from both booms and natural areas in the Bluebelts. The Bluebelt Program offers residents, community groups, and companies an opportunity to act as sponsors who adopt parts of the Bluebelt. DEP also sponsors "Friends of the Bluebelt" cleanup events each year and provides opportunities for groups to organize their own events. To raise public awareness, catch basins in Bluebelt drainage areas are marked with either a medallion or stamped iron curb piece to inform the public that the catch basins drain directly to local waterbodies and that nothing should be dumped into them. Catch Basin Marking Catch basin markers inform the public that the catch basins drain directly to local waterbodies and that nothing should be dumped into them. DEP’s current sewer design standards require that the cast iron curb pieces of new catch basins citywide be stamped with a message that reads: “Dump No Waste! Drains to Waterways.” DEP also allows and facilitates catch basin stenciling with messages such as “Only Rain Down the Drain” and “This is Not a Trash Can”. DEP skimmer boat Hood Floatables Catch Basin GrateStreet Level To Se wer Debris Catch Basin Diagram 141 DSNY mechanical broom truck Public Litter Baskets Litter baskets provide pedestrians with receptacles to encourage proper disposal of trash that could otherwise become street litter. DSNY services public litter baskets throughout NYC. Through the Adopt-A-Basket program, DSNY invites local businesses or community groups to monitor local litter baskets, and when baskets are three quarters full, adopters tie up the bags, leave them next to the basket, and insert a new plastic bag liner provided by DSNY. This helps prevent trash from spilling over or being blown by wind onto sidewalks and provides more space in the basket before the next DSNY collection. Street Sweeping DSNY maintains and deploys a fleet of mechanical brooms across the five boroughs to help keep city streets clean. Street sweeping utilizing mechanical brooms addresses street litter before it can enter the sewer system. Alternate side parking regulations aid street sweeping operations. These regulations require vehicles to be moved to allow accessibility for street cleaning. SAFE Disposal Events and Special Waste Drop-Off Sites DSNY hosts SAFE (Solvents, Automotive, Flammables, and Electronics) Disposal Events throughout the year in all five boroughs to help residents safely dispose of harmful household products that cannot otherwise be thrown out with regular household waste. In addition, DSNY operates five Special Waste Drop-Off Sites that accept many harmful household products. By providing ways to properly dispose of waste, DSNY discourages illegal dumping. Cleaning Initiatives DSNY promotes cleaner communities through various cleaning initiatives and public partnerships such as NYC Cleanup, Precision Cleaning initiative, Work Experience and alternative sentencing programs. DSNY also participates in many City-sponsored cleanup and beautification programs such as Keep NYC Beautiful, Clean Community campaign and community clean-ups, which support local community groups and block associations by providing free loans of clean-up tools and equipment. These additional resources help DSNY address and maintain cleanliness throughout the city. In addition, DSNY educates residents and business owners on their responsibilities for keeping New York City clean and provides enforcement as per the New York City Health and Administrative Codes. Zero Waste Initiatives DSNY has several initiatives designed to keep recyclable and reusable materials from ending up in landfills with a goal of zero waste to landfills. These initiatives include reducing the use of plastic bags and other non-compostable waste; increasing recycling by all New Yorkers; diverting organic waste (food scraps and yard waste) to be turned into compost or renewable energy; and increasing textile and e-waste reuse and recycling. Initiatives to reduce waste all serve to reduce sources of floatables. Business Improvement Districts Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are geographical areas where local stakeholders oversee and fund the maintenance, improvement, and promotion of their commercial districts; this often includes supplemental sanitation services such as litter removal and litter basket maintenance. SBS provides oversight and support to existing BIDs and to communities interested in creating new BIDs. 142 Park Maintenance DPR regularly cleans parks, playgrounds, and beaches to maintain these public spaces in clean and good condition. Additionally, DPR works closely with several groups to promote park stewardship, including removing litter from parks and other DPR properties. The Partnership for Parks, a joint program of DPR and the City Parks Foundation, works to boost community involvement in City parks. Each year it organizes numerous events including beach clean-ups, community garden maintenance, and regular litter removal activities. 9.2 Evaluation of Floatable Control Programs As part of past initiatives to reduce floatables citywide, DEP has assessed many floatables control technologies and estimated the efficiency of those used in NYC. Additionally, the City continually evaluates litter and floatables conditions in NYC through several ongoing monitoring programs. Past Evaluations DEP conducted various field studies to estimate the removal efficiency of various floatables controls as part of its previous Citywide Comprehensive Floatables Facility Planning Project.4 DEP developed estimates based on these studies, showing that current practices, including street sweeping, catch basin hooding, end-of-pipe netting/ booming/skimming operations, and combined-sewage treatment at WRRFs capture or remove approximately 96 percent of citywide floatables originating from street litter. Citywide, DEP estimated that existing street sweeping practices remove approximately 55 percent of litter from the streets. DEP also found that street sweeping removal efficiency is dependent on public adherence to alternate side parking regulations as well as on mechanical broom operations. DEP’s studies indicated that, compared to no sweeping, sweeping once per week reduces floatables by approximately 50 percent, and sweeping twice per week reduces floatables by approximately 70 percent. Citywide, DEP estimated that end-of-pipe and in-water containment systems (i.e., nets, booms, and skimming operations) capture or remove approximately three percent of floatables originating as street litter. The floatables capture efficiency of end-of-pipe and in-water containment systems can be 75 to 95 percent, depending upon weather conditions and operational considerations, such as properly operating tide slides (equipment that allows booms to rise and fall with the tides) and timely deployment of specialized skimmer vessels to collect floatables captured by the booms. 4 “Citywide Comprehensive Floatables Plan - Modified Facility Planning Report,” prepared by HydroQual Engineers & Scientists, P.C. for the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Environmental Engineering, July 29, 2005. The remaining four percent of citywide floatables originating from street litter (in combined sewer areas) is captured at WRRFs. Ongoing Evaluations In addition to the past studies that evaluated the efficiency of various controls, the City has several ongoing monitoring programs to help assess trash and debris conditions. The Mayor’s Office of Operations tracks street and sidewalk litter levels on a continuous basis, through the Street Cleanliness Rating program. This program visually monitors trends in street and sidewalk litter on a monthly basis throughout the City.5 Figure 9.1 presents the percent of acceptably clean streets under this program from 1975 to 2017. DSNY monitors the Street Cleanliness Ratings as a check on trends and the effectiveness of its street cleaning operations. The rating program indirectly reduces floatables by providing DSNY with feedback to help the agency allocate its resources more efficiently. Similarly, DEP monitors floatables in waterbodies and on beaches citywide through its Floatables Monitoring Program. The Floatables Monitoring Program utilizes visual ratings to document floatables levels at monitoring sites throughout NYC (Figure 9.2). Visual ratings collected by DEP staff through the Harbor Survey Program are supplemented by citizen scientists who conduct similar inspections through the Volunteer Survey Program. DEP analyzes the datasets collected by both groups and conducts source investigations at sites with the poorest ratings. DEP summarizes the results of these inspections and source investigations in its annual Floatables Monitoring Program Progress Report. Findings from the program indicate that the floatables condition is typically worse along the shoreline and that floatables tend to accumulate in tributaries and flow-restricted waterbodies. Figure 9.3 shows the variation of observed floatables conditions between 2010 and 2017. DEP also monitors the volume of floatable materials recovered through booms, nets, and open water skimming. This information is reported in the Annual CSO BMP Report6 and is summarized in Figure 9.4. The quantity of floatables reaching the in-water containment system has decreased over the last decade. 5 http://www1.nyc.gov/site/operations/performance/scorecard-street sidewalk-cleanliness-ratings.page 6 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/combined-sewer-overflows.page 143 Percent of Acceptably Clean Streets between Fiscal Years 1975 and 2017 Figure 9.1 Location of Floatables Monitoring Program Sites Figure 9.2 100% P e rc e n t A c c e p ta b ly C le a n Fiscal Year 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 19 7 5 19 7 6 19 7 7 19 7 8 19 7 9 19 8 0 19 8 1 19 8 2 19 8 3 19 8 4 19 8 5 19 8 6 19 8 7 19 8 8 19 8 9 19 9 0 19 9 1 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 10 2 0 11 2 0 12 2 0 13 2 0 14 2 0 15 2 0 16 2 0 17 95.9% in 2017 0% Harbor Survey Program Sites Volunteer Survey Program Sites Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an 144 Percent of Floatables Monitoring Program Sites Rated Poor, 2010-2017 Figure 9.3 Total Floatables Collected by Boom and Skim Program Figure 9.4 2500 yd3 2375 yd3 2250 yd3 2125 yd3 2000 yd3 1875 yd3 1750 yd3 1625 yd3 1500 yd3 1375 yd3 1250 yd3 1125 yd3 1000 yd3 875 yd3 750 yd3 625 yd3 500 yd3 375 yd3 250 yd3 125 yd3 0 yd3 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CalendarYear Year P e rc e n t P o o r R at in g s (% ) 0 15 30 5 20 35 45 10 25 40 50 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20162015 2017 Shoreline Public Participation Nearshore Public Participation Open Water Public Participation Shoreline DEP Monitoring Nearshore DEP Monitoring Open Water DEP Monitoring 145 9.3 Loading Rate Work Plan The MS4 Permit required the City to develop a work plan to determine the loading rate of floatable and settleable trash and debris discharged from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables. This loading rate will quantify the amount of trash and debris leaving the MS4 over a period of time. The draft work plan was submitted to NYSDEC for review on August 1, 2017. DEP posted the draft work plan on its website on August 1, 2017 and presented it publicly at a Stormwater Advisory Group Meeting on October 4, 2017. The public was encouraged to review the draft work plan and submit comments through October 16, 2017. In response to comments from both the public and NYSDEC, the City prepared the final work plan, which is described briefly below. As required by the MS4 Permit, the City submitted to NYSDEC on August 1, 2018, the complete Work Plan to Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4; the Work Plan is included with this Plan as Appendix 9.1. On March 14, 2019, NYSDEC approved the final work plan. As required by the MS4 Permit, DEP then prepared and timely submitted a schedule to determine the loading rate of trash and debris from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables. Under this schedule, the loading rate study commenced March 14, 2021 and will conclude by March 14, 2024. DEP reports in the MS4 Annual Reports on the status of loading rate study implementation. As described in the final work plan, the City reviewed loading rate methodologies employed by other municipalities, as well as those used in the City’s existing floatables control program. Pursuant to this review, the City selected a hybrid approach that combines field measurements and model analysis. Using this approach, the City took field measurements of floatables discharged from catch basins representing various categories of sites that comprise the MS4 area. These datasets will then be used to extrapolate a floatables loading rate by MS4 outfall and for each waterbody designated as impaired due to floatables. In conjunction with field measurements, the City will use an updated version of DEP’s existing floatables model to check the results of the field monitoring and to account for weather conditions and downstream in-water controls such as booms. In summary, the methodology detailed in the final work plan involves the following steps: 1 Selection of catch basins representing various categories of sites that comprise the MS4 area; 2 Field monitoring to measure floatables discharge rates from the catch basin sites into the separate storm sewer; 3 Analysis of field measurements to determine unit loading rates by site category; 4 Establishment of rainfall patterns and other conditions suitable for calculation of floatables loadings from the MS4 area; and, 5 Application of unit loading rates (by site category) to individual catch basins, and summation of the results by MS4 outfall and by waterbody, for each waterbody designated as impaired due to floatables. To represent the full range of factors affecting floatables generation, interception, and loading in the MS4 area, the City developed site categories to be included in the field monitoring program. Each site category represents a unique combination of several different representative classes of catchment characteristics and catch basin attributes, or a unique land use. The City used mesh strainer baskets deployed in MS4 manholes to capture floatables discharged from catch basins to the MS4. Field crews collected samples to characterize accumulated amounts during dry periods and wet periods. Floatables collected from each site were separately sorted to remove sediment and vegetation, quantified, and recorded. The City plans to express floatables quantity in terms of volume and rates in terms of annual average periods. 9.4 Review of Available Technologies and Controls In early 2017, DEP surveyed eight municipal/county entities to identify available technologies used for floatables control and which ones might be successful and applicable in the MS4 area. The surveyed entities were Los Angeles, Baltimore City and County, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Philadelphia, London, and Melbourne. Those surveyed employ a number of different initiatives that serve to control floatables discharges: anti-litter laws and fines, item bans, item fees and deposits, public education and outreach activities, signage, litter basket programs, community cleanups, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, beach and shoreline cleaning, monitoring efforts, catch basin inserts and screens, hydrodynamic separation, and end-of-pipe booms and nets. Table 9.2 summarizes the controls implemented by each municipality/ county, with New York City shown for comparison at the far right. The City is implementing, or has previously evaluated, nearly all the floatables controls that are in use in the surveyed municipalities/county. As part of its previous Citywide Comprehensive Floatables Facility Planning 146 Floatables Control B al ti m o re C it y, M D B al ti m o re C o u n ty , M D L o s A n g e le s, C A M e lb o u rn e , A U P h ila d e lp h ia , P A S an F ra n ci sc o , C A W as h in g to n , D .C . L o n d o n , U K N ew Y o rk C it y, N Y Item Ban ü ü ü ü* Item Fee/ Deposit ü ü ü ü ü* Anti-Littering Laws/Fines ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Public Education/Outreach ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Litter Baskets ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Street Sweeping ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Street Cleanups ü ü ü ü ü ü Curb Inlet Screen Covers ü Catch Basin Inserts ü ü ü Catch Basin Hoods ü Catch Basin Cleaning ü ü ü ü ü ü Hydrodynamic Separation T ü T End-Of-Pipe Nets/Booms ü ü ü ü In-Water System ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Shoreline Cleaning ü ü ü ü ü ü Monitoring ü ü ü ü ü ü Notation: ü= implemented, T = tested/testing, ü*= attempting to implement Floatables Controls Implemented in Separate Sewer Areas Table 9.2 Project, DEP assessed more than 100 technologies to control floatables, settleable solids and/or oil and grease from combined and separate sewer areas to determine which technologies might meet the requirements of the CSO program. This assessment is a helpful resource for understanding what floatables reduction tools the City may want to expand or implement in the City’s MS4 area. The controls listed in Table 9.2 that the City is currently testing or attempting to implement are discussed below: Item bans, fees, and deposits help eliminate or reduce the use of certain types of items, such as single-use plastic bags and non-recyclable food service products (containers and utensils). These controls can apply broadly to a whole municipality or more narrowly to targeted areas such as bans on certain items on city-owned property. The City uses these controls to reduce waste, litter, and floatables. New York State currently has a five-cent deposit, which is in effect in NYC, on individual, separate, sealed glass, metal, aluminum, steel, or plastic bottles, cans, or jars less than one gallon for a variety of beverages (i.e., carbonated soft drinks, soda water, beer and other malt beverages, mineral water, wine products, and water). In accordance with Local Law 142 of 2013, DSNY has determined that single-use food service items, such as cups and clamshells, made of expanded polystyrene cannot be recycled in a manner that is economically feasible or environmentally effective. As such, restaurants, mobile food vendors, and stores in New York City are banned from selling, using or possessing single-use food service items, including cups, trays, plates, and take out containers and loose-fill packing “peanuts” made of expanded polystyrene foam. DSNY first made its determination that such items could not be recycled on January 1, 2015. This determination was challenged by the foam industry. However, after a revised determination was issued, the City ultimately prevailed in the litigation. The City’s ban on single-use foam food service products and local sale of foam packing peanuts went into effect on January 1, 2019. ü 147 In 2019, New York State passed the Bag Waste Reduction Law making New York State one of eight states in the country to implement a plastic bag ban. The New York City Council subsequently approved a five-cent paper bag fee to complement the ban. In 2020, though delayed by COVID-19, the NYS plastic bag ban went into effect and NYC began collecting the five-cent paper bag fee. Three cents of this fee go to the State Environmental Protection Fund and the other two cents go toward the production of reusable bags. The fee and ban encourage New Yorkers to use reusable bags, reducing the number of single use bags that might end up in the environment. The New York State ban follows the City’s 2016 NYC Carryout Bag Law, which sought to impose a fee of at least five cents on all carryout merchandise bags. Hydrodynamic separation technologies use the flow of water to separate, capture, and retain trash and debris as well as other pollutants present in stormwater runoff. Hydrodynamic separators are commonly used to treat stormwater from smaller, single-parcel catchment areas, and are employed at several City facilities and operations. The City is considering this technology for stormwater applications and plans to pilot hydrodynamic vortex separators in connection with high-level sewer separation. The controls listed in Table 9.2 that the City is not currently implementing are discussed below: Catch basin inserts are designed to detain floatables until the catch basin is cleaned. Although these devices can be effective, past DEP studies did not recommend them for widespread application in NYC streets. The inserts typically require substantial maintenance and increase the potential for clogging and associated street flooding, especially during the autumn season when leaf litter is at its maximum levels. Curb inlet screen covers are designed to prevent trash and debris from entering catch basins through the curb opening. This trash and debris would remain in the street for removal by adjacent property owners or street sweeping. Curb inlet screen covers can consist of vertical or diagonal bars or perforated or mesh screens, which are installed outside or immediately within the curb opening. DEP’s current Sewer Design Standards do not contain a catch basin curb inlet screen cover; however, older basins installed according to previous design standards may still feature a screen cover. 9.5 Methodology for Selecting Technologies and Controls Following the floatables loading rate study, as described above in Section 9.3, the City will develop a methodology to site, select, and size best management practices (BMPs) and controls to reduce floatable and settleable trash and debris. This methodology will utilize the results of the loading rate study to identify and prioritize areas for additional controls and may consider the following factors: � Waterbody characteristics such as listed impairments, designated uses, and physical attributes that may influence floatables accumulation; � Neighborhood characteristics such as concentration of litter, population density, and proportion of land uses associated with high litter levels; and, � Existing controls such as BIDs, street sweeping, and booms and nets. This methodology will also rely on the review of existing technologies, described in Section 9.4, to identify practicable additional controls and may consider the following factors: � Effectiveness of controls and any ancillary benefits such as waste reduction or cleaner communities; � Physical constraints of the site such as limited access for maintenance or space available for control; and, � Cost of controls including construction, operation, and maintenance. 148 9.6 Media Campaigns The MS4 Permit required the implementation of an interim public education media campaign on floatable and settleable trash and debris reduction, between the effective date of the MS4 Permit (August 1, 2015) and submittal of this Plan (August 1, 2018). On October 30, 2015, the City submitted the Trash Free NYC Waters Media Campaign Plan to NYSDEC. This document established the City’s strategy to raise awareness and educate the public, first through an existing campaign and later through additional messaging. Between August 1, 2015 and August 1, 2018, the City implemented the three campaigns described below to meet this permit requirement. B.Y.O. Campaign Launched in 2015, the B.Y.O. (Bring Your Own) Campaign encouraged New Yorkers to live a less disposable lifestyle by using reusable bags, mugs, and bottles. Based on research on the barriers and motivators related to using reusable items, the campaign paired the easily understood call-to-action “bring your own” with a message designed to inspire the desired behavior. By encouraging New Yorkers to use reusable items, the campaign helps reduce the initial generation of waste that may end up as floatable debris in the City’s waterbodies. This multi-media campaign was designed and implemented by GreeNYC, a public education program based in the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, to strategically reach New Yorkers while they were at home and out in NYC. The campaign included bus and subway ads, digital ads, radio public service announcements, billboards, and posters on DSNY trucks. GreeNYC also promoted the campaign at events throughout the City to spread the word and encourage New Yorkers to take the B.Y.O. pledge. 149 Don’t Trash Our Waters Seeking to raise public awareness of the connection between trash, litter, and water quality, the City developed the campaign message “Don’t Trash Our Waters.” This campaign featured a series of charismatic underwater characters, designed to remind New Yorkers that trash on the street ends up in our harbor and hurts local wildlife like dolphins, seals, whales, turtles, and oysters. In addition to raising awareness, the campaign also aimed to change littering behavior by imploring New Yorkers to “put it in the can.” The “Don’t Trash Our Waters” Campaign was launched in May 2017 by DEP in coordination with Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), DSNY, DPR, and the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Implemented in neighborhoods near waterbodies where floatables are of particular concern, this multi-media campaign used bus shelter, subway station, and digital ads to spread the message. Posters were also displayed on DSNY trucks and nearby park comfort stations. For this campaign, the City worked closely with the WCS to organize an event at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island that would provide New Yorkers with an opportunity to learn more about the New York seascape and the impact of plastics in the ocean. To assess the reach of the campaign, the City counted the number and impressions of ads placed. To assess public engagement with the campaign, the City tracked visits to the DEP Trash Free Waters webpage and engagement with social media posts. To understand better how the campaign was perceived by the public, the City conducted an opinion survey to assess public awareness of the campaign, public sentiment regarding the campaign, and any self-reported behavior changes. 150 The City engaged targeted stakeholders on the control of floatable and settleable trash and debris related to the SWMP. These stakeholders included: � General Public � Trash Free NYC Waters Working Group � Educators � Environmental Stakeholders The public was very engaged on this issue. In response to comments received on this program, the City: � Modified the artwork of the “Don’t Trash Our Waters” Media Campaign to include recycling cans alongside litter baskets and include an Oyster character � Modified the Loading Rate Study in response to public comments � Launched a new program to encourage stakeholders to conduct catch basin stenciling #TalkTrashNewYork The City developed a basketball-themed message to remind New Yorkers that keeping NYC clean is a team effort. DSNY partnered with DPR and the New York Knicks for #TalkTrashNewYork, an anti-litter campaign promoting clean streets, sidewalks, beaches, and parks across NYC. A public service announcement (PSA) aired locally and was promoted electronically, in print, and through social media. DSNY made the PSA material available at no cost to media outlets wishing to broadcast the message. #TalkTrashNewYork launched at The Cage Basketball Courts in Manhattan in May 2017 and featured a free multi-station basketball clinic. Local children were invited to participate in the basketball clinic and learn the fine art of dribbling, shooting, lateral moves, strength, and flexibility, all while learning to keep their city clean. To draw attention to the anti-litter cause, DSNY worked with fashion designer Heron Preston to create a limited edition, retro-style #TalkTrashNewYork basketball jersey for the first 200 children to play in the clinic. The campaign also provided hoop-themed litter baskets to be installed in City parks. 151 BMP Measurable Goals Measure Provide a Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Management Program Determine Loading Rate of Floatable Trash and Debris discharged from MS4 to waterbodies impaired for floatables Status of Loading Rate Study Continue DEP’s Catch Basin Inspection, Cleaning, and Hood Replacement Program Number of catch basins inspected, cleaned, and retrofitted Number of catch basin hoods repaired, installed or replaced Continue DEP’s boom and netting program Status and location of Combined Sewer Overflows Best Management Practices Annual Report with Floatables Control Program results Implement a public education program on floatables List of education & outreach programs/ events and relevant metric(s) for each (e.g., number of participants, events, or materials distributed) Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals and Measures for the Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Program Table 9.3 9.7 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 9.3 lists measurable goals and measures for identified Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris best management practices (BMPs). MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to assess the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, which is described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals allows the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. 152 Chapter 10 Monitoring and Assessment of Controls Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 Lower New York Bay 153 154 In accordance with Part IV.J of the MS4 Permit, the City was required to develop and implement a monitoring and assessment program. This chapter describes the MS4 Monitoring Program, which can rely on existing programs, to satisfy the following MS4 Permit requirements: � Assess MS4 Permit compliance; � Measure the effectiveness of the SWMP; � Characterize and assess the quality of stormwater discharges at representative MS4 outfalls; � Identify sources of specific pollutants; � Detect and eliminate illicit discharges, including illegal connections, to the MS4; and � Evaluate long-term trends in water quality. The MS4 Monitoring Program includes evaluation of impaired waters, as required under Part II.B of the MS4 Permit, and considerations for specific waterbodies, impairments, and pollutant sources. The program combines data collection from existing monitoring programs with outfall flow metering and water quality sampling. Appendix 10.1 provides additional information about the MS4 Monitoring Program developed by the City to collect and analyze water quality data. The MS4 Monitoring Program was approved by DEC in 2019 with approval of the SWMP. Chapter 5 details the City’s efforts to detect and eliminate illicit discharges. 10.1 Related Programs The City has collected water quality data in New York Harbor since 1909. Today the datasets are available on the DEP website and in the annual New York Harbor Water Quality Report.1 Regulators, scientists, educators, and citizens use the data to assess impacts, trends, and improvements in the water quality of the harbor. According to the City’s most recent report, the harbor is cleaner now than at any time in the last 100 years. Approximately 60 percent of New York City is served by the combined sewer system where a single pipe carries both wastewater and stormwater to a WRRF. During times of heavy precipitation, the combined sewer system may be overwhelmed and discharge into waterbodies. This discharge is known as a combined sewer overflow (CSO). CSOs are among the largest non-MS4 contributors of POCs. Since the 1980s, the City has reduced CSOs by over 80 percent through billions of dollars of investments in projects such as sewer separation, CSO tanks that store combined flow until it can be pumped to the WRRF for treatment, sewer system upgrades, WRRF upgrades, and green infrastructure. DEP developed 11 Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs) to build on these earlier investments. These LTCPs are comprehensive evaluations of long-term solutions to reducing CSO events and contributing to water quality improvements in New York City’s waterbodies. In addition, the City’s stormwater management efforts under the SWMP will further contribute to this positive water quality trend by taking steps to reduce stormwater pollution as part of a 1 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page DEP staff survey the Bronx River https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page 155 comprehensive integrated planning approach. For more information about the City’s efforts to address CSOs,2 refer to the Introduction of this Plan. The City’s routine ambient water monitoring programs described below provided useful data for the development of the MS4 Monitoring Program. These monitoring programs will continue, and the City will use the data to complement the MS4 Monitoring Program. Harbor Survey Program DEP and its predecessor City agencies began monitoring water quality in New York Harbor waters in 1909. Today, the Harbor Survey Program assesses changes in water quality in New York Harbor over long periods to measure the effectiveness of the City’s various water pollution control programs. This program routinely measures dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, enterococci, Secchi depth (transparency), chlorophyll “A,” total suspended solids (TSS), and total nitrogen (TN). Sentinel Monitoring Program DEP monitors waterbodies throughout NYC for pathogens in accordance with DEP’s 14 WRRF SPDES Permits. Under this program, initiated in 1998, DEP collects samples at monitoring stations on a quarterly basis. DEP compares sampling results to the NYSDEC-established water quality baseline. If sampling results are above baseline criteria, DEP investigates the adjacent shoreline through a mini-shoreline survey to determine whether there is a contaminated dry weather discharge that would require source trackdown and abatement actions. Shoreline Survey DEP identifies and characterizes shoreline outfalls in NYC. Under this program, DEP surveys the entire shoreline every ten years, with progress made each year. If DEP observes a dry weather discharge, it conducts an investigation, which may include sampling, to track down the source and take steps to abate the problem. Field Sampling Analysis Program The Field Sampling Analysis Program (FSAP) was a citywide synoptic sampling program with the objective of evaluating the water quality of CSO-impacted waterbodies. This program was a temporary sampling program for DEP’s CSO LTCP program that targeted wet weather events and took simultaneous water quality samples at multiple locations in a short period. DEP developed a sampling plan for each impacted waterbody to address waterbody-specific considerations. The FSAP focused on target bacteria (i.e., fecal coliform and enterococci), TSS, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), temperature, conductivity/salinity, and DO associated with CSO and stormwater discharges. 2 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/nyc-waterways.page Beach Sampling City bathing beaches are regulated, monitored, and permitted by the City and State. Under Article 167 of the City Health Code and Section 6-2.19 of the City Sanitary Code, DOHMH is responsible for beach surveillance and monitoring for all permitted City beaches. This monitoring includes routine enterococci measurements at beaches for compliance with water quality standards. DOHMH compiles the results of routine water quality monitoring and compliance inspections in its Annual Surveillance and Monitoring Beach Report. Community-Led Monitoring Many schools, universities, citizens, scientists, recreational water users, and environmental organizations conduct their own water quality testing in NYC waterbodies. The City considers established community-led monitoring data when evaluating long-term trends and comparisons of water quality. For example, during the development of several CSO LTCPs, organizations such as Riverkeeper, Bronx River Alliance, and the New York City Water Trail Association’s Citizens Water Quality Testing Program conducted sampling and submitted data and analyses to the City. The City reviewed this information in relation to its own analyses, noted comparisons and differences, and in some cases used it for modeling calibration processes. DEP compared stakeholder data with City data and provided a summary of the comparison during public meetings, on the DEP website, and in the final CSO LTCP that DEP submitted to NYSDEC. Organizations in addition to those listed above that collect long-term water quality data are encouraged to notify and provide information on their monitoring programs to DEP’s MS4 team by emailing MS4@dep.nyc.gov. Sampling in the Harlem River https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/nyc-waterways.page mailto:ms4@dep.nyc.gov 156 10.2 MS4 Monitoring Program The MS4 Monitoring Program relies on a phased approach to assess pollutant contributions from stormwater runoff in the MS4 area, and their influence on overall New York Harbor water quality. To support scientific conclusions about pollutant sources and water quality trends in receiving waterbodies over time, DEP commissioned a peer review of the proposed MS4 Monitoring Program to evaluate the effectiveness of the two-phased monitoring and assessment approach. In addition, DEP received feedback from public and environmental organizations such as the Stormwater Infrastructure Matters (SWIM) Coalition. DEP incorporated the following recommendations: � Implement the monitoring and assessment program in phases; � Incorporate Phase 1 results in development of Phase 2 sampling plan; � Increase the sampling frequency of Phase 1; and � Add an outfall location in Staten Island for low residential land use to represent the variety of low residential land use in the MS4 area. During Phase 1, which began in February 2019 and is ongoing, DEP collects flow and water quality data at a set of MS4 outfalls during wet weather to assess the influence of land use on stormwater discharge and pollutant concentrations. In NYC, tidal flows influence the majority of outfalls, with tidal waters sometimes reaching miles upstream. This influx of harbor water impedes stormwater discharges from outfalls and therefore, presents challenges for measuring stormwater impacts on receiving waterbodies. To avoid tidal influence in the sewer, DEP collects some samples from manholes upstream of the representative MS4 outfalls. Once sampling is complete, DEP will analyze the Phase 1 data. Phase 2 will be revisited and reformulated in response to the monitoring challenges experienced in Phase 1 and the analysis of the Phase 1 data. The DEP Harbor Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Programs will continue concurrently with and as a complement to MS4 monitoring. DEP will use data from these programs to help analyze the influence of stormwater loads in receiving waterbodies. Refer to Appendix 10.1 for additional information. The objective of the land use-based outfall monitoring (Phase 1) is to identify potential sources of specific pollutants and characterize and assess the quality of stormwater discharges at representative MS4 outfalls, as required by Part IV.J.2 of the MS4 Permit. DEP will use the collected data to determine whether there is any correlation between land use type and pollutant concentrations. Understanding this correlation can be useful for identifying and implementing pollutant reduction measures for a particular land use type. DEP may use results from Phase 1 monitoring to refine the current event mean concentrations (EMC) per land use type. The EMC is the flow weighted mean concentration, which is equivalent to collecting the entire stormwater runoff, completely mixing it and then determining the pollutant concentration. EMCs are used in pollutant load analysis to ensure no net increase of nitrogen contributions to nitrogen-impaired waterbodies. Refer to Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction for more information on NNI requirements. Phase Goal Sampling Sites Frequency Monitoring Parameters Actual/Potential Start Phase 1 Assess the effect of land use on stormwater discharge and pollutant concentrations MS4 outfalls representative of 6 land use types (mixed, high-den sity residential, low-density residential, industrial, open space, and highway) Quarterly � Residue � Pathogens � Nutrients � Metals � Oil and grease � Field in-situ � Flow February 2019 Phase 2 Evaluate long-term trends � MS4 outfalls to be determined based on Phase 1 results � Nearest existing correspond ing Harbor Survey and/or Sentinel Monitoring stations To be determined based on Phase 1 results � Pathogen(s) � Nutrient(s) � Other parame ters based on Phase 1 results After analysis of Phase 1 data Summary of MS4 Monitoring Program Phases Table 10.1 157 Pursuant to EPA stormwater sampling guidance,3 consideration of land use patterns within a municipality should be a major factor in the selection of outfalls to monitor. In Phase 1, DEP is monitoring outfalls that represent six land use types within NYC, as summarized in Table 10.2 below. DEP identified the Phase 1 outfalls and corresponding monitoring locations feasible for metering and sampling through detailed assessments of GIS land use data, sewer system delineations, and previous water quality data collection efforts and reporting. All outfalls were visited to confirm location details and accessibility. Phase 1 outfalls may change as data collection is initiated if DEP determines that data collection is limited by any unforeseen conditions or if more appropriate outfalls are identified. This ongoing ability to modify monitoring procedures is consistent with the adaptive management approach DEP has employed to collect and evaluate the most meaningful data for the phased MS4 Monitoring Program. Other characteristics of selected sampling locations include: � farthest downstream manhole or outfall pipe not influenced by tides; � no dry weather flows; and � safely accessible by sampling field crews. 3 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20012RVG.PDF?Dockey=20012RVG. PDF Phase 1 monitoring occurs quarterly during qualifying rain events to collect a target number of samples per land use type. In 2020, the City determined that it would extend sampling beyond the originally stated two years and would continue to sample when feasible in order to collect the number of samples required for reliable data analysis. DEP had anticipated that Phase 2 would proceed as described in Appendix 10.1. However, DEP may, upon evaluation of Phase 1 monitoring data and the challenges associated with implementing Phase 1, re-evaluate the need to develop a targeted outfall monitoring program for Phase 2 and re-work the program to best enable the City to analyze long-term trends. Target Sampling Location Land Uses Per MapPLUTO Overlay Targeted Outfall ID Borough Land Use Drainage Area to Anticipated Monitoring Location (acres) Main Land Use Types Main Land Use Percentage Receiving Waterbody HP-627 Bronx Open Space 12.4 Open Space and Outdoor Recreation 86% Bronx River HP-640 Bronx Mixed 4.3 Multi-Family Residential, Commercial and Office Buildings, and Public Facilities and Institutions 83% Hutchinson River NCQ-632 Queens Industrial 87.2 Industrial and Manufacturing 63% Newtown Creek OB-722 Staten Island Low-Density Residential 45.3 One and Two Family Buildings 68% Raritan Bay OH-607 Brooklyn Industrial 5.1 Industrial and Manufacturing 82% Gowanus Canal TI-604 Queens Highway 16.4 Highway 63% Flushing Creek TI-633 Queens High-Density Residential 19.1 One and Two Family Buildings 66% Little Neck Bay TI-658 Queens Low-Density Residential 26.0 One and Two Family Buildings 69% Little Neck Bay *OH-607 is no longer an active sampling location because of construction and the resulting new sewer layout. NCQ-632 will continue to represent the industrial land use type. Phase 1 Monitoring Locations Table 10.2 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20012RVG.PDF?Dockey=20012RVG.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20012RVG.PDF?Dockey=20012RVG.PDF 158 10.3 MS4 Monitoring Program Phase 1 Procedures The MS4 Monitoring Program procedures for Phase 1 support DEP’s characterization and assessment of the quality of stormwater discharges at representative MS4 outfalls and identification of sources of specific pollutants. Appendix 10.1 describes in more detail the procedures summarized below. 10.3.1 Outfall Flow To estimate the pollutant loading from an outfall, a measurement of volumetric flow is necessary (i.e., flow × concentration = load). Because stormwater outfalls are expected to have flow only during and after rainfall events, automated flow meters were used in manholes. DEP may use manual measuring devices when collecting samples to corroborate automated flow meter readings. Flow measurements are limited to a subset of the monitored outfalls, and DEP will compare measurements to other data points or conditions including drainage area size, impervious cover, and precipitation data from the nearest City rain gauge. 10.3.2 Sample Collection and Field Measurements DEP deploys crews to collect samples during qualifying rain events. DEP defines a qualifying rain event as: � 48 hours of relatively dry weather (no storm in excess of 0.1 inch in the outfall catchment area) precedes rain event; � predicted at least a day in advance by weather forecasts; � predicted by weather forecasts with 80 percent probability of occurring; and � predicted to result in greater than 0.2 inches of rain. Field activities include collecting grab samples for laboratory analyses (as listed below) and measuring in-field parameters such as pH, DO, temperature, and salinity. DEP collects data on storm volume and duration from the nearest or most appropriate rain gauge. Because of shorter holding times, DEP sends samples collected for pathogen analysis via messenger to a nearby laboratory. DEP obtains pathogen and oil and grease measurements from a single grab sample (as opposed to a composited sample). For all other parameters, DEP uses time- weighted composites. All sampling is subject to DEP’s established quality assurance and quality control (QA/ QC) procedures. DEP uses the appropriate standard methods to collect QA/QC samples based on the parameters measured. Water quality sampling for wet weather monitoring programs One of the goals of this wet weather monitoring program is to better understand the correlation between water quality samples and stormwater runoff. DEP grabs samples from inside a storm sewer pipe at a manhole or an outfall, or in a receiving waterbody when it is raining. This information is important for linking specific water quality results directly to the stormwater runoff that may be carrying and discharging pollutants. Sampling programs must identify and assess predicted rain events in advance to determine whether an event will produce enough stormwater runoff to measure, and whether there was sufficient time between storms to allow pollutants to build up between rain events. DEP staff samples water quality 159 10.3.3 Laboratory Analyses DEP selected the parameters and types of laboratory analyses for the MS4 Monitoring Program based on one or more of the following criteria: � Listed as a POC in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit � Listed as a cause for impairment in receiving waterbodies in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list � Identified as being present at representative MS4 outfalls/manholes in the DEP Supplemental Discharge Characterization Report that was prepared for the WRRF SPDES Permits � Commonly associated with land uses within an outfall’s drainage area � Historically associated with the City’s MS4 discharges based on existing monitoring programs Since the data collected under this program are part of MS4 Permit compliance, samples are analyzed by a laboratory certified by the New York State Environmental Laboratory Approval Program. The MS4 Monitoring Program includes sampling for the following parameters identified by existing data sources, reports, and the MS4 Permit: � Residue: Total Dissolved Solids (TDS); Total Suspended Solids (TSS) � Pathogens: Fecal Coliform; Enterococci � Nutrients: Total Phosphorus; Dissolved Phosphorus; Total Ammonia (as N); Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN as N, the sum of ammonia, and organic nitrogen); Total Nitrogen (TN, the sum of TKN, and nitrate-nitrite) � Metals: Total Cadmium; Total Chromium; Total Copper; Total Lead; Total Nickel; Total Arsenic; Total Mercury; Total Zinc � Miscellaneous: Oil and Grease The parameters above include the POCs listed as the causes of impairment in the MS4 Permit except for floatables, which this Plan addresses in Chapter 9: Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris. Phase 1 includes sampling for all above parameters. Parameters to be sampled as part of Phase 2 will be identified based on Phase 1 results. 10.4 Assessment of MS4 Monitoring Program DEP began assessing the MS4 Monitoring Program approximately two years (i.e., eight quarterly sampling cycles) after Phase 1 monitoring began in 2019. Assessments of, and recommended adjustments to, the MS4 Monitoring Program are provided in MS4 Annual Reports, as appropriate. Assessments may include comparisons to historical City and national data, and State water quality standards. Additional data collection and analysis will likely reveal opportunities for MS4 Monitoring Program improvements. This adaptability is essential to the City’s meeting the goals of the SWMP. DEP sampling in Coney Island Creek 160 BMP Measurable Goals Measures Monitoring and Assessment Program Conduct wet weather sampling from outfalls/manholes Results of monitoring data collected and analyzed Table 10.3 Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for the MS4 Monitoring Program Table 10.3 DEP scientist analyzes water samples Water samples at DEP's lab 10.5 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment As described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting, the City developed a Consolidated Information Tracking System to track information required by the MS4 Permit for the Annual Report. Table 10.3 lists measurable goals and measures for identified Monitoring and Assessment of Controls BMPs. MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, as described in Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals allows the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. 161 Chapter 11 Special Conditions for Impaired Waters Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 162 Coney Island Creek 163 As described in previous chapters of this Plan, the City will administer existing and new programs and practices to reduce or remove pollutants in stormwater runoff from the MS4 area draining to surface waters of the State, including impaired waters. The MS4 Permit identifies special conditions for specific impaired waterbodies: � Impaired waters without Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) � Impaired waters with NYSDEC-approved Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plans (CSO LTCPs) The waterbodies in these categories will receive targeted efforts. This chapter identifies impaired waters and pollutants of concern (POCs) in the NYC area, and details the City’s policies and programming in addition to the SWMP that will be implemented for these waterbodies. 11.1 Impaired Waters and Pollutants of Concern NYSDEC identifies waterbody impairments based on the NYSDEC-designated use (e.g., swimming, fishing, or recreational boating). Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit includes impaired waters in NYC and their relevant POCs to stormwater, as designated by NYSDEC in the 2015 303d list. Table 11.1 provides a summary of Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit. Figure 11.1, from Appendix 1 of the MS4 Permit, includes maps of the NYC impaired waterbodies. A POC is a pollutant causing the impairment of an impaired water segment listed in Appendix 2. NYSDEC identified the following POCs for waterbodies in NYC: Shoreline trash and debris 164 Algal bloom in Silver Lake 165 Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Waterbodies Impaired for Pathogens Waterbodies Impaired for Floatables Figure 11.1 Pathogens are disease-producing agents such as bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms. There are multiple potential sources of pathogenic bacteria in the City’s recreational waters including and not limited to runoff from the MS4 area, runoff from surrounding jurisdictions, illegal sewer connections, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Pathogens can degrade water quality and pose a risk to the local ecology and recreational users who may contract infectious diseases through water contact. The City has many longstanding programs to reduce pathogen pollution including a comprehensive CSO reduction program and robust illicit discharge detection and elimination efforts, as well as daily operations at NYC’s 14 WRRFs. Floatables are manmade materials, such as plastics, papers, or other products which, when improperly disposed of onto streets or into catch basins, can ultimately find their way to local waterbodies. Floatables include materials that are settleable as well as those that may float on the water surface or are neutrally buoyant; such materials may float or sink depending on the ambient conditions to which they are subject. Floatables can originate from multiple sources such as stormwater runoff, CSOs, and direct disposal to the water. If washed onto beaches, floatables can pose human health risks and degrade the aesthetic value of the shoreline in and around NYC. Floatables not washed onto the shoreline also degrade the aesthetics of NYC waterbodies, and can form slicks that may be a navigational hazard. Additionally, floatables threaten the health and lives of marine species and habitats. The City currently has a variety of programs in place to reduce floatables in local waterways. These are detailed in Chapter 9: Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris. 166 Waterbodies Impaired for Nitrogen Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Queens Brooklyn Staten Island The Bronx M an ha tt an Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, are natural parts of aquatic ecosystems that support the growth of algae and aquatic plants. Excess nutrients can cause nuisance algae blooms and aquatic weed growth, which reduce water clarity and dissolved oxygen (DO), and can harm aquatic life. Sources of nutrients include lawn/plant fertilizer, CSOs, WRRF effluent, illicit discharges of sanitary waste, pet and wildlife waste, and green waste such as leaves, branches, and yard clippings. The City has invested billions of dollars to reduce nitrogen in the Harbor through WRRF upgrades and CSO reduction strategies. For information on nutrient reduction at other municipal facilities and operations in MS4 areas see Chapter 7: Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities. Waterbodies Impaired for Phosphorus 167 11.2 Impaired Waters without Total Maximum Daily Loads Under Part II.B.1 of the MS4 Permit, the City must ensure no net increase of the POC causing the impairment from non-negligible land use changes or changes to stormwater management practices within the MS4 area draining to the impaired waters. Waterbody Impairment Pollutant of Concern Floatables Pathogens Nitrogen Phosphorus Bronx River X X Eastchester Bay X Hutchinson River X Long Island Sound X Van Cortlandt Lake X Westchester Creek X Coney Island Creek X X Gowanus Canal X Newtown Creek X East River X Harlem River X Alley Creek X Little Neck Bay X Flushing Creek/Bay X X Jamaica Bay X X X Hendrix Creek X X X Mill Basin X Paerdegat Basin X Bergen Basin X X X Shellbank Basin X Spring Creek X X Thurston Basin X Arthur Kill X Grasmere, Arbutus, and Wolfes Lakes X Kill Van Kill X Newark Bay X Raritan Bay X Atlantic Ocean Coastline X Summary of waterbodies in NYC and their listed impairments in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit at the time of issuance on August 1, 2015. Table 11.1 The City implements the stormwater management practices as described in Chapters 2 through 10 of this Plan throughout the MS4 area, including areas draining to impaired waters without TMDLs. Also, the City’s SWPPP review process under the Construction and Post Construction Program requires adequate controls to ensure no net increase of the POC causing impairment. Refer to Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction for more information. The City provides updates on the applicability of NNI requirements in the Construction and Post Construction program section of the MS4 Annual Report. 168 11.3 Impaired Waters with NYSDEC Approved Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plans Impaired waters with NYSDEC-approved CSO LTCPs that do not predict compliance with applicable water quality standards, and where stormwater contributions from the MS4 are expected to be a significant contributor to the impairment, require the City to implement enhanced BMPs. The City must develop specific waterbody plans for each qualifying waterbody. Per the MS4 Permit, a waterbody plan must include: � A summary of the source categories for POCs causing impairment (e.g., fertilizer use, illicit discharges, leaf litter, pet waste, industrial areas, construction, highly impervious area); � A list of additional or customized non-structural BMPs for each control measure in Part IV.A thru Part IV.I of the MS4 Permit (Chapters 2 through 9 of this Plan) and an implementation schedule; and � Opportunities for implementing green infrastructure (GI) pilot projects. NYSDEC approved the Coney Island Creek CSO LTCP on April 4, 2018 and, based on the City’s recommendation in the LTCP, directed the City to designate Coney Island Creek as requiring enhanced BMPs and a waterbody plan under its MS4 program. The Coney Island Creek waterbody plan is included below as Section 11.4. If other waterbodies are identified as meeting the criteria in the future, the City will develop additional waterbody-specific plans and summarize them in MS4 Annual Reports and SWMP Plan updates. 11.4 Coney Island Creek MS4 Waterbody Plan The City is investing more than ever to improve water quality in New York Harbor. DEP has committed over $4B from the Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plans and the Green Infrastructure Program ($1.6B) for water quality improvements throughout the City. Based on the data in the Coney Island Creek LTCP, DEP and NYSDEC agreed to designate Coney Island Creek as requiring enhanced BMPs and a waterbody plan. Through the SWMP, DEP uses an integrated watershed approach to build upon these investments. Table 11.2 summarizes the targeted POC source categories and the City’s intended control measures for Coney Island Creek. The watershed characterization, pollutant source characterization, intended stormwater control measures (SCMs) to address the BMP requirements, and GI pilot projects within the Coney Island Creek MS4 area are further described below. Watershed Characterization The Coney Island Creek watershed, within the Borough of Brooklyn, is highly urbanized. It is comprised primarily of residential areas with some commercial, industrial, institutional, and open space/outdoor recreation areas. As a residential community within NYC that is also an iconic recreational area for NYC residents, the Coney Island Creek area also has several large and notable transportation corridors that cross the watershed to provide access between industrial, commercial, and residential areas. Table 11.3 summarizes the land use characteristics of the entire Coney Island Creek watershed, of which approximately 65-75% is in the MS4 area. Pollutant of Concern Targeted MS4 Source Categories Proposed Control Measures and Projects for Coney Island Creek Floatables � Highly impervious area (littering) � Catch basin marking and stenciling � Source control � Public education and outreach Pathogens � Illicit discharges � Pet waste � Catch basin marking and stenciling � Pet waste management � Source tracking and control � Sentinel Monitoring � Public education and outreach Summary of POC Source Categories and Control Measures for Coney Island Creek Table 11.2 169 Land Use Category Percent of Drainage Area (%) Commercial 5 Industrial 1 Open Space and Outdoor Recreation 10 Mixed Use and Other 5 Public Facilities 6 Residential 59 Transportation and Utility 7 Parking Facilities 2 Vacant Land 4 Unknown 1 Land Use within the Coney Island Creek Drainage Area as of August 1, 2018 Table 11.3 Pollutant Source Characterization Pollutant source characterization identifies possible sources of pollution from the MS4 area draining to Coney Island Creek. Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit lists pathogens and floatables as the POCs causing impairment of Coney Island Creek. The City determined the source categories that potentially contribute these POCs using available information about land uses, and information from the LTCP and the 2013 Floatables Monitoring Report. Pathogens include bacteria, viruses or other microorganisms that may be disease-producing. Bacteria found in feces is widespread in urban stormwater runoff and there are multiple sources within generalized land use groupings. The City identified the following as possible sources of pathogens in Coney Island Creek: � Illicit connections from sanitary systems to storm drains or directly to the Creek; � Uncollected pet waste; and � CSOs (these are addressed by the Coney Island Creek LTCP and are outside of the scope of this Plan). Floatables, or trash and debris, have many possible sources within NYC. Trash and debris may carry toxins and pathogens that pose a risk to human and ecosystem health. Refer to Chapter 9: Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris for more information on floatables controls. The City identified the following as possible sources of floatables in Coney Island Creek: � Street litter and debris (from pedestrians and vehicles) in stormwater runoff; and � CSOs (these are addressed by the Coney Island Creek LTCP and are outside of the scope of this Plan). 170 Pet waste dispenser Enhanced or Additional Best Management Practices for Coney Island Creek As described throughout this Plan, the City is implementing numerous BMPs to address floatables and pathogens. The City has identified ways to enhance these BMPs to target important pollutant sources, land uses, or drainage areas in the Coney Island Creek watershed. Pilot BMPs implemented as part of this Coney Island Creek Waterbody Plan may be assessed for feasibility across the larger MS4 drainage area. The City addresses the POCs for Coney Island Creek by implementing several programs and projects. Their descriptions and the actual or intended start dates are listed below: � Pet Waste Management: DPR placed new pet waste bag dispensers and signage as part of its “Forgot Your Bag?” Program, to minimize the presence of exposed pet waste. DEP partnered with DPR on this project in Coney Island to educate the public about the potential impacts of pet waste on water quality. DPR installed dispensers and signage in Calvert Vaux Park in late 2017 and began installing them in Kaiser Park in summer 2018. DEP and DPR initiated planning for related public education and outreach efforts in early 2018. � Catch Basin Marking and Stenciling: Images and text on catch basins help inform the public that the catch basins drain directly to local waterways and that nothing should be dumped into them. As discussed in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach, the City is gradually installing new and replacement catch basins in the MS4 area with a “no dumping” message stamped in the iron curb piece. To complement this program in the Coney Island Creek tributary area, DEP plans to partner with other City agencies and local organizations to stencil on or attach medallions to existing catch basins. In 2021, DEP launched the Harbor Protectors Program to encourage volunteers to get involved in environmental clean ups and catch basin stenciling. For more information, visit DEP’s website.1 1 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor-protectors.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/whats-new/harbor-protectors.page 171 Sentinel stations with 9 Harbor Survey stations and the addition of three new Sentinel stations (Coney Island Creek, Sheepshead Bay, and Fresh Creek). DEP began implementation of the modified program in April 2020. The City also determined in 2020, that an enhanced source tracking pilot would not be efficacious in Coney Island as the existing source tracking program is appropriate for the waterbody. The City will continue to implement its effective IDDE Program in the Coney Island area. � Public Education and Outreach: The City has already prioritized Coney Island Creek for public education and outreach. During SWMP development, DEP presented to community groups on MS4 issues and solicited input for potential projects or programs. In May 2017, DEP also launched the Don’t Trash Our Waters Campaign in the Coney Island Creek MS4 area in partnership with the New York Aquarium. The City continues to conduct education and outreach in this community on pollution source controls, including pet waste management and trash management. The City continues to engage partners such as local businesses, community groups, and other stakeholders to identify and assess the feasibility of additional opportunities to reduce POCs in stormwater runoff to Coney Island Creek. The City provides updates on the progress of each program and project in the MS4 Annual Reports. � Signage Deployment: DEP placed signage at key MS4 outfalls in Coney Island Creek with ID numbers and instructions on how to report dry weather discharges. This signage can help facilitate local community reporting of water quality concerns. Additionally, DEP partnered with DPR to install “No Swimming” signs at seven locations along the shoreline of Coney Island Creek. Brooklyn Community Board 13 helped identify the best locations for these signs. DEP installed the outfall signs in February 2018 and installed the “No Swimming” signs in summer 2017. In 2019, the City evaluated the outfall sign pilot. Because of the low volume of 311 reports of dry weather discharges citywide and only one report submitted for Coney Island Creek during the two years since the signs had been installed, the City has discontinued deployment of MS4 outfall signage. � Monitoring and Source Tracking: As described in Chapter 10: Monitoring and Assessment Program, existing and ongoing ambient water quality monitoring programs were evaluated along with the MS4 monitoring program. Modifications to these sampling programs, which are focused on pathogens in Coney Island Creek, will increase the City’s ability to identify illicit sewage discharges. NYSDEC has approved a modified Sentinel Monitoring Program, which included the substitution of 18 stations of the previous 80 Coney Island Creek outfall signage 172 "Don't Trash Our Waters" Coney Island Aquarium event Opportunities for Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects DEP implements a successful Green Infrastructure Program in combined sewer areas through close coordination with other City agency partners. DEP identified potential GI opportunities in Coney Island Creek MS4 areas by prioritizing City-owned sites based on their potential to capture runoff. DEP partnered with owner agencies and entities (e.g., DPR, NYCHA, DOE) to identify and evaluate the feasibility of adding GI pilot projects at these sites. GI pilot projects in the Coney Island Creek MS4 area are designed to accommodate the 90th percentile storm (1.5” of rainfall). The City plans to implement GI pilot projects at several schools in the Coney Island Creek MS4 area, dependent on-site conditions and feasibility. The City reports on the progress of these GI pilot projects in the MS4 Annual Reports. 173 Coney Island Creek has been designated a waterbody that requires enhanced BMPs. As such, during SWMP development, the City conducted targeted public engagement with the Coney Island Community, including the following efforts: � The City partnered with the Coney Island Beautification Project, the SWIM Coalition, the Partnerships for Parks Catalyst Program, and the Wildlife Conservation Society’s NY Aquarium for three community workshops on water quality in Coney Island Creek. � The second workshop included a detailed presentation on Priority MS4 Waterbodies and the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program. Approximately 30 people from the Coney Island Community attended and participated in breakout sessions. The breakout sessions focused on: public notification of illicit discharges, education and outreach to prevent illicit discharges, community requests, and trash “hot spots” for floatables reduction. Each breakout group compiled a list of suggestions and requests for initiatives that DEP might implement in Coney Island Creek. � Throughout the rest of 2017, DEP continued responding to the community’s ideas and developing a series of strategies. � The final workshop gave DEP an opportunity to share with the community the final results of its suggestions. The City took the following actions after meeting with the public during SWMP development: � Installed informational signage: » DEP initiated a pilot program to install signs at eight DEP MS4 outfalls in Coney Island Creek. These signs inform the public on how to identify and report dry weather discharges. » In partnership with DPR, DEP installed “No Swimming” signs at seven locations near the Creek. These locations were selected in consultation with Brooklyn Community Board 13. � Provided the public with more information about discharges: » DEP began posting the Sentinel Monitoring Reports on its website. » DEP added Coney Island Creek to the CSO wet weather advisory notifications. � Developed specific programs for Coney Island Creek: » DEP launched the “Don’t Trash Our Waters” Media Campaign in Coney Island. » In partnership with DEP, DPR installed pet waste bag dispensers and strategically placed trash cans in Kaiser Park and Calvert Vaux Park. Coney Island workshop (Photo Courtesy of Partnerships for Parks 2017) 174 175 Chapter 12 Recordkeeping and Reporting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 176 Humpback Whale in NYC Harbor 177 Annually, in accordance with Part IV.M of the MS4 Permit, the City prepares a report documenting the status of compliance activities related to the MS4 Permit. The reporting year for each Annual Report is the calendar year (January 1 to December 31). The City submits its MS4 Annual Reports to NYSDEC in an electronic format via email by September 30 following each reporting year. 12.1 Recordkeeping and Data Management In accordance with Part IV.L of the MS4 Permit, each City agency is responsible for maintaining its own records generated in support of MS4 Permit compliance for at least five years after it generates those records. The City developed a Consolidated Information Tracking (CIT) System Framework to guide the building of the CIT System that is now used for the recordkeeping and reporting required by the MS4 Permit. Appendix 12.1 is the City's certification of the CIT System Framework. The CIT System stores SWMP implementation and MS4 Annual Report information. The CIT System allows agencies the option to upload information and supporting documentation on their measurable goals and other annual reporting items. These records can include original paperwork, reports, electronic data and files, and other information regarding implementation of the SWMP. DEP uses this information to draft MS4 Annual Reports that describe SWMP implementation and effectiveness. The CIT System can also serve as a resource for providing information if requested by NYSDEC or the public. The public can request information on the SWMP by emailing MS4@dep.nyc.gov. 12.2 Annual Report Process and Schedule The City produces the Annual Report in four stages: Data Consolidation. As discussed in Section 12.1, DEP collects data on agencies’ activities completed during the reporting year through the CIT System. DEP obtains additional information through the SWPTS, the Industrial and Commercial System, and additional reports prepared for other purposes. DEP then compiles these materials for reporting on measurable goals and their associated measures. Draft of the MS4 Annual Report. In compliance with Part IV.M of the MS4 Permit, DEP drafts an Annual Report that summarizes the compiled data and reports and describes the implementation of the SWMP. DEP provides this draft to the participating agencies for internal discussion and review. The draft Annual Report generally includes a brief description of the SWMP activities completed during the reporting year, measurable goals, and specific reporting requirements included in the MS4 Permit. The draft Annual Report also includes activities planned for the next year, and, if applicable, any proposed changes to the SWMP and this Plan. Public Review of the Draft MS4 Annual Report. As described in Chapter 3: Public Involvement and Participation, the City publishes the draft Annual Report on the DEP website and presents the draft Annual Report for public questions and comments by July 1 following each reporting year, and prior to submittal of the final Annual Report to NYSDEC. Submittal to NYSDEC. In accordance with Part IV.M of the Permit, once the City addresses public comments and modifies the draft report accordingly, the City submits the final Annual Report to DEC by September 30 following each reporting year and posts it on the DEP website. mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 178 BMP Measurable Goals Measures Provide annual reports to document compliance with the MS4 permit Develop Annual Reports due September 30 following each reporting Year Summary of annual effectiveness assessment Date of Municipal Compliance Certification submission 12.3 Monitoring and Assessment of Controls In accordance with Part IV.M.4.j.i of the Permit, the City includes an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report. This assessment evaluates the effectiveness of the overall SWMP and progress towards reducing stormwater pollution from the MS4. The City reviews the effectiveness of the SWMP through achievement of its measurable goals. As data from the Monitoring Program become available, the City also provides results from the information collected and analyzed. The Annual Effectiveness Assessment reviews: � appropriateness of significant best management practices (BMPs); � effectiveness of the implementation of the SWMP components; and � progress towards reducing the discharge of pollutants of concern to the maximum extent practicable. 12.4 Measurable Goals and Program Assessment Table 12.1 lists measurable goals and measures for identified Recordkeeping and Reporting BMPs. MS4 Annual Reports include these measures to detail the status of each measurable goal and BMP. Part IV.M.4.j.i of the MS4 Permit requires an Annual Effectiveness Assessment in each Annual Report, as described above. The City bases the Annual Effectiveness Assessment on its achievement of the stated measurable goals for each chapter of this Plan, including this program. The City also periodically refines these measurable goals with information gained from program planning and implementation, interagency working groups, and public input. Continuing to refine and update the measurable goals allows the City to better quantify and accurately represent the effectiveness of each one. Summary of BMPs, Measurable Goals, and Measures for Recordkeeping and Reporting Table 12.1 179 Definitions and Acronyms 180 Definitions Annual Report: The City publishes, by September 30 of each calendar year, a report on SWMP implementation. The report summarizes activities performed throughout the reporting period (January 1 to December 31) by all agencies with obligations under the MS4 Permit; and reports on BMPs, measurable goals and their measures, as detailed in each chapter of the Plan and in Part IV.M of the MS4 Permit. Applicant: The term “applicant” means the person filing the online application. This may be the owner, developer, qualified professional, or other person that is a registered user in the online application system. Best Management Practice (BMP): Schedules, activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the State. BMPs also include treatment requirements (if determined necessary by DEP), operating procedures, and practices to control runoff, spillage, and leaks; sludge or waste disposal; or drainage from areas that could contribute pollutants to stormwater discharges. BMPs are referred to in EPA fact sheets and other materials. BMPs are also referred to as “activities” or “management practices” throughout the MS4 requirements under the MS4 permit. As such, BMPs are a sub-element of the SWMP Plan that describe the specific actions that will be taken to achieve the requirements of one or more sub-paragraphs of the SWMP Plan Element (e.g., the BMP “Identify Target Audiences for the POCs to each waterbody/ sewershed of concern” would address the requirements of paragraph IV.A.1 of the SPDES MS4 Permit). Better Site Design (BSD): Better Site Design is a form of Green Infrastructure and is similar to Low Impact Development (LID). Better Site Design incorporates non-structural and natural approaches to new and redevelopment projects to reduce impacts on watersheds by conserving natural areas, reducing impervious cover and better integrating stormwater treatment. Bluebelt: A Bluebelt is a collection of streams, ponds and wetlands that naturally convey, store, and filter stormwater runoff. The Bluebelt program preserves natural drainage corridors such as streams and ponds, and optimizes them through the design and construction of stormwater controls to filter stormwater before it empties into the New York Harbor. Borough-block-lot: Parcel numbers used to identify the location of buildings or properties. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO): Sometimes, during heavy rain and snow storms, a combined sewer system receives higher than normal flows. WRRFs are unable to handle flows that are more than twice their design capacity and when this occurs, a mix of excess stormwater and untreated wastewater discharges directly into the City’s waterways at certain outfalls to prevent upstream flooding. This is called a combined sewer overflow (CSO). Combined Sewer System: A sewer system used to convey both wastewater and stormwater in a single pipe to WRRFs. During times of heavy precipitation, the combined sewer system may discharge into surface waters. See also Combined Sewer Overflow. CSO Outfall: The physical point where a municipally owned or operated combined sewer discharges to surface waters of the state. CSO Regulator: A flow control structure in a combined sewer system that diverts a controlled portion of flow from the collection system to an intercepting sewer and allows the remaining flow to discharge to nearby waters as a combined sewer overflow. Compliance Activity: One or more specific actions taken to achieve a measurable goal, including a defined set of metrics that describe the activity. Development activity: The term “development activity” means soil disturbance on a site including but not limited to land contour work, clearing, grading, excavation, demolition, construction, reconstruction, new development, redevelopment, creation or replacement of impervious surface, stockpiling activities or placement of fill. Clearing activities include but are not limited to the cutting and skidding of trees, stump removal and/or brush root removal. Such term does not include routine maintenance (such as road resurfacing) that is performed to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of a facility. Covered development project: The term “covered development project” means development activity, private or public, that involves or results in an amount of soil disturbance greater than or equal to 20,000 square feet; or creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface; or is a covered maintenance activity (roadway maintenance that involves 20,000 square feet or more).1 Such term includes development activity that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale involving or resulting in soil disturbance area greater than or equal to 20,000 square feet; or creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface; or is a covered maintenance activity (roadway maintenance that involves 20,000 square feet or more). Such term includes all development activity area that requires a SWPPP pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) construction general permit. 1 As of February 2022, USWR lowered soil disturbance threshold from 1 acre to 20,000 square feet and added triggers of creation of 5000 or more square feet of impervious surface and covered maintenance activity. 181 Delineation: Procedure by which a map or geospatial dataset is prepared that depicts a drainage area and associated discharge point. Developer: The term “developer” means a person that owns or leases land on which development activity that is part of a covered development project is occurring, and/or a person that has operational control over the development activity’s construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to the construction plans and specifications. Direct Drainage: Direct drainage is runoff that is discharged directly to waters of New York State without entering or passing through the MS4. ESRI© ArcGIS: A company and mapping platform used to present geographical information. Facility: A specific building/property where (a) an operation occurs (e.g., a municipal or commercial vehicle maintenance garage) and/or (b) the base of a unit performing an operation off-site in the field (e.g., the facility where a municipal or commercial landscape maintenance operation is based). Floatables: Manmade materials, such as plastics, papers, or other products which, when disposed of onto streets or into catch basins, can ultimately find their way to waterbodies and may create nuisance conditions with regard to aesthetics, recreation, navigation, and waterbody ecology. Green Infrastructure (GI): Green infrastructure infiltrates, evapotranspires, or reuses stormwater, with significant use of soils and vegetation rather than traditional hardscape collection, conveyance, and storage structures. Common green infrastructure approaches include green roofs, trees and tree boxes, rain gardens, vegetated swales, pocket wetlands, infiltration planters, vegetated median strips, reforestation, and protection and enhancement of riparian buffers and floodplains. See also Low Impact Development and Better Site Design. Grey Infrastructure: Grey infrastructure typically denotes end-of-pipe controls such as floatables control, CSO retention tanks, bending weirs, or sewer modifications designed to manage stormwater. Depending on context, may also include traditional collection and conveyance and storage practices. Green Waste: The vegetative portion of the waste stream arising from various sources including waste from domestic and commercial premises and municipal operation. Historical MS4 Map: DEP created the Historical MS4 Map prior to permit issuance in 2015. While the Historical MS4 Map is coarse and contains some inaccuracies, it represented the City’s best understanding of the MS4 area at that time. In developing the SWMP, the City relied upon the Historical MS4 Map to define the MS4 area. The Historical MS4 Map also served as a starting point for the process of mapping the City’s MS4 drainage area and MS4 outfalls required by the MS4 Permit. The Historical MS4 Map is no longer in use. Illicit Discharge: Illicit discharge is any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater, except allowable discharges pursuant to a SPDES permit and/or to DEP rules. Examples of illicit discharges are unauthorized sanitary sewage, garage drain effluent, and waste motor oil. However, an illicit discharge could be any other unauthorized discharge which the City or NYSDEC has determined to be a significant contributor of pollutants to the MS4. Impaired Waters: A water is impaired if it does not meet its designated use(s) defined by the NYSDEC, generally determined by violations of state water quality standards. For purposes of this permit, ‘impaired’ refers to waters for which Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) have been established, for which existing controls such as permits are expected to resolve the impairment, or for which a TMDL is needed. Impaired water compilations are also sometimes referred to as 303(d) lists; 303(d) lists generally include only waters for which TMDLs have not yet been developed. Industrial Activity: The term “industrial activity” means the categories of activities designated as industrial by the SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (GP-0-17-004). Larger Common Plan of Development or Sale: A contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct development activities are occurring, or will occur, under one plan. The term “plan” in “larger common plan of development or sale” is broadly defined as any announcement or piece of documentation [including a sign, public notice or hearing, sales pitch, advertisement, drawing, permit application, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) or City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Application, zoning request, computer design, or physical demarcation (including boundary signs, lot stakes, and surveyor markings)] indicating that construction activities may occur on a specific plot, but does not include area wide re-zonings or projects discussed in general planning documents. For discrete development projects that are located within a larger common plan of development or sale that are at least 1/4 mile apart, each project can be treated as a separate plan of development or sale provided any interconnecting road, pipeline, or utility project that is part of the same “common plan” is not concurrently being disturbed. 182 Level of Potential Impact: The actual or potential magnitude of the water quality impact presented by a certain type of pollutant-generating operation. Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP): Prepared in response to a consent agreement with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and developed using the EPA CSO Control Policy, an LTCP identifies and selects appropriate CSO controls to achieve applicable NYSDEC water quality standards consistent with the Federal CSO Policy and Clean Water Act. Low Impact Development (LID): is a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the predevelopment hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques to create a functionally equivalent hydrologic landscape. Hydrologic functions of storage, infiltration, and ground water recharge, as well as the volume and frequency of discharges are maintained through the use of integrated and distributed micro-scale stormwater retention and detention areas, reduction of impervious surfaces, and the lengthening of flow paths and runoff time. Other strategies include the preservation / protection of environmentally sensitive site features such as riparian buffers, wetlands, steep slopes, valuable (mature) trees, flood plains, woodlands and highly permeable soils. LID principles are based on controlling stormwater at the source by the use of microscale controls that are distributed throughout the site. This is unlike conventional approaches that typically convey and manage runoff in large facilities located at the base of drainage areas. See also Green Infrastructure and Better Site Design. Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP): MEP is a technology-based standard established by Congress in the Clean Water Act §402(p)(3)(B)(iii). Since no precise definition of MEP exists, it allows for maximum flexibility on the part of the MS4 operators (i.e., the City) as they develop their programs (40 CFR 122.2; see also: Stormwater Phase II Compliance Assistance Guide EPA 833-R-00 002, March 2000). When trying to reduce pollutants to the MEP, there must be a serious attempt to comply, and practical solutions may not be lightly rejected. The City would have met the standard if it employed all applicable BMPs except those it could demonstrate, if requested, were not technically feasible in the locality, or whose cost would exceed any benefit to be derived. Accordingly, MEP requires the City to choose effective BMPs, and to reject applicable BMPs only when other effective BMPs will serve the same purpose, the BMPs would not be technically feasible, or the cost would be prohibitive. Measurable Goal: One or more statements characterizing the goals of the SWMP that reflect the needs and characteristics of the City and the areas served by its MS4. Furthermore, the goals were chosen using an integrated approach that addresses the requirements and intent of the provisions of the MS4 Permit. Goals may be qualitative or quantitative. Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP): The Clean Water Act provides that stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity to waters of the United States (including discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer system) are unlawful, unless authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In New York, the EPA-approved State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program provides that industrial facilities engaged in activities defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i-ix) and (xi) must obtain permit coverage for stormwater discharges to waters of the United States through the SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP), unless the facilities are individually SPDES permitted or subject to No Exposure Exclusion (that industrial activities are not exposed to stormwater). Municipal Operations and Facilities: Any operation or facility serving a New York City governmental purpose and over which New York City has operational control. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): 1. owned or operated by a state, city, town, village, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under Section 208 of the CWA, that discharges to surface waters of the state; 2. designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; 3. which is not a combined sewer; and 4. which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works as defined at 40 CFR 122.2 Municipal Upgrades: For the PP/GH Program, municipal upgrades are capital projects as defined by the NYC Charter and that meet the NYC Charter § 224.1 (b)(1) cost threshold. MS4 Area: The term “MS4 area” means those portions of the City of New York served by separate storm sewers and separate stormwater outfalls owned or operated by the City of New York or areas served by separate storm sewers 183 owned or operated by the City of New York that connect to combined sewer overflow pipes downstream of the regulator owned or operated by the city of New York, and areas in which municipal operations and facilities drain by overland flow to waters of the state, as determined by DEP and described on maps of the MS4 area set forth in DEP's rules and available on DEP's website. MS4 Outfall: Defined as any point where a municipally owned or operated separate storm sewer system discharges to either surface waters of the state or to another MS4 (an MS4 owned or operated by another regulated entity). Outfalls include discharges from pipes, ditches, swales, and other points of concentrated flow. However, areas of non concentrated (sheet) flow which drain to surface waters of the state or to another MS4’s system (owned or operated by another regulated entity) are not considered outfalls. MS4 Permit: The New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, issued to the City of New York on August 1, 2015, that defines the requirements to discharge stormwater from the City’s MS4. No Exposure: Used to describe facilities subject to the MSGP where all industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snow melt, and/or runoff. No-Net Increase: Special Condition II.B.1 of the NYSDEC SPDES Discharge Permit NY-0287890 (SPDES Permit) allows the City to discharge stormwater runoff from the MS4 into receiving waterbodies. Part of this Special Condition requires DEP to ensure a no-net increase of a pollutant of concern (POC) into impaired waterbodies where that POC is causing the impairment (impaired waterbodies and POCs are identified in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit). NYC Stormwater Law: Local Law 97 of 2017 provided comprehensive legislation to consolidate, clarify, and supplement DEP’s existing legal authority to act in a regulatory capacity to control pollutant discharges into and from its MS4. Local Law 91 of 2020 extended to the combined sewer area DEP’s legal authority to regulate land development activities. Off-Site Operation: An operation performed away from the facility where the personnel performing the operation are based. On-Site Operation: An operation performed at the facility where the personnel performing the operation are based. Performance Criteria: One or more numeric and/or qualitative statements characterizing the desired outcome of one or more SCMs. Pollutants: Dredged spoil, filter backwash, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water which may cause or might reasonably be expected to cause pollution of the waters of the state in contravention of the standards or guidance values adopted as provided in 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 750-1.2a. Pollutant of Concern (POC): A pollutant causing the impairment of an impaired water segment listed in Appendix II, including nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, and floatables. Priority MS4 Waterbodies: Those waterbodies for which an approved CSO LTCP does not predict compliance with applicable water quality standards and where stormwater contributions from the City’s MS4 are expected to be a significant contributor of the impairment identified in the CSO LTCP. Qualified inspector: The term “qualified inspector” means a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control, such as a licensed Professional Engineer, a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC), or a Registered Landscape Architect. It can also mean someone working under the direct supervision of, and at the same company as, the licensed Professional Engineer or Registered Landscape Architect, provided that person has training in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. Training in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control means that the individual working under the direct supervision of the licensed Professional Engineer or Registered Landscape Architect has received four (4) hours of NYSDEC endorsed training in proper erosion and sediment control principles from a Soil and Water Conservation District, or other NYSDEC endorsed entity. After receiving the initial training, the individual working under the direct supervision of the licensed Professional Engineer or Registered Landscape Architect shall receive four (4) hours of training every three (3) years. It can also mean a person that meets the Qualified Professional qualifications in addition to the Qualified Inspector qualifications. Qualified professional: The term “qualified professional” means a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of stormwater management and treatment such as a licensed Professional Engineer, or a registered landscape architect or other NYSDEC endorsed individual(s). Individuals preparing SWPPPs that require the post construction stormwater management practice component must have an understanding of the principles of hydrology, water quality management practice design, water quantity 184 control design, and, in many cases, the principles of hydraulics. All components of the SWPPP that involve the practice of engineering, as defined by the NYS Education Law (see Article 145), shall be prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, a professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of New York. Regulator: See CSO Regulator. Section 303(d) Listed Waters: Section 303(d) is part of the federal Clean Water Act that requires the NYSDEC to periodically prepare a list of all surface waters in the State for which beneficial uses of the water such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use are impaired by pollutants. These are water quality-limited estuaries, lakes, and streams that fall short of state surface water quality standards, and are not expected to improve within the next two years. Refer to impaired waters for more information. Settleables: Manmade materials that may sink depending on the ambient conditions to which they are subject. Floatables include settleable materials. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): A set of instructions for carrying out routine operations to achieve a specific outcome. Stormwater Construction Permit: The term “stormwater construction permit” means a permit issued by DEP which authorizes development activity on land on which there is a covered development project with an approved SWPPP. Stormwater Control Measure (SCM): An action taken to reduce the actual or potential level of impact of a pollutant-generating operation or activity. Stormwater Controls Working Group: An interagency group formed in 2013 shortly after receiving Executive Order Number 429. This group meets quarterly or as needed to discuss all updates involving the MS4 Permit and SWMP development. Stormwater Maintenance Permit: The term “stormwater maintenance permit” means a permit issued by DEP where maintenance is required of post construction stormwater management facilities by owners of real property benefited by such facilities. Stormwater Management Program (SWMP): The suite of programs developed and implemented by the City, which provides a comprehensive integrated planning approach involving public participation and, where necessary, intergovernmental coordination, to reduce the discharge of POCs and specified pollutants to the MEP, using management practices, control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and other appropriate provisions. The City is required, at a minimum, to develop, implement and enforce a SWMP designed to address POCs and reduce the discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to the MEP, to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the ECL and the Clean Water Act. Stormwater Management Program Plan (the Plan): The Plan used by the City to document developed, planned, and implemented SWMP elements. The Plan describes the SWMP and how the City controls pollutants in stormwater runoff. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): A SWPPP is (i) a plan for controlling stormwater runoff and pollutants during construction and, when required, after construction is completed, or (ii) when used in connection with an industrial stormwater source, a plan, which is required by the MSGP, for controlling stormwater runoff and pollutants. Surface Waters of the State: Includes lakes, bays, sounds, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Atlantic ocean within the territorial seas of the State of New York, and all other bodies of surface water, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, public or private (except those private waters that do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters), which are wholly or partially within or bordering the state or within its jurisdiction. Waters of the state are further defined in 6 NYCRR Parts 800 to 941. Storm sewers are not waters of the State unless they are classified in 6 NYCRR Parts 800 to 941. Nonetheless, a discharge to a storm sewer shall be regulated as a discharge at the point where the storm sewer discharges to waters of the state. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Act and Environmental Conservation Law [other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) (see Section 750-1.24) which also meet the criteria of this definition are not waters of the state]. This exclusion applies only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally created in Surface Waters of the State (such as a disposal area in wetlands) nor resulted from impoundment of Surface Waters of the State. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. It is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. A TMDL stipulates waste load allocations for point source discharges, load allocations for nonpoint sources, and a margin of safety. 185 Acronyms BBL Borough, Block, and Lot BIDs Business Improvement Districts BMP Best Management Practice BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5-Day CAPA City Administrative Procedure Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGP Construction General Permit CIT System Consolidated Information Tracking System COLP City Owned and Leased Properties CPESC Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control CSO Combined Sewer Overflow CWA Clean Water Act DEM Digital Elevation Model DO Dissolved Oxygen ELAP Environmental Laboratory Approval Program ERP Enforcement Response Plan E&SC Erosion and Sediment Control FC Fecal Coliform FSAP Field Sampling Analysis Program GI Green Infrastructure GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HEM Hexane Extractable Material I/C Industrial/Commercial IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination IPIS Integrated Property Information System IPM Integrated Pest Management IPP Industrial Pretreatment Program LDCs Local Development Corporations LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LTCP Long-Term Control Plan MCM Minimum Control Measure MEP Maximum Extent Practicable mL Milliliter mg Milligram MOU Memorandum of Understanding MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit NICE Neighborhood Intensive Cleanup Effort NOI Notice of Intent NOT Notice of Termination NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NYC New York City NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations NYS New York State NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ORI Outfall Reconnaissance Inventory PACP Pipe Assessment Certification Program PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PLUTO Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output POC Pollutant of Concern PPE Personal Protective Equipment PP/GH Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping QC Quality Control ROW Right-of-Way SAFE Solvents, Automotive, Flammables, and Electronics SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SCM Stormwater Control Measure SIC Standard Industrial Code SLR Scorecard Litter Rating SMPs Stormwater Management Practices SOP Standard Operating Procedure Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): A WRRF is a facility which does both wastewater treatment and resource recovery. Wastewater treatment removes pollutants from wastewater before discharge to a waterbody, and resource recovery processes solid waste for the purpose of extracting, converting to energy, or otherwise separating and preparing solid waste for reuse. Water Quality Standard: Measure(s) of purity or quality for any waters in relation to their reasonable and necessary use as promulgated in 6 NYCRR Part 700 et seq. Waterbody of Concern: A waterbody of concern is one for which either the USEPA or NYSDEC has determined that the waterbody is impaired for a pollutant of concern. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def id=42-USC-569142939-1059234751&term occur=999&term src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def id=42-USC-569142939-1059234751&term occur=999&term src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def id=42-USC-569142939-1059234751&term occur=999&term src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def id=42-USC-569142939-1059234751&term occur=999&term src= 186 SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System STEM Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics SWMP Stormwater Management Program SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPTS Stormwater Permitting and Tracking System TDS Total Dissolved Solids TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USWR Unified Stormwater Rule WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WQv Water Quality Volume WRRF Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility New York City Departments and Agencies DCAS Department of Citywide Administrative Services DCP Department of City Planning DDC Department of Design and Construction DEP Department of Environmental Protection BEC Bureau of Environmental Compliance BEDC Bureau of Engineering Design and Construction BEPA Bureau of Environmental Planning and Analysis BLA Bureau of Legal Affairs BPAC Bureau of Public Affairs and Communications BPS Bureau of Police and Security BWS Bureau of Water Supply BWSO Bureau of Water and Sewer Operations BWT Bureau of Wastewater Treatment CMS Compliance Monitoring Section CSI Collections System Investigation (formerly known as CMOM) DERTA Division of Emergency Response and Technical Assessment ERU Emergency Response Unit DOB Department of Buildings DOC Department of Correction DOE Department of Education DOHMH Department of Health and Mental Hygiene DOITT Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications DOT Department of Transportation DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DSNY Department of Sanitation EDC Economic Development Corporation FDNY Fire Department LAW NYC Law Department NYPD Police Department SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SBS Small Business Services OMB Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget MOO Mayor’s Office of Operations ORR Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency MOS Mayor’s Office of Sustainability 187 Appendix 1.1 192 Enforcement Response Plan Appendix 1.2 199 Deliverables in the NYC MS4 Permit and Schedule Appendix 1.3 201 Organizational Chart Appendix 1.4 203 Fiscal Analysis Appendix 2.1 209 311 Complaints related to MS4/Stormwater Management Issues Appendix 3.1 213 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Appendix 5.1 285 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program Appendices Appendix 5.2 291 Rules, Sewer Design Standards, and Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications for the City Appendix 6.1 293 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Appendix 9.1 429 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 Appendix 10.1 447 MS4 Monitoring Program Appendix 12.1 463 CIT System Framework Certification Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City SPDES Number: NY-0287890 188 189 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan Appendix 1.2 Deliverables in the NYC MS4 Permit and Schedule Appendix 1.3 Organizational Chart Appendix 1.4 Fiscal Analysis 190 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) Introduction Purpose The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to the City of New York on August 1, 2015, pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. The purpose of the MS4 permit is to manage urban sources of stormwater runoff to protect the overall water quality and improve water quality in impaired waters. As required by Part III.C of the permit, the City must develop an enforcement response plan (ERP), which sets out the potential responses to violations, as needed to achieve compliance with the following programs (Permit Parts IV.D, IV.E, IV.F and IV.H, respectively): (1) Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE); (2) Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control; (3) Post-Construction Stormwater Management; and (4) Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources. This document describes the City’s enforcement response protocol for investigating, documenting and enforcing against illicit discharges and potential illicit discharges into the MS4 as well as violations of MS4-related rules and regulations, in order to ensure compliance with the City’s MS4 permit. As the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will administer the above-referenced programs on behalf of the City, it will implement this plan in cooperation with other city agencies, including the Environmental Control Board (ECB), and the Departments of Buildings (DOB), Small Business Services (SBS) and City Planning (DCP). Approach DEP has based its approach on progressive enforcement, as required by the permit Part III.C.1, addressing “persistent non-compliance, repeat or escalating violations, or incidents of major environmental harm” through “progressively stricter responses,” taking into consideration the violator’s responsiveness and history of violations as well as the severity and type of violation. Enforcement responses include verbal warnings, written notices of non-compliance (NON), written notices of violation (NOVs or summonses), citations with civil and administrative penalties, criminal penalties, stop work orders, cease and desist orders, and withholding of plan approvals or permits. 191 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan Definitions Authorized Inspection Agent. The term “authorized inspection agent” means an individual authorized pursuant to a contract entered into by DEP to conduct inspections on behalf of DEP. Chronic Violator. The term “chronic violator” means a person or facility that has continuing or repeated violations of the applicable stormwater requirements. Commissioner’s Order. The term “Commissioner’s Order” means any order issued by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection that may be necessary for the enforcement of the rules for use of and discharges to the MS4. Covered development project. The term “covered development project” means development activity that involves or results in an amount of soil disturbance within the MS4 area greater than or equal to one acre. Such term includes development activity that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale involving or resulting in soil disturbance within the MS4 area greater than or equal to one acre or as established pursuant to these rules. Such term shall include all development activity within the MS4 area that requires a SWPPP pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) construction general permit. Department (DEP). The term “Department” or “DEP” means the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Industrial stormwater source. The term “industrial stormwater source” means any premises or facility that is subject to the MSGP. Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP). The term “MSGP” means the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), GP-0-17-004 or its successor, which covers discharges of stormwater to surface waters of the state from industrial activities. Notice of Non-Compliance (NON). The term “NON” means a warning that a condition exists or an activity is being conducted that violates or may violate the rules for use of and discharges to the MS4. Notice of Intent (NOI). The term “Notice of Intent” or “NOI” means the document submitted to NYSDEC to obtain coverage under the NYSDEC construction general permit or the MSGP. Notice of Termination (NOT). The term “Notice of Termination” or “NOT” means the document submitted to NYSDEC to terminate coverage under the NYSDEC construction general permit or the MSGP. Notice of Violation (NOV). The term “Notice of Violation” or “NOV” means a civil summons returnable before the ECB. NYSDEC Construction General Permit (CGP). The term “Construction General Permit” or “CGP” means the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, GP-0-15-002 or its successor. The owner or developer of a construction project that will involve soil disturbance of one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the CGP before commencing any construction activity. Stormwater Construction Permit. The term “Stormwater Construction Permit” means a permit issued by the Department authorizing development activity on land on which there is a covered development project in accordance with an approved stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Stormwater Maintenance Permit. The term “Stormwater Maintenance Permit” means a permit issued by DEP where maintenance of post-construction stormwater management facilities by owners of real property is required. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPP. The term “stormwater pollution prevention plan” or “SWPPP” means (i) when used in connection with a covered development project, a plan for controlling stormwater runoff and pollutants during construction and, where required by DEP's rules, after construction is completed, or (ii) when used in connection with an industrial stormwater source, a plan, which is required by the MSGP, for controlling stormwater runoff and pollutants. 192 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan Identifying/Investigating Noncompliance The City may become aware of stormwater non-compliance or violations in a number of ways. Permit-required inspections or monitoring may reveal non-compliance: the City’s programs include periodic or complaint-based compliance inspections of facilities subject to Construction/Post-Construction and Industrial/Commercial programs and routine monitoring and inspections to support the IDDE program (as authorized by Ad Code §24-524(k) and Ad Code §24-589), as required by the MS4 permit and DEP’s WWTP SPDES permits. Staff of other city agencies may also identify illicit connections or illicit discharges during the course of performing their regular job functions. Finally, there may be complaints from the public. This section discusses the City’s plans for inspections in each of the three regulatory programs required by the MS4 permit: IDDE, Construction/Post-Construction, and Industrial/Commercial. IDDE DEP may receive a complaint concerning an illicit connection or discharge through the City’s 311 system or DEP may observe an illicit discharge during the course of operation. When one of these mechanisms triggers an IDDE investigation, DEP conducts appropriate in-sewer and/or aboveground inspection(s) to identify the source of dry weather discharge/ POCs entering the MS4, consistent with applicable law, and takes necessary enforcement action to require abatement of the discharge. When another City agency identifies an illicit connection or discharge on their property, the agency is responsible for tracking, eliminating, and reporting it. Construction/Post-Construction The MS4 permit Parts IV.E.1(h) and (i) and IV.F.1(g) require DEP to address stormwater runoff to the MS4 from new construction activities and new development and redevelopment projects that result in soil disturbance of 1 acre or more. DEP inspects sites that have received SWPPP approval and permits under the DEP MS4 construction/post-construction permitting, inspection and enforcement program. With respect to projects covered by the CGP with an active NOI at the time of SWMP approval and under active construction, DEP performs inspections triggered by complaints to DEC or the City, and refers violations to DEC for enforcement action. Other inspections in response to complaints may identify projects that are not covered by the CGP but may require coverage; these projects will also be referred to DEC for follow-up action. With respect to Covered Development Projects, DEP uses announced and unannounced inspections, in accordance with applicable law, to determine whether projects have obtained appropriate permits under DEP’s program and are complying with their SWPPPs. DEP prioritizes inspection sites that are most likely to have an adverse impact on water quality, based on the amount of exposed soil, the location of the site relative to a water body and the past performance of the responsible parties. With respect to developed sites, DEP performs inspections based on complaints of discharges entering City sewers. Following the completion of construction, DEP performs, on a complaint basis and periodically, compliance verification inspections of sites with NYC stormwater maintenance permits to determine whether the owners are complying with their Stormwater Maintenance Permits and maintaining their stormwater facilities. Industrial Stormwater Sources The MS4 permit Part IV.H.3 requires the City to inspect facilities subject to the MSGP for stormwater discharges from industrial activities. Those facilities are prioritized for inspection according to the following criteria that characterize their potential for POC discharges or other water quality impacts to impaired waters: POC discharges to impaired waters; nature of on-site pollutant sources; proximity to a waterbody; violation history of the facility; and inspection reports and sampling results. DEP inspects “high” priority facilities annually; “medium” priority, at least once every three (3) years; and “low” priority at least once every five (5) years. DEP re-inspects within one year, facilities that receive a written violation. Facility inspection will include review of the facility’s compliance with its SWPPP. Non-compliance with the provisions of the SWPPP may result in enforcement action. 193 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan Enforcement Responses The City has the legal authority to utilize any combination of the following enforcement measures, and to escalate enforcement responses when necessary: 1 Verbal Warnings are “consultative” in nature and specify the non-compliance and required corrective action. 2 Written Notices explain the nature of the violation and a deadline for taking corrective action. » Commissioner’s Orders (Ad Code §24-524(a) and Ad Code §24-581) » NONs with Commissioner’s Order » NOVs that can incur civil penalties ((Ad Code §24-524(f) and Ad Code §24-585)) and may be accompanied by Commissioner’s Orders that require cleanup and/or abatement of discharges, 3 DEP may issue stop work orders for construction/post-construction (Ad Code §24-558(a)), when DEP finds that development activity is in violation of chapter 5-a of the Administrative Code, DEP’s implementing rules, the permit and/or the SWPPP and that the specified work being performed has or could have an effect on the discharge of pollutants, stormwater runoff volume or stormwater runoff velocity. In such a case, the specific work must cease (except work authorized or required by the Commissioner to ensure public safety or to stabilize the construction site, such as activities directed at cleaning up, abating discharge, and installing appropriate control measures). 4 Cease and Desist Orders – DEP (Ad Code §24-524(b) and Ad Code §24-582(a)) and ECB (Ad Code §24-524(d) and Ad Code §24-583(a)) 5 Halting or preventing a discharge (e.g., by terminating water supply to a facility) (Ad Code §24-582(c) and Ad Code §24-583(b)) 6 Withholding plan approvals or revoking a permit (construction/post-construction) (Ad Code §24-557) 7 Assessing recovery and remediation costs (Ad Code §24-524(h) and Ad Code §24-587) 8 Criminal penalties (DEP may refer to DA or federal prosecutors for prosecution) (Ad Code §24-524(g) and Ad Code §24-586). Responsibilities of Enforcement Personnel Employees of DEP and Authorized Inspection Agents have the following responsibilities: � Reviewing, investigating, and tracking instances of noncompliance; � Identifying suspected violations during facility inspections and sampling activities; � Determining appropriate enforcement responses and ensuring timely action; � Issuing verbal warnings, Orders, NOVs (with recommended penalties), and compliance schedules. Overview of Enforcement Responses Enforcement personnel consider a number of factors when determining the proper enforcement response: � Severity of the violation, including duration, type of pollutant and quantity of pollutants, � Effect of the violation on receiving water or public health and safety, � Effect of the violation on City infrastructure, and � Violator’s history of violations and enforcement actions. All enforcement responses will specify the nature of the violation and the required corrective action as well as a deadline 194 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan for completing that action. In some instances, DEP may initially issue a verbal warning or an NON, which may be accompanied by a Commissioner’s Order. When there is continued non-compliance or the violator fails to timely take corrective action, DEP will respond with more severe enforcement responses such as civil summonses with fines and Commissioner’s Orders. When a condition exists in violation of the relevant provisions of the Administrative Code or DEP’s implementing rules or orders, and such condition creates or may create an imminent danger to the sewer system or to the public health or to the life or safety of persons, the Commissioner may issue a cease and desist order. If there is continued or knowing violation of the relevant provisions of the Administrative Code or ECB’s implementing rules or orders, or if ECB finds that the violation presents or may present a danger to the environment or threatens to interfere with the operation of the sewer system, ECB, after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, may issue a cease and desist order. If an entity does not comply with an order issued by DEP or ECB within the time specified, DEP may act to halt or prevent such discharge by: 1 sealing, blocking or otherwise inactivating any equipment, facility, or device; 2 terminating the water supply to the premises; 3 sealing, blocking or otherwise inactivating any private sewer or drain emptying directly or indirectly into the sewer system; or 4 any other means or method that is reasonable under the circumstances. In addition, failure to comply with a Cease and Desist Order may result in the NYC Corporation Counsel’s maintaining an action to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction the violation of the Order (Ad Code §24-524(e) and Ad Code §24-584). Any violation of the Administrative Code, Rules or an Order may result in a summons with civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 for each violation (each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense). The City may issue follow-up summonses with escalating fines. Continued and knowing violation of the Administrative Code, Rules or an Order may result in referral for criminal investigation. In addition, for any violation of the Administrative Code, Rules or an Order, an entity may be liable to the City for any expense (e.g., costs for response, remediation and emergency services) or any other loss or damage suffered by the City by reason of such violation. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) The MS4 permit Part IV.D requires NYC to develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges and illicit connections to the MS4. Working within the parameters of the MS4 permit, section 24-520.1 of the Administrative Code prohibits any direct or indirect discharge into the MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater, except “allowable non-runoff,” as defined in DEP’s rules. DEP’s rules define “allowable runoff” as non-stormwater discharges associated with firefighting activities or as otherwise authorized by the Commissioner and provide a process by which a discharger may obtain approval for a non-stormwater discharge, consistent with the permit’s requirements. Enforcement against an entity responsible for an unauthorized non-stormwater discharge that the DEP Commissioner has not approved will be subject to enforcement as delineated in Section IV.B above and penalties as delineated in 48 RCNY section 3-123. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control and Post-Construction Stormwater Management MS4 permit Parts IV.E and F require NYC to develop, implement and enforce a program, which addresses stormwater runoff from construction activities on new development and redevelopment projects that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. DEP requires a Stormwater Construction Permit for any development activity on a covered development project located 195 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan in the MS4 area, and a Stormwater Maintenance Permit for a covered development project that requires a SWPPP that includes post-construction stormwater management facilities. Generally, enforcement proceeds as detailed above in Section IV.B. However, an additional measure available to DEP under the Construction/Post-Construction program is the Stop Work Order. Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources The MS4 Permit requires NYC to address stormwater discharges from industrial sources in the separately-sewered portions of the City. The permit also requires NYC to inspect other facilities, including commercial entities, to determine whether they generate significant contributions of pollutants to stormwater discharges. DEP will maintain and update every 5 years an inventory of all industrial and commercial facilities that could discharge pollutants of concern in stormwater to the MS4. DEP will inspect the MSGP-permitted facilities to determine whether they are complying with the MSGP and their SWPPPs.1 The MS4 permit requires the City to conduct enforcement activities as necessary to require compliance with the MSGP. Generally, enforcement proceeds as detailed above in Section IV.B. However, an additional measure available to DEP under the Construction/Post-Construction Program is the Stop Work Order. Enforcement Tracking As required by Part III.C.2 of the MS4 permit, DEP tracks instances of noncompliance through an online database. The database documents the following: � Name of owner/operator of facility or site of violation � Location and type of stormwater source (i.e., construction project, industrial facility) � NOV number or case identification number � Description of violation � Required schedule for returning to compliance � Description of enforcement response used, including escalated responses if repeat violations occur or violations are not resolved in a timely manner � Accompanying documentation of enforcement response (e.g., notices of non-compliance, notices of violation) � Any referrals to different Departments or agencies � Date violation was resolved Recidivism Reduction DEP will identify chronic violators of applicable stormwater requirements in order to reduce the rate of non-compliance recidivism. The MS4 permit defines a “chronic violator” as a “person or facility that has continuing or repeated violations of the applicable stormwater requirements.” 1 DEP will also inspect unpermitted industrial and commercial facilities in the inventory to provide NYSDEC the data necessary to determine whether such facilities require MSGP permitting or an individual SPDES permit. 196 Appendix 1.1 Enforcement Response Plan DEP documents inspection results for these chronic violators and implements an increased inspection frequency or other disincentives. Examples of these measures include summonses with fines (up to $10,000 per day per violation), cease and desist orders, referral for civil action, and/or referral for criminal investigation. Abbreviations DEC: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation DEP: New York City Department of Environmental Protection ECB: Environmental Control Board ERP: Enforcement Response Plan IDDE: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination MS4: Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System MSGP: Multi-Sector General Permit NON: Notice of Non-Compliance NOV: Notice of Violation OATH: Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings SPDES: State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 197 Appendix 1.2 Deliverables in the NYC MS4 Permit and Schedule Deliverables in the NYC MS4 Permit and Schedule Deliverable Permit Schedule Status Implemented II.B Impaired Waters Development of draft of land use coefficients and pollutant removal efficiencies for practices required for developers as part of pollutant load analysis (Part II.B.1.d) February 1, 2018 Complete ü II.B Legal Authority Description of existing legal authority to control discharges to the MS4 (Part III.B.1.a) February 1, 2016 Complete ü Description of the City’s Legal Authority to Control Discharges to the MS4 (Part III.B.1.b)* August 1, 2017 Complete ü III.C.E Stormwater Program Administration Notification to entities regulated under MS4 permit (Part III.E) November 1, 2018 After SWMP Submittal IV. Stormwater Management Program Plan Progress Reports on the development of the SWMP Plan, including public involvement/participation components (Part IV. Introduction) August 1, 2016 Complete ü August 1, 2017 Complete ü Submission of the complete draft SWMP Plan, including all com ponents identified in Parts II.B, III.A through D, and IV. Introduction and IV.A through J (Part IV. Introduction) August 1, 2018 Complete ü IV. C Mapping Preliminary map with information completed to date (Part IV.C.2) August 1, 2018 Complete ü Final map with information outlined in Part IV.C.1 (Part IV.C.2) August 1, 2020 After SWMP Submittal Updated MS4 Drainage Map (Part IV.C.3) Every 5 years after EDP After SWMP Submittal IV.D Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Updated outfall list (Part IV. D.2) Every year after EDP Ongoing ü Illicit discharge trackdown (Phase I) schedule (Part IV.D.4) Within 30 days of discovery or discharge Ongoing ü Illicit discharge abatement program (Phase II) schedule (Part IV.D.4) On or before end date of Phase I schedule Ongoing ü Report of the location and ownership of illicit discharges to the MS4 where the MS4 discharges to waterbodies that are shown to have over 200 colonies/100 ml of fecal coliform and a sched ule to eliminate those discharges (Part IV.D.5) August 1, 2018 and every year thereafter Complete ü Report on the unauthorized non-stormwater discharges to NYC's MS4 or CSO outfalls downstream of the regular (Part IV.D.5) August 1, 2018 and every year thereafter Complete ü IV.F Post-Construction Stormwater Management Establish an annually update an inventory of post-construc tion stormwater management practices within the MS4 storm seweshed area (Part IV.F.1.e) August 1, 2018 and every year thereafter Complete ü * The City will certify that it has adequate legal authority pursuant to Part III.B. upon DEP’s adoption of final rules to implement the regulatory programs authorized under Chapter 5-A of the Administrative Code. 198 Appendix 1.2 Deliverables in the NYC MS4 Permit and Schedule IV.G Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities Perform an initial self-assessment of highest priority municipal operations and facilities (Part IV.G.1.d.i) August 1, 2018 Complete ü IV. H Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources Update inventory of industrial/commercial facilities that are pos sible sources (Part IV.H.1.a.i) Every 5 years after preparation of initial inventory After SWMP Submittal Develop interim reports on the development of the SPDES MSGP inspection program (Part IV.H.3.a.i) August 1, 2016 Complete ü August 1, 2017 Complete ü Submit certification that training to inspectors to conduct indus trial stormwater facility inspections has been completed (Part IV.H.4) Every 2 years after SPDES MSGP inspection program approval After SWMP Submittal IV.I Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Submit certification that an interim floatable and settleable trash and debris reduction media campaign has been developed with implementation schedule (Part IV.I.3) November 1, 2015 Complete ü Submit draft work plan for determining the amount of flotable and settleable trash and debris discharged, including land-based sources, from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables for NYSDEC review and approval (Part IV.I.3) August 1, 2017 Complete ü Submit a schedule for loading rate study for floatable and settle able trash and debris from the MS4 to waterbodies impaired for floatables in the MS4 areas (Part IV.I.3) 3 months after final work plan approval After Work Plan Approval Commence study to determine loading rate of floatable and set tleable trash and debris from the MS4 to waterbodies impaired for floatables in the MS4 areas (Part IV.I.3) 2 years after final work plan approval After Work Plan Approval IV.J Monitoring and Assessment of Control Submit certification that Program has been implemented (Part IV.J.3) August 1, 2020 After SWMP Submittal IV. M, IV.N, & IV.O Annual Reporting Public Presentation of draft annual report (Part IV.B.4.a) Ever July 1st after every annual reporting year After SWMP Submittal Annual Report Submission (Part IV.M) and MCC form (Part IV.N) Every September 30th after every annual reporting year After SWMP Submittal Annual effectiveness assessment (included in Annual Reporting Part IV.M.4.j.i) and associated review of activities or control mea sures (Part IV.M.4.j.iii) 4 years after EDP and annually thereafter After SWMP Submittal Apply for Permit Renewal (Part IV.O) 180 days prior to permit expiration After SWMP Submittal 199 MS4 Permit Authority and Administration Stormwater Management Program Responsible Agencies Key Personnel Include: Program Administra tion Legal Authority Enforce ment Respsonse Plan Fiscal Analysis Reliance on Third Parties Public Education and Outreach Public Involvement and Partici pation Mapping IDDE Construction and Post Construction Controls PP/GH Industrial/ Commercial Sources Control of Floatable and Settle able Trash and Debris Monitoring and Assessment Special Conditions for Imparied Waters Record keeping and Reporting City Law Deputy Chief Environmental Law Division Yes Lead Yes Yes Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DCAS Deputy Chief of Staff No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes DCP City Planner No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes DDC Project Executive Sustainable Infrastructure No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes DEP Stormwater Management Program Coordinator Lead Yes Lead Lead Yes Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead DOB Administrative Architect No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes DOC Director of Compliance Environmental Health Unit No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes DOE Water Treatment Manager No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes DOHMH Chief of Environmental & Water Sciences No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes DOT Senior Executive Director No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes DPR MS4 Project Coordinator No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes DSNY Director, Regulatory Compliance and Career Development No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes FDNY Facilities Compliance Coordinator No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes NYPD Environmental Coordinator No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes SBS Executive Director No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Appendix 1.3 Organizational Chart 200 MS4 Permit Authority and Administration Stormwater Management Program Responsible Agencies Key Personnel Include: Program Administra tion Legal Authority Enforce ment Respsonse Plan Fiscal Analysis Reliance on Third Parties Public Education and Outreach Public Involvement and Partici pation Mapping IDDE Construction and Post Construction Controls PP/GH Industrial/ Commercial Sources Control of Floatable and Settle able Trash and Debris Monitoring and Assessment Special Conditions for Imparied Waters Record keeping and Reporting City Law Deputy Chief Environmental Law Division Yes Lead Yes Yes Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DCAS Deputy Chief of Staff No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes DCP City Planner No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes DDC Project Executive Sustainable Infrastructure No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes DEP Stormwater Management Program Coordinator Lead Yes Lead Lead Yes Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead DOB Administrative Architect No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes DOC Director of Compliance Environmental Health Unit No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes DOE Water Treatment Manager No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes DOHMH Chief of Environmental & Water Sciences No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes DOT Senior Executive Director No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes DPR MS4 Project Coordinator No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes DSNY Director, Regulatory Compliance and Career Development No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes FDNY Facilities Compliance Coordinator No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes NYPD Environmental Coordinator No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes SBS Executive Director No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Appendix 1.3 Organizational Chart 201 Appendix 1.4 Fiscal Analysis The MS4 Permit requires the City to prepare an analysis of the expenditures necessary to meet the permit requirements during the five-year permit term. This appendix provides this information. Specifically, part III.D.2 of the MS4 permit requires: [By August of 2018] the Permittee must conduct an analysis of the capital and operation and maintenance expenditures necessary to meet the requirements of this permit during the permit term, including any development, implementation, and enforcement activities required. The analysis must include a description of the source of funds that are proposed to meet the necessary expenditures, including legal restrictions on the use of such funds. I. Overview A. Program Estimates In accordance with Part III.D.2 of the MS4 permit, New York City (City) has conducted an analysis of the expenditures necessary to meet the MS4 permit requirements during this permit term (2015-2020). Overall, the City expects to have incurred approximately $87,393,111 in expenses from the Expense Budget and $9,905,860 from the Capital Budget between August 2015 and August 2020 for development, implementation, and enforcement of programs to ensure compliance with the permit. For the spending that has been incurred to date, the City’s budget for each year has included sufficient funds to cover expense for the corresponding year. This estimate focuses on costs incurred primarily for the purposes of compliance with the MS4 permit. It does not include certain ongoing City functions and programs that are related to MS4 programs but exist independently of the Permit’s mandate. For example, this estimate does not include DCAS’s inventory of City facilities, which may support mapping or other programs included in the SWMP but predates the Permit and is independently required under the City Charter. Street sweeping is another example of a program that the City funds that supports the MS4 program, but which is implemented for independent purposes and not included in the total estimated costs. Similarly, it does not consistently include routine maintenance activities and equipment costs that may also qualify as Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping (PP/GH). Additionally, the estimate does not include the cost of certain professional and administrative services that facilitate MS4 compliance or the salaries of agency staff whose work incidentally supports MS4 compliance but is performed primarily for purposes unrelated to the MS4 program. For instance, it does not include citywide services and resources provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the New York City Law Department, or the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, which have provided and will continue to provide assistance in MS4 program development, implementation, and enforcement. Moreover, this estimate does not include all staff and overhead costs where agencies are expanding the responsibilities of existing staff to include work related to the SWMP. Finally, additional expenses may arise as the City implements the program, beyond those included here, which are currently unknown. Estimated total expenses over the five year permit term (2015-2020): Capital Funds Expense Funds 9,905,860 87,393,111 202 Appendix 1.4 Fiscal Analysis B. Sources of Funds To support the MS4 program, the City relies on both capital and expense funds. Each of these sources has restrictions on the types of projects for which the funds can be used. 1. Expense Budget The Expense Budget funds City government operating costs, including the operation of the City’s water and sewer systems. These funds are used for two different types of expenses: Personnel Services, which include salaries and fringe benefits for government employees, and Other Than Personnel Services, which include goods, supplies, certain consultant and contractor fees, and equipment. The Expense Budget is funded by tax revenue collected by the City, which may be used for any municipal purposes, and by utility rates for water and wastewater services, which is to be used solely for the City’s water and sewage system. A large portion of the funds used to develop, implement, and enforce the MS4 program will be drawn from the Expense Budget. 2. Capital Budget The Capital Budget provides funding for the construction and rehabilitation of the City’s infrastructure. Capital expenses relate to the design, construction, or improvement of long-lived assets including schools, roads, and parks. Capital projects can be implemented using in-house or consultant resources, and these expenses, including certain consultant fees (e.g., construction management), would be funded by the Capital Budget. Funds from the Capital Budget can be used only for projects that have a value of at least $35,000 and a period of usefulness of at least five years. The Capital Budget is funded by proceeds from, the New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority (Water Authority), the New York City Transitional Finance Authority, and City general obligation bonds. As with expense funds, the proceeds of Water Authority bonds may be used only in connection with the water and sewer systems, while other bonds may be used for other municipal purposes. The Capital Budget is also funded by grants from federal, State and private sources. These federal grants include funds granted to the City for reconstruction by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). C. Budget Process In order to secure the resources needed to fund the MS4 program, City agencies must undergo a formal budget process for each fiscal year, which includes the following steps: » Step 1: Preliminary Budget Each January, the Mayor presents a preliminary budget—an outline of his priorities and goals for the City. The City Council then follows a process to ensure that the budget reflects the priorities of New Yorkers in all 51 Council Districts. » Step 2: Council Analysis & Hearings From March to April, the Council analyzes the Mayor’s preliminary budget and holds a series of public hearings to identify specific concerns through conversations with residents, advocates, and City agencies. » Step 3: Formal Response The Council formally responds to the Mayor’s preliminary budget. This includes a summary of concerns expressed during the hearings and recommendations to address those concerns. » Step 4: Executive Budget & Hearings In April, the Mayor releases the Executive Budget, an updated proposed budget based on the Council’s response. Again, the Council analyzes this budget and conducts a second round of hearings targeted at outstanding issues. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nyw/home.html http://www.nyc.gov/html/nyw/home.html http://www.nyc.gov/html/tfa/home.html 203 Appendix 1.4 Fiscal Analysis » Step 5: Adopted Budget Through May and June, the Council and the Mayor negotiate adjustments to the Executive Budget, resulting in an agreement known as the Adopted Budget. This agreement must be reached before July 1, the beginning of the next fiscal year. No budget may be adopted without agreement reached between the Council and the Mayor. The Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the City government’s chief financial agency. OMB administers both the Expense Budget and Capital Budget for the City. This process has already taken place for the expenses that have been procured, and will take place for future expenses. II. Funding Development, Implementation, and Enforcement Activities Below are examples of ways in which the City is using the resources described above to develop, implement, and enforce the MS4 Program. A. Development of the SWMP The City’s SWMP development efforts included coordination among City agencies as well as with stakeholders throughout the process. As described in Chapter 1 of the SWMP, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been charged with coordinating efforts among City agencies to ensure the City’s compliance with the MS4 Permit. In so doing, over the last four years, DEP has hired a new team to work specifically on the MS4 program. In addition, DEP has retained a consultant to support the planning and development of the program. As agency commitments are clarified in conjunction with the development of the SWMP programs, a number of other City agencies are hiring staff to coordinate their compliance activities. The costs of those dedicated staff are included in the overall cost estimates provided above. However, as noted, salaries of agency staff whose work supports MS4 compliance but is performed primarily for purposes unrelated to the MS4 program are not generally included here. B. Implementation of major SWMP programs 1. Public Education and Outreach Costs associated with public education on the impact of stormwater on waterbodies will be paid for, in large part, with existing resources from a number of City agencies. In addition, DEP retained consultants for support with media campaigns, including “Don’t Trash Our Waters,” which focused on behavior change, and education/ outreach pilots such as the MS4 outfall signage effort in Coney Island Creek. A number of other agencies will work with DEP on education and outreach. For example, the New York City Parks Department (DPR) has assigned an MS4 Education and Outreach Coordinator to conduct internal and external trainings. In addition, DPR is developing and implementing educational activities with the support of other City agencies. For more information on the Public Education and Outreach program see Chapter 2 of the SWMP. 2. Mapping The development of the MS4 map pursuant to the permit will require additional City resources across a number of different agencies. For example, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has procured necessary 204 Appendix 1.4 Fiscal Analysis software for the mapping requirement, DPR is developing a contract to determine storm sewer flow paths on DPR property, and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) plans to hire a planner to help the agency fulfill its obligations under the permit. Some of the other agencies with mapping obligations under the permit will use existing in-house resources to map the necessary infrastructure and drainage areas. In addition, the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) and DEP are engaging consultants to support the City’s effort to map MS4 infrastructure of City-owned arterial highways. For more information on the Mapping program see Chapter 4 of the SWMP. 3. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control and Post-Construction Stormwater Management To administer the new regulatory program required under the MS4 Permit for construction and post construction controls, DEP is hiring staff to create a new stormwater permitting group within DEP. This group will review and approve SWPPPs; issue permits for construction projects and for maintenance of post construction stormwater management practices; and perform inspections of construction and post-construction sites. DEP is also developing a design manual to address City-specific requirements and preferred practices for covered development projects. City agencies, like regulated private entities, will be responsible for developing SWPPPs, obtaining permits, installing and maintaining both erosion controls during the construction process and post-construction stormwater management practices. For more information on the Construction and Post-Construction program see Chapter 6 of the SWMP. 4. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping DEP engaged a contractor to develop assessment and prioritization procedures for facility/operations along with one-page stormwater control measure (SCM) guides that cover a wide range of work activities conducted by City staff. In addition, DEP has retained a consultant to conduct initial facility stormwater engineering assessments to confirm the priority assignment for each City facility based on pollution potential; develop assessment reports including identification of structural and non-structural best management practices, procedures and policies that will be implemented to reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants of concern; and provide initial pollution prevention training to agency facility personnel. A number of agencies already incorporate stormwater control measures at their facilities as well as green infrastructure (e.g., vegetated swales), and some will be enhancing their stormwater control measures as part of the MS4 program. For example, DPR is developing an Environmental Service Contract and a separate budget through its Facilities Management Division, to fund initial upgrades of its operations and maintenance procedures. In addition, DPR is hiring 5 cleaning crews to undertake periodic system-wide catch basin maintenance on DPR property. DSNY will be hiring a compliance team to develop appropriate operation and maintenance procedures for each facility, to ensure all staff are appropriately trained and to do required reporting. In addition, DSNY will hire auditors to assist facilities with compliance efforts and to provide continued support. For more information on the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping program see Chapter 7 of the SWMP. 5. Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources The MS4 Permit requires the City to prepare and maintain an inventory of all industrial and commercial sites/sources within the MS4 area. DEP’s costs to administer this new inspection and enforcement program include hiring two project managers and a five-year contract with consultants who will inspect publicly and privately-owned facilities covered by the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (MSGP) and assess unpermitted facilities in the inventory that may need to apply for coverage under a SPDES permit. The consultant is also supporting DEP in developing the program’s standard operating procedures and checklists that are going to be used during inspections. 205 Appendix 1.4 Fiscal Analysis Most other agencies that own or operate industrial facilities that are covered by the MSGP will retain MSGP coverage, so they will not incur additional costs. For more information on the Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources program see Chapter 8 of the SWMP. 6. Control of Floatables and Settleable Trash and Debris DEP engaged a consultant to support DEP in determining the floatable loading rate from the MS4. The loading rate will quantify the amount of trash and debris discharged from the MS4 over a period of time and will be used to inform future programs. For more information on the Control of Floatables and Settleable Trash and Debris program see Chapter 9 of the SWMP. 7. Monitoring and Assessment of Controls DEP hired a consultant to assist in the development and implementation of phase one of the monitoring program. The consultant will help DEP with, among other things, data collection that will be used to determine whether there is any correlation between land use type and pollutant loadings. Analysis of the phase one data will be used to develop phase two of the monitoring program, and may aid in targeting pollutant reduction measures and practices to help meet water quality goals for a particular land use type. For more information on the Monitoring and Assessment of Controls program see Chapter 10 of the SWMP. 8. Special Conditions for Impaired Waters DEP has retained a consultant to support the development of technical tools that will be used to ensure that the City is in compliance with its permit obligations related to impaired waters without Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Other agencies will utilize construction contracts to implement additional requirements for Priority MS4 Waterbodies. Funding requirements will be developed at the commencement of specific identified upgrades. For more information on the Special Conditions for Impaired Waters program see Chapter 11 of the SWMP. C. Enforcement for the Three Regulatory Programs 1. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination The Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program is a robust citywide program that DEP has administered for a number of years. The program covers all City sewers, both combined and separate. The City does not expect to incur any additional enforcement costs as a result of the requirements imposed by the MS4 permit. However, as the MS4 program develops, including the monitoring and public outreach portions of the program, reporting of illicit discharges may increase the number of investigations needed, which would require an increase in the funds expended by the City on this program. For more information on the IDDE program see Chapter 5 of the SWMP. 2. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control and Post-Construction Stormwater Management As described above, the Construction and Post-Construction program will require DEP to hire an entirely new enforcement team. DEP hired a director for the new enforcement team and will incur the costs of hiring new inspectors and support staff, purchasing equipment for inspectors including safety equipment and vehicles, and securing office space. For more information on the Construction and Post-Construction program see Chapter 6 of the SWMP. 206 Appendix 1.4 Fiscal Analysis 3. Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources As noted above, pursuant to the MS4 permit, DEP will be responsible for inspections and enforcement at publicly and privately-owned MSGP-covered facilities in the MS4 area. Through the program, DEP will also assess unpermitted facilities to determine their potential need for SPDES permit coverage. In order to comply with these permit requirements, DEP has procured a 5-year contract with a consultant to conduct the initial round of inspections at both permitted and unpermitted sites, and DEP is in process of hiring two project managers to oversee the consultants. For more information on the Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources program see Chapter 8 of the SWMP. III. Conclusion The City has secured and expects to continue to secure adequate resources to meet our obligations under the permit, consistent with the budget process. The estimate in this appendix includes all funding of development and projected implementation costs of which City agencies are currently aware. Additional expenses that may arise during the implementation and enforcement of this program may require additional funds from the City. 207 Appendix 2.1 311 Complaints related to MS4/ Stormwater Management Issues 208 311 is New York City’s main source of government information and non-emergency services. It provides the public with quick, easy access to all New York City government services and information. The public may connect with 311 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year by: � Visiting 311 online at https://portal.311.nyc.gov/; � Calling 311 or (212) NEW-YORK, (212) 639-9675, from outside New York City; � Texting 311-692; � Downloading the NYC 311 mobile app for Apple or Android devices; or � Tweeting to @nyc311 311 is accessible to non-English speakers, available online in over 50 languages and by phone in over 170 languages. 311 facilitates transparency and accountability. Service requests and agency responses are available to general public as open data online. Currently, the public is able to use 311 to access information on many topics relevant to stormwater pollution and water quality. The public is also encouraged to use 311 to report information relevant to stormwater pollution. Through 311 the public can report: � Fire Hydrant Complaint - Report a hydrant that is damaged, missing, or being used inappropriately. � Fire Hydrant Leaking or Running - Report a fire hydrant that is leaking, running, or running at full blast. � Flooding Street or Highway - Report street or highway flooding or a manhole overflow. � Water Leak Complaint - Report water leaking into a public area or basement. � Water Main Break - Report a possible water main break � Water Wasting Complaint -Report the use of too much water. � Waterway Complaint -Report floatables, trash, oil, gasoline, sewage, or an unusual color in a waterway. � Dry Weather Sewage Discharge Complaint - Report of water flowing through a sewer outfall pipe during dry weather. � Dumping in Catch Basin or Sewer - Report grease, gasoline, natural gas, cement, oil, sewage, chemicals or other liquids going into a sewer or catch basin. � Sewer Backup - Report a sewer backup or get information about cleaning up after a flood. � Sewer Line Complaint - Report of a damaged sewer line. � Sewer Odor - Report a smell coming from a catch basin or sewer. � Oil Spill - Report an oil spill. � Chemical Complaint - Report chemical odor or chemicals that are abandoned, not stored safely, or spilled on a roadway or sidewalk � Pesticide Use Without Notification Complaint - Report a person or business that uses pesticide without giving advance notice. � Pigeon Droppings or Odor Complaint - Report pigeon waste or odor for sidewalks and private property. Appendix 2.1 311 Complaints related to MS4/Stormwater Management Issues https://portal.311.nyc.gov/ 209 � Dead Fish in Harbor or Bay - Group of dead fish in a harbor or bay (DEC). � Dog or Animal Waste Complaint - Report property that is unclean due to animal waste. � Bag of Garbage or Loose Debris in Street Complaint - Report a stray bag of garbage or loose debris in a driving or biking lane of a street. � Dirty Yard or Alley Complaint - Report of an unclean or untidy yard, alley, or court that is visible from the street. � Dumpster Complaint - Report a dumpster overflowing with garbage or construction debris. � Garbage Truck Spill Complaint - Report of waste leaking or spilling from a garbage truck or garbage that spilled onto the ground while being loaded into a truck. � Garbage, Recycling, or Organics Storage Complaint - Make a complaint about garbage or recycling stored or put out incorrectly. � Illegal Dumping Complaint - Report the dumping of large amounts of trash. � Litter Basket Request or Complaint - Request a public litter basket, report an overflowing or misused basket, donate litter baskets, or adopt a basket. � Littering Complaint - Report chronic littering of small amounts of trash and debris. � Loose Trash Complaint - Report garbage placed for pickup that has not been properly secured. � Private Carter Sanitation Complaint - Make a complaint about a commercial waste disposal company. � Chemical Complaint - Report a chemical safety problem including odors, abandoned or unsafely stored chemicals, and chemical spills. � Waste Transfer Station Complaint - Make a complaint about the condition of a private waste transfer station. � Dirty Sidewalk or Gutter Complaint - Report that a sidewalk or gutter, including 18 inches into the street, is unclean. � Sidewalk Washing Complaint - Report sidewalk washing when it is not allowed. � Catch Basin Complaint - Report a storm drain that is missing its cover, clogged, sunken, raised, damaged, or defective. � Clogged or Blocked Culvert Complaint - Report a drain underneath a road that requires cleaning or is blocked. � Street Not Swept Complaint - Report a poor or missed street cleaning. � Building Construction Complaint - Report a building construction violation. � Flyer or Poster Complaint - Report unwanted posters, advertisements, handbills, signs, menus, or stickers on public property, private property, or vehicles � Public Plaza Complaint - Report a public plaza that is poorly maintained or not open to the public during posted hours. Public plazas are also known as privately owned public spaces. � Park Maintenance Complaint - Report a park or park facility in need of cleaning or repair. � Beach, Pool, or Sauna Complaint - Report an unsanitary condition, missing or broken safety equipment, or improper maintenance at a beach, pool, or sauna. Appendix 2.1 311 Complaints related to MS4/Stormwater Management Issues 210 Appendix 2.1 311 Complaints related to MS4/Stormwater Management Issues � Home Oil or Chemical Spill Complaint - Get information and assistance with a leaking or damaged home heating oil tank, or help with a chemical spill in your home or yard. � Private Septic or Cesspool Complaint - If an individual, private, on-site sewage disposal system, (septic tank or cesspool), is failing or not operating properly, the public may report the condition. Call 311 to report a problem with a private septic or cesspool system. � State and Federal Parks - Get information about parks within New York City and the greater Long Island area that are run by New York State and federal governments. 211 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 212 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Appendix 3.1 Table of Contents Introduction 2 1.0 Stakeholder Meeting Log 2 2.0 SWMP Development Comments and Responses 4 2.1 Stakeholder Meetings between 2016 and 2017 4 Public Education and Outreach 4 Public Involvement 5 Mapping 6 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) 7 Construction and Post Construction 9 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping 13 Industrial and Commercial (I/C) 14 Floatables 15 Monitoring 18 2.1 Program Specific Engagement 20 Industrial and Commercial 20 Construction and Post-Construction 22 Coney Island Creek 25 2.2 2016 and 2017 Progress Report Comments and Responses 27 2016 Progress Report 27 2017 Progress Report 44 3.0 SWMP Plan Comments and Responses 49 1. Legal Authority 50 2. Public Education and Outreach 52 3. Public Involvement and Participation 56 4. Mapping 58 5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 59 6. Construction and Post-Construction 63 7. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping 69 8. Industrial and Commercial 72 9. Floatables 74 10. Monitoring 77 11. Special Conditions 78 12. Recordkeeping and Reporting 81 13. General SWMP 81 14. Other 85 213 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Introduction As described in Chapter 3: Public Involvement and Participation, the City has led a robust program to involve the public in the development of this Plan. The appendix summarizes public comments received through the following means: � Stakeholder Meetings and Events � Written Responses Received During Formal Comment Periods � Emails Received 1.0 Stakeholder Meeting Log DATE MEETING NAME BOROUGH 6/19/2018 REBNY’s Management Division Board of Directors Manhattan 6/18/2018 General Contractor’s Association Manhattan 6/15/2018 NYC Stormwater Design Manual Workshop Manhattan 6/11/2018 Queens CB7 Queens 6/6/2018 Bronx CB 2 Bronx 6/1/2018 NYC Stormwater Design Manual Workshop Manhattan 5/25/2018 Manhattan Borough Service Cabinet Manhattan 5/21/2018 Trash Free Waters Challenge Kickoff Brooklyn 5/9/2018 MS4 Briefing with SWIM Coalition Manhattan 5/8/2018 2018 Waterfront Conference Manhattan 5/2/2018 NYC Stormwater Design Manual Manhattan 5/2/2018 NYC Stormwater Management Program - Public Meeting on the Draft Plan Staten Island 4/30/2018 Industrial/Commercial Public Meeting Brooklyn 4/26/2018 Bronx Borough Service Cabinet Meeting with Bronx Borough Board Bronx 4/24/2018 NYC Stormwater Management Program - Public Meeting on the Draft Plan Manhattan 4/24/2018 Brooklyn Borough Service Cabinet Meeting Brooklyn 4/17/2018 Queens Borough Service Cabinet Meeting Queens 3/6/2018 MS4 Briefing with SWIM Coalition Manhattan 2/3/2018 Coney Island - MS4 Community Workshop Brooklyn 12/7/2017 Industrial/Commercial Public Meeting Brooklyn 11/29/2017 Industrial/Commercial Public Meeting Bronx 11/28/2017 Industrial/Commercial Public Meeting Staten Island 11/16/2017 Industrial/Commercial Public Meeting Queens 11/9/2017 Industrial/Commercial Public Meeting Queens 11/8/2017 Industrial/Commercial Public Meeting Brooklyn 10/4/2017 Stormwater Advisory Group Meeting Brooklyn 6/15/2017 Stormwater Advisory Group Meeting Staten Island 5/16/2017 Public Meeting on the MS4 Progress Report (2017) Queens 4/19/2017 Stormwater Advisory Group Meeting Manhattan 214 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 4/14/2017 Quarterly Updates with SWIM Coalition Queens 3/17/2017 Session 2: Construction/Post-Construction Lot-Size Threshold Study Manhattan 2/17/2017 Stormwater Advisory Group Meeting Brooklyn 2/4/2017 Quarterly Meeting with SWIM Coalition: SWMP Updates Queens 2/3/2017 Coney Island Creek Community Meeting Brooklyn 1/30/2017 Coney Island Creek - Community Board 13 Brooklyn 1/6/2017 Session 1: Construction/Post-Construction Lot-Size Threshold Study Manhattan 12/13/2016 Stormwater Advisory Group Meeting Bronx 12/8/2016 Quarterly Meeting with SWIM Coalition: SWMP Updates Queens 12/2/2016 DEP MS4 Meeting: Construction/Post-Construction Lot Size Threshold Study Manhattan 11/30/2016 Stakeholder Briefing: Webinar N/A 11/29/2016 Stakeholder Briefing: Webinar N/A 10/20/2016 Harlem River Community Meeting Bronx 9/27/2016 Stormwater Advisory Group Meeting Brooklyn 9/27/2016 Trash Free NYC Waters Working Group Brooklyn 9/13/2016 SWMP Updates with SWIM Coalition Queens 8/5/2016 MS4/CSO Briefing with Hudson Estuary Program Manhattan 6/22/2016 Queens & Bronx Association - MS4 Update Queens 6/22/2016 Public Meeting on the MS4 Progress Report (2016) Manhattan 5/18/2016 The Bronx Community Board 8 - Environmental and Sanitation Committee Meeting Bronx 5/4/2016 Quarterly Meeting with SWIM Coalition: SWMP Updates Manhattan 4/4/2016 Lot-Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study/Scope Review - Conference Call with SWIM Coalition Queens 3/30/2016 Lot-Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study with Stakeholders Manhattan 2/18/2016 MS4 Permit Briefing at DOB Office with Queens AIA Queens 2/17/2016 Quarterly Meeting with SWIM Coalition: SWMP Updates Manhattan 2/17/2016 MS4 Presentation - General Overview (Brooklyn AIA) Brooklyn 2/10/2016 NYWEA’s 88th Annual Meeting - MS4 Presentation Manhattan 1/12/2016 MS4 Briefing with Queens Community Boards Queens 12/8/2015 MS4 Briefing Request (Wildlife Conservation Society) Bronx 11/20/2015 MS4 Briefing Request (REBNY/GCA) Manhattan 11/19/2015 Bronx River Ecology Team Meeting Bronx 11/13/2015 MS4 Briefing Request (Cafeteria Culture) Queens 11/2/2015 MS4 Briefing Request (Riverkeeper) Manhattan 10/23/2015 MS4 Briefing Request (BX CB8, Friends of Van Cortlandt Park) Bronx 10/22/2015 MS4 Briefing Request (SWIM Coalition) Manhattan 9/29/2015 NYBG Tour of Selected Sites Bronx 9/17/2015 Water Infrastructure Steering Meeting Manhattan 215 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 2.0 SWMP Development Comments and Responses 2.1 Stakeholder Meetings between 2016 and 2017 Below are comments received at stakeholder meetings between 2016 and 2017. The City recorded approximately 165 comments over the course of this period and has summarized and categorized responses by each SWMP provision. The City provided verbal responses during these meetings with the best available understanding of the program at the time, and has updated its written responses in this appendix to reflect the final SWMP. Public Education and Outreach The questions and comments the City received on the Public Education and Outreach program reflected four general themes: 1) suggestions on how to improve education and outreach during SWMP development, 2) suggestions on how to educate the public throughout SWMP implementation, 3) questions for the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and 4) questions for the Department of Education (DOE). 1 SWMP Development: The public suggested that the City create a more “catchy” name for stakeholder meetings and utilize social media to promote those meetings. The public also suggested that the City create more graphics and use them in public meetings to enable participants to understand MS4 Program requirements. Response: In response to public comments regarding our social interactions throughout the development of the SWMP, DEP increased its outreach. As a result, the City formed a Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) and convened regular meetings that were open to the general public. The SAG meetings have seen better attendance than the first MS4 Annual Public meeting because of our social media outreach and notices to our stakeholders. We also began working with a graphics sub-consultant so that we can have readily available literature and material on the SWMP that is easy to digest and navigate. 2 SWMP Implementation: The public suggested that the City create a list of stakeholder contact information by area of interest that could serve as a resource for volunteer events. The public also suggested that the City consider how it promotes shoreline cleanups and ensure that when training volunteers, the staff informs the public that they may come in contact with hazardous materials. Response: We will consider developing the stakeholder contact list. While some non-profit and private organizations may approve of our sharing their contact information in relation to the SWMP implementation/program, we will need to implement a procedure through our Bureau of Public Affairs and Communications to ensure that all participants consent to sharing information. Any protocols or procedures for shoreline cleanups will include safety guidance. 3 Questions for the Department of Parks & Recreation: 3a. Is DPR interested in building stormwater lagoons? Response: Not at this time. Stormwater lagoons may lead to stagnant water, which can lead to negative outcomes such as mosquito larvae and maintenance concerns. Currently, DPR is focusing on green infrastructure such as rain gardens, permeable pavement, and subsurface infiltration. 3b. What is DPR’s policy for feeding birds and other wildlife? Response: DPR has a wildlife unit that educates New Yorkers about local wildlife such a birds, reptiles, and mammals. In 2017, the unit launched a media campaign telling the public not to feed New York City’s wildlife. While it may seem helpful it can lead to pest control problems and can be harmful to the wildlife. 216 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 4 Questions for the Department of Education: 4a. Do students learn how to repurpose waste? Response: DOE encourages reuse and repurposing of materials and has developed several partnerships and resources to support these initiatives. For example, GrowNYC created educational videos and lesson plans to equip teachers to discuss these issues. DOE has Zero Waste outreach staff to support both operational and educational aspects of waste reduction, diversion, and reuse. DOE has a significant amount of information and resources as well as a large group of volunteers willing to help schools. 4b. What is the status of the Harbor Literacy curriculum? Response: The Harbor Literacy Curriculum is currently in need of more support and funding. In the interim, the Waterfront Alliance has been piloting an introductory waterfront field lab called Estuary Explorers, which includes field trips and a waterfront workshop program to introduce teachers and students to simple yet impactful hand-on lab work. More information can be found in the latest newsletter. 4c. Does DOE partner with community gardens? Response: DOE has more than 700 registered school gardens, made possible by City funding and in partnership with GrowNYC’s Grow to Learn program, Green Thumb, the Trust for Public Land, and other community-based organizations (CBOs). Many schools work together with community gardens, and this network continues to grow. The DOE’s Sustainability office supports efforts that enable access to school green space, including providing outdoor learning, teaching about nutrition, growing food, etc. DOE has been in discussions with the Tisch Center for Food, Education and Policy at Teachers College at Columbia University to strategize ways to continue to grow citywide support for school gardens. There was a Sustainability Showcase held at Brooklyn College on 5/18/18 where there was a panel discussion on food and sustainability and a discussion with the audience of educators on nutrition education through school gardens. Visit www.schools.nyc. gov/sustainability for information on similar future events and email sustainability@schools.nyc.gov to be added to the newsletter/email blast distribution list. Public Involvement The City received many comments on the public involvement and participation process. Comments and questions received fell into two categories: City services and public involvement. 1 City Services: What is the status of the Adopt-a-Catch Basin Program? Are all MS4 outfalls labeled? The public also suggested that the 311 application should have outfall coordinates for accurate reporting potential illicit discharges. Response: The Adopt-a-Catch Basin pilot program was an initiative in which DEP and the Office of the Brooklyn Borough President collaborated with block associations, business improvement districts (BIDs) and other CBOs to remove the debris that blocks storm drains. DEP provided training, as well as gloves and garbage bags, to participating organizations that agreed to maintain storm drains in their neighborhoods. DEP also enrolled participants in an early alert system to inform them of upcoming weather events that may cause flooding. DEP is currently working to expand the program to other areas of the City. See Chapter 11 for a description of the City’s pilot program to encourage New Yorkers to contact 311 if they see a dry weather discharge from an MS4 Outfall. The City is currently evaluating system improvements to 311 as it relates stormwater and water quality complaints. 2 Public Involvement: How can the City and environmental organizations work together to engage broader community groups in these topics? How can stakeholders continue to participate in SWMP development while the City drafts the Plan? Response: The City has identified key stakeholders and target audiences for education, outreach, and involvement efforts. Throughout the SWMP development, these stakeholders played a pivotal role in shaping the draft SWMP. For more information, see SWMP Chapter 3: Public Involvement and Participation. Throughout the SWMP document, you can also look for the sunshine yellow call-out boxes that describe public involvement in the development of those programs. http://waterfrontalliance.org/2018/06/22/middle-school-students-explore-the-estuary/ http://www.schools.nyc.gov/sustainability http://www.schools.nyc.gov/sustainability mailto:sustainability@schools.nyc.gov 217 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Mapping The questions and comments the City received on the Mapping program reflected three general themes: agency coordination, map content, and map accessibility. 1 Agency coordination: 1a. Will DEP finish mapping the DEP-owned MS4 outfalls and associated drainage areas by August 2018? Response: As of August 1, 2018, DEP has mapped 459 DEP-owned MS4 outfalls and delineated 272 drainage areas. Additionally, DEP has delineated one MS4 area draining to a CSO outfall downstream of the regulator and 28 drainage areas discharging into Bluebelts.. As indicated in the Permit, this is a preliminary map. DEP will continue to delineate the MS4 area draining to DEP-owned MS4 outfalls and to DEP-owned combined sewer outfalls downstream of a regulator, reporting on the progress made each year. 1b. How many outfalls are owned by other City agencies? Response: The City does not yet know how many outfalls each agency owns. Agencies are working to identify agency-owned MS4 outfalls and will report on the progress made each year. 1c. Are agencies adequately staffed to ensure compliance with the mapping requirements? Response: Yes, agencies either have the necessary resources or are working on getting the necessary resources to ensure compliance with the mapping requirements. Some agencies are using existing resources, some have hired new staff, and some are seeking assistance from consultants. To assist agencies with MS4 mapping, DEP has prepared a guidance manual and has convened a sub-team to highlight mapping requirements and methods for meeting these requirements. For more information, refer to the Fiscal Analysis. 1d. How will the map be used for program enforcement? Response: The MS4 Map will show the area where the City will implement certain elements of the SWMP. Notably, the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping, Construction/Post-Construction, Industrial/Commercial programs of the SWMP apply only to sites in the MS4 area. However, the DEP will not use the MS4 Map for enforcement purpose, rather it will use site-specific records as the basis of any enforcement actions. 2 Map Content: 2a. Will the City include non-MS4 outfalls on the MS4 Map? Can DEP characterize street-ends as discharge points to include on the MS4 Map? Response: The MS4 Map will only include City MS4 outfalls. Street ends are not MS4 outfalls and will not be included on the MS4 Map. However, properties owned or operated by City agencies that drain via overland flow rather than through a piped outfall will be included on the MS4 Map. 2b. Will High Level Storm Sewer Separation projects be included on the MS4 Map? Response: Areas draining to High Level Storm Sewers are part of the MS4 area and will be included in the MS4 Map, though there may be a lag between project completion and addition of the new drainage area to the MS4 Map. 2c. Will the non-City entities like NYCHA and MTA be included? Response: Outfalls owned by non-City entities like NYCHA and MTA are not covered by the City’s MS4 Permit and will not be included on the MS4 Map. If stormwater from property owned or operated by a non-City entity drains to the City’s MS4 and is not subject to that entity’s MS4 permit, the property will be considered part of the MS4 area, as would property owned by a private entity with a connection to the City’s MS4. 218 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 3 Map Accessibility: 3a. When and where will the preliminary map of the City’s MS4 area be visible to the general public? Is there an online location with all City GIS maps that would include all point sources to waterways? The public also suggested that the City share the MS4 layer with other mapping programs such as Oasis. Response: The preliminary MS4 Map is available online to the public as of August 1, 2018 at nyc.gov/dep/ms4map. The MS4 Map includes the MS4 drainage area, MS4 outfalls, data from MapPLUTO, locations of facilities for municipal solid waste, public parks and other open lands, and SPDES permits draining to the MS4. Data from the MS4 Map is available for download through NYC Open Data at opendata.cityofnewyork.us. This will enable a variety of users, such as Oasis, to access and utilize the data. Additionally, locations of all outfalls known to DEP are currently available to the public through NYC Open Data. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) The questions and comments the City received on the IDDE program reflected five general themes: IDDE program questions, IDDE program suggestions, water quality data, 311 reporting, and enforcement. 1 IDDE Program Questions: 1a. What are non-stormwater discharges? Response: The MS4 is designed to carry stormwater to receiving waterbodies. Therefore, any discharge to the City’s separate storm sewer that is not stormwater, except firefighting discharges and those approved by the DEP Commissioner,1 is not permitted. Examples of non-stormwater discharges include sanitary waste, waste oil, and wash water. 1b. When was the DEP-IDDE program created, and has it been modified to account for demographic changes in NYC? Response: The DEP IDDE Program has managed citywide IDDE issues for over 25 years. The Program has evolved and has been modified based on changing regulatory requirements, data collection and analysis, and stakeholder input. 1c. How will the City know if there are increases in allowable discharges? Response: The City tracks discharges authorized by the DEP Commissioner. 1d. What is the City doing to investigate illegal connections in Newtown Creek? Response: In Newtown Creek, the City has prioritized resources for IDDE field investigations and currently has 3 active cases (as of August 1, 2018). Between 1989 and 2018 the City investigated 37 cases in Newtown Creek and abated over 1 million gallons per day of flow. 2 IDDE Program Suggestions: 2a. The City should research programs in other cities and new technologies (e.g. drones). Response: The City collaborated with the Water Research Foundation and 34 communities in the U.S. and other countries to publish a review of innovative and integrated stormwater management initiatives, which includes information on IDDE programs in other cities and the technologies being used (link: http://www.waterrf.org/resources/Pages/NYC-Stormwater Report.aspx). 2b. The City should educate the public on illicit discharge prevention, identification, and reporting; signage near MS4 outfalls would be helpful for reporting purposes. Response: The City educates the public on illicit discharge prevention, identification, and reporting through public meetings and the DEP website. In February 2018, the City installed signs at the DEP MS4 outfalls in Coney Island Creek as a pilot project, in response to public requests to be able to easily report dry weather discharges. The first annual report will include an update on this pilot. 1 15 R.C.N.Y. Section 19-02(j) http://nyc.gov/dep/ms4map http://opendata.cityofnewyork.us http://www.waterrf.org/resources/Pages/NYC-Stormwater-Report.aspx http://www.waterrf.org/resources/Pages/NYC-Stormwater-Report.aspx 219 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 2c. The public should be notified of DEP-IDDE investigation results. Response: DEP IDDE investigation updates are available to the public through the NYSDEC NY-Alert system. 3 Water Quality Data: 3a. IDDE-related water quality data should be made available like the Harbor Survey Monitoring data. How can the public exchange data with DEP? There should be an annual or biannual meeting between citizen scientists and DEP to do so. Response: As requested by the public, DEP publishes data from the Sentinel Monitoring Program on the DEP website (link: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page). DEP agrees that citizen water quality monitoring programs are important components of citizen involvement and could supplement the monitoring programs that DEP has established for regulatory compliance purposes. Email ms4@dep.nyc.gov to share monitoring data with DEP. 4 311 Reporting: 4a. Can the public use the 311 app to report IDDE issues? Response: The purpose of the 311 mobile application is to reduce call volume for common complaints. Since IDDE-related complaints are uncommon (relative to citywide complaint volumes), the public cannot use the app to report IDDE issues at this time. As such, it is best to go through the 311 website https://portal.311.nyc.gov/ or to call 311 to file a report. 4b. Which 311 complaints are applicable to IDDE, pollution in streets, and stormwater pollution? Response: Refer to Appendix 2.1: 311 Complaints related to MS4/Stormwater Management issues for more information about stormwater complaints. 4c. Is there a summary of 311 IDDE investigations? Response: NYC Open Data includes 311 service requests from 2010 to present (https://nycopendata.socrata.com/Social Services/311-Service-Requests-from-2010-to-Present/erm2-nwe9); information is updated daily and includes complaint type and resolution description.. 5 Enforcement: 5a. How does DEP enforce the ‘no dumping’ rule for catch basins? Are violators fined? Will there be a re-evaluation of fines for environmental violations to be more effective? Response: DEP enforces the no dumping rule for catch basins by conducting field investigations and responding to 311 complaints. Refer to Appendix 1:1 Enforcement Response Plan for enforcement details. Periodically, the City re-evaluates penalties and updates them when necessary. Construction and Post Construction The questions and comments the City received on the C/PC program reflected five general themes: Lot Size Threshold Study, threshold sizes, analyses and monitoring, requirements for property owners, and policy. 1 Lot Size Threshold Study: 1a. In the Lot Size Threshold Study, did the water quality analysis consider pollutants coming off of sites into waterbodies impaired for the pollutant for which it is impaired? Is it more stringent or less? Response: Pollutants of concern, commonly associated with urban stormwater runoff discharges, were considered in this study for all waterbodies, regardless of whether or not a waterbody is listed as impaired due to any of these pollutants. These pollutants included total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), fecal coliforms (FC), and enterococci (ENT). The water quality evaluations considered pre- and post-development (redevelopment) pollutant loadings for each pollutant, and were based on specific technologies used for stormwater control (retention/treatment), which resulted in a more comprehensive source-load based analysis as compared to just considering impaired waterbodies. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page mailto:ms4@dep.nyc.gov https://portal.311.nyc.gov/ https://nycopendata.socrata.com/Social-Services/311-Service-Requests-from-2010-to-Present/erm2-nwe9 https://nycopendata.socrata.com/Social-Services/311-Service-Requests-from-2010-to-Present/erm2-nwe9 220 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 1b. Will the data and municipal survey results be available to the public? Response: Detailed information on municipal survey results is provided in Appendix A of the Lot Size Threshold Study 1c. Were college students and professors asked to participate? Response: Multiple stakeholder workshops with industry professionals and technical experts were held in collaboration with the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and Urban Green Council (UGC) throughout this project. We do not have specific information on whether college students and professors were among participating stakeholders. 1d. For Task 3 of the Lot Size Threshold Study, who determines costs and expenses and where is it applied? Response: Regarding capital and operation and management cost estimates for various post-construction stormwater control technologies presented in Section 7 of the Lot Size Study report, the costs were developed by a specialty cost estimating firm using historic cost data for stormwater control technologies in NYC and other large urban areas. The costs were also reviewed with the stakeholders and their comments addressed as part of the stakeholder participation process. 1e. Are co-benefits accounted for? Response: The co-benefits of Green Infrastructure were accounted for in development of Preliminary Post-Construction Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) Hierarchy Matrix presented in Figure 6.1, where the highest priority was given to On-Site Vegetated Infiltration practices. The primary focus was on pollutant load reduction in this study; however, DEP has been quantifying co-benefits associated with green infrastructure implementation in other parallel studies. 2 Threshold Sizes: 2a. Can there be different thresholds for different types of properties (for example industrial & commercial sites, or differing watersheds and boroughs)? Response: As of now, the City will not implement thresholds based on land use type, receiving waterbodies, or boroughs. A uniform threshold across NYC was determined to be the most practical methodology for implementation by the construction community. 2b. Why isn’t the City looking at thresholds below 5,000 sf in the study? Response: Implementing SCMs on lots smaller than 5,000 sf is impractical due to severe space limitations. This lot size would include significant numbers of small residential properties with practically no room for SCMs. Experiences by other utilities showed that the administrative and technical costs far outweighed the achieved benefits when they decreased the lot size threshold to this extent; water quality improvement from regulating smaller lots was minimal. 2c. Can the City include intermediate thresholds such as 7,500 sf or 12,500 sf? Response: The City added thresholds of 7,500 and 12,500 sf to the analysis in response to stakeholder feedback; the report includes these thresholds in all cumulative analyses. 3 Analyses/Monitoring: 3a. Why does the City use 2008 as its rainfall year and historical data for design criteria for post-construction requirements? Response: The City selected and NYSDEC approved the 2008 rainfall from JFK Airport as a typical year of precipitation for the CSO LTCP evaluations. To maintain consistency with CSO methodology, the City used the 2008 rainfall for water quality evaluations in the Lot Size study. 3b. How is the City using land use data to determine the relationship to pathogens? Response: In the Threshold Study, the City applied to all land uses the Event Mean Concentrations sourced from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD), and NYC’s LTCP reports. Volume of runoff was determined based on land use. This approach is consistent with water quality evaluations performed in CSO LTCPs in NYC and other large cities. 221 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 3c. Will infiltration practices influence a no-net-increase of pathogens and nitrogen? Response: The City has prioritized infiltration practices for its post-construction requirements. The City will evaluate the practice selected by the applicant and determine how well the applicant is meeting the no net increase requirement. 3d. What is the timeline/process for how monitoring data will be considered in the MS4 Program? Response: See Chapter 10 for details on the MS4 Monitoring Program. 3e. Has the City considered that volume approaches could be inaccurate? Response: Consistent with the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual, the Water Quality Volume is the primary calculation DEP uses to evaluate sizing of stormwater management practices. Before finalizing a design, especially in systems that require control of flow as well as water quality requirements, the final sizing should be based on modeling the SMP within the overall drainage system for the site. 3f. The public also suggested that the City should use future/predictive climate change data in design consideration and stop using the term “extreme” in presentations to show the public that these events are occurring more frequently. Response: Separate from the MS4 Program, the City launched a Citywide Stormwater Resiliency Study. Rainfall poses many challenges and the City is committed to addressing urban flooding, protecting ecosystems, and protecting its vital infrastructure. The purpose of the study is to develop a citywide model to test multiple rainfall scenarios, and investigate the impact of changing climate conditions on flood conditions and existing stormwater management practices, based on climate projections from the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC). These impacts include changes in sea level, groundwater, and the intensity, duration, and frequency of precipitation events. The study will also look at flooding from coincident surge and precipitation, and investigate geographically-specific stormwater conditions where flooding may be influenced by sea level rise, tidal inundation, and/or elevated groundwater. Results from these analyses will include flood maps, high level analysis of stormwater management options and costs, and prioritized list of proposed interventions. The study will run from May to November of 2018. 4 Requirements for property owners: 4a. Will property owners be subject to post-construction enforcement? Response: Yes, property owners with post-construction practices under the program will be required to get an enforceable Stormwater Maintenance Permit that requires the owner to maintain stormwater management practices in keeping with their intended purposes. 4b. Will the City create a program to certify professionals such as landscape architects and plumbers to ensure that BMPs are constructed and maintained correctly? Response: No, the City will rely on existing certification programs. 4c. Will the MS4 Program require stormwater management retrofits for existing buildings? Response: No, retrofits are not required by this program. Only construction that meets the definition of a covered development project will be required to meet the new rules. 4d. Why isn’t the Green Infrastructure Grant Program mandatory for property owners? Response: The Green Infrastructure Grant Program is a voluntary program for private property owners in the CSO and MS4 areas of the city. DEP will fund up to 100% of the design and construction of green infrastructure. For more information visit https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/green-infrastructure-grant-program.page. 4e. Will property owners or developers be required to model their own stormwater runoff, test for sample pathogens or monitor their own projects? Response: Property owners/developers will be required to model stormwater to demonstrate that practices implemented during and after construction will capture and treat stormwater runoff, as required. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/green-infrastructure-grant-program.page 222 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 5 Policy: 5a. What is the City doing to address fertilizer runoff? New York State’s Nutrient Runoff Law has many requirements for fertilizer use. For more information visit: https://www.dec. ny.gov/chemical/67239.html#requirements 5b. How are Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) set? Response: TMDLs are developed and implemented by NYSDEC. For more information visit https://www.dec.ny.gov/ chemical/31290.html 5c. What happens if the City is unable to meet the no-net-increase requirements of the MS4 Permit? Response: The City must meet the no net increase requirements listed in Part II.B of the City’s MS4 permit. Part II.B.1.c requires the City to develop procedures to ensure that SWPPPs for non-negligible changes in land use in the MS4 area and draining to impaired water bodies contain adequate controls to meet the no net increase requirements. DEP will incorporate these requirements into the review and approval processes for SWPPPs. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping The questions and comments the City received on the PP/GH program reflected four general themes: green infrastructure, facility assessments, agency specifics, and training. 1 Green Infrastructure: 1a. Will City agencies install any green infrastructure as required by PPGH prior to 2018? Response: No, City agencies did not install any green infrastructure as it pertains to the MS4 Permit prior to 2018. See Chapter 7 for more details on green infrastructure as it relates to the PPGH program. 1b. How will the City assess whether or not green infrastructure technologies are a potential source of pollutants of concern and ensure that GI technologies are not impacted by other pollutants such as PAHs, toxics etc.? Response: The City has a robust Research and Development Program for green infrastructure practices. For more information visit www.nyc.gov/dep/greeninfrastructure 2 Facility Assessments: 2a. The City should ensure that catch basins are prioritized based on potential impact to the MS4 and catch basins inspection schedules should consider seasonal impacts. Response: The City currently assesses and prioritizes catch basin maintenance in the public right of way. This maintenance includes criteria for seasonal impacts and rain events. The PPGH program also includes a prioritization tool for operations, which may influence stormwater control measures and maintenance. 2b.The City should add flooding and storm surge risks to the list of metrics addressed at facilities. Facility Assessment reports should summarize which metrics applied to each facility to prioritize facilities as high, medium, and low priority. Response: The prioritization tool takes into account flooding zones, and the assessment reports have a detailed description of the metrics used for the facility prioritization. 3 Agency Specifics: 3a. Does DOE have any bus maintenance yards within the MS4? Will DOE notify their third party bus companies of the permit requirements? Response: The current DOE inventory does not include any bus maintenance yards. Any city agency using contractors to perform municipal operations will require contractors in their contracts to comply with the terms of the MS4 permit. https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/67239.html#requirements https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/67239.html#requirements https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html http://www.nyc.gov/dep/greeninfrastructure 223 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 3b. Does DSNY categorize trash receptacles in the public right-of-way and their risks for polluting the MS4? Response: DSNY services several types of street litter baskets and manages pickups within scheduled routes based on efficiency and practicability, as determined over time. DSNY does not characterize street litter baskets by pollution risk. 4 Training: The City should host workshops to train staff on stormwater control measures. The City should include MS4 content on Civil Service exams to ensure that new staff are prepared for the PPGH requirements. Response: The City is creating and will be implementing a PPGH training program, which will include instruction on the SCMs. Any employee responsible for an operation covered under PPGH will have to take and document this training. Industrial and Commercial (I/C) The questions and comments the City received on the I/C program reflected three general themes: MS4 Permit obligations, I/C engagement, and rule-making. 1 MS4 Permit Obligations: 1a. Do direct drainage areas have obligations under this permit? Response: NYSDEC will continue to issue the SPDES MSGP permit to facilities, both in direct drainage and separately sewered areas. Facilities in direct drainage areas that are privately owned will remain wholly under NYSDEC’s jurisdiction. DEP will assume responsibility for inspecting facilities located in the MS4 Area. 1b. Who on-site (the property owner or business owner that operates the property) has obligations under this permit? Response: Under the MSGP, the owner or operator submits the NOI and is responsible for permit compliance until filing an NOT. As defined in the MSGP: Owner or Operator - means the owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to regulation under 6 NYCRR Part 750. In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.6(a), when a facility or activity is owned by one person but is operated by another person, it is the operator’s duty to obtain a permit. 2 I/C Engagement: 2a. Will inspections be announced? Response: MSGP facilities will receive one notice letting them know that DEP will now be the agency conducting inspections. Individual inspections will not be announced. See Chapter 8 for more details. 2b. Will the City have a loan or grant program for facilities that find themselves in violation? Response: Not under the I/C program. However, property owners may be eligible for other grant programs or initiatives. 2c. How will the City update the facility inventory to capture new facilities in the MS4? Response: The City uses the services of various databases to update the inventory of potential sites. However, if during the course of the field assessments, the inspectors identify new facilities, they will add those facilities to the inventory for future inspections. 2d. How will new facilities know they are in the MS4 area? Response: The Preliminary MS4 Map is available online for general use at nyc.gov/dep/ms4map. For specific information about a particular property, facilities can make a request to their local DEP borough office. http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4map 224 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 3 Rulemaking: 3a. How can facility owners and operators engage with the City during the rulemaking process? Response: See Chapter 3 for a description of how the City engaged the public during the rulemaking process. The City published the draft rules for public review pursuant to the City Administrative Procedures Act (CAPA), and evaluated comments received from the public before finalizing the rules. 3b. Are the penalties set for violations? Will they be public? Response: The final rules will include specifics about penalties and violations; the penalty schedule will be adopted pursuant to CAPA by the time DEP begins to implement the program. Floatables The questions and comments the City received on the Floatables program reflected three general themes: Public Engagement/Media Campaign, DEP Programs, and Other Agency Programs. Please note that additional comments on the Floatables Work Plan are included in Appendix 9.1. Public Engagement/Media Campaign: 1a. The City should educate residents about their proximity to local waterbodies and how their consumption impacts the waste stream and engage a variety of audiences such as college students and neighborhood associations. Response: The City has a variety of efforts to educate New Yorkers on water quality issues and waste management issues. These include DEP’s Environmental Education program, DSNY’s Zero Waste Program, and DPR’s Natural Classroom program, among others. For a list of the ways the City engages a variety of audiences, please refer to Chapter 2 of the SWMP. 1b. Why did the City partner with the Aquarium on the media campaign? Response: The City collaborated with the New York Aquarium for the Don’t Trash Our Waters Campaign to enhance the campaign by providing New Yorkers with the opportunity to learn more about the New York seascape and the impact of plastics in the ocean. 1c. The media campaign should: » Include facts about local wildlife; » Include three cans to show the option to recycle; » Replace the sea otter character with an oyster; » Include migratory birds and fish; » Feature artwork on sanitation trucks; » Give a human element to the campaign so people care; » Make the animals more realistic so children understand the harmful impacts of trash on wildlife; » Include information on the economic costs in the campaign message so people understand how much it costs to deal with trash. Response: The City considered all public feedback received on the Don’t Trash Our Waters Campaign, and ultimately incorporated some suggestions, such as including an oyster in the campaign, including recycling cans, and humanizing the characters to help people connect with the issue. In addition to the Don’t Trash Our Waters Campaign, the City also ran other campaigns as detailed in Chapter 9 of the SWMP. 225 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 4 DEP Programs: 2a. DEP should expand the adopt-a-catch basin program, as well as continue the catch basin inspection cycle program (1-year inspection cycle instead of 3-year). Response: The City is exploring the expansion of the adopt-a-catch basin program. DEP has increased catch basin inspections from once every three years to once every year, from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019, pursuant to Local Law 48 of 2015. At this time, DEP has not made a decision regarding the continuation of annual inspections past June 30, 2019, but will reevaluate the program to optimize benefits (the DEP WWTP’s SPDES permits require a three-year cycle). 2b. How often does the skimmer boat collect floatables from the booms? Response: Skimmer vessels are dispatched to retrieve collected floatables from booms and nets based on inspections conducted with small vessels within 24 to 48 hours of significant rain events. The inspection vessels are also equipped with hand netting tools in order to retrieve small amounts of floatables, so that the skimmer vessel use is more focused on containment sites with large amounts of floatables. In dry weather, boom and net inspections occur at least weekly and may occur more often for certain sites where specific tide and wind conditions may cause debris to accumulate outside of rain events. 2c. Who do you call if the boom is full? Response: Any questions, reports, or complaints about a DEP boom should be made to 311. DEP is currently working to improve the process by which the public can make these types of complaints. 2d. Are booms connected to moorings that move with the tide? Response: Most of DEP’s booms include tide risers mounted in piles, which enable the containment facility to move up or down with tide conditions. The temporary CSO boom located in Gowanus Canal, however, does not have tide risers. 2e. Can the City provide a fact sheet on booms and skimmers? Response: DEP makes information on booms and skimmers available on the DEP website and in the Annual CSO BMP report. 2f. Can the City place nets around outfalls to collect trash? Response: While some select City combined sewer outfalls do have nets, the City is not proposing to put nets at MS4 outfalls at this time. Nets can be costly to install and maintain. 2g. The public asked for more information on DEP’s past assessment that 99% of marine debris discharged from the sewers comes from street litter, and criteria used to select waterbodies for the floatables loading rate assessment, and the status of new technologies available for capturing floatables as a tool for the City (i.e. vortex separation, trash wheel, and waste shark). Response: Previous assessments conducted in the 1990s characterized and quantified the trash and debris washing ashore, discharging from the sewer system, originating from the solid waste handling system, and other anthropogenic sources. This analysis found that at that time, the majority of floatables came from the sewer system. Additionally, approximately 99% of the items discharged from the sewer were consistent with street litter while sanitary items accounted for a little more than 1% of the items discharged. Further, DEP conducts an ongoing floatables monitoring program which includes a characterization of floatables found in problematic areas. These characterizations confirm that street litter continues to be a major source of floatables. Loading rates of floatables from the MS4 will be assessed for each waterbody listed as impaired for floatables in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit. These loading rates will be assessed using the methodology described in Appendix 9.1 of the SWMP. The City is reviewing and exploring technologies available for floatables controls including less traditional controls such as the trash wheel and waste shark. 226 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 5 Other Agency Programs: 3a. The public raised concerns about trash accumulation and floatables sources for the following: large public events like parades and marathons, marine transfer stations, docks and esplanades, and waterfront properties and walkways. Response: As stated in the NYC Administrative Code and Chapter 14 of the Rules of the City of New York, sponsors and participating vendors of block parties, street fairs, and other similar events are required to arrange garbage collection and ensure appropriate separation of recyclable materials. The PP/GH provisions of the SWMP address trash and debris management at City facilities and operations in the MS4 area such as marine transfer stations and waterfront properties. 3b. The public suggested that DSNY expand its recycling program to include bottle caps and asked about education and legislative actions to address plastics. Response: Currently, DSNY accepts and recycles all rigid plastics, including rigid plastic caps and lids. A complete list of items that can be recycled in NYC is available at http://www.nyc.gov/recycle. The City has undertaken several initiatives to reduce all types of waste, including plastics, with the goal of sending zero waste to landfills by 2030. These include initiatives such as the B.Y.O. Campaign which encourages New Yorkers to use reusable items over single-use items, which are often plastic. The City also passed a Carryout Bag Law which imposed a fee of at least five cents on all carryout merchandise bags; however, in February 2017, the New York State legislature suspended the law and established a one-year moratorium on establishing new carryout bag fees in NYC. Despite the fact that the legislation was overturned, DSNY is committed to educating NYC residents about the importance of carryout bags and has given away over 315,000 free 0x30 bags from February 2017-April 2018. 3c. The public asked if DSNY would be willing to invest in sturdier trash cans and asked if alternate side parking and street sweeping can be re-evaluated if a neighborhood agrees to clean its own streets. The City should host a competition to encourage the public to design artwork for their local trash bins. Response: DSNY currently services 23,500 litter baskets throughout NYC. Businesses and organizations interested in purchasing deluxe, heavier-duty litter baskets are able to participate in the Sponsor-a-Basket Program. Through this program, DSNY replaces the City’s standard litter basket with a pre-approved deluxe basket. These deluxe baskets can include a sponsor’s logo or name to highlight their commitment to maintaining the community’s quality of life. DSNY also encourages volunteers to enroll in our Adopt-a-Basket Program. This program allows volunteers to partner with DSNY by adopting a City’s litter basket and help assist in maintaining it. Volunteers enrolled in this program can help protect health and quality of life by keeping public litter baskets from overflowing. Changes in alternate side parking and street sweeping are governed by existing City laws, which layout what criteria must be met in order to reduce alternate side parking regulations. If that criteria is achieved, then DSNY and the Mayor’s Office will evaluate if a reduction in alternate side parking is efficient within that community board. Monitoring The questions and comments the City received on the Monitoring program reflected three general themes: general program questions, specific program questions, and citizen science engagement. 1 General MS4 Monitoring Program: 1a. Are waterbodies being monitored or outfalls? Response: The City is monitoring both waterbodies and outfalls. During Phase 1, the City will monitor only MS4 outfalls during wet weather to assess the influence of land use on stormwater discharge and pollutant concentrations. During Phase 2, the City will monitor both outfalls and associated waterbodies concurrently. In addition, existing monitoring programs such as the Harbor Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Programs will continue to monitor receiving water bodies during both Phases 1 and 2. http://www.nyc.gov/recycle 227 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 1b. How are monitoring sites selected; is there a list? Response: DEP selected monitoring sites for wet weather sampling through desktop survey and field verification using the following criteria: (1) farthest downstream manhole or outfall pipe not influenced by tides; (2) no dry weather flows; and (3) safely accessible by sampling field crews. Chapter 10 (Table 10.2) of this Plan provides a list of the selected outfalls. 1c. When will the monitoring program start? Response: The monitoring program will start by August 2020. However, as noted above, existing programs such as the Harbor Survey and Sentinel Monitoring are ongoing. 1d. What precipitation average is DEP using to sample 3 times a year? Response: DEP will sample outfalls quarterly (four times per year) for 2 years during Phase 1, and will use an average precipitation of 0.4 inches. (See Appendix 10.1 for details) 1e. How soon after rainfall will DEP collect samples? Response: DEP will start collecting grab water quality samples as soon as flow appears at the sampling location and after every 20 minutes until the flow in the sewer ceases. Flow will however be continuously monitored by an automated system that will be installed in the sewer. 1f. Will DEP use automated solutions with micro-controls? Response: In the City’s understanding of the question, DEP will collect samples for testing water quality parameters by grab and composite sample methods. In addition to collecting grab samples, DEP will also monitor flow by using an automated system that will be installed in the sewer prior to grab samples collection. DEP will use the flow and grab water quality concentration to estimate pollutant load discharging from each land use type. 1g. How transparent will DEP be about monitoring/reporting in the next 3-4 years? Response: DEP will analyze monitoring data collected and report the data and analyses in each annual report for public review. 1h. Could this monitoring program have caught the issues in Coney Island Creek? Response: The existing Sentinel and Harbor Survey programs identified the conditions in Coney Island Creek. 2 Specific MS4 Monitoring Program 2a. Why do Phase 1 and Phase 2 sampling have different parameters? Response: The approach to selecting Phase 1 and Phase 2 parameters has changed since DEP first proposed parameters to the public. The revised approach is to complete Phase 1 monitoring, analyze the 2-years of collected data, and use the analysis results to better refine which of the Phase 1 sampling parameters to continue in Phase 2. Phase 1 parameters with concentrations below NYS water quality standards will be discontinued in Phase 2. 2b. Will Phase 1 results influence Phase 2 parameters? Response: Yes. See response above. 2c. Is Phase 1 land use-based monitoring within each borough or NYC as a whole? Response: Phase 1 monitoring will be conducted in four (Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island) of the five boroughs. We propose doing no monitoring in Manhattan. It is, however, important to note that Manhattan is a predominantly CSO and not part of the MS4 Area or subject to the MS4 permit. 2d. Can DEP use past data to verify land use coefficients? Response: The City will estimate land use coefficients based on Phase 1 data. 228 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 2e. Land use could be significant if urban structures contribute pollutants (e.g., rain gardens contributing to nutrient issues). The City should select outfalls to monitor that range in size. Response: The City will monitor from a range of land uses including open space and outdoor recreation; multi-family residential, commercial and office buildings; public facilities and institutions; industrial and manufacturing; one and two family buildings; and highway. 3 Citizen Science Engagement: The City should widen the scope of the monitoring program to include citizen science data. The City should develop outreach on what the public can do to assist with the monitoring program. Response: As stated in Chapter 10: Monitoring and Assessment of Controls, the City considers established community led monitoring data when evaluating long-term trends and comparisons of water quality. For example, during the development of several CSO LTCPs, organizations such as Riverkeeper, Bronx River Alliance, and the New York City Water Trail Association’s Citizens Water Quality Testing Program conducted sampling and submitted data and analyses to the City. The City reviewed this information in relation to its own analyses, noted comparisons and differences, and in some cases used it for modeling calibration processes. DEP compared stakeholder data with City data and provided a summary of the comparison during public meetings, on the DEP website, and in the final CSO LTCP that DEP submitted to NYSDEC. Organizations in addition to those listed above that collect long-term water quality data are encouraged to notify and provide information on their monitoring programs to DEP’s MS4 team by emailing MS4@dep.nyc.gov. mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 229 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 2.1 Program Specific Engagement The City conducted outreach for specific programs. Below is a summary of comments the City received during targeted stakeholder engagement for I/C and C/PC programs and the Coney Island Creek community by the City. Responses to Comments on the Floatables Work Plan are in Appendix 9.1. Verbal responses were provided during the meetings. The written responses included in this appendix reflect the final SWMP. Industrial and Commercial Summary of Industrial and Commercial Outreach during SWMP Development As described in Chapter 8: Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources, DEP prepared and will maintain a facility inventory of all publicly and privately owned industrial and commercial sites that could discharge pollutants of concern (POCs) in stormwater to the MS4. As of August 1, 2018, the inventory includes approximately 1,300 unpermitted facilities that DEP will assess to determine whether the facilities generate significant contributions of POCs to impaired waters. DEP began conducting outreach to these facilities in the summer of 2017 and contacted all 1,300 facility owners to invite them to a series of informational meetings in Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx to describe the Industrial Commercial Program. The City used the following methods to contact owners: � Letters and mailings � Door-to-door outreach � Phone calls � Social media posts � Notification letters to NYC City Council Members and local Community Boards to enlist their support in notifying facilities The meetings were held: � Staten Island—June 15, 2017 � Brooklyn—November 8, 2017 � Queens—November 9, 2017 � Queens—November 16, 2017 � Bronx—November 29, 2017 � Staten Island—December 5, 2017 � Brooklyn—December 7, 2017 Industrial/Commercial Stakeholder Feedback Summary: � Roles and Responsibilities » The City and NYSDEC should clarify their individual roles and responsibilities so that facility owners and operators know which agency to report to. » Stakeholders expressed concerns about conflicts between regulatory agencies and want to ensure that there is no redundancy given the numerous inspections as the local, state, and federal levels. » The City should give guidance on whether the owner or the operator is responsible for compliance. The City should clarify the difference in the types of stormwater permits (e.g., SPDES, MSGP, MS4) » The City should be clear on whether or not there are costs associated with the being assessed and whether facilities will need to invest in new infrastructure to comply with the requirements. » The City should take responsibility for the right of way and pollution off of City owned properties » Facility owners requested City assistance in: 230 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses • Identifying grants or other funding mechanisms to offset costs • Creating maps, lists or other tools so properties can easily identify if they’re in the inventory • Identifying the types of operations that could generate POCs in stormwater � Assessments/inspections: » The City should be clear on the timing and scope of assessments and inspections. » If facilities are found not to be in compliance, they should not be given automatic violations but should have an opportunity to address the issue. » Facility owners requested that there be direct communication lines between DEP and those on the inventory throughout the assessment/inspection process. » Facility owners asked for clarification on what types of issues could be seen on a site that would require referral to NYSDEC. » Facility owners asked whether this program applies to sites that have no outdoor activities Construction and Post-Construction Stakeholder engagement conducted with industry professionals for the Lot Size Threshold Study For the Construction and Post-Construction provisions of the SWMP, the City conducted specific engagement with the engineering, design, construction management, and real estate development communities. This engagement began on March 30, 2016 with targeted outreach on the Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study where industry professionals were invited to a meeting to learn about the scope of work for the study. Professionals then had the opportunity to provide comments on the scope and give early input based on their industry knowledge and design experience. In the fall of 2016, the City kicked off a partnership with the Urban Green Council (UGC) and the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) to bring together an even broader audience of professionals who will be impacted by the Construction and Post-Construction provisions. UGC and REBNY lead multiple feedback sessions with the development community and technical experts. MARCH 30, 2016 DISCUSSION SUMMARY: What is the contact info for submitting comments and site visit candidates? � One set of comments per organization should be emailed to MS4@dep.nyc.gov by April 29 2016. � If scheduling a site visit please include: » Contact information » Site Address » Development type (residential, commercial, etc.) » Anticipated soil disturbance size » Potential constraints to stormwater management implementation » For more information on the MS4 program visit www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 Is DEP considering impacts of roadways within the study? � Similar to the NYC Green Infrastructure Program for combined sewer areas, the SWMP will develop BMPs to address stormwater impacts from both private lots and the public right-of-way. The stormwater rule developed as a result of this study will apply to both public and private projects, and the MS4 permit includes additional requirements for municipal upgrades (these are required to consider and if feasible and cost-effective runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure during municipal upgrades, including municipal rights of way). mailto:MS4%40dep.nyc.gov?subject= http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 231 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Will the new water quality requirements apply to both new development/redevelopment and existing developments? � The new requirements will only apply to new development/redevelopment projects, not retrofits of existing property. The city will provide the stormwater management requirements and design guidance along with the SWMP. Based on discussion with other cities, what footprint size is required for the stormwater management practices? � This depends on the water quality volume requirements, local site conditions, and types of allowable stormwater management practices. How will NYC determine what constitutes a construction activity (e.g., two adjacent lots developed together)? � Projects that are part of a common plan of development or sale will be considered together to count toward the disturbance threshold. How will the contractor know what their responsibilities are under the new requirements? It is not always clear between owner/developer/operator who is responsible for SWPPP development, BMP implementation, etc. � The procedures and rules will be specified as part of the SWMP. DEP intends to involve the development community in determining the appropriate requirements. What will post-construction requirements be for inspection and maintenance? What will be passed along to the end user/ small owner? � The long-term operation and maintenance requirements will be specified as part of the SWMP, and the resulting costs to property owners under different zoning and size categories will also be one of the factors considered in the cost benefit analysis for this study. NYSDEC allows owners/operators to commence stormwater discharges from construction activities five days after submitting an electronic version of the NOI (ten days for a paper version), will NYC consider a similar timeframe? � The current NYSDEC requirements will be considered under the development of the SWPPP review process. Will DEP consider additional water quantity requirements beyond the current BWSO site connection process? � DEP doesn’t anticipate including additional water quantity requirements under this study, the focus is on stormwater management practices for water quality. Will the SWPPP submissions be performed in conjunction with the BWSO site connection process for water quantity? � DEP will coordinate internally to align processes, simplify procedures, and reduce duplication of effort to the extent feasible. Who will be reviewing permit applications and SWPPPs? � DEP will be the lead agency for SWPPP reviews, other permit processes are not anticipated to change. What will NYC be doing for retrofits of existing properties? � DEP is currently investigating multiple opportunities to encourage stormwater management on existing properties. One study underway will build on an existing grant program and make recommendations on how the City can further incentivize private property owners to “green” their properties. For questions on this study please contact MS4@dep.nyc.gov. mailto:MS4%40dep.nyc.gov?subject= 232 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses MS4 Industry Stakeholder Engagement Summary Memo prepared by Cecil Scheib, PE, LEED AP Urban Green Council for the NYC Department of Environmental Protection As part of the MS4 permit requirements, the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) must develop new programs and regulations for permitting runoff in separately sewered (MS4) areas. In order to gain industry feedback so that regulations can be the least harmful to economically productive development in New York City, DEP requested Urban Green and REBNY to lead a stakeholder engagement process. In addition to the mailing lists and connections of DEP, Urban Green, and REBNY, Urban Green analyzed 12 months of DOB permit data in MS4 areas to determine which owners and contractors most commonly submitted permit requests for site disturbances. Five onsite sessions were held, reaching over 50 industry stakeholders in total: Introductory sessions December 2, 2016 (REBNY): Engineers, consultants, and technical experts December 15, 2016 (GCA): Contractors January 6, 2017 (REBNY): Owners and developers Interim review session March 23, 2017 (REBNY): Joint session Final review session June 2, 2017 (REBNY): Joint session In addition, Urban Green developed detailed online surveys for the costing process in which feedback was given on each stormwater control measure (SCM), for both capital and operational costs. About a dozen stakeholders responded to the survey, some in great detail. At these events, hosted by REBNY, Urban Green moderated DEP presentations on state MS4 requirements with which they must comply, the Arcadis analysis of SCM capital and operational costs, permitting issues, and the environmental benefits and industry-wide costs of different lot size thresholds. Attendees gave feedback on how to make the regulations the least painful and inconvenient, suggestions as to the permitting process, and came to industry consensus on an appropriate lot size threshold. Urban Green also prepared and revised through several versions and options an analysis of cost per residential unit, per borough, at different levels of residential exemption, based on cost data from Arcadis and internal statistical manipulation of PLUTO data. A summary of key feedback from industry stakeholders is as follows: 1 Because of the multiple rounds of feedback on the costing exercise, including the detailed survey, there should be a high degree of industry consensus on the costing foundation for the threshold analysis. 2 Industry raised and supported the idea of exempting 1-2 family homes. 3 Industry was highly supportive of streamlining the NYSDEC/DEP permitting and inspection process and made multiple detailed comments regarding this. DEP has taken notes on these suggestions and they were discussed at multiple meetings. » The general consensus that NYC is the most bureaucratic city for permit requirements, and that this new process will slow everything down even more than they already are. » Technical/consultant firms have often felt stuck in the middle trying to resolve interagency issues. 233 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 4 There was the suggestion that NYC should consider a stormwater banking and credit system like DC. 5 There is a potential disconnect between definition of “redevelopment” in the NYC legislative proposal and the DEC definition for NOIs. 6 Industry suggested aids to compliance including: » A “standard objection” list like DOB uses » A list of activities that will make a successful SWPPP (like noise mitigation plan). 7 Industry supports a higher lot size threshold. Coney Island Creek Summary of the Coney Island Creek Community Workshops The Coney Island Creek Community Workshops were held at the New York Aquarium for three consecutive years from 2016 to 2018 as a coordinated effort between the Coney Island Beautification Project, SWIM Coalition, Wildlife Conservation Society, Partnership for Parks, and DEP. In 2016, DEP presented an overview of the MS4 Permit and described the coordination with the Coney Island Creek Long Term Control Plan. In 2017, DEP presented on Priority MS4 Waterbodies and the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program with breakout sessions on IDDE notification, IDDE education and outreach, trash “hot spot” locations, and the best way to reach the community for education and outreach. In 2018, DEP presented to let the Coney Island Creek community know how their comments and suggestions were incorporated into the SWMP. Refer to Chapter 11: Special Conditions for more information on the City’s engagement in Coney Island Creek during SWMP development and how the City responded to specific community requests. Public Feedback Summary � IDDE Notifications » Alert elected officials, community board, community organizations, schools, OEM, local newspapers » E-blast and/or text messages from community board or Notify NYC » Signage • Multiple languages • Located at libraries, precincts, firehouses, eateries, parks, boat access points, train stations, aquarium, CIC • Hang flyers in high rise buildings and senior centers » Radio announcements on language specific stations » Website • Post information on the illicit discharge • Create color coded system for discharge severity • Create grading system, like DOH’s for restaurants, for waterbodies • Post specific address so there is a public notice and someone can’t sell their home with the problem (for illicit connections) • Create a GPS app that allows phones to connect to the website, citywide program to get information on active investigations » Put a medallion on catch basin associated with an issue to let the public know a problem has been called in (for illegal dumping) 234 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses � IDDE Education » Storm stenciling » Attend community meetings and have workshops in the community » Programming with the aquarium and schools » Signs at parks, subway stations » Pamphlets at bodegas » Engage with developers and home/building owners � IDDE Community Requests » Citizen science programs—need standard operating procedures and information for people to know how to document properly » Shoreline Survey and Sentinel monitoring data. • Schedule of when DEP goes out so community members can join » Make an example of violator companies » Reporting system with reward system • Anonymous notifications • Have the reward go back to the community, not to individuals » Label outfalls with ID and sign with information on reporting • Sign in multiple languages � Trash “hot spot” Locations » Mermaid Ave. » NYCHA » Cropsey Bridge, Coney Island Creek Bridge, and under Belt Pkwy » Subway stations, bus stops, playgrounds » Specific intersections mentioned, listed in detailed notes document � Floatables Requests from Community » Coordination with NYCHA and Sanitation • Want NYCHA to have and use dumpsters » Wind proof trash cans » CSO and MS4 outfalls • End-of-pipe netting • Booms • Skimmers » Conduct studies for the trash at the outfalls and illegal dumping of medical waste in CIC » Have Parks issue summons for people littering 235 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 2.2 2016 and 2017 Progress Report Comments and Responses The City posted responses to each written comment on the 2016 and 2017 Progress Report to its website, and provided responses to the commenters, in November 2016 and August 2017. 2016 Progress Report Background: On August 1, 2015, the Department of Environmental Conversation (DEC) issued a new comprehensive permit to the City. The permit includes robust requirements that significantly expand the City’s obligations to reduce pollutants discharging to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). There are 14 City agencies with substantial obligations under the new MS4 permit, and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for coordinating the efforts of those agencies with respect to all matters relating to the permit’s requirements. The City’s MS4 permit requires the development by August 1, 2018 of a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan, the goal of which will be to reduce pollution that reaches waterbodies through the MS4. As required by the MS4 permit, the 2016 Progress Report on the development of the SWMP was presented to the public on June 22, 2016. This meeting included various stakeholders and everyone was informed that the Progress Report would be posted on the City’s MS4 webpage in July. The 2016 Progress Report was open for comments through August 26, 2016. The comments received on each Progress Report presented and published will be used to inform development of the SWMP Plan. The following comments were received and responses were provided by the City. City Responses to Comments on the MS4 Progress Report submitted August 24, 2016 by Riverkeeper representing comments from multiple organizations Comment 1: Is the DEP including in its review of agency authorities and obligations any of the work (completed or ongoing) by the Department of City Planning that pertains to pollution sources and vulnerabilities in MS4 areas, for example the reports on Industrial Resilience or Open Industrial Uses? Response 1: Yes Comment 2: Does the DEP believe, at this stage, that any new legislation will be required to implement the MS4 permit? If so, can the DEP share these plans with the public? Can the DEP also share the review of existing legal authority to control discharges into and from the MS4 and its proposed schedule for the adoption of comprehensive legal authority which was submitted to the DEC? Response 2: The MS4 legislation was transmitted by the Mayor to the City Council on November 16, 2016 and is available on the Council’s website. http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail. aspx?ID=2884636&GUID=C605C2B3-29BA-4D7A-83D8-392CD45C7093&Options=ID|Text|&Search=ms4 Comment 3: Can the DEP share the interagency MOUs with the public (by distributing to the MS4 public mailing list and by posting online)? Response 3: MOUs between agencies are currently being drafted and progress will be shared publicly as they are finalized. Comment 4: What interaction has the DEP had so far with New York City Council, and what will be the Council’s role in overseeing DEP’s actions under this permit? Response 4: The Council’s role is solely as the legislature, in adopting legislation. Preliminary outreach about proposed legislation has occurred. DEP will be hosting webinars on November 29th and November 30th from 3-5 pm to walk stakeholders and public through the proposed legislation. Comment 5: Does the DEP believe that new offices, programs, branches (or similar substructures) will need to be established in any of the MS4 Permit-covered agencies? If so, what programs, and for which agencies? Response 5: All operating agencies will have resources to implement and track their efforts in Mapping, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE), and Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping (PP/GH). Those with existing related Public Education/Outreach programs will incorporate MS4 messaging where appropriate. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/ms4.shtml http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2884636&GUID=C605C2B3-29BA-4D7A-83D8-392CD45C7093&Options=ID|Text|&Search=ms4 http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2884636&GUID=C605C2B3-29BA-4D7A-83D8-392CD45C7093&Options=ID|Text|&Search=ms4 236 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Some of the programs will be implemented or coordinated by DEP. DEP is in the process of establishing several new programs such as the Construction and Post-Construction program, which includes Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan reviews, inspections and enforcement; and the Industrial/Commercial program, which includes inspections and enforcement. In addition, DEP is coordinating the PP/GH program among the city agencies. Other existing DEP programs will be enhanced to comply with MS4 requirements including IDDE and Monitoring. Comment 6: Will the DEP release the “inventory” of existing programs referenced in the Progress Report? Similarly, will the DEP release its target list of citywide events where the agency plans to deploy public education and outreach assets in the coming 6-12 months? Response 6: Information on existing Public Education and Outreach programs is currently available to the public on NYC agency websites. Additional information is available in DEP’s Annual Report on Best Management Practices required by SPDES Permits for the City’s 14 Wastewater Treatment Plants. A list of current programs will be provided in the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Examples of existing programs include and are not limited to: • DEP Art and Poetry Contest • DEP Resources and Training for Educators • DEP Adopt-a-Bluebelt • DPR Natural Classroom and Urban Park Ranger Programs • DOT Adopt-a-Highway/Greenway • DSNY Adopt-a-Basket • DSNY SAFE Disposal Program Sponsorship of and participation at citywide events is dependent on the availability of staff and resources and is subject to change. Example events include but are not limited to SAFE Disposal Events, the DEC Annual Hudson River Fact Finding Day, and Summer Streets. Comment 7: While we appreciate the DEP’s presence at conferences and festivals, table-side materials are not the only way—nor indeed the best way—to reach the average New Yorker. What is the DEP’s plan for reaching families, businesses, industries, and tourists throughout the MS4 area? Response 7: The City intends to use a variety of tools and strategies to reach New Yorkers. While full details on public outreach will be presented in the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan, example outreach activities may include meetings and workshops on specific permit provisions with the affected stakeholders, mailings to businesses, outreach to schools and educators, and paid advertisements. Comment 8: At the public meeting for this annual permit update, it was suggested by a member of the public that the DEP should hold meetings individually tailored to each permit program area. As an example, even a discussion on something as discrete as the DEP’s plans for fulfilling its mapping requirement can take well over an hour. Will the DEP consider this level of transparency? Response 8: In response to the Public Meeting held June 22, 2016, DEP established a Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) for the City and members of the public to convene quarterly throughout Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) development. The intent of the SAG meetings is for the City to share more detailed information on each permit provision and receive feedback and questions from the public. The first SAG meeting held on September 27, 2016 covered portions of the Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Program (PP/GH) for Municipal Operations and Facilities. The next SAG meeting on December 13, 2016 will focus on the Construction and Post-Construction Program development and initial results of the Lot Size Threshold Study. The public is notified of SAG meetings in advance via email. If you are interested in attending future SAG meetings, please email the MS4 Team at ms4@dep.nyc.gov. mailto:ms4@dep.nyc.gov 237 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Additional outreach with relevant stakeholders will occur for some subjects. For example, webinars on November 29th and 30th from 3-5 pm will inform two separate stakeholder groups about proposed legislation. Comment 9: On the issue of technology, a proposal was made at the same public meeting that the DEP should explore ways to have citizens, businesses, and communities help the DEP with enforcement through technology. Does the DEP plan on generating any 21st Century solutions to the problem of enforcing a permit that covers thousands of facilities, even more outfalls, and incalculable direct-discharge spots across New York City? Response 9: The City’s 311 system is the most streamlined and effective method for the public to report Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) issues, as it is centrally collected and tracked to meet multiple reporting needs. Currently, residents are encouraged to report all issues affecting City waterways by calling 311 or by visiting www1.nyc.gov/311. The request for technology that facilitates public reporting of stormwater issues has been noted and will be considered as program development progresses. Comment 10: The DEP has previously mentioned that it plans to expand “311” support for MS4-type issues. Does this plan include expansion of the 311 phone app? If so, how? Does the DEP have information it can share on the reports already coming in to the 311 system about MS4-related issues, and examples of how the DEP generates solutions now? Response 10: The 311 system already accommodates complaints that are relevant to the MS4 permit. This includes complaints of general water quality issues in City waterways, illegal dumping into catch basins, illicit discharges of sewage or industrial waste, dry weather discharges, leaking fire hydrants, and other sources of pollution leaking onto streets or sidewalks. All 311 service requests since 2010 are available to the public through NYC Open Data. Comment 11: At what point, and in what form, will the DEP release the Permit-required map? For example, will the drainage map only become available with the final SWMP, will the DEP release GIS files of the map, and/or will the agency include in the map detailed information of all City-agency owned and controlled outfalls or simply pinpoint the location of unidentified outfalls? Response 11: The map will be released in accordance with the content and schedule required by the permit. Currently, DEP is coordinating with other agencies to determine the appropriate format and level of detail to share publicly for the preliminary and final maps, the feasibility of various formats and public accessibility/interactivity, and whether any portions can be shared in advance of the Stormwater Management Program (SMWP) Plan submission. Comment 12: We are significantly concerned with private connections into the MS4 system. We understand the DEP as having concluded it is not responsible for mapping these connections unless there is evidence of a dry weather discharge that can be tracked to a specific location. Is this the case? If this is not precisely accurate, how would, in your own words, the DEP describe action it will be taking with respect to mapping and monitoring past, present, and future private connections to MS4 systems? Response 12: Dry weather discharges are the best indication of an illicit connection to the MS4. Once they are identified they will be abated, and the number detected and eliminated will be included in each annual report, so there is no need to maintain a map of these sites. Individual private connections are not mapped, but are reviewed and inspected through the existing sewer connection permit process. Comment 13: Are all New York City owned and operated MS4 outfalls being pinpointed by the DEP under this permit, or just the outfalls from the specific “covered” agencies? Response 13: As required by the MS4 permit, only outfalls owned and operated by agencies with obligations under the permit will be mapped. Comment 14: Are street-ends and other known/discrete direct drainage, discharge, or conveyance points (i.e., not piped outfalls) that are owned or operated by City agencies being mapped as well? For example, waterfront stretches of City parks, DOT-controlled street-ends, or DEP wastewater treatment facility docks? http://www1.nyc.gov/311 238 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response 14: Properties owned or operated by City agencies that drain via overland flow rather than through a piped outfall are being mapped as overland flow areas. Comment 15: Most importantly, how does the DEP plan to discover and stop illicit discharges that are not occurring during dry weather? Certainly, sites with illicit or illegal connections, during storms, will have polluted runoff entering the City’s MS4 system that may be entirely untreated and uncontrolled. We call for a plan to address these illicit and illegal connections in all weather conditions. Response 15: The permit defines an illicit discharge as set forth in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(2): any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from firefighting activities per. As such, normal stormwater discharge is not considered an illicit discharge. It is important to note that dry weather provides the appropriate conditions to detect illicit discharges that can be diluted and difficult to track down during wet weather. Accordingly, DEP has been implementing a comprehensive Sentinel Monitoring Program to identify illicit discharges in conjunction with the Shoreline Survey Program. Wet weather monitoring as required by the MS4 permit will complement the dry weather sampling performed in the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program. In addition, the City continues to rely on public reporting of illicit discharges at all times, to enhance the regular monitoring programs. Comment 16: Does the DEP have any plans to expand the role of the public in IDDE enforcement work? As with the comment above relating to technology’s role in public involvement, use here for enforcement would seem to be a logical place to start. Beyond 311-type interactions with the public for IDDE purposes, does the DEP have a plan to streamline how it receives tips (about issues like dry weather discharges) from the public, and, perhaps most importantly, responds to those tips? Response 16: Please refer to the responses to comments 9 and 10 regarding 311 and the efforts toward enhanced reporting. Additionally, the DEP Emergency Response Unit responds to reports of illicit discharges that enter the sewer system. Plans to engage the public will be detailed in the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan. DSNY responds to 311 complaints and citizen tips regarding illegal dumping on public and private property. DSNY also issues violations for illegal dumping through its own investigations. Comment 17: Does the DEP plan on sharing the records and procedures of the IDDE program with the public during the SWMP development (e.g., outcomes of recent enforcement actions, information on internal processes for handling reports of dry weather discharges, etc.)? This would allow much more informed comments when the 2017 progress report is issued, and would go far toward educating the public as to how the DEP’s IDDE program works, and how it could be improved. Response 17: The current Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program manages citywide issues of illicit discharge. The program is based on the SPDES permits for the fourteen NYC wastewater treatment plants which include, among other requirements, records requirements and dry weather discharge procedures, which DEP is implementing. Comment 18: Regarding inspection and enforcement, what new staff does the DEP, specifically, require over the coming years (either filled since the permit issuance or planned to be filled)? Response 18: DEP is currently developing the review, inspection, and enforcement aspects of new programs, which includes assessing personnel needs and developing a staffing plan. Comment 19: Does the DEP plan to work with other City agencies to help alleviate the inspection and enforcement burden? If so, which agencies, and has the DEP secured such collaboration for the duration of the permit’s lifespan? What is the proposed annual workload (sites visited, for example) for each proposed enforcement agent? 239 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response 19: The review, inspection and enforcement will not be a shared responsibility with other Agencies. DEP is undertaking the responsibility to manage two new programs: review, inspection and enforcement aspects of Construction/Post-Construction, and inspection and enforcement aspects of Industrial/Commercial stormwater management. As noted in the response to comment 18, DEP is currently developing these new programs, which includes assessing personnel needs, developing a staffing plan, and coordinating with other agencies on the process. Comment 20: Does the DEP foresee any budget or legislative work with the City Council to help it fulfill this aspect of the MS4 permit? Response 20: As noted in the February 1, 2016 submission, DEP is currently working with the New York City Law Department to pursue legislation in connection with certain elements of the permit. Reference the response to comment 4 regarding City Council’s involvement. Comment 21: Is the DEP’s lot size study examining only MS4 areas, or does it include CSO areas? Also, is DEP’s lot size study examining what stormwater performance standard should be applied to properties smaller than one acre (which are not subject to DEC’s Construction General Permit)? Response 21: DEP’s threshold study quantitative water quality modeling is focusing on MS4 areas consistent with the permit. However, DEP also included citywide DOB permit data in the initial lot analysis to assess the approximate number of sites that could be affected citywide. The threshold study is assessing the criteria and requirements for stormwater management practices to be applied to sites that create less than one acre of soil disturbance, such as the water quality volume to be managed and the specific types of practices allowed. Comment 22: Does the DEP plan to make its final list of municipal facilities and operations in MS4 areas publicly available in the final SWMP? If not, why not? Response 22: The list of MS4 municipal facilities and operations will be provided, except for those omitted for security concerns. Comment 23: The DEP mentions that it plans to prioritize facilities into “High, Medium, and Low” grades based on their potential to impact water quality; can you be more specific? Does the DEP plan to look at potential impact to only those water quality characteristics for which a receiving waterbody (from each individual facility or operation) is impaired, or will the DEP take into consideration any potential impact—present and future—into consideration? Response 23: Presentations describing the prioritization process were provided both at the Stormwater Infrastructure Matters (SWIM) Coalition Meeting on September 13th and September 27th Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) meeting. The presentation is available at DEP’s MS4 website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/water sewer/stormwater-advisory-group-092716.pdf All potential discharges of Pollutants of Concern (POCs) will be taken into account for the prioritization/ranking. Sites with POCs for which the receiving water body is impaired will carry a higher-weighted risk (i.e., may rank higher) than sites for which the surface water impairments are different from the on-site POCs. The potential risk to water quality is assessed using several criteria such as discharges of POCs to impaired waters, pollutant sources on site, proximity to a waterbody and history of problems that would impact water quality of the facility. Comment 24: Will toxics, wastes, oils, sediments, and hazardous substances be included in the DEP’s setting of facility and operation classifications? What about plastics, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products? Response 24: Facilities and operations will be prioritized in accordance with the prioritization protocol (see response to comment 23). The permit defines Pollutants of Concern (POCs) as a pollutant that might reasonably be expected to be present in stormwater in quantities that may cause or contribute to a water quality violation in waters of the State. All potential discharges of POCs will be taken into account for the prioritization/ranking. Comment 25: The DEP’s progress report notes that protocols and procedures have been established for this listing process, as well as training systems; can you share that information with the public? It should be made available for public comment. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/citywide-long-term-control-plan.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/citywide-long-term-control-plan.page 240 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response 25: These protocols, procedures, and associated training are currently under development. DEP intends to provide a presentation summarizing these documents at the Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) meetings to gather early feedback during Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) development. Final documents will be included in the SWMP Plan, for additional public review and comment. Comment 26: The DEP states that it will be requiring these facilities and operations to “reduce or prevent” discharge of pollutants. How does the DEP plan on determining which facilities will only be required to reduce (not prevent) discharges? Why does the DEP not intend to set a goal of pollution prevention for these citywide facilities and operations? Response 26: Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) will be developed and implemented for operations conducted at facilities and off-site locations. These are pollution prevention measures that are intended to control impacts to stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The overall aim is to prevent, but in certain cases reduction may be the only achievable goal. The self-assessment program will help determine the effectiveness of the SCMs, and may result in revisions or development of new SCMs. Comment 27: Facilities and operations, under the DEP’s plan, will be conducting periodic self reporting; less often for “low” priority facilities and operations, more frequent for the “high” priority facilities and operations. What are these timetables, and does the DEP reserve the right to require more frequent self-assessments in the event of any external (e.g., water quality standard changes) or internal (e.g., facility leadership changes or repeated violations) factors? Response 27: The facility self-assessments are a permit requirement applicable to all agencies affected by the permit, and each agency is responsible for its own compliance. The schedule and prioritization will be established in the Citywide Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). High ranking facilities will be assessed more frequently than lower ranking facilities. However, each time a scheduled self-assessment is conducted, the facility/operation ranking will be re-evaluated to account for any changed conditions at the site (e.g., if the site now has different uses or operations, or has implemented Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) to prevent or reduce Pollutants of Concern (POC) discharges). The prioritization criteria and protocol will be consistent among all sites and instances of evaluation. Comment 28: For facility and operation self-assessments, what level of oversight does the DEP plan on establishing? Will the DEP demand approval authority over self-assessment procedures for each agency, facility, or operation? Will the DEP be investigating, auditing, or inspecting these facilities on a random basis, and, if so, what percentage of these facilities and operations does the City plan to audit or inspect each calendar year? Response 28: The facility self-assessments are a permit requirement applicable to all agencies affected by the permit, and each agency is responsible for its own compliance. In accordance with permit requirements (Permit Part IV.G.1.d), the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping (PP/GH) program shall provide recommendations and time frames for modification when PP/GH practices are determined to be inadequate, and include provisions for follow-up to ensure recommendations are implemented within the specified time frames. Comment 29: Will the DEP be allowing other “covered” agencies to conduct these self-assessments on a citywide basis, or require such assessments be tailored and conducted at each individual facility or operation? We recommend the latter. Response 29: Each agency provided a self-prioritized list of operations and facilities, which served to estimate the quantity and types of facilities requiring assessment. To ensure consistency across all involved municipal facilities and operations, a third-party contractor is developing prioritization and self-assessment protocols, and performing the preliminary prioritization. A separate third-party contractor will perform on-site assessments to confirm, revise and add to the information used in the preliminary prioritization for the initial self-assessment. This contractor will also provide training to the municipal staff responsible for conducting self-assessments thereafter. Each agency will then be responsible for conducting and reporting on future self-assessments. Comment 30: What records will be made available to the public of these self-assessments? Will there be recordkeeping requirements, and, if so, for how long will the DEP require city agencies maintain records of these internal assessments? 241 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Will these assessments be sent to the State for review on an annual basis? Response 30: Summary of the self-assessments for high priority facilities will be included as part of the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan. Each agency is required to maintain the records and documentation that are necessary to the aspects of permit implementation and compliance for which they are responsible. In accordance with the permit requirements, records must be kept for at least 5 years after they are generated. Comment 31: This initial inventory of facilities and operations, as we understand it, has been reported to DEP by the “covered” agencies. What measures has the DEP taken to determine if this is a full and complete list? Response 31: Existing data and information from multiple sources was used to identify City-owned properties and compared with agency-provided lists. Ongoing coordination among agencies will increase comprehensiveness and accuracy. Additionally, DEP is in the process of executing MOUs with each affected agency to memorialize mutually understood divisions of responsibility. Obligations of other agencies include providing DEP with all support and information necessary to develop the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Agencies are responsible for ensuring the data submitted is complete and accurate for permit compliance. Comment 32: The permit also includes a requirement to “Consider and if feasible and cost-effective incorporate, runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure during planned municipal upgrades including municipal rights of way.” The annual report should explain the City’s actions to date to implement this requirement across all city agencies, as well as next steps to further advance implementation Response 32: DEP is currently working with the other affected agencies to gather information about the types of projects best suited for this type of work, and the associated funding sources. The Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) will include the procedures/criteria regarding the types of upgrades or work that qualify, and how feasibility and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. Comment 33: First, once the DEP has created its inventory of industrial and commercial sites, will it make that inventory publicly accessible? If not, why not? Response 33: NY State DEC maintains the inventory of permitted industrial and commercial sites. Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) are available to the public by a link at DEC’s website (bottom of web page): http://www.dec. ny.gov/chemical/41392.html Other aspects of creating and maintaining an inventory are still in development, and will be coordinated with DEC. Comment 34: In developing this inventory of sites, the DEP notes that “facilities which are possible sources of pollution to the MS4” will be included for City oversight. What are the specifics of the DEP’s system of review for determining whether a facility is a possible source of pollution to an MS4? Are these investigations tabletop exercises, or is the DEP investigating sites in person? Response 34: The initial inventory of facilities was compiled from multiple data sources that include the particular Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code a site is registered under. However, these SIC code registrations alone do not indicate whether the site is subject to SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). DEP is conducting a web based screening of the inventory to eliminate those that don’t pose a risk to stormwater. For example, a limousine service owner using their home as their office headquarters may be registered under a ‘transportation’ SIC code, yet the owner might simply be parking a vehicle in their driveway. This is not an industrial site/activity that poses a risk to stormwater, and as such this business would be removed from the inventory or classified as “no further analysis”. Businesses requiring further analysis will remain on the list to be inspected physically for permit applicability. Comment 35: For sites on the inventory, the DEP states that it has developed an inspection plan to determine if a site needs a SPDES permit. What is this plan, and when will the public be provided an opportunity to comment on the plan? Response 35: The progress report states that the City will develop an inspection plan as part of this program. The inspection protocol for unpermitted facilities is still in development. The protocol will determine if the site requires http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/41392.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/41392.html 242 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses coverage under the MSGP, needs to apply for no-stormwater exposure certification, or is not subject to SPDES. DEP intends to provide a comprehensive overview of the Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources section of the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) at a Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) meeting to gather feedback from public. The final plan will be made available as part of the SWMP Plan for additional public review and input. Comment 36: According to our understanding of the State SPDES databases, there are many sites in the City’s MS4 area which had permits in the past, but no longer have coverage. We suggest that the DEP take a hard look at these facilities in the first year after it has been transferred enforcement jurisdiction. Response 36: Comment noted. Comment 37: The DEP progress report states that it plans to conduct inspections and enforcement at MSGP facilities (“to ensure they’re complying with their SWPPPs”). Does this mean the DEP will not be inspecting sites that need a SPDES permit but do not have one? If so, why? We suggest clarifying this language to state that any sites in violation of the stormwater sections of the Clean Water Act and applicable State law will be subject to DEP jurisdiction for enforcement purposes. Response 37: As required by the permit, unpermitted facilities will be inspected and assessed to determine if they generate significant contributions of Pollutants of Concern (POCs) to impaired waters, and if so, will be referred to DEC for permitting. Comment 38: We notice reference in the DEP progress report to “no further action” sites. Can you please give more detail about such sites; for example, whether this is an enforcement-related designation, whether findings that sites require “no further action” will be posted as final agency actions and available to the public, and what these sites will be exempted from? Response 38: Please see response to comment 34 regarding inventory analyses. Comment 39: You stated that surveys were conducted with peer cities. Can you please share the results and responses to those surveys? Response 39: Once the surveys are complete and we compile the information, we will make it available. Comment 40: According to the 2016 progress report, the DEP is “evaluating the effectiveness of current control practices.” With as much detail and specificity as possible, can the DEP provide the public with a list of those current practices? Response 40: Detailed information on current control practices and their effectiveness was presented to the public at the Trash Free NYC Waters meeting on September 27, 2016. This presentation is available on the DEP website. Additional information is available to the public in the Annual Report on Best Management Practices required by SPDES Permits for the City’s 14 Wastewater Treatment Plants. The Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan will include a description of these programs, and will be provided to the public for review in advance of submission to the State. Comment 41: The DEP is planning to develop a list of best available control technologies and systems. How will the DEP be defining “best available” for the SWMP? We are concerned that the high variability of NYC stormwater issues requires more than the best one-size-fits-all approach, city-wide, to debris and trash collection. Moreover, there can be many best approaches, depending on program aspects (e.g., there are best available ways to target educational facilities, different approaches for events and large event venues, and different best ideas for sidewalk garbage bins and street cleaning; no one approach is better than the others). Response 41: The MS4 Permit stipulates that the program to control floatable and settleable trash and debris included in the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan be designed to identify technological advancements and best available technologies employed in other municipalities and assess their applicability to New York City. The City plans to accomplish this through a study. Referred to as the ‘work plan’ in the MS4 Permit, this study will determine the loading rate of floatable and settleable trash and debris from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables. The results of this study will inform decisions about best controls for different areas within the MS4. 243 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Comment 42: Where do street-ends (and the management of debris and garbage that accumulates there) factor into this permit provision and progress report? Response 42: The City is currently developing a methodology to determine the loading rate of floatable and settleable trash and debris from the MS4, including land-based sources, as required by the Permit. If the public has information on street ends where garbage and debris accumulation is noted, the City can consider that information as it continues to develop a Floatables Control Program for the MS4. Comment 43: What work does DEP anticipate conducting with the Departments of Transportation and Sanitation? Specifically, how will the management of garbage on streets and at the curb be changed in NYC? Will any solutions generated here (e.g., better trash bin designs, street-end cleanups, etc.) be applied citywide? If not, why not? Response 43: The MS4 Permit is issued to the City and requires implementation by affected agencies including the Departments of Transportation and Sanitation. Coordination with these agencies is already underway. As the work plan and studies are not yet complete, the City cannot at this time identify what controls will be implemented where, though both structural and nonstructural controls will be considered. Comment 44: Will any of the programs developed here as “best available” plans for debris, trash, and floatable pollution prevention be applied by any other agencies or authorities that are not covered by this permit? Has the DEP asked the Mayor’s Office whether it can negotiate with any such agencies (e.g., NYC Housing Authority, Port Authority, state and federal highways, etc.) to try and improve floatables control on parcels they control? Response 44: The City welcomes agencies and authorities without obligations to this permit to adopt best management practices to reduce their contribution to floatable and settleable trash and debris, including those that will be developed under the MS4 permit. To date there have been no formal discussions on this topic, and the MS4 Permit does not require these agencies/authorities to implement the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). These entities are subject to their own MS4 obligations, separate from the City’s MS4 Permit. Comment 45: We notice reference of initiating a pilot “Adopt-a-Catch-Basin” program. Can DEP share the extent and results or status of this pilot program? Does DEP plan to implement a broader Adopt-a-Catch-Basin program? Why or why not? Response 45: The Adopt-a-Catch Basin program launched in April 2016. A joint effort between DEP and Brooklyn Borough President, this pilot program formed partnerships with block associations, business improvement districts, and other community-based organizations to remove debris that blocks storm drains. The effort is intended to curb localized flooding after heavy rainstorms and help prevent floatables such as bottles and other debris from entering into waterways. DEP provides training, gloves and garbage bags to participating organizations that agree to maintain storm drains in their neighborhoods. DEP also enrolls participants in an early alert system to inform them of upcoming weather events that may cause flooding. The pilot phase included sections of Brooklyn, and DEP would consider expanding the program to include other boroughs. Comment 46: We ask that the DEP include a monitoring plan and protocol for discharges from street ends, and include a system for public reporting of both discharges and clean-up need. With this MS4 permit, accumulated trash at a street end represents just as real of a potential water pollution risk as a waste oil leak or a combined sewer outfall. Discharges from street-ends should be monitored, reported annually, and, individually, assessed on an annual basis. Response 46: Refer to the response to comment 42 regarding trash at street ends. 311 is currently the appropriate means for public reporting of discharges and clean-up needs. Comment 47: The DEP notes the presence of a series of “initial MS4 outfalls” for monitoring. For these, does the agency plan to monitor the outfalls and their drainage areas (to assess more specifically where the sources of pollution are coming from, rather than just the presence or absence of pollution), or just the outfalls? If just the outfalls, why? Response 47: DEP is still developing a multi-purpose monitoring and assessment program and intends to share the details in a Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) meeting to receive feedback. 244 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Comment 48: We fully support DEP’s efforts to include worker safety in MS4 permit protocols and procedures. That said, “safety of sampling crew” is listed as a measure for determining sample sites—what did the DEP look at for this metric? How does DEP think this decision (to exclude otherwise appropriate sampling sites because of worker safety) will affect monitoring and assessment program effectiveness? Were any solutions developed or discussed for this concern (e.g., sampling at the MS4 outfall instead of within the manhole for any identified site) that might minimize worker safety concerns in order to develop a more appropriate set of monitoring sites? Will the DEP share information on the sites that would have been selected but for the safety concerns? If not, why not? Response 48: The selected set of MS4 sampling locations will achieve all MS4 monitoring program objectives required by Permit Part IV.J.2. The Monitoring and Assessment Plan will describe why the location is selected, frequency of sampling, parameters to be sampled and description of sampling equipment. The City’s Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) rules will be taken into account for an additional consideration to not pose a threat to worker safety. Comment 49: The DEP cites “sister-city” data on monitoring and assessment plans. Can the DEP share that information with the public? If not, why not? Response 49: DEP is collecting information on other peer municipalities’ MS4 Programs including Monitoring and Assessment. We will do an analysis of information learned and publish a report on the findings. Comment 50: Please ensure that the “Deliverables Schedule and Status” list includes all obligations under the permit. For example, the requirement to complete a lot size study is not listed under the post-construction section. Response 50: The deliverables schedule and status list matches Table 2 in the MS4 permit. The Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study is not a deliverable, but will inform the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). In accordance with permit requirements, the study recommendations on the appropriate threshold will be submitted as part of the SWMP. Comment 51: Does the DEP plan to make the initial MS4 sampling stations permanent? If not, what will be the level of permanence of any future-designated sampling stations? Surely, as work progresses on green and grey solutions to stormwater pollution, the representative monitoring sites may need to be amended. What is DEP’s process for any such necessary amendments? Has the DEP considered building infrastructure into MS4 drainage areas for ease of regular testing (like, for example, drinking water testing sites or leachate wells)? Response 51: DEP is still developing a multi-purpose monitoring and assessment program and intends to share the details in a Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) meeting to receive feedback. Comment 52: Clearly we’re commenting on an annual report already submitted to the State. We expect responses to these comments will be included (to the extent our suggestions or concerns shape the next year’s report) in 2017’s annual report. We are concerned that this will mean that our comments on the next (2nd) annual report will be reviewed after that report’s submission, again, and be too late to shape the final SWMP to be submitted in 2018. Will the DEP provide the public with an opportunity before final submission to the State in 2017? Response 52: DEP’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) development schedule includes a lengthy, multi stakeholder review process to allow sufficient time to receive, respond to, and incorporate comments on the SWMP Plan prior to submitting to the State by August 1, 2018. Public meetings such as the quarterly Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) and other targeted stakeholder meetings will provide more detailed information on each SWMP component throughout program development, to receive comments in advance of issuing the full SWMP Plan for public review. Comment 53: Does the DEP have in its possession the state’s 2016 list of impaired waterways, such that it can site to those waterways in responses to comments? If so, please make that available to the public. If not, when does the DEP expect to see a final 2016 impaired waterways list? Response 53: DEC will publish the final list when it is ready. 245 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Comment 54: According to this progress report, the DEP is required to consider further cost-effective and feasible stormwater control measures, including green infrastructure (GI), structural retrofits, and non-structural controls in the drainage areas for these Priority MS4 Waterbodies. How will the City involve the public in determining where, and to what extent, such control measures are required? Response 54: The Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) will include procedures/criteria for determining feasibility and cost-effectiveness for consistency in evaluation. DEP will continue to present updates and seek feedback on program development through public meetings. Comment 55: Prioritization of waterbodies, as described by the DEP, happens only when a waterbody has a DEP completed Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) for Combined Sewer System pollution control and the MS4 pollution in such an LTCP is a “significant contributor of impairment.” Will the DEP consider working to identify priority waterbodies for this MS4 program outside of and independent of the LTCP program? If not, why not? Response 55: Not all impaired waterways can be designated as a Priority MS4 Waterbody, which is a permit-defined term. Please refer to the response to comment 56 (definition provided in Permit Part VI.B). The MS4 Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) will comprehensively apply to all MS4 areas, and additional measures will be taken in MS4 areas draining to Priority MS4 Waterbodies. Comment 56: In the case of future LTCPs, the DEP here states that new priority waterbodies will be developed “as LTCPs are approved by [the state].” Why is the DEP waiting for state approval of LTCPs before listing new prioritized MS4 areas? Neither currently considered priority areas (Coney Island Creek and Bronx River) has an LTCP which has been approved by the state, yet they apparently qualify as prioritization-acceptable. Why is the DEP raising the bar for future MS4 problem areas? Response 56: The permit defines Priority MS4 Waterbodies as those water bodies for which an approved Combined Sewer Overflows Long-Term Control Plan (CSO LTCP) does not predict compliance with applicable water quality standards and where stormwater contributions from the MS4 are expected to be a significant contributor of the impairment identified in the CSO LTCP. The designation of Coney Island Creek and Bronx River is preliminary, taking into account the information in the submitted LTCPs. Comment 57: How will nitrogen and nutrient pollution concerns in the East River and Long Island Sound affect the impaired-waters work this MS4 permit will require? Response 57: As required by the permit: For impaired waters without Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), in addition to the minimum control measures described in Parts IV.A through IV.J, the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) will include procedures/control measures for no net increase in the Pollutants of Concern (POC) causing an impairment. For Priority MS4 Waterbodies, the City will identify additional or customized non-structural BMPs for each control measure described in Parts IV.A through IV.I to address the POCs causing the Combined Sewer Overflows Long Term Control Plan (CSO LTCP)-identified impairment. We are currently developing our approach to these requirements. Comment 58: How would the required actions in this MS4 permit change were the waters of NYC subject to water quality standards based on the 2012 EPA Recreational Water Quality Criteria? Response 58: The Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) is being developed in accordance with the requirements of the MS4 permit. If water quality standards or permit requirements change in the future, the SWMP would be revised to address those changes. Comment 59: Why have Flushing Creek and Westchester Creek not been considered as priority waterbodies under this permit? Response 59: Please refer to the responses to comments 55 and 56. 246 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Comment 60: Most of Staten Island is an MS4 watershed, and the waterways around it are impaired for a variety of criteria. Yet, because Staten Island will not have its own LTCP, it appears as if it will be procedurally barred from consideration for Priority Waterbody status. Is this the case? If not, why not? Will the DEP consider listing the Kills around Staten Island as priorities? Response 60: Please refer to the responses to comments 55 and 56. Comment 61: Does the answer [to the question, “Will the City address industrial sites that send polluted stormwater into waterways by overland flow?”], where the DEP states the City is “only responsible for industrial and commercial sites that have the potential to discharge polluted stormwater to the MS4,” mean that no existing (as opposed to potential) connections to the MS4 will be under the City’s authority? Response 61: Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)-permitted sites that have existing connections to the MS4 will be subject to the inspection and enforcement program developed under the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Additional industrial/commercial sites as described in Permit Part IV.H.1 that have existing connections to the MS4 will be subject to the unpermitted facility inspection program described under Permit Part IV.H.2. Comment 62: For industrial and commercial sites that are connected to the MS4 system, if there is a violation that is the result of a discharge “directly to waterways … by overland flow,” will the DEP have enforcement authority, or the State?? Response 62: Enforcement authority would likely rest with the state, but DEP may report the violation if discovered during the course of their inspection or the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program. Comment 63: The DEP focused its response [to the question, “Will there be a comprehensive plan to implement Green Infrastructure citywide?”] on the GI programs in place in CSO areas. There were only vague references to GI plans for priority waterbodies and other MS4 areas. Can the DEP be more specific about its plans for GI in the city-wide MS4 areas? What, if anything, does the agency plan for GI in non-priority MS4 waterbodies? Response 63: There are two GI requirements in the MS4 Permit. One is in the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping (PP/GH) section (Permit Part IV.G.2), applicable to planned municipal upgrades in MS4 areas. The other is in the special conditions for impaired waters (Permit Part II.B.2.a.iv), applicable to MS4 areas draining to Priority MS4 Waterbodies. We are currently developing our approach to these requirements and will continue to present updates and seek feedback on program development through public/stakeholder meetings. Comment 64: Request that DEP work to make DSNY & DOT available for a floatables public meeting where the agencies can provide updates and take feedback on trash and debris control strategies. Response 64: Coordination with DSNY and DOT on the issue of floatable and settleable trash and debris is already underway. Both agencies were present at the MS4 Annual Progress Meeting and participated in the breakout session regarding the control of floatable and settleable trash and debris. Agencies with obligations under the permit are encouraged to attend relevant public meetings, including Stormwater Advisory Group (SAG) and Trash Free NYC Waters meetings, in addition to the annual progress meetings. http://a.iv 247 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses City Responses to Comments on the MS4 Progress Report submitted August 26, 2016 by Bronx Council for Environmental Quality (BCEQ) Comment 65: The Mapping Task described in the Progress Report missed the point of the Clean Water Act in that there should be no direct discharge into the Waters of the United States. Not only does this include much of the coastal areas of the city, but it also includes areas that are not draining to a CSO or a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)—which includes most, large parks. Neither of these areas are among the first steps; why? Response 65: The MS4 permit authorizes discharge of stormwater from the MS4 system. As part of its requirements, the City must develop a GIS-based map of its MS4 drainage areas and MS4 outfalls. The GIS map will include all detected MS4 drainage areas and outfalls owned by the City. The City’s MS4, which includes some City-owned park lands, does not drain to a CSO or a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), and will be subject to the control measures defined in the MS4 Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Privately owned sites that drain stormwater runoff directly to open waters are not subject to the MS4 because they are not connected to City-owned storm sewers, but may require their own discharge permits. The first steps in the MS4 mapping effort focus on mapping MS4 areas for which data is readily available, such as tributary areas to the DEP storm sewer system. Drainage system data for other City-owned or operated sites first needs to be identified, collected, compiled, digitized, and/or created, and will be refined for greater accuracy throughout SWMP development and implementation. Comment 66: What exactly were the Mapping Requirements presented to the Stormwater Controls Working Group? Which three waterbodies are being delineated to test the tool and QA accuracy? If these were part of the previous SPDES permit, why do you need to test the QA accuracy?” Response 66: The MS4 map requirements were additionally presented by DEP at the Interagency Mapping Sub-Team meeting, held in May 2016. This presentation described agencies’ responsibility to map agency owned/operated MS4 outfalls, agency owned direct drainage areas, agency operated facilities/operations in direct drainage areas (termed “overland flow” areas), and agency owned infrastructure that connects to DEP’s storm sewer system. The Quality Assurance (QA) protocol applies to DEP’s process for mapping its own MS4 outfalls and drainage areas. Different QA protocols were employed for previous SPDES mapping of combined sewer outfall tributary areas. The first three MS4 areas DEP mapped were the Coney Island, Bowery Bay, and Hunts Point wastewater treatment plant drainage areas. The QA protocol was first applied to the mapping of these three areas and the accuracy of the protocol was assessed. Comment 67: The 2016 Progress Report explains that the MS4 program does not include mapping the City or Private Direct Drainage Areas. The chart states that these areas will continue direct drainage to waterways, despite the City’s own admission in 2014 that “flowing directly into surrounding waterways through the City’s MS4.” This is confusing and clearly does not meet the requirements of the CWA. Can you explain this flaw? Response 67: The 2016 NYC MS4 Progress Report explains that the MS4 program includes mapping of City-owned drainage areas, including City direct drainage areas (see page 7). The Progress Report also states that the MS4 program does not include mapping of private direct drainage areas, since these areas are not regulated by NYC’s MS4 permit. Comment 68: Riverside (west of HHP) private sewer areas and Fieldston (east of HHP) private sewer area are mostly single family homes that have severe flooding and could be used as GI sites. Response 68: Other than City-owned direct drainage areas along the waterfront, these areas are in DEP’s combined sewer area, and are not subject to the MS4 permit, but could apply for Green Infrastructure (GI) grants under DEP’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) program. To augment its current efforts in stormwater management on private property, DEP is developing a new private property GI retrofit initiative. DEP released a Request for Information in October 2016 to receive feedback from public and interested stakeholders in formulation of the new GI Private Incentive program that is scalable. 248 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Comment 69: Is the area along the edge of the Hudson River from Edsall Ave to W 263rd Street and along the edge of the Harlem River from Bailey to Edsall Ave in the CSO area? Response 69: The shoreline areas directly along the Hudson or Harlem Rivers are not included in our current map of the combined sewer area, and will be included in the MS4 mapping effort if they are city owned or operated. However, most areas further inland from the shoreline or not directly adjacent to the Hudson or Harlem Rivers are shown as part of the combined sewer area in our current map. Comment 70: The abandoned CSX and proposed parkland south of Van Cortlandt Park and all of VCP except by the weir are not in the combined system, and just like the Bronx River, it should have been on the MS4 map. Response 70: Mapping of City-owned or operated sites (such as Parks) will be refined to increase accuracy as part of the MS4 mapping effort. Comment 71: Private properties that are part of the City’s MS4 will be subject to the Construction/Post-Construction and Industrial/Commercial requirements of the MS4 permit. Will you require a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) to meet the MS4 requirements for private properties? Response 71: The MS4 Permit requires the City to submit a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan to DEC for approval. Private properties in the MS4 area that are subject to the Construction and Post-Construction portions of the SWMP will be required to prepare, implement, and maintain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) on site as described in the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, and submit the SWPPP for DEP review and acceptance prior to commencing construction. Industrial properties in the MS4 area covered by the NYSDEC SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and inspected under the Industrial/Commercial portion of the SWMP will be required to create, implement, and maintain a SWPPP on site as described in the MSGP. 249 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 2017 Progress Report Background: On August 1, 2015, the Department of Environmental Conversation (DEC) issued a comprehensive stormwater permit to the City. The permit includes robust requirements that significantly expand the City’s obligations to reduce pollutants discharging to and from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). There are 14 City agencies with substantial obligations under the new MS4 permit, and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for coordinating the efforts of those agencies with respect to all matters relating to the permit’s requirements. The City’s MS4 permit requires the development by August 1, 2018 of a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan, the goal of which will be to reduce pollution that reaches waterbodies through the MS4. As required by the MS4 permit, the City made available to the public on May 8, 2017, the 2017 Progress Report on the development of the SWMP. On May 16, the City hosted a public meeting to present the Progress Report to all interested stakeholders. The 2017 Progress Report was open for comments through June 5, 2017. The City received comments orally at the public meeting and in writing, and has prepared the following responses. City Responses to Comments on the MS4 Progress Report Questions and Comments Received at the May 16 Public Meeting Comment: Will the DEP portion of the MS4 map be completed by 2018? Response: DEP has completed drainage area delineations for a little more than half of the known DEP-owned MS4 outfalls. DEP is continuing to delineate drainage areas for DEP-owned MS4 outfalls and anticipates completing this work by the submission of the preliminary map in August 2018. Comment: 311 is inadequate for reporting discharges from outfalls to waterways. Additionally, the 311 mobile application should allow the public to make reports using GPS coordinates. Response: Noted. The City is exploring ways to improve the process for reporting through 311 discharges from outfalls; this includes a pilot project to install signs at MS4 outfalls. By providing identifying numbers for MS4 outfalls, the City will make it easier for the public to report the location of the outfall to 311. There are no plans at this time to modify the 311 mobile application. Despite the challenges in reporting discharges from outfalls, 311 is still the best way to connect with the City on many MS4-related issues. Comment: DEP should develop outreach about what citizens can do and how they can supplement monitoring/ enforcement. Regarding the Citizen Water Quality Testing Program, how are data compared with what we collect? How can we engage the community groups to become more involved? Response: DEP agrees that citizen water quality monitoring programs are important aspects of citizen involvement and could supplement the monitoring programs established for regulatory compliance purposes. Accordingly, DEP obtained the citizen water quality monitoring data for several waterbodies where LTCPs are developed, conducted comparisons and shared the results with multiple stakeholders including the SWIM Coalition. However, monitoring data from outside groups may or may not follow DEP and EPA-approved sampling procedures/guidelines. DEP will continue to evaluate whether and how it might be able to engage/utilize community groups. Some considerations include the feasibility of those groups’ adopting standard protocols to match our current programs to ensure the data obtained are comparable and can be scientifically evaluated. Comment: Newtown Creek sampling showed off the chart levels of, fecal coliform. What is DEP doing to investigate for illegal connections? Response: DEP has active Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) investigations in different receiving waterbodies, including Newtown Creek. In Newtown Creek, DEP is currently conducting source tracking via dye testing to confirm potential illicit connections. DEP will follow up with appropriate enforcement and coordinate with DEC as necessary. 250 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Comment: What is the City doing to institute laws and regulations to reduce plastic waste at the source, such as plastic bag bans? How has the City highlighted the pollution of bags, plastic, bottles, etc.? When will we see some of the laws reflecting this and more public outreach? Response: The City is pursuing several policies and programs that seek to reduce waste at the source. These include both legislative and regulatory approaches as well as public education and outreach approaches. The City is in the process of banning expanded polystyrene foam. Following a May 12, 2017 determination by DSNY that expanded polystyrene foam could not be recycled in a manner that is economically feasible or environmentally effective for New York City, the City plans to institute a ban starting November 13, 2017. The City has also attempted to reduce plastic bag waste by imposing a fee on all carryout merchandise bags. Local Law 63, passed by the City in 2016, would have imposed a fee of at least five cents on all carryout merchandise bags. In February 2017, however, New York State suspended the NYC Carryout Bag Law and established a one-year moratorium on establishing new carryout bag fees in New York City. NY State is establishing a task force to develop a uniform State plan for addressing the plastic bag problem. The task force includes appointees from the State Senate and State Assembly, as well as local governments and other stakeholders. By the end of 2017, this Task Force will conclude with a report and proposed legislation. The City also has several public education and outreach programs that seek to raise awareness and change behaviors. These include the B.Y.O. campaign, Zero Waste programs, Talk Trash NY campaign, and the Clean Streets = Clean Beaches campaign. Most recently, DEP initiated a “Don’t Trash Our Waters campaign” in collaboration with the Department of Sanitation, which was kicked off at Coney Island Creek and will be expanded to Bronx River Watershed this summer. Comment: Will there be a re-evaluation of fines for an environmental violation so that they are more effective? Response: The City has not yet decided on whether the MS4 program will include a revision of fines for environmental violations, but will consider this issue during SWMP development. Comment: How is DEP catching one time offenders dumping paint/oil into catch basins? Response: The response from DEP depends on how the complaint is received. If the complaint is submitted anonymously, DEP will send staff to investigate, and if DEP staff are able to connect a suspect to the illicit discharge, a violation is issued. If someone willing to give his or her name submits the complaint, and DEP does not witness the individual or company dumping into a catch basin, then DEP would require the person who witnessed the act to testify at the Environmental Control Board (ECB) to hold the offender accountable. Comment: Since the Green Infrastructure Grant Program will now be eligible in MS4 areas, why not require that all properties participate in the program? The City should pass legislation requiring that all existing properties take the City’s funding in order to ensure that all private properties will be retrofitted with green infrastructure. Response: Under the Green Infrastructure Grant Program, the City does not provide funds for legally mandated actions under local, state, or federal law, and/or associated with administrative permit conditions or terms of settlement agreements. In other words, if the City were to require that existing properties retrofit with green infrastructure, it could not provide funding for the design and construction of the GI. Such a mandate, with no financial support, would be significantly challenging for many property owners around New York City. As a result, the City will continue to develop private incentive programs and conduct extensive outreach to encourage New Yorkers to participate in the optional programs. Comment: What is the status of the Adopt-a-Catch Basin Program? Response: The of the Adopt-a-Catch Basin pilot program was launched in 2016 in the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Canarsie, Gowanus, Prospect-Lefferts Gardens, and Sunset Park where catch basins that are clogged with garbage and other debris prevent adequate storm water collection, flooding areas nearby and forming small ponds that impede cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The effort is intended to curb localized flooding after heavy rainstorms as well as to help prevent floatables, such as bottles and other debris from entering into waterways. DEP provides training, as well as gloves http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/docs/2017-05-12FoamDetermination FINAL.pdf 251 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses and garbage bags, to participating organizations that agree to maintain storm drains in their neighborhoods, and also enrolls participants in an early alert system to inform them of upcoming weather events that may cause flooding.. The City is still exploring expanding the program to other neighborhoods. Comment: There should be graphics in the public meeting presentations that enable viewers to understand the difference between what is required for private and public business/homeowners per provision of the MS4 Permit. Response: Noted. The City will consider using more graphics to clarify responsibilities for private businesses/homeowners impacted by the MS4 Permit. The City will also use graphics will be used in presentations and in the final Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Comment: How transparent will we be about monitoring/reporting in the next 3-4 years? Response: In accordance with the MS4 Permit, the City will release an annual report each year. The report will be available online and public meetings will be held each year to discuss the content of the annual report. People will be able to submit questions, comments and concerns on the report to MS4@dep.nyc.gov. If the question is specifically referring to stormwater monitoring, then in accordance with the MS4 Permit, DEP will provide results of the information collected and analyzed as part of the Monitoring and Assessment Program. The results will be included in future MS4 Annual Reports. Comment: Will High Level Storm Sewers (HLSS) be part of MS4? Are there sewer separation projects in process? Response: High Level Storm Sewers (HLSS) that ultimately discharge to waters of New York State through MS4 outfalls owned or operated by the City are considered part of the MS4 and are covered by the permit. HLSS are one strategy for alleviating pressure on the combined sewer system and limiting combined sewer overflows. Since HLSS require a separate pipe and outlet to a waterbody, this strategy is only cost-effective for developments near the water’s edge. Some select areas are receiving new HLSS. Submitted June 1, 2017 by Marni Majorelle from Alive Structures: Comment: Please include the MS4 in the Green Infrastructure Grant Program as soon as possible. Response: The current Green Infrastructure Grant Program is now available citywide, in both the MS4 and combined sewer areas of the city. Through the NYC Department of Environmental Protection, in coordination with the NYC Law Department and the NYC Office of Management and Budget, the City is also developing new private incentive programs for green infrastructure implementation. As these programs are still in development, please visit www.nyc.gov/ greeninfrastructure to sign up for the green infrastructure listserv to receive updates as they become available. Comment: Other cities are creating storm water policies, green infrastructure incentives, and mandates that are more effective than NYC’s. [The comment included an attachment with examples.] Response: The City has formed positive relationships with many of the cities on this list to share best practices for incentivizing green infrastructure on private property. For example, DEP staff has visited Philadelphia, spoken with grant staff and grant recipients, reviewed grant documents such as contracts and applications, and visited constructed projects. This sharing has gone both ways and Philadelphia has modeled portions of its grant program on the current New York City Green Infrastructure Grant. During the development of the new private incentive program referenced in the response above, the City has hosted roundtable discussions with property owners and green infrastructure contractors to gather critical feedback. Additionally, DEP has completed stormwater surveys with approximately 30 municipalities (including all of those listed, with the exceptions of France and Switzerland) to learn more about their stormwater programs, including how they implement and incentivize green infrastructure programs, and will be publishing the summary of these surveys by the end of this year. Furthermore, the program the City is developing in accordance with the MS4 Permit for Post-Construction Stormwater Management will require green infrastructure and related measures for certain new construction and reconstruction projects. DEP has held several workshops in collaboration with Urban Green Council and REBNY including the development community and their technical engineering companies to discuss what would be the mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov http://www.nyc.gov/greeninfrastructure http://www.nyc.gov/greeninfrastructure 252 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses appropriate lot size threshold for NYC by taking into account water quality, cost, local size conditions, impervious surface coverage, total lot area managed, number of affected public/private properties and other relevant factors. Submitted June 2, 2017 by Ira Gersenhorn: Comment: This MS4 Progress Report is from NYC DEP. Should there be a separate MS4 Progress report from every city agency or does this report involve all city agencies? Response: There are 14 City agencies with substantial obligations under the MS4 permit. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 429 of 2014 and Section 1403 of the New York City Charter, as recently revised by Local Law 97 of 2017, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for coordinating the efforts of those agencies with respect to all matters relating to the permit’s requirements. As a result, the 2017 Progress Report is produced by DEP and reports on the work of all of the city agencies with permit obligations. 253 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 3.0 SWMP Plan Comments and Responses The City prepared responses to each written comment received on the draft SWMP Plan. The written comments have been organized by SWMP provision. The source of each comment is identified in brackets at the end of the comment. Further, comments the City received at draft SWMP stakeholder meetings between April—June 2018 were recorded and then summarized and categorized by SWMP provision. Verbal responses were provided during the meetings. The City has included written responses to these comments in this appendix. These comments are identified as received at stakeholder meetings through in brackets at the end of the comment. Public Comments Received: 1 SWIM Coalition, May 15, 2018. Public Comment on the Stormwater Management Program Plan for the NYC Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. 2 Coney Island Beautification Project, May 15, 2018. Public Comment on the Stormwater Management Program Plan for the NYC Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 3 Alley Pond Environmental Center, May 15, 2018. Municipal Stormwater Management Plan. 4 Kira Aiello, via email May 9, 2018. Alley Pond Watershed. 5 Tom McGlinchey, via email April 23, 2018. Comment on MS4 SWMP. 6 Dahlia Thompson, via email May 15, 2018. Comments on the draft NYC Stormwater Management Plan. 7 Linda Cohen, via email May 14, 2018. Comments regarding MS4—Staten Island. 8 James Scarcella, via email May 15, 2018. LTCP Comments. 9 Emily Chiu, via email May 9, 2018. Please Consider Alley Pond Environmental Center for MS4. 10 Robin Spiegelman, via email May 9, 2018. Storm Sewer System at Alley Park. 11 Queens College CUNY, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, May 15, 2018. Public comment on the draft NYC Stormwater Management Program report. 12 NYCH2O, May 15, 2018. Public Comment on the Stormwater Management Program Plan for the NYC Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. 13 Coney Island History Project, May 15, 2018. Comments: Draft NYC Storm water Management Plan. 14 Ida Sanoff via email, May 15, 2018. More LTPC Comments. 15 Comments received during SWMP Plan presentations, April 17 to June 11, 2018. 1. Legal Authority 1a. Fiscal analysis must allocate funds to implement SWMP programs. DEP states that “[t]he City is confident that it has adequate resources to comply with the Permit’s terms, and will include a more detailed fiscal analysis in the Plan submittal in August 2018.” It is crucial that DEP completes its fiscal analysis prior to issuance of its initial SWMP. While there is no doubt that the City has adequate resources, it is certain that DEP, at least, will need additional staff to cover its new enforcement duties under the SWMP without short-changing other water quality protection duties. Specifically, the review of stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) will demand significant amounts of new staff time. Funds should be allocated to get this program and others off the ground. Moreover, without earmarking funds for Education and Outreach, the City likely will continue with business as usual, instead of taking important steps that will help New Yorkers understand and modify behaviors that lead to stormwater pollution. These expenses and others should be accounted for in the present SWMP. Regardless of when DEP completes the fiscal analysis, it must be subject to public review and comment, as it will become part of the SWMP. [1] 254 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: Refer to updated text in Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration. 1b. DEP should account for the role of City agencies in the Enforcement Response Plan. DEP appropriately states that the Department of City Planning, Department of Buildings, Department of Transportation, and Small Business Services will cooperate in implementing the Enforcement Response Plan. Yet, in Figure 1.1, “Agency Roles and Responsibilities Matrix,” none of these City agencies is shown not to have a role in the Enforcement Response Plan. Some of the regulations overseen by these agencies are crucial to stormwater pollution prevention. For example, the Buildings Department is in a position to enforce erosion and sediment control, post-construction stormwater controls, green stormwater infrastructure requirements and other important measures. We expect that these agencies will share a leadership role in enforcing measures to prevent stormwater runoff. Such role should be made explicit in Figure 1.1 and throughout the SWMP. [1] Response: DEP will be enforcing “erosion and sediment control and post-construction stormwater controls.” DOB/other agencies will not. The reference in the ERP to DEP’s implementation of the plan “in cooperation with other city agencies,” indicates that DEP will coordinate with other agencies that may have some involvement with entities subject to DEP’s permitting programs. For instance, DEP will coordinate with DOB to ensure that a developer does not receive a building permit or certificate of occupancy for a project subject to the DEP Construction/Post-Construction requirements without having a Stormwater Construction Permit or Stormwater Maintenance Permit, where such permits are required. ECB adjudicates certain violations. The actions of other agencies will contribute to our enforcement, but they will not be enforcing on DEP’s IDDE, C/PC and I/C programs. They will continue enforce their own rules and codes, some of which may contribute to water quality protection, but those rules and codes are not the subject of the ERP. Other City agencies may identify, in the course of their operations, illicit discharges, which they may also refer to DEP for enforcement. 1c. Fiscal analysis must allocate funds to implement SWMP programs. Specifically, without earmarking funds for Education and Outreach, the City likely will continue with business as usual instead of taking important steps that will help New Yorkers understand and modify behaviors that cause stormwater pollution. These expenses and others should be accounted for in the present SWMP. [12] Response: SWMP Chapter 1 addresses the Permit provision related to the fiscal analysis, which requires the City to indicate that it has adequate funds to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit. The City has allocated and will continue to allocate funds to public education and outreach, as described in Chapter 2. The City has included these expenses in the costs of developing, implementing, and enforcing the SWMP as explained in the Fiscal Analysis. Other SWMP chapters describe additional public education and outreach initiatives. 1d. This is an old city—does the City have the budget to rectify old sewers? [15] Response: Refer to the Fiscal Analysis in Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration. DEP maintains and repairs/replaces sewers as necessary as described in Section 1.1 of the Plan. 1e. This is a very large program and it seems like there would be a significant cost associated with developing this program; are there sufficient financial resources for doing so? [15] Response: Refer to updated text in Section 1.5 of the SWMP, which details anticipated costs and sources of funds to meet the MS4 Permit requirements. 1f. What is the status of the green text amendment that should be preventing homeowners and businesses from paving their front and back lawns? It seems problematic that the City has a whole new program for stormwater management but is not enforcing current regulations. Neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn have drainage issues because of property owners illegally paving. Response: In 2008 the New York City Council adopted the Department of City Planning’s Yard Text Amendment. The intent of the rule is to preserve landscaped and planted areas in order to support stormwater management throughout the City. The Department of Buildings (DOB) currently enforces these rules on a complaint basis. Enforcement may be challenging due to several factors including a lack of historic documentation of the site and staffing levels. DOB is currently planning to expand its pool of inspectors to improve response times. 255 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 2. Public Education and Outreach 2a. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) should have a role in Public Education and Outreach. As detailed below, the proposed Public Education and Outreach Program could be greatly expanded and actively pursue behavioral modifications to prevent polluted runoff. DOHMH could assist DEP in surveying current behaviors and attitudes that lead to pollution and developing messaging, advertisements, and educational programs to help change such behaviors. Yet in Figure 1.1, “Agency Roles and Responsibilities Matrix,” DOHMH is shown not to have a role in the Public Education and Outreach Program. The SWMP should incorporate DOHMH into these efforts. [1] Response: There are several City agencies, including DOHMH, that do not conduct educational or outreach programming directly relevant to stormwater pollution, and therefore are not shown to have a role in Figure 1.1 or Chapter 2. If appropriate, however, DEP and other City agencies may work with non-listed agencies such as DOHMH to implement education and outreach programs. For example, at DEP’s request, DOHMH assisted with a survey to assess littering attitudes and behaviors for the floatables media campaign. 2b. The SWMP should propose and fund new education programs focused on stormwater management. The SWMP does not appear to recommend any new educational programs but rather relies entirely on existing programs. We support integrating SWMP messaging into existing programs as an efficient way to broaden outreach. This goal should be clearly stated in the plan so that the reader understands that DEP is aiming to enhance stormwater literacy and not just environmental literacy. Still other new programs will be necessary to educate our communities about stormwater pollution specifically. We suggest the following initiatives: » Leading workshops for communities within Geographic Areas of Concern » Creating high school environmental clubs throughout the City » Partnering with local non-profits for “Nearby Nature” educational hikes and workshops » Incorporating pet waste management information into City dog park and greenway maps » Sending yearly mailers for industrial sites and developers potentially affected by the SWMP » Sending comprehensive sustainability guidelines for homeowners covering handling of toxics, disposal of household cleaners, landscaping and lawn care, pest control, car care, water conservation, etc. » Creating an online resource library for school and community groups and voluntary educators » Posting signage along all waterways, especially those in Geographical Areas of Concern, and those in highly trafficked riparian recreational areas to increase awareness of local water resources and potential stormwater impacts » Developing educational materials tailored to minority and underrepresented communities » Assembling media kits and submitting articles to local media outlets » Providing storm drain stenciling tools and guidance for non- profit partners » Convening a “Speakers Bureau” of stakeholders knowledgeable in stormwater matters that can address various audiences It might also be useful to survey non-governmental organizations offering educational programs. There are many that conduct programs with stormwater components or other relevant content. For instance, the New York City Water Trail Association already collects data on surface water around the city and would be an excellent organization to reach a wide audience actively engaged in these topics. There is a concurrent effort at the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program to catalogue organizations working on water quality, green infrastructure, and stormwater programs. It would behoove the DEP to work with these existing entities, in addition to the SWIM Coalition and member organizations, to help coordinate city wide efforts related to stormwater. DEP should at a minimum be aware of these programs and if possible collaborate with them to reach more people. City agencies could help promote events like Riverkeeper Sweep that raise awareness about stormwater pollution issues and invite public participation. We would be glad to work with DEP staff to help compile such information. [1] 256 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: Refer to updated text in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach. 2c. DEP should establish an online searchable database for City-run and private programs relevant to stormwater. It is unclear how people would find out about these educational and outreach programs. A single repository would allow those interested to find out about events and get involved. [1] Response: The City currently has multiple mechanisms for publicizing events, including social media, listservs, mailers, and posters in libraries, supermarkets, and community venues. Events offered by the City as well as nonprofits are often included in the Citywide Event Calendar. Visit http://www1.nyc.gov/events/ to search events by category, location, and date. Further, nonprofits are able to publicize volunteer opportunities through NYC Service. Visit nyc.gov/service for more information. The City will explore various options to characterize stormwater-related programs. 2d. DEP should establish baseline data on existing knowledge and attitudes and direct resources toward understanding behavioral change. In order to assess the effectiveness of the City’s Public Education and Outreach Program, we urge DEP to work with DOHMH to conduct a stormwater public awareness survey at the beginning, during, and at the end of the permit term to gauge any change in behavior over time. Surveys directed at specific audiences, such as dog owners, automotive groups, homeowners, or neighborhoods in impaired waterbody watersheds, could be informative. [1] Response: Thank you for the suggestion. 2e. “Target Audiences” (Section 2.3) should include all of the “Key Stakeholders” in Section 3.2. The individuals identified in the “Key Stakeholders” will be ambassadors for the stormwater management program. Moreover, the business community target audience should be broken down into various sectors (e.g., real estate development, automotive, construction, pest management, landscaping, waste management, etc.) so that outreach and education can be targeted at specific commercial activities. [1] Response: We thank the SWIM Coalition for their role as a Key Stakeholder and educating community groups about stormwater and water quality issues. We have edited Section 2.3 to reference the Key Stakeholders and their role in the development of the SWMP. The target audiences in the business community will be expanded to include example sectors. 2f. DEP must allocate funds to educational materials, programs and advertisements focused on stormwater management. Without earmarked funds, the City is unlikely to undertake any specific campaigns that might help alter potential pollution behavior of roughly 8.5 million New Yorkers. For instance, many New Yorkers are unaware of which stormwater conditions would be reportable to 311. Subway ads could help inform communities about how to help City officials keep their neighborhoods and their waters clean. [1] Response: Refer to updated text in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach and Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Program Administration. 2g. DEP and Department of Transportation (DOT) should partner with non-governmental organizations to create a storm drain stenciling program. There have been many requests for assistance on storm drain stenciling from community based organizations (CBOs), going back almost two decades. With the implementation of the SWMP, now is the time to capitalize on this grassroots interest. Specifically, DEP and DOT should create instructions that will allow non governmental organizations to easily organize stenciling events/ activities and pick up free stenciling tools and paint from DEP. They should also streamline a process to provide permission to CBOs. Currently, the New York City Soil and Water Conservation District must submit a request for a permit on behalf of CBOs with information on exactly where drains will be stenciled. A simple system by which a CBO can directly request a permit with a general area (rather than listing all the streets) would be desirable. We can also allow CBOs to adopt a portion of a watershed to stencil. DEP could then establish a numerical target (e.g., number of drains marked, percentage of catch basins in a sewershed) and measure progress yearly. Such a program would achieve the dual goals of public participation and community education. [1 and 12] Response: Refer to updated text in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach. 2h. Please provide signs at all outfalls, both CS outfalls and MS4 outfalls, and also nearby to underwater outfall pipes, so that the public is aware of these locations. [7] Response: DEP has installed signs that can be read by the public on the water and land sides of all 422 CSO outfalls. These signs indicate that there is a wet weather discharge point and feature icons telling people not swim, boat, or fish during rain http://www1.nyc.gov/events/ http://www.nyc.gov/service 257 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses events. DEP launched an MS4 Outfall Sign Pilot in 2018 in Coney Island Creek to educate the public about how to notify the City if they see a dry-weather discharge. DEP will evaluate the effectiveness of adding this signage to determine whether to expand this program to other locations. 2i. Currently 311 operators cannot find Great Kills National Park on 311 maps. Please place the beach areas of Great Kills Beach, at least till the high water mark, on the 311 system. Please include these 311 complaints on status updates through NYC Open Data. [7] Response: Thank you for feedback and concern. Unfortunately, 311 does not handle complaints about State or Federal Parks/Beaches. You can find more information for Gateway National Park, which includes Fresh Kills Park and Beach, online here: https://www.nps.gov/gate/index.htm and report issues for by calling (718) 354-4606. 311 also has a general referral service for State and Federal Parks to find contact information for other locations: http:// www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2517/state-and-federal-parks. 2j. Please amend the 311 reporting of sewage discharge to include federal property and NYC public Parks and beaches. Currently, the 311 Operators refuse to take info without a cross street, and no shoreline has a cross street. [8] Response: 311 does accept complaints about City beaches and parks (http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2171/park maintenance-complaint). Unfortunately, federal property is outside of 311’s jurisdiction. You also can report discharges of sewage, suspicious, or unusual color in any NYC waterway (http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc resources/service/2745/waterway-complaint). The reporting system requires the reporter to provide either a street address or an intersection, which can be difficult with waterways. In these instances, we appreciate reporters using the closest address/ intersection/block available, so that the complaint can be logged properly. Reporters also can always provide additional location information, including GPS coordinates, if you have them. All of this will help City responders get to the location. 2k. The SWMP should propose new education programs focused on stormwater management. The SWMP does not appear to recommend any new educational programs, but instead relies entirely on existing programs. We support integrating SWMP messaging into existing programs as an efficient way to broaden outreach. This goal should be clearly stated in the plan so that the reader understands that the DEP is aiming to enhance stormwater literacy and not just environmental literacy. Still other new programs will be necessary to educate our communities about stormwater pollution specifically. We suggest the following programs: » Workshops for communities within Geographic Areas of Concern » Creating high school environmental clubs throughout the City » Partnering with non-profits like NYC H2O for “Nearby Nature” educational hikes and workshops » Creating a resource library for school and community groups and voluntary educators » Posting signage along all waterways, especially those in Geographical Areas of Concern and those in highly trafficked recreational areas, to increase awareness of local water resources and potential stormwater impacts » Developing educational materials tailored to minority and underrepresented communities » Providing storm drain stenciling tools and guidance for non-profit partners like NYC H2O » Convening a “Speakers Bureau” of stakeholders knowledgeable in stormwater matters that can address various audiences It might also be useful to survey non-governmental organizations offering educational programs. There are many organizations like NYC H2O that conduct programs with stormwater components and other relevant content. DEP should at a minimum be aware of these programs and if possible collaborate with them to reach more people. City agencies could help promote events like our beach clean-ups that raise awareness about stormwater pollution issues and invite public participation. It would behoove the DEP to work with existing entities like Riverkeeper and SWIM and NYC H2O, to help coordinate city-wide efforts related to stormwater. [12] https://www.nps.gov/gate/index.htm http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2517/state-and-federal-parks http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2517/state-and-federal-parks http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2171/park-maintenance-complaint http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2171/park-maintenance-complaint http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2745/waterway-complaint http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2745/waterway-complaint 258 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: Thank you for the comment and list of suggested programs. We recognize the need to expand and enhance our Public Education and Outreach Programs, and plan to explore and fund new education programs in the coming years. Our first effort has been to identify and fully expand existing programs we have Citywide as a standard baseline. We will continue to develop new initiatives and incorporate SWMP messaging in our outreach efforts. We will clarify in the SWMP Plan that our goal is to enhance not only stormwater literacy, but also environmental literacy. We also look forward to continuing our coordination with you and other stakeholders during the implementation stages of the SWMP; and hope to work collaboratively with non-governmental organizations or educational programs going forward. 2l. Re: dog waste, nice to see that there will be an educational campaign to “pick it up”. But I have yet to hear of a solution to people throwing the bags into what they think is “the sewer” - the storm drains. After every rain, the beach is loaded with empty and partially filled poop bags. In addition to being unsanitary, it certainly contributes to the nitrogen problem. [14] Response: Thank you for the comment. We anticipate creating a campaign specific to this effort to better educate the general public. 2m. The measurable goals for public education and outreach do not include measures of effectiveness of the message. There is a lot of education mentioned, but how do you measure if it is working? [15] Response: As detailed in the Plan, we will measure the overall effectiveness of the SWMP and progress towards reducing stormwater pollution from the MS4 through the achievement of the measurable goals set forth in each chapter. For public education and outreach in particular, we will measure effectiveness through the reach and scope of the program. We may also gauge the effectiveness of the program through the positive results we observe in other programs. For example, a decrease in the number of illicit connections to the storm sewer may indicate that education and outreach efforts around illicit discharge detection and elimination have been effective. Similarly, for the Construction/Post-Construction Program, an increase in the number of sites in compliance with regulations may indicate that education and outreach about the program have been effective. 2n. I tried to file a complaint with 311 for a location at Great Kills/Fort Wadsworth, but 311 couldn’t find the location. [15] Response: 311 does not handle complaints about State or Federal Parks/Beaches. You can find more information for Gateway National Park, which includes Fresh Kills Park and Beach, online here: https://www.nps.gov/gate/index.htm and report issues for by calling (718) 354-4606. 311 also has a general referral service for State and Federal Parks to find contact information for other locations: http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2517/state-and-federal-parks. 3. Public Involvement and Participation 3a. DEP staff have done a commendable job engaging members of the public and collaborating with them on SWMP development. The SWIM Coalition appreciates the regular update meetings during which SWIM members were not only given opportunities to understand the DEP’s thinking better but also able to ask questions and make suggestions. [1] Response: DEP has enjoyed these regular check-ins with the SWIM coalition, and hopes to continue this collaborative partnership as we continue to refine the SWMP in the future. 3b. Outreach strategies should be differentiated based on differences among stakeholders. Public education and participation are inherently related; meaningful public involvement and participation depend on an educated public. We recommend that DEP clarify and make explicit the connection and coordination between education and outreach (Chapter 2) and public involvement (Chapter 3). Moreover, different stakeholder groups require different educational strategies. Input from students and educators is likely different than from the design, construction, and development community. There should be an outreach strategy for each stakeholder group listed under section 3.2. Such strategy will not only include how to reach out to the stakeholder group but also how to provoke and focus their input. [1] Response: We have edited Chapter 2 to clarify that public involvement is a critical component of education and outreach. We agree that different stakeholder groups require different educational and outreach strategies. We intend to use the strategies most appropriate for each group and message. https://www.nps.gov/gate/index.htm http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2517/state-and-federal-parks 259 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 3c. A suggestion for outreach, we must not depend on social media as many residents do not have access. DEP should contact schools, religious institutions, libraries, area businesses, etc. [2] Response: The City currently engages local organizations such as schools, libraries, and businesses in a variety of programs that are relevant to the SWMP. We will continue to identify and work with these organizations throughout SWMP implementation. 3d. DEP staff have done a commendable job engaging members of the public and collaborating with them on SWMP development. We appreciate the regular update meetings during which NYC H2O members were not only given opportunities to understand the DEP’s thinking better but also able to ask questions and make suggestions. [12] Response: Thank you for this comment. We look forward to continuing this work with you throughout SWMP implementation. 3e. Outreach strategies should be differentiated based on differences among stakeholders. Public education and participation are inherently related; meaningful public involvement and participation depend on an educated public. We recommend that DEP clarify and make explicit the connection and coordination between education and outreach (Chapter 2) and public involvement (Chapter 3). Moreover, different stakeholder groups require different educational strategies. There should be an outreach strategy for each stakeholder group, not only including how to reach out to the stakeholder group but also how to provoke and focus their input. As we at NYC H2O know from our extensive work in NYC public schools, outreach strategies for high school students, and Input and feedback from students and educators, is very different from that involving the research community. [12] Response: Refer to updated text in Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach. 3f. 100 public comments does not seems like a lot for a City this large. What kind of outreach did you do to make sure people were aware of the program? [15] Response: The City conducted extensive outreach and engagement throughout SWMP development. Please see Chapter 3: Public Involvement and Participation for more information. 3g. How should people report to the City? [15] Response: 311 is New York City’s main source of government information and non-emergency services. See Appendix 2.1 for a list of the types of complaints related to stormwater pollution and water quality that the public can report to the City. 3h. Does the City have a survey that people can fill out with complaints and reports of things they see on a regular basis in the waterways and parks? [15] Response: See response to comment 3g above. 3i. Which Bronx community stakeholder and environmental organizations did the city work with in developing the SWMP? [15] Response: The City met with the Bronx River Alliance and the SWIM Coalition regularly throughout SWMP development. The City also briefed the Bronx Service Cabinet throughout SWMP development. 3j. The public comment period is already over; is there room for DEP to come out and talk more about this program for interested parties (e.g., Manhattan Community Board 4 has significant waterfront parkland and there are groups that would be interested in learning more)? [15] Response: While almost all of Manhattan is serviced by the combined sewer system, DEP is happy to participate in follow up meetings about water quality in general and share information about the SWMP in particular with other interested groups. 260 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 4. Mapping 4a. DEP’s interactive MS4 map should integrate existing DEP datasets and provide easily downloadable files. The SWMP or response to comments should clarify whether DEP will incorporate datasets, such as the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) drainage areas and green stormwater infrastructure assets. It should also clarify whether data sets will be incorporated into easily downloadable shapefiles and KML files for outfalls and drainage areas. [1] Response: DEP and other City agencies make a variety of GIS datasets publicly available for a variety of different purposes. The Preliminary MS4 Map provides preliminary information specifically about the City’s MS4 drainage area and MS4 outfalls, along with the supplemental information required by the MS4 Permit. The Preliminary MS4 Map is available in an interactive format as of August 1, 2018 at nyc.gov/dep/ms4map. The public may download the data contained in the map in a variety of formats through NYC Open Data at opendata.cityofnewyork.us. Other data sets provided by DEP and other City agencies are also available for download at opendata.cityofnewyork.us. DEP may revisit the suggestion to provide a more comprehensive map that combines MS4 and CSO drainage areas in the future. 4b. DEP should integrate mapping resources with existing citywide datasets. MapPLUTO is a go-to data source for many planning efforts. DEP should work with the Department of City Planning to make MS4 and CSOs an attribute in PLUTO. [1] Response: As described in the Plan, the MS4 Map will incorporate data from some existing citywide datasets. The City will not incorporate Preliminary MS4 Map information into other citywide datasets such as MapPLUTO. Once the delineation of the MS4 drainage areas is complete, the City will determine whether to incorporate the information from the MS4 mapping program into other citywide datasets. 4c. Please do all that you can to properly map the sewer systems and then to make these maps available as part of the local park signage at Oakland Lake, Alley Creek, Joe Michael’s Mile along Little Neck Bay, Alley Pond Park at various points and where the proposed LTCP chlorination/dechlorination plant will be built. [5] Response: As described in the Plan, DEP and other City agencies are currently delineating the MS4 drainage area and identifying MS4 outfalls. This includes reviewing available information about the existing sewer systems and in some instances conducting field investigation. The MS4 Map is available to the public at nyc.gov/dep/ms4map as of August 1, 2018. For security reasons, DEP will not place signs in parks near waterways showing the sewer system. 4d. The outfall definition may want to clarify what is meant by “to another MS4”—I’m assuming this isn’t intending that every pipe connected to a storm sewer is considered an outfall and another MS4 is implying another municipality or entity such as The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. If it isn’t clear, then the number of outfalls reported could become too cumbersome to track. [6] Response: The MS4 Permit defines an outfall as “any point where a municipally owned or operated separate storm sewer system discharges to either surface waters of the State or to another MS4.” The definition recognizes the possibility that a City-owned storm sewer may have an outfall to another separate storm sewer system owned or operated by another public entity. A private property connecting to a DEP separate storm sewer would not be considered an outfall under this definition. The language in the chapter has been modified to clarify this definition. 5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 5a. The SWIM Coalition welcomes DEP’s increased commitment to expand the shoreline survey to inspect 100% of stormwater outfalls every 10 years. Previously DEP had surveyed 50% of all outfalls every five years. While DEP ultimately will not have to perform more inspections, covering every stormwater outfall will ensure all major illicit discharges are identified within that decade-long span. [1] Response: Comment noted. 5b. High levels of Enterococci should trigger IDDE investigation. DEP proposes that when a Sentinel Monitoring Program sampling station exceeds 200 fecal coliform/100 mL, the adjacent shoreline is prioritized for a mini-shoreline investigation to determine source/cause of contamination. DEP notes in Appendix 5.1 that it is also sampling for Enterococcus to be http://nyc.gov/dep/ms4map http://opendata.cityofnewyork.us http://opendata.cityofnewyork.us http://nyc.gov/dep/ms4map 261 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses consistent with the Harbor Survey program. DEP could better protect public health if the mini-shoreline investigation was triggered when the station exceeds Enterococci standards. The protective standard provided in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (30 Culturable Enterococci at a geometric mean of 30 cfu/100 mL and an statistical threshold value of 110 cfu/100 ml). [1] Response: DEP currently collects water samples for enterococci in order to have a better understanding of the condition of NYC waterbodies. However, DEP will continue to use fecal coliform as the trigger for the mini-shoreline survey, as required by the MS4 Permit Part IV.D.5. DEP is using fecal coliform to trigger mini-shoreline investigation because this is a permit requirement as stated in Section IV.D.5 of the MS4 permit. 5c. Public notifications of illicit discharges should be improved. Will DEP text and/or email updates from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) daily on illicit discharges? How will DEP improve on the Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act 4-hour notice requirement, and actively alert the public on illicit discharges? Will DEP integrate illicit discharge notifications with Notify NYC? How can the public learn more about what is going on with these continual discharges, and whether they are still going on? According to DEC, the current Coney Island Creek alert, has been occurring for more than 30 weeks. This notice could include much more information to help the public understand the nature of the ongoing pollution dangers and what actions are being taken to eliminate the discharge. [1] Response: NYSDEC sends notifications to the public through its NY Alert System within four hours of receiving notice from the City of a sewage related discharge. The requirement to use the NY Alert System is in the NYS Sewage Right to Know Law. The public can sign up to receive these notifications through https://alert.ny.gov/. During the development of the SWMP, the City explored the possibility of using Notify NYC as a means to notify the public of illicit discharges but determined that the NY Alert System is currently the best way for the public to receive updates. Further, DEP commissioned a study of options to update its current NYC waterbody advisory website for combined sewer overflows and added illicit discharge notification to the scope of work. The goal of this project is to assess current advisory systems in NYC, solicit agency and public feedback, and develop detailed recommendations for system improvements based on expert assessment of how existing systems might be reconciled, and by considering successful examples from other cities. The City convened a Waterbody Advisory Stakeholder Group to receive public input through the study and to inform the final recommendations. 5d. The penalty schedule for illicit discharges should be made explicit in the SWMP to help put the regulated community on notice. In keeping with the need to educate New Yorkers on stormwater pollution issues, notice of potential penalties may help raise awareness of the issues and promote compliant behaviors. [1] Response: The Sewer Control Rules Penalty Schedule can be found at 48 RCNY Section 3-123. The City updated the Enforcement Response Plan (Appendix 1.1) to include this reference. 5e. DEP should record all complaints, agency responses, and outcomes. In addition to the monitoring provisions DEP suggests, it should also track the number of complaints received via 311 or other means, any corrections made in response to complaints, the number of outfalls screened, and the quantities of flow eliminated. [1] Response: The public can access 311 reports via the 311 website at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/311reporting/311-reports/ service-requests.page. Available reports include information on Calls and Inquiries, Service Requests and Service Request Maps. For information on IDDE investigations, the public can access the DEP website to view the Integrated Sentinel Monitoring Report. 5f. DEP must improve on the Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act 4-hour notice requirement, as previously noted years past before the community was notified of the millions of gallons per week of raw sewage being dumped into CI Creek. Locally Coney Island Beautification Project has been conducting water monitoring, DEP should connect with locals to learn of citizens activities and publish results. [2] Response: See response to comment 5c. 5g. I would ask that you do all that you can in implementing the SWMP that you provide a good deal of focus on uncovering illicit discharge and illegal hookups to the stormwater system that affect Alley Creek and Little Neck Bay and surrounding points in its estuary. [5] https://alert.ny.gov/ http://www1.nyc.gov/site/311reporting/311-reports/service-requests.page http://www1.nyc.gov/site/311reporting/311-reports/service-requests.page 262 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: DEP will continue to implement its robust IDDE program, which includes uncovering illicit discharges and illegal connections to the stormwater system that affect Alley Creek and Little Neck Bay and surrounding points in its estuary. The public can also help with this effort by reporting illicit discharges through 311. 311 provides a mechanism for the public to report illicit discharges to the City. Waterway complaints, illegal dumping, and oil spills are examples of reports the public can make through 311. The City responds to 311 reports based on the type of complaint. Chapter 2 in Section 2.5 of the SWMP provides additional information on public reporting of illicit discharges. 5h. Please bring about the connection of the home sewage on Douglas Manor to the sewer system, instead of letting these cesspools leech into the local waters. [5] Response: Thank you for the comment. 5i. Please provide sufficient funding for the IDDE program for the east/south shore beaches which continue to suffer from sewage washing on shore. Key indicators of sewage including feminine hygiene products are often seen on the beaches, and they are also reported on DEP’s Volunteer Floatable data sheets. There are indications that some of the sewage in our waters is originating from bypasses or SSOs from the Oakwood Treatment Plant. The DEP map on page 6 of the NYC Stormwater Management Program, entitled “Waterbodies Impaired for Pathogens”, indicates that something is fouling up the waters downstream of the Oakwood Treatment Plant. This is the only area on Staten Island which is indicated as a “Pathogen Impaired Waterbody” Please post data which summarizes these IDDE field investigations on the Sentinel monitoring reports. [7] Response: Results for pathogen monitoring for this area will be included in the Integrated Sentinel Monitoring Report. Analysis of Sentinel stations for the period 2002-2016 in Raritan Bay show that fecal coliform levels are consistently lower than the NYSDEC 200 fcu/100 mL standard. Also, the public can make 311 waterway complaints to alert the City to issues they observe. 5j. Please provide more funding for IDDE to detect septic tanks that have sewage leaks, and post data which summarizes these IDDE field investigations on the Sentinel monitoring reports. [7] Response: The City updated Chapter 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination of this Plan to include information on septic systems in NYC. Refer to the chapter for details on the City’s septic system jurisdiction and response to failing systems. 5k. We request DEP work with DOB and Dept. of Health to inspect and quantify the discharge from the 20,000 on site disposal systems on Staten Island. The pathogens ruin water quality and are a health hazard. [8] Response: See the response to comment 5j. 5l. If there are illegal cross connections polluting our waters, the licensed plumber who certified the work should have license revoked. [8] Response: Most cases of illegal connections are associated with older buildings, in which the record of the plumber who completed the work may not be available, but the District Attorney’s office has brought charges against plumbers for repeatedly connecting sanitary pipes to storm sewers. DEP will continue to provide education and outreach to plumbers to ensure they properly connect new buildings to the sewer system. 5m. A more aggressive program to monitor illegal discharges is needed. As you know, Beach Haven Apartments - a multi building apartment complex, with about 900 units, was illegally dumping sewage into storm water lines for a long, long time. It was obvious there was a problem, because the stench near CSO OH 21 was overwhelming. Although “citizen testing” was being done, the results did not make much sense. I had to contact the Interstate Environmental Commission to come down and test the discharge from the outfall. They discovered that there was practically pure sewage pouring out of OH 21. The IEC reportedly has skilled technicians and excellent laboratories, but not much in the way of funding. Why isn’t more being done incorporate this excellent resource into the monitoring process? [14] Response: Coney Island Creek meets the definition of a Priority MS4 Waterbody. The City will not only implement the SWMP, but will also invest in further IDDE activities in the creek, as noted in Chapter 11. As described Chapter 5, DEP has 263 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses an aggressive program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges. Implementation of this program in Coney Island Creek has led to the identification and abatement of multiple illicit discharges including the Beach Haven apartments described in the question. The City works with the NYSDEC and other local, state, and federal agencies as necessary. Email MS4@dep.nyc.gov with citizen science data, and report illicit discharges through 311. Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.5 for details on reporting illicit discharges. 5n. Re: Illegal hookups of sanitary lines into storm water lines, once the property owner receives an order to remedy an illegal discharge, it seems to take forever before the work is done. Property owners should be required to fix the hookups within a specified time period. If they cannot afford to do so, it should be done by the city and there should be a mechanism to bill them or place a lien on the property. [14] Response: Many property owners are unaware if they have illegally connected pipes. When DEP issues a Commissioner’s Order, the property owner typically hires a plumber in a reasonable timeframe or may need to apply for a loan. Very rarely are property owners unwilling to rectify the problem; however, if they are, the case is sent to the Office of Administrative Trails and Hearings (OATH) where penalties may be levied for non-compliance. NYSDEC also takes enforcement action against recalcitrant property owners. 5o. Are illicit discharges being reported to an open data system? [15] Response: Yes, the NY Alert System alerts the public to sewage illicit discharges once confirmed. Data on illicit discharge 311 responses is available on NYC Open Data and is updated daily. 5p. What happens to unconfirmed illicit discharges? [15] Response: Unconfirmed illicit discharges are discharges from an MS4 outfall during a dry weather period of 48 hours or more. In such cases, DEP would take a sample of the discharge to determine whether it is an illicit discharge or not (for example, it could be the tide flowing out of the outfall between high and low tide). If DEP confirms the discharge is an illicit discharge, DEP conducts a field investigation to identify the source of the discharge. Refer to Figure 5.2 in Chapter 5 for more information. 5q. Who investigates illicit discharges? [15] Response: DEP investigates illicit discharges citywide, and other City agencies investigate illicit discharges if such discharges are identified on their properties. For discharges that the City identifies as reaching Waters of the State, the City coordinates with NYSDEC on such investigations by notifying the State and including a source trackdown schedule. If DEP discovers the source, DEP submits an abatement plan to NYSDEC. 5r. What are the potential sources of pathogens? Does this plan address septic tanks? [15] Response: Potential sources of pathogens in waterbodies include sanitary pipes illegally connected to storm sewers, wildlife, pet waste, and failing septic systems. The City updated Chapter 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination of this Plan to include information on septic systems in NYC. Refer to the chapter for details on the City’s septic system jurisdiction and response to failing systems. 5s. If there is an emergency who responds? City or State? [15] Response: In an emergency, the City responds to IDDE issues. Units in FDNY and DEP respond if there is a major spill. Refer to Chapter 5: IDDE for details. 5t. How are is the City tracking down sources of sewage that washes up onto beaches? (example: Great Kills Beach). [15] Response: If sewage washes up onto a beach, there could be many possible sources. DOHMH is responsible for beach surveillance and monitoring for permitted City beaches. DEP responds if an outfall is the source of the sewage discharge. NYSDEC and the Coast Guard have jurisdiction over state waters and the National Park Service has jurisdiction at Great Kills Beach, the example provided in the question. mailto:MS4@dep.nyc.gov 264 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 5u. How is the City handling illicit discharges related to faulty septic systems? [15] Response: See the response to comment 5j. 5v. How are reporting and notifications handled for illegal hookups or discharges, red dye tracking, etc.? [15] Response: As detailed in Chapter 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, section 5.4.3, the public is notified by NYSDEC through the NY Alert System of sewage related illicit discharges. The City notifies NYSDEC when an illicit discharge is identified and when the source is discovered. DEP uses several tools to detect and track illicit discharges including but not limited to dye testing, some of which require notifications to other entities. 5w. Are septic systems regulated by MS4? There are about 20,000 unmonitored/unregulated septic systems impacting shell fishing in Raritan Bay. [15] Response: See response to comment 5j. 6. Construction and Post-Construction 6a. The construction size threshold for stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) should be set at 5,000 square feet. The entire threshold analysis (i.e., Appendix 6.1) is based on assumption layered upon assumption. It gives the impression of a rigorous, objective conclusion that 20,000 sf is the optimal threshold, but this method of analysis doesn’t support any such conclusion. Even DEP’s own consultants find that “[t]he approximate ‘knee-of-the-curve’ for acres vs. permits is around 15,000 SF.” And DEP discounted the strongest evidence of what is the “maximum extent practicable” (i.e., the fact that almost all other large cities use a size threshold lower than 20,000 sf). While other cities have much lower thresholds, Philadelphia has set its threshold at 15,000 sf. Since the impact on one- and two-family homes seems to be what is giving DEP concerns about using a lower threshold, we believe DEP could use the 20,000 threshold for these light residential uses, but implement a lower threshold for other land use types. Or DEP could apply SWPPP requirements for small residential sites but apply less stringent/simpler substantive requirements for those sites, akin to Seattle’s approach to post construction stormwater regulation. In any event, DEP should add to its threshold study an evaluation of thresholds with one- and two- family homes excluded, considering the stormwater benefit and burdens on the regulated community. [1] Response: The results of our analysis do not support a 5,000 sq. ft. threshold. The commenter also suggests 15,000 sq. ft. threshold. The Utility Survey (Appendix A of SWMP Appendix 6.1) shows that as programs mature, local needs shape the program requirements. The statistical data (Figure 4-3 in this Appendix) show the breakdown of number of lots and acres impacted. The program benefit is dependent on area regulated (see figures 8.1 and 8.2 in the study). At the 20,000 square feet and above threshold, close to half of the expected acres to be developed are in the program. Going down to 15,000 square feet increases the number of lots - which controls the number of applications, reviews, and inspections - by 20, but the number of acres by only 8, thereby limiting the water quality benefit of adding these properties. Decreasing the threshold gives moderate to low increases in area added to the program, but requires a high level of effort for staff to administer the program (i.e., processing applications and inspecting sites). Additionally, the ability of individual lot owners to install practices on their sites becomes more limited and more costly as the size of the lot goes down. 6b. The SWMP must provide a schedule for implementing the threshold. The Draft SWMP does not set forth a timeline that will ensure a size threshold for SWPPP requirements will be implemented before the end of the current permit term. The SWMP presumes nothing will happen until after the next MS4 permit renewal (which we know, as a practical matter, will probably be a very long time from now). DEP states in the Draft SWMP, “[o]nce NYSDEC approves the proposed reduction, the City will work to implement the reduced soil disturbance threshold through future rulemaking to redefine covered development project, expected to be initiated in the City’s second MS4 Permit cycle.” The lack of a timetable violates the permit’s requirement that the SWMP “shall also include a plan for developing adequate legal authority to implement any recommended revisions to the lot size soil disturbance threshold . . . and shall identify any feasible steps that could be implemented during the remainder of the permit term.” The timetable is crucial not only to comply with the MS4 permit, but also to put the regulated community on notice that it can expect stricter standards in the future. Much of this outreach is already being done by DEP now. [1] 265 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: The City plans to implement the program at the 1-acre threshold for at least a full year before implementing the reduced threshold, in order to gain experience with the program. The City anticipates initiating rulemaking for the reduced threshold during the second cycle of the MS4 Permit, between 2020 and 2025. 6c. DEP must clarify the nature of its permit application review in Section 6.1. The SWIM Coalition understands that DEP will review and approve permit applications based on the substantive adequacy of the proposed pollution control measures, not just whether an application has been completed. The nature of the review should be noted in the SWMP to put the regulated community on notice. [1] Response: Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 detail what an applicant must include in the SWPPP to receive a Stormwater Construction Permit. Additional details are in the draft rule, which is available on the City Record. 6d. The Design Manual should undergo public review and comment. The SWMP should make explicit that the construction design manual will undergo review and comment concurrent with the proposed rulemaking. Also, the SWMP should specify that if the design manual includes any substantive elements that differ from the DEC Design Manual, those should be subject to DEC review and approval. [1] Response: The NYC Design Manual will be available for public review prior to the effective date of DEP’s regulatory program for stormwater from construction activities. NYSDEC will review the Manual as well. 6e. DEP should explain the purpose of the “no net increase” requirement in Section 6.1.3. For projects that are exempt from the no net increase requirement (e.g., projects that do not result in any increased impervious area) can DEP please explain whether the applicable post-construction requirements allow for increased pollutant loadings as compared to pre project conditions? If the post-construction requirements do allow that, then the standards must be strengthened to meet the “Maximum Extent Practicable” standard; if they don’t allow that, then what is the purpose of the “no net increase” requirement? [1] Response: The No Net Increase requirements are included in the MS4 permit Part II.B.b. DEC identified several water bodies in Appendix 2 of the MS4 permit that are impaired for phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogens, and/or floatables. Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction of the SWMP explains how DEP will address the permit requirements in the administration of its Construction/Post-Construction regulatory program. The No Net Increase requirements exceed the requirements applicable in other drainage basins, which the City has determined meet the MEP standard. 6f. The SWMP should be revised to clearly state that a Qualified Professional must certify the proper installation of post construction controls. DEP states in Draft SWMP section 6.2 that a “qualified inspector” must certify that post-construction controls were installed properly. However, section 24-560 of the NYC Code states that a “qualified professional,” which is a person with a more advanced qualification, must provide a certification in order to obtain a maintenance permit after construction is complete. This is an important distinction, because a “qualified inspector” is required to have expertise only in erosion and sediment control, not in post-construction stormwater management. The SWMP should be revised to clearly state that a Qualified Professional must certify the proper installation of post-construction controls. Furthermore, to ensure that the system of reliance on Qualified Professionals is working as intended, the SWMP should include measurable goals for the percentage of sites that DEP staff will inspect before signing notices of termination on the construction permits and issuing maintenance permits. [1] Response: The language in the April Draft SWMP followed the NYS Notice of Termination (NOT) procedure that allows the Qualified Inspector to certify that post-construction practices have been installed in accordance with the SWPPP. The commenter is correct that section 24-560 of the NYC Code requires inspection reports submitted with applications for issuance and renewal of stormwater maintenance permits to be certified by a Qualified Professional. DEP agrees that it is more efficient to have a single inspection upon completion of construction for purposes of both the NOT and the maintenance permit. The SWMP has been updated accordingly. 6g. DEP should clarify which projects that subject to SWPPP requirements. First, projects to reduce coastal flooding can cover large areas of land and are typically situated along shorelines. Thus, they should not be wholesale exempt from SWPPP requirements. [1] 266 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: Projects constructed in the MS4 Area to reduce coastal flooding are not exempt from SWPPP requirements. As set forth in the MS4 Permit, SWPPPs for proposed flood management projects, as such projects are defined in footnote 6 on page 21 of the Permit, must, in addition to all other requirements for SWPPPs, “assess the impacts on water quality of receiving waters.” 6h. Second, DEP should impose SWPPP requirements for sites that discharge stormwater directly through privately owned pipes. [1] Response: Consistent with the requirements of the MS4 Permit, DEP’s authority to administer the Construction/Post Construction Program is limited to “covered development projects” as defined in Admin Code §24-541, which are projects in the MS4 Area, also as defined in that section. DEP does not have authority to require stormwater permits for sites that discharge stormwater directly to waters of the State through privately owned pipes. 6i. There is no justification for exempting City agencies from post-construction controls. DEP proposes to exempt public properties and public projects from maintenance easements. Such easements are meant to “ensure that future owners of the property are aware of the post- construction SMPs [stormwater management practices] and their ongoing obligation to operate and maintain them in accordance with the operation and maintenance manual in the approved SWPPP. The easement also puts the property owner on notice that DEP may inspect post- construction SMPs.” The City should set the example for the development, design and real estate communities, not carve out an exemption for itself. It is not inherently burdensome to abide by post-construction stormwater management practices that the City itself has designed, so all property owned by City agencies should be subject to DEP inspections. Abiding by post- construction rules that all other property holders are obliged to would also avoid confusion at the time of sale or transfer to private parties, which could then be required to implement stormwater practices. [1] Response: City agency projects are not exempt from post-construction controls. They are generally exempt from the requirement of maintenance easements—not stormwater maintenance permits, consistent with Admin Code §24-559. The purpose of a maintenance easement is to give DEP access to properties for inspections; this easement would not be needed for access to City-owned sites. Moreover, the City cannot grant an easement to the City on property it already owns. This section of the Administrative Code provides that the Corporation Counsel may require the execution and recording of an easement should the City subsequently convey the property to a non-City entity. 6j. Training on construction and post-construction stormwater management should be extended to private parties and tracked. Staff training in stormwater control design review, inspection and enforcement will be crucial. DEP could improve results by extending training to the regulated community, especially after it has issued the Design Manual. DEP could then track attendance at local, state and federal training programs. Attendance could be encouraged by decreasing permitting fees for contractors who provide proof of attendance at relevant training sessions. [1] Response: Interesting idea, could warrant future consideration. 6k. DEP can and should set a minimum number or ratio of inspections per project prior to issuance of notices of termination. A goal would allow DEP to set a target against which it could measure performance. Such a target would also drive DEP to calibrate its staffing levels to the number of inspections necessary. Additionally, such a target could be flexible and within control of the agency. For instance, DEP could set the target at 20% of applications or 20 applications, whichever is less. That way, DEP could ensure it has resources to attain the goal. [1] Response: Thank you for the thought, we will consider as we develop the program. 6l. There is a proposed sale for a piece of property that now houses a Burger King that apparently is to have its entire footprint used for a multilevel structure. The shopping mall at Douglaston Plaza is a huge concrete platform with a huge amount of runoff from both multilevel parking lots and roofs. It is half vacant and there are proposed tenants that may further tax sewer needs. Please review these proposals as opportunities to greatly reduce runoff and sewage. [5] Response: Thank you for the comment. We will review as necessary. 6m. The draft plan calls for the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual to be used as the guidance document for stormwater BMPs when required based on the site disturbance until the City releases its own stormwater design manual. In general, the DEC manual is geared towards less urban conditions than found typically in New York City, and as a 267 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses result it may be difficult to follow the design guidelines in full, leading redevelopment projects to opt for practices like hydrodynamic separators. It is recommended that there be some guidance or outreach on what types of modifications may be acceptable to adapt green infrastructure practices for meeting MS4 requirements prior to a new stormwater manual tailored to the ultra-urban environment. [6] Response: Thank you for the comment. The purpose of New York City Design Manual is to address urban conditions that the State Manual has not thoroughly addressed. It will include the SMP Hierarchy as part of the planning process required for SWPPPs. Designers will need to consider the options presented in Figure 6.2 in Chapter 6 of the SWMP. 6n. In Chapter 6: Construction and Post-Construction, the focus is apparently limited to avoiding any increases in stormwater caused by new construction disturbances of areas above the 20,000 square foot threshold. However, excess stormwater in New York City is already a problem even if there is no new construction or land disturbances as described. Only very few weak, tentative statements are made regarding GI: “Incorporating Green Infrastructure into City Projects can additionally help meet the post construction SWPPP requirements....” (italics added). Figure 6.2 on page 109 provides a hierarchy to guide the selection of stormwater management plans for developers, and this chart describes some different types of green infrastructure, but it is confusing and unclear why certain types are prioritized over others. In MS4 areas where infiltration of stormwater may not be possible, there can still be a role for innovative green and grey technologies to retain and/or treat stormwater. On-site Vegetated Infiltration seems to be the highest priority, but would require some of the largest spaces compared to others (Sub-surface infiltration, green roofs). In a highly urban area, where space is at a premium, the relatively low priority accorded to green roods, which efficiently adapt and make use of existing underutilized space, is puzzling. The possibility that onsite stormwater from multiple sources could be directed to a common treatment area, such as a constructed wetland, is left unexamined. [11] Response: The chapter focuses on the creation and implementation of a new regulatory program to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit issued to the City by NYSDEC. The regulatory part of the program addresses private and public development projects on sites. Should a developer propose a common treatment area in the scope of a covered development project, DEP would review that plan as it would any other project. Identifying and developing common treatment areas throughout the city is outside the scope of the Construction/Post-Construction Program. The NYC Stormwater Design Manual will provide developers with the option to utilize a variety stormwater management practices beyond just infiltrative green infrastructure, when that preferred option is not feasible. Additionally, DEP recently expanded the Green Infrastructure Grant Program to all areas of the City to encourage further GI implementation. Finally, while there may be circumstances in which it would be practicable to direct stormwater from multiple sites to a common area for storage/treatment, generally administrative and legal issues, including the easements necessary to enable stormwater from one private site to be treated on another, preclude such arrangements, especially in an urban setting. 6o. On the reduction of threshold for triggering post-construction requirements, the City prioritizes rain gardens, but what if you have a large area that can’t be served by just one rain garden? What other controls can we use? [15] Response: While DEP prioritizes on-site vegetated infiltration stormwater management practices, such as rain gardens, other practices are acceptable for sites with space or soil suitability constraints. Chapter 6 of the Plan provides the hierarchy of stormwater management practices. Additionally, DEP is currently developing a design manual that will clarify what types of practices are acceptable in different circumstances. 6p. Is there anything that active construction projects need to keep in mind now to be in compliance with the future DEP program? [15] Response: DEP will not administer the Construction/Post-construction program until after the effective date of the proposed rules. Going forward from the effective date, new projects will be subject to the City’s program. Generally, most of the requirements will be the same as those under the State’s Construction General Permit. Prior to submitting an NOI to DEC, you will have to come to DEP for review and acceptance of the SWPPP. A new rule making process will be undertaken in the future when DEP reduces the soil disturbance threshold that triggers coverage under the C/PC program. 6q. Can the City shut down a construction site that is out of compliance? [15] 268 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: Currently the State is administering the C/PC program. Once the rules become effective, one of the enforcement tools available to the City are Stop Work Orders and Commissioner Orders which may be applied to a specific activity or a whole site. See the Enforcement Response Plan. 6r. How will the City ensure private construction sites are getting the required stormwater permits? [15] Response: As required by the MS4 permit, by November 1, 2018, DEP will notify existing owners and operators of construction activities subject to the SPDES CGP, of the NYC program requirements including the DEP SWPPP review and acceptance process. Applicants will need to get an MS4 SWPPP Acceptance signed by DEP to get coverage under the NYS CGP. Additionally, under the Building Code, DOB will not issue building permits or certificates of occupancy without certification that the applicant has the requisite stormwater permits from DEP. 6r. Does the City have the resources or adequate staffing for this new program? [15] Response: Information about the adequacy of the City’s resources is included in Section 1.5 of the SWMP Plan. 7. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping 7a. The threshold for implementing runoff reduction techniques and green infrastructure in public projects should be based solely on the project cost, and not type of project. Please clarify that the reference to the Charter sec. 224.1(b)(1) cost threshold is a reference to only the dollar amount ($2M), and not a limitation to the types of projects (i.e., only buildings) covered by the Charter provision. The SWIM Coalition fully supports consideration of and requirements for green infrastructure on all City upgrade projects, including within affected or adjacent municipal rights-of-way and on all DOT projects. There is a great need and a huge opportunity to incorporate green infrastructure into projects in the public right of-way, such as street and sidewalk rehabilitation, water and sewer utility projects, parks, playgrounds, greenways, and others. Similarly, improvements to public drainage infrastructure, since it often has the undesirable side-effect of directing more polluted runoff to nearby waterways, should be accompanied by green infrastructure projects that simultaneously help protect water quality and further improve flood control. Section IV.G.2 of the MS4 permit mandates that these various municipal upgrades incorporate green infrastructure where feasible and appropriate. [1] Response: The current PP/GH Program is intended to also cover municipal upgrade projects in the right of way (ROW) and other municipal properties such as parks, and is not limited to buildings. For the PP/GH Program, municipal upgrades are capital projects as defined by the NYC Charter and that meet the cost threshold of $2,000,000. The citation for section 224.1 was simply intended to reference the cost threshold. The SWMP was updated for clarity. 7b. Green infrastructure should be defined broadly to include bioretention practices. Please clarify what definition of green infrastructure is being used for purposes of screening the feasibility purposes. Sites should not be screened out on sole basis that infiltration is not feasible. The SWMP should clearly state that the requirement to use green infrastructure, where feasible and cost-effective, includes using non‐infiltrating bioretention practices where infiltration is not feasible. [1] Response: The term Green Infrastructure (GI) is included in the Definitions section of the SWMP Plan and lists several examples of bioretention practices. Each agency will determine which practices are most feasible for its municipal upgrade projects, based on the parameters in Permit Part IV. G.2. The City allows underdrains for GI retrofits constructed on private property and non-right-of-way public property. DEP does not allow connections to DEP sewers through underdrains for right-of-way GI projects due to operation and maintenance concerns. 7c. The method for determining cost-effectiveness should be set forth in the SWMP or accompanying documents. DEP has not offered a definition of “cost-effective.” The City should commit to a budget for green infrastructure as a proportion of capital projects. [1] Response: Considerations for cost-effectiveness include capital costs and O&M over the lifetime of the asset compared with stormwater reduction benefits, which are project-/site-specific and agency-specific. There is no single definition or criterion for cost-effectiveness that the City can apply; all financial aspects of each individual project must be considered in combination. The City will install GI to the MEP based on the criteria set forth in the permit. Setting a budget for GI could unnecessarily 269 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses restrict or over-commit City resources if project feasibility does not match up to the dollar amount budgeted. The MS4 SWMP Annual Reports include metrics to track both the number of projects evaluated for GI opportunities and the number of projects where city agencies implemented GI. 7d. City agencies should incorporate green infrastructure when feasible and cost-effective. DEP states in the SWMP that “[a]gencies will incorporate GI if all of the following assessments indicate it may be appropriate and feasible.” The word “appropriate” should be removed; that is not the standard set forth in the permit. The City has developed criteria for agencies to use during municipal upgrade planning as a consistent method for assessing feasibility of green infrastructure implementation. The criteria are then summarized in a few bullets, but these bullets do not include sufficient technical detail to provide an objective or consistent method for determining cost-effectiveness and feasibility. The SWMP must provide, subject to public review and comment and DEC approval, a technical methodology that will be used to determine feasibility and cost-effectiveness of green infrastructure in covered projects. The SWMP must also state that all agencies will be required to use that methodology—not simply state that one is available for agencies to use if they wish. [1] Response: DEP worked with other City agencies to develop criteria, mainly to add clarity to the permit language. Agencies are required to evaluate the criteria and to keep a record, for any municipal upgrade projects for which they found GI infeasible/non-cost-effective, of the justification for that determination. The City agrees removed the word “appropriate” from the text in the SWMP chapter. 7e. The SWMP should include provisions for mandatory inventorying and asset management of all stormwater best management practices. Such practices include gray and green structural stormwater controls on all city properties, such as BMPs that are not subject to Maintenance Permit requirements, either because they pre-date the new Maintenance Permits or because they are installed in projects that were not subject to mandatory post-construction requirements. [1] Response: Each agency under the PP/GH Program, with the assistance of DEP, has identified and evaluated not only their structures, but also their practices under the PP/GH provisions of the program. 7f. The SWMP should set a goal for waste removal and reduction of road salt and fertilizer use. The SWMP can be set up to reduce the amount of salt use by incorporating the use of alternatives for roadway deicing, such as liquid calcium magnesium acetate. Moreover, workshops could be developed for public employees responsible for road and grounds maintenance as well as landscaping at public facilities. DEP can measure attendance at these meetings and overall reduction in salt, fertilizer and water use after the program has been implemented. Additionally, the number of municipal waste baskets in MS4 areas and frequency of service/pick up should be measured as a goal. [1] Response: A third-party contractor will assess City operations including the roadway deicing and fertilizing operations. If warranted, the contractor will make recommendations for improving the controls associated with these operations. Timelines will be provided to agencies for periodic re-evaluation of their operations and for updating controls as needed. All city employees conducting municipal operations within the MS4 area must take PPGH training, and agencies must track the numbers and names of employees who take the training. The number of people trained will be submitted as part of the annual report. The PPGH training is adaptable in a way that agencies can customize the modules to fit the needs of the employees performing an operation covered under the permit. 7g. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations and Facilities: Fines for illegal dumping should be set to repair damages to the public good. Businesses should not just absorb fines as the cost of doing business. [2] Response: The PPGH Program will assess facilities and off-site operations to determine potential impacts to stormwater. This includes city owned properties that might be un-manned. The assessment will evaluate if illegal dumping is taking place and the appropriate controls. Chapter 5: IDDE addresses illicit discharges and illegal dumping. Appendix 1.1 (Enforcement Response Plan) includes some information on violations and enforcement responses. 7h. As both faculty researchers and concerned citizens, we are disappointed in the overall limited scope of the documents, its lack of focus on timely action to reduce uncontrolled stormwater discharges and cursory mention of GI. Indeed, the MS4 permit requires describing opportunities for GI implementation and retrofits, which is currently lacking in the report. [11] 270 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: The MS4 Permit requires the City to implement measures to reduce pollution in stormwater runoff. The SWMP includes a robust set of programs to address pollution in stormwater discharges, as required by the MS4 Permit, often going beyond Permit requirements. Many of the programs included in the SWMP are designed to control, at their source, pollutants that stormwater may carry into the MS4 system and the waterways. As detailed in Chapter 7: Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping, the City is actively assessing planned municipal upgrades for GI opportunities. Furthermore, the City has identified additional GI in the Coney Island Creek MS4 area, as stated in Chapter 11: Special Conditions for Impaired Waters. Finally, DEP has an existing robust Green Infrastructure Program separate from the MS4 SWMP. Refer to the Introduction of the SWMP and the DEP website ((https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/green-infrastructure.page)) for more information on this program. 7i. In Chapter 7, instead of being a central focus of the Stormwater Management Program, the sparse discussion of Green Infrastructure is relegated to a category of “housekeeping for municipal operations and facilities”, despite the fact that volumes of stormwater generated from private properties, streets, parking lots, and rooftops greatly exceed the relatively small amounts from City facilities. Further de-emphasis of the potential of Green Infrastructure is found (pg. 121) in the statement: “Agencies will incorporate GI if all the following assessments indicated it may be appropriate and feasible” (italics added). In addition, we note that in Table 7.4, p. 122 describing the Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Program, the goal “Consider runoff reduction and green infrastructure” is dead last in the list, following goals such as “Maintain an inventory of municipal operations and facilities”, which has nothing to do with stormwater pollution. [11] Response: An integral component of a successful PPGH program for municipal facilities and operations is identifying potential sources that could pose a risk to stormwater runoff; accordingly, we must first inventory all municipal facilities and operations in order to prioritize facilities and operations for assessment and implementation of storm water controls. The PPGH program also addresses GI, for which the City agency will evaluate a facility when the facility undergoes a municipal upgrade. 7j. How is the City assigning the priority ranking of municipal facilities and operations? [15] Response: Municipal facilities and operations are categorized as high, medium, or low priority using a standardized prioritization protocol based on their potential to contribute to stormwater pollution. This standardized prioritization protocol includes a list of questions that will be answered by facility assessors on site. Each answer results in a numeric score, which is used to calculate a final score for the site once all questions are completed. This score identifies the prioritization category. 8. Industrial and Commercial 8a. The SWIM Coalition fully supports DEP’s initiative to inspect the roughly 1,300 facilities it suspects may be operating without required Clean Water Act (CWA) Permits. It is unacceptable that these industrial facilities are operating without oversight. Any such industrial activity must be covered by a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit that imposes best management practices to prevent contaminants from reaching waterways. DEP’s proposal to inspect each of the roughly 1,300 facilities it suspects may require permit coverage will ensure each one’s potential to discharge is minimized. [1] Response: DEP will begin going to these facilities when DEC approves the SWMP and DEP’s rules for the Industrial/ Commercial Program are final and effective. DEP will refer to DEC, in accordance with Permit Part IV.H.2.a., those facilities that may be significant contributors of pollutants to the MS4. If DEC confirms that a facility is subject to the MSGP, we will add the facility to the list of permitted facilities, which will be publicly available. Note: many of these facilities do not appear to have outdoor activities; DEP will need to inspect them to determine if they are conducting activities indoors that might be subject to SPDES. DEP will also welcome referrals from the public of facilities that are suspected to be contributing pollutants. DEP will inspect these facilities to determine if they are significant contributors of pollutants. 8b. The Industrial and Commercial Facility Inventory (I/C Facility Inventory) should be made publicly available. These sites are potential pollution hazards. It is well within the interest of the public to ensure these sites are operated safely so as to avoid pollution. In fact, DEP contemplates that it will receive public complaints related to these facilities. If the reports are https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/green-infrastructure.page 271 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses made available, the public can track DEP’s progress in inspecting the facilities, review enforcement history, and monitor ongoing enforcement actions. This information is not confidential. SIC codes are already available in publicly accessible databases, and EPA and DEC each have databases where permit coverage and enforcement history are made publicly available. As those databases will not reflect City enforcement actions, there is still a need for a Citywide database. [1] Response: See answer above to comment 8a. 8c. DEP should report all noncompliant facilities to DEC, not only significant contributors of pollutants. Though enforcement actions must be prioritized based on the target facilities’ potentials to pollute, the trigger for SPDES permits is not the amount of pollution, but the type of operation and its location within a separate sewer or direct discharge area. In other words, the CWA requires permits for all polluted industrial stormwater, regardless of how significant. DEP proposes that following its on-site assessment, the agency will refer facilities to DEC only if they are potential significant contributors of pollutants. All facilities subject to CWA permitting requirements should be reported to DEC for the state to pursue enforcement at its discretion. At a minimum, the Facility Assessment Reports should explicitly assess whether the facility requires SPDES permit coverage. [1] Response: DEP will provide DEC with inspection reports approximately quarterly. As to currently permitted facilities, DEP will enforce against those it finds to be non-compliant with the applicable requirements or regulations. As to facilities that are unpermitted, DEP will refer to DEC for possible permitting those that may be significant contributors of pollutants to the MS4, in accordance with Permit Part IV.H.2. 8d. Potential flood hazards should be assessed during facility inspections. While facilities might be deemed “no exposure” because nothing on the outside of the property poses danger, all facilities should nevertheless be assessed for impacts that flooding of the inside of their buildings might have on the nearby waterway. This would serve to inform facilities about flood risk and help emergency responders prepare for and respond to urgent situations following major storm events. [1] Response: Storm surge and flooding are outside the scope of the I/C Program, but the City is addressing other issues related to hazardous material storage in flood plains. DEP is promulgating rules that address spill prevention measures for portable containers of hazardous substances in order to prevent releases of hazardous materials in case of extreme weather events, and to require spill prevention measures for certain facilities. 8e. Please control to the maximum extent possible the industrial and commercial strains placed on the system, including both human waste and water runoff from parking lots and roofs. [5] Response: Noted; thank you for the comment. 8f. Chapter 8, with the title “Industrial and Commercial Stormwater Sources”, entirely lacks any discussion of Green Infrastructure despite increasing evidence that industrial/commercial property rooftops and parking lots represent the single biggest opportunity for reducing urban stormwater flows (by 25-55%, Eaton 2018). There is not even any mention of the use of tax incentives to encourage private businesses to invest in such stormwater reduction strategies. [11] Response: Chapter 8 addresses the requirements under Section H of the MS4 permit, which focuses mainly on setting an inspection program for permitted and unpermitted facilities located within the MS4 area. 8g. What are the facilities that will be impacted by the I/C program? There is a facility owned by EDC with a cracked pipe. [15] Response: The I/C Program will impact publicly and privately owned industrial and commercial sites in the MS4 area that may conduct activities within the industrial sectors covered by the Multi-Sector General Permit. DEP compiled an inventory of these I/C facilities using various databases. DEP will begin going to these facilities when NYSDEC approves the SWMP and DEP’s rules are final. DEP will refer to NYSDEC, those facilities that may be significant contributors of pollutants to the MS4. As NYSDEC confirms that these facilities are subject to SPDES permitting, we will add them to the list of permitted facilities, which will be publicly available and subject to ongoing inspections. The public can report an illicit discharge to 311. Refer to Chapter 2: Public Education and Outreach for more details on what can be reported to 311. For additional information on DEP’s program to identify and eliminate illicit discharges, refer to Chapter 5: IDDE. 272 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 8h. Can the City share the list of MSGP facilities? [15] Response: NYSDEC issues the MSGP permit. The list of facilities covered under MSGP is currently available to the public through NYSDEC’s online drop box. 8i. Are there penalties for non-compliance? [15] Response: The stormwater law that took effect in May 2017 authorizes imposition of penalties for violations. DEP will promulgate a penalty schedule through the regular CAPA process, including a public comment period, before the regulatory program takes effect. 8j. Regarding SPDES permits and MSGPs, is NYSDEC getting out of the SPDES permitting business? [15] Response: NYSDEC will still administer the MSGP program and issue SPDES permits. Under the City’s I/C Program, the City will take on inspection and enforcement functions for NYSDEC’s Multi-Sector General Permit for stormwater from industrial activities for covered facilities located in the MS4 area. 8k. Will there be a list available of the non-compliant sites each year? [15] Response: Information about facilities with NYSDEC MSGP coverage is publicly available through NYSDEC’s Dropbox. This includes past notices of violations (NOVs). 8l. At car washes, where does the dirty wash water with soap and chemicals go? [15] Response: The Department of Consumer Affairs regulates car washes under the Car Wash Accountability Law. More information is available at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dca/businesses/info-car-wash.page 9. Floatables 9a. DEP should record its compliance with Local Law 48 until it is evaluated. The law calls for annual catch basin inspections through July 2019 and also calls for unclog and repairs to basins within nine days of a complaint being filed. DEP states that the law will be re-evaluated. Do you plan to continue the annual inspections? Has DEP been able to meet the nine-day response time frame? These complaints and repair times should be tracked and reported as SWMP measurable goals. [1] Response: As required by Local Law 48 of 2015, DEP currently inspects catch basins annually and submits semi-annual reports to the Mayor and Speaker of the City Council regarding the inspection, maintenance, and repair of catch basins within the jurisdiction of the DEP Commissioner. These reports, which include response time to complaints, are publicly available at http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1688033&GUID=46C4E2FE-0532-4B83-8841 FBC4012A4433. Additionally, DEP reports on the catch basin complaints received and resolution time in the Mayor’s Management Report (MMR), publicly available at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/operations/performance/mmr.page. As shown in the MMRs, DEP has been able to meet the nine-day resolution time. At this time, DEP has not made a decision regarding the continuation of annual inspections past June 30, 2019, but will reevaluate the program to optimize benefits (the DEP WWTP’s SPDES permits require a three-year cycle). As stated in the SWMP, the City will report the number of catch basins inspected, cleaned, and retrofitted and the number of catch basin hoods repaired, installed or replaced in each annual report. 9b. Curb inlet screen covers and catch basin hoods should be installed in new and repaired catch basins in the separate sewer areas. Why do current catch basin design standards not include curb inlet screen covers anymore? The report states that older catch basins still have them. Relatedly, does DEP track installation and repair of catch basin hoods in separate storm sewers separately from its CSO reporting requirements? As part of its Loading Rate Analysis, DEP should determine if these or other technologies would have a significant reducing impact on floatables. [1] Response: Catch basins serve to collect rainwater and direct it to the sewer system. DEP periodically updates standards for sewer infrastructure, including catch basins, for a variety of reasons. Current DEP standards for catch basins are available at https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ddc/downloads/publications/infrastructure/NYC%20DEP%20SEWER%20DESIGN%20 STANDARDS%20(Revised%20August%202018)%20-Signed.pdf, and require all new catch basins to have hoods. As https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dca/businesses/info-car-wash.page http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1688033&GUID=46C4E2FE-0532-4B83-8841-FBC4012A4433 http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1688033&GUID=46C4E2FE-0532-4B83-8841-FBC4012A4433 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.nyc.gov%2Fsite%2Foperations%2Fperformance%2Fmmr.page&data=02%7C01%7C%7C58a475cd37ca4fa61d4b08d5ca50682c%7Cf470a35f08534633aae3ce4e8b5085a3%7C0%7C0%7C636637369037802941&sdata=F1i7n%2BaRySv08HNmr9Uc5KIM%2FZbQWEGEDwd4%2Bx1AwYw%3D&reserved=0 https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ddc/downloads/publications/infrastructure/NYC%20DEP%20SEWER%20DESIGN%20STANDARDS%20(Revised%20August%202018)%20-Signed.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ddc/downloads/publications/infrastructure/NYC%20DEP%20SEWER%20DESIGN%20STANDARDS%20(Revised%20August%202018)%20-Signed.pdf 273 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses detailed in the Plan, past DEP assessments indicate that hoods are an effective floatable control. DEP tracks installation and repair of catch basin hoods in DEP catch basins citywide, including the MS4 area. As delineation of the MS4 area is still in progress, DEP does not currently separate the installations and repairs done in the MS4 area from those done in the combined sewer area. The Loading Rate Study is designed to calculate the load of trash and debris discharged from the MS4 to floatables impaired waterbodies and will not assess the effectiveness of the various control technologies. However, DEP will consider the effectiveness of curb piece designs, with the goal of screening out large pieces of debris, but also maintaining proper drainage, for which the basins were originally designed. Furthermore, DEP may test various controls as part of the overall program to control floatable trash and debris. 9c. DEP should adopt an interim reporting schedule for the Loading Rate Workplan: The Loading Rate Workplan report says the plan must begin within two years of NYSDEC approval and will take three years to complete. What is the interim reporting plan for the three-year implementation phase of the workplan? [1] Response: DEP will report on the status of the Loading Rate Study implementation in the MS4 Annual Reports throughout the duration of the study. This has been clarified in Chapter 9 of the Plan. 9d. The Adopt a Catch Basin Program should be expanded beyond Brooklyn. Is this program still in place? Has it expanded beyond Brooklyn, or are there any plans to do so? What kind of support does DEP provide to those who adopt one? [1] Response: The Adopt-a-Catch Basin Pilot Program was an initiative in which DEP and the Office of the Brooklyn Borough President partnered with block associations, business improvement districts and other community-based organizations to remove the debris that blocks storm drains. DEP provided training, as well as gloves and garbage bags, to participating organizations that agreed to maintain storm drains in their neighborhoods. DEP is currently exploring this and other stewardship programs. 9e. The B.Y.O. Campaign should be expanded and reinvigorated. Has this program been discontinued? Is there any plan for DEP to resume the program if the Mayor’s Office cannot support it? [1] Response: The B.Y.O. Campaign is an important component of the plan to reach the City’s Zero Waste goal laid out in OneNYC, and a key campaign of GreeNYC. GreeNYC is the City’s public outreach and education program dedicated to engaging and mobilizing New Yorkers to make more sustainable choices. The B.Y.O. campaign is ongoing and there are no plans to discontinue the campaign. GreeNYC continues to place ads, participate in events, and give away reusable items to encourage New Yorkers to become part of the B.Y.O. movement. To take the B.Y.O. pledge, visit https://www1.nyc.gov/site/greenyc/take-action/byo-pledge-form.page. 9f. Please make public the Floatable Data Sheet annual composite reports (Volunteer Beach Floatable Program). [7] Response: The Floatables Monitoring Progress Report, which utilizes data collected by citizen scientists through the Volunteer Survey Program, is available on the DEP website at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/how-nyc-is-keeping-our waterways-trash-free.page 9g. Chapter 9, on the Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris, touches on some of the important physical pollutants carried by stormwater, but omits any mention of chemical or biological pollution, such as metals, nutrients, or bacteria, and the well-known resultant hypoxia or even anoxic conditions from excess nutrients in receiving waters. [11] Response: Chapter 9, Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris details the City’s program to comply with Part IV.I of the MS4 Permit, which focuses on floatable trash and debris. The Plan addresses other pollutants in other chapters. For example, Chapter 2, Public Education and Outreach identifies nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease and toxic or harmful substances as pollutants the educational programs will tackle. Chapter 5, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination focuses on the City’s program to remove sources of pathogens and nutrients resulting from illicit discharges and to prevent other hazardous waste from entering the MS4. 9h. Re: floatables, the public needs to be educated about balloon releases. It is not uncommon to turn on the TV and see a feature about a memorial to someone who has recently passed or some sort of celebration that involves the release of balloons. I can recall events in Coney Island to celebrate or support a person/event/cause that involved the release https://www1.nyc.gov/site/greenyc/take-action/byo-pledge-form.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/how-nyc-is-keeping-our-waterways-trash-free.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/how-nyc-is-keeping-our-waterways-trash-free.page 274 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses of hundreds of balloons. The public has no idea that the strings and deflated torn plastic are a danger to wildlife and contribute to the microscopic plastic junk fouling our waterways. [14] Response: DPR does not allow the release of balloons during events permitted by DPR. The City will consider adding additional educational information to address this topic as part of the on-going effort to expand MS4-related education. 9i. When will these media campaigns run? [15] Response: The City has run three separate campaigns to raise public awareness of the issues around trash and debris. The B.Y.O. Campaign launched in 2015 and is ongoing; the #TalkTrashNewYork Campaign launched in Spring 2017; and Don’t Trash Our Waters ran during the Summer and Fall of 2017. 9j. After it rains there is a lot of trash in the Bronx River—what is being done for that? [15] Response: The Bronx River has many existing floatable controls in place, including public litter baskets, street sweeping, catch basin hoods, underground inline netting systems, and a floating boom. In addition, the Don’t Trash Our Waters campaign targeted neighborhoods around the Bronx River. In the coming years, the City will undertake a loading rate study to determine the amount of trash and debris entering waterways like the Bronx River through the MS4. 9k. Are the floatables reports published? [15] Response: Yes, the reports are available online. The Floatables Monitoring Report is available at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ dep/water/how-nyc-is-keeping-our-waterways-trash-free.page. The Annual CSO BMP report, which includes information about catch basin maintenance and the boom and skim program is available at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor water-quality.page. In the future, Annual Reports documenting SWMP implementation will also be available online. 10. Monitoring 10a. DEP should expand the Phase I Monitoring Program to 12 sampling locations. DEP chose to sample eights sites for quarterly sampling. These eight sites cover six land use types, but DEP did not provide a rationale for doubling up on two land use types and not others. Can DEP sample two sites each land use type, for a total of 12 sampling locations? If not, please provide the rationale for obtaining multiple samples of some land use types and not others. [1] Response: DEP selected the two locations for low-density residential and industrial land uses to aid in the evaluation of similar land uses across boroughs or watersheds. The selected outfall for each land use type is representative of other outfalls draining a similar land use type. SWMP section 10.2.1 lists the criteria used to select the Phase 1 sampling outfalls. Many outfalls are tidally influenced and would produce inaccurate data. Additionally, it is challenging to find outfalls with a predominant land use type because NYC’s densely urban environment includes a wide range of land uses draining to each outfall. 10b. DEP should sample two outfalls serving primarily open space areas. What was the justification of the Bronx outfall HP-627 as the site to measure and assess open space land uses? There are high, known concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria upstream of this area. These may lead DEP to overestimate the pathogen runoff potential from these types of land uses. [1] Response: This outfall does not receive drainage from the Bronx Zoo area, if that is the upstream area with known high concentrations of pathogens referred. The area draining to this outfall is predominantly from Woodlawn Cemetery in Woodlawn Heights. SWMP section 10.2.1 lists the criteria used to select the Phase 1 sampling outfalls. DEP selected this outfall because it meets our selection criteria including accessibility, crew safety, single predominant land use type (86% of open space), lack of dry weather flows in sewers and no tidal influence. None of the other outfalls mapped at the time the SWMP went out for public review satisfied the criteria stated above. Phase 1 outfalls may change as data collection is initiated if DEP determines that data collection is limited by any unforeseen conditions or if more appropriate outfalls are identified. This ongoing ability to modify monitoring procedures is aligned with the adaptive management approach being employed by DEP to collect and evaluate the most meaningful data for the multi-phased MS4 Monitoring Program. 10c. Please make the oversight and the assessment of controls as transparent as possible, informing the public about the kind of pathogens being measured, other causes of concern in the water, and how they are tracked, and also, how we can become informed of overflows. [5] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/how-nyc-is-keeping-our-waterways-trash-free.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/how-nyc-is-keeping-our-waterways-trash-free.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/harbor-water-quality.page 275 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: The City will inform the public about pathogen data collected and analyzed. The City will collect fecal coliform and enterococci (pathogen) data as stated in Section 10.3.3 and Appendix 10.1 of the SWMP. Results of the analyses will be included in the MS4 SWMP Annual Reports as public information. The public can receive notifications about combined sewer overflows and illicit connections through the NY-Alert System. Visit https://alert.ny.gov/ to sign up. 10d. Where are the phase 1 monitoring locations? [15] Response: Refer to the Table 10.1 in Chapter 10: Monitoring and Assessment of Controls or Figure 1 included in Appendix 10.1: Monitoring Plan. 11. Special Conditions 11a. DEP should identify all impaired waterbodies listed in Appendix 2 of the City’s MS4 Permit as “Priority MS4 Waterbodies.” It is questionable that only one waterbody, Coney Island Creek, was identified as a “Priority MS4 Waterbody.” The permit definition is “water bodies for which an approved CSO LTCP does not predict compliance with applicable water quality standards and where stormwater contributions from the Permittee’s MS4 are expected to be a significant contributor of the impairment identified in the CSO LTCP.” Data from DEP indicates that not only are pathogens attributable to MS4 areas, trash pollution is a major cause of water quality impairment. Data from DEP indicates that of the floatable trash collected by the DEP from their containment structures and open water areas, greater than 90% is collected on the Bronx River. Many of the LTCPs show non-compliance with water quality standards (which is why they all have, nominally, use attainability analyses (UAAs)), and they typically point to MS4 and direct drainage as the other source preventing water quality standards compliance. For instance, the UAA for Westchester Creek states: “Non-attainment of primary contact water quality criteria are attributable to the following UAA factors: Human caused conditions (direct drainage and urban runoff) create high bacteria levels that prevent the attainment of the use and that cannot be fully remedied for large storms.” Similar language is applicable to the Hutchinson River and other waters. For each of the waterbody segment listed in Appendix 2 of the MS4 Permit other than Coney Island Creek, what is the justification for not identifying those segments as Priority MS4 Waterbodies? For those waters that receive pollution from upstream areas, such as those areas in Westchester County, please define the proportion of pollutants of concern attributable to New York City MS4 and direct drainage areas in comparison to the proportion coming from separate sewers and direct discharges upstream of New York City. [1] Response: Coney Island Creek is the only waterbody that currently meets the criteria for a Priority MS4 Waterbody, as defined in the permit. Other waterbodies with approved CSO LTCPs are predicted to meet applicable water quality standards and/or it was found that stormwater is not a significant contributor to the impairment identified in the CSO LTCP. 11b. DEP must set firm milestones and deadlines and identify public and private green infrastructure opportunities for the Coney Island Creek Priority Waterbody Plan to comply with permit requirements. Under the MS4 Permit, DEP must provide a “listing of the additional or customized non-structural BMPs and a schedule to commence implementation within the shortest reasonable time.” The BMPs proposed, however, are not defined, and their start dates are malleable. For instance, DEP, along with partner agencies, “will begin coordinating catch basin marking opportunities in the Coney Island Creek MS4 drainage area in fall 2018” and DEP will “assess the feasibility of additional source tracking methods, and anticipates initiating the procurement process in 2018.” These schedules don’t say when implementation will begin. “Procurement” isn’t implementation but rather a bureaucratic activity prerequisite to being able to implement the BMPs. Firm milestone deadlines must be set for each of these programs. DEP must also track and report its progress in implementing these milestones. Moreover, under the MS4 Permit DEP must provide “a description of opportunities for implementing green infrastructure pilot projects and other structural retrofits in Priority MS4 Waterbodies that are cost effective and feasible.” DEP states that it has identified “potential opportunities on City-owned property, but it doesn’t actually describe the opportunities identified. It seems DEP has yet to actually determine whether any opportunities for “cost-effective and feasible” green infrastructure retrofits exist. Rather, it says, DEP is partnering with other agencies to evaluate those opportunities. These opportunities should be identified and evaluated in the SWMP as required by the Permit. Moreover, to address pollutants of concern, DEP must evaluate green infrastructure opportunities on private property in Priority MS4 Watersheds. [1] https://alert.ny.gov/ 276 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: Chapter 11 of the SWMP Plan includes a section for Enhanced or Additional Stormwater Control Measures for Coney Island Creek, which lists the proposed BMPs and information about implementation timelines for each. The next section in the chapter, titled Opportunities for Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects, provides the description of opportunities for implementing GI pilot projects, as required by the Permit. 11c. All City agencies should be involved in implementing Priority MS4 Waterbody BMPs. Why are some City agencies excluded from implementing this requirement? Department of Design and Construction and Department of Citywide Administrative Services are excluded, but they control public property/projects that have a role in reducing pollutants of concern. [1] Response: All relevant City agencies will be involved in implementing the regular MS4 programs described in Chapters 2-10 of the SWMP Plan. Construction projects in Priority MS4 Waterbodies are additionally subject to requirements in Permit Part II.B.1.b. The City is also exploring the feasibility of additional or customized non-structural BMPs for City facilities in watersheds of Priority MS4 Waterbodies in accordance with Permit Part II.B.2.a. 11d. DEP should map and identify “Geographic Areas of Concern.” For all waters the DEP identifies as Priority MS4 Waters, DEP should provide an additional map of the drainage area for that waterbody. Not only would the map help educate the public, but it would help City agencies identify areas where additional pollutant reduction measures could be undertaken for pollutants of concern. [1] Response: The City will delineate the drainage areas that correspond with MS4 outfalls. The Preliminary MS4 Map shows the information completed to date. The City may revisit other mapping suggestions in the future. 11e. DEP’s impaired waters maps should be clarified and corrected. In the Executive Summary, Introduction, and Impaired Waters chapter, the impaired waterways maps are hard to make out. Can DEP make those full page, perhaps in an appendix, or zoom in/call out the tributaries that are impaired? Also, Flushing Creek and Newtown Creek are impaired for pathogens, and DEP’s lists and maps should be corrected. [1] Response: The SWMP reflects Permit requirements, which include using the impaired waterways list at the time of permit issuance. Chapter 11 now includes larger format figures depicting the locations of waterways impaired by the four pollutants of concern. The figures in the SWMP are based on Appendices 1 and 2 of the Permit, which include the detailed information you are looking for. 11f. Activities in Coney Island should be used as a template throughout the NYC waterways. Successes such as community meetings should be duplicated where DEP truly listened to residents and implemented stakeholder’s ideas. [2] Response: The City will duplicate the Coney Island Creek coordination efforts as a model for any future designated Priority MS4 Waterbodies. Activities undertaken in any Priority MS4 Waterbody will target the impairment pollutants and related sources specific to that waterbody. The City may evaluate pilot programs to determine whether it is feasible to duplicate them in other MS4 areas. 11g. Chapter 11 discusses Special Conditions for Impaired Waters. It states (pg. 86) that “Impaired waters with approved CSO LTCPs that do not predict compliance with applicable water quality standards, and where stormwater contributions from the MS4 area expected to be a significant contributor to the impairment, are Priority MS4 Waterbodies.” This is an exact description of Flushing Creek/Bay which has been impaired for decades. In addition, as shown in the Historical MS4 map in the Executive Summary, this waterbody has numerous MS4 outfalls. Yet, only Coney Island Creek is described as having a Priority MS4 Waterbody plan. It is inexplicable why Flushing Bay and Creek, are one of the largest single CSO induced impaired waterways, has not been designated a Priority MS4 waterbody. [11] Response: The MS4 SWMP addresses the separately sewered areas of NYC. It does not address combined sewer overflows or stormwater that enters the combined sewer system. Flushing Bay and Creek do not meet the criteria for a Priority MS4 Waterbody, as defined in the permit. Other than Coney Island Creek, waterbodies with approved CSO LTCPs are predicted to meet applicable water quality standards and/or it was found that stormwater is not a significant contributor to the impairment identified in the CSO LTCP. 277 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 11h. The Coney Island History Project has been involved in environmental work on Coney Island Creek for several years. In the past we’ve designed and placed permanent informational signage along the creek in Calvert Vaux Park and Kaiser Park, and created corresponding booklets for creek walking tours. We also work with local schools in Coney Island, giving environmental presentations that trace the importance and history of the Coney Island Creek estuary. Other projects we’re involved in are shoreline cleanup of floatables, water quality testing, and exhibits at our Coney Island Exhibit Center. In the past we’ve applied for a grant to create catch basin signage for source control and we regularly walk or kayak the creek to monitor storm drains for illegal discharges. [13] Response: As described in Chapter 11, the City partnered with the Coney Island Beautification Project on community workshops throughout SWMP development. We look forward to working with Coney Island History Project and other community organizations as we move into SWMP implementation. 11i. We are located in a zone that’s responsible for a great deal of the floatable pollution that comes through the storm sewers. Our location in the heart of the amusement area gives us a unique opportunity to distribute materials and educate the public about source pollution, green infrastructure, and related issues in the community. Much of the outreach we’d like to do has been addressed in the management plan and we’re interested in continuing and expanding our educational programs as part of MS4. The creek needs more monitoring and the drain signage program should really be expanded north of the creek to the neighborhoods that have no idea that they’re connected to the creek watershed! [13] Response: As described in Chapter 11, Coney Island Creek is a Priority MS4 Waterbody. We have already implemented several new programs and initiatives within the watershed including signage at MS4 outfalls, pet waste dispensers at local parks, and a behavior-change media campaign to reduce floatable trash and debris. We look forward to working with local stakeholders to further implement education and outreach efforts in the neighborhood. 11j. There needs to be more coordination between DEP and other agencies (i.e. EDC) regarding stormwater management in the Coney Island Creek watershed. [14] Response: Coney Island Creek is a Priority MS4 Waterbody, and the SWMP includes a Priority Waterbody Plan for the Creek (Chapter 11). City agencies are already coordinating stormwater management projects beyond the MS4 programs they are implementing Citywide. 11k. Why is Bronx River not a Priority MS4 Waterbody? [15] Response: Coney Island Creek is the only waterbody that currently meets the criteria for a Priority MS4 Waterbody, as defined in the Permit. Other waterbodies with approved CSO LTCPs are predicted to meet applicable water quality standards and/or it was found that stormwater is not a significant contributor to the impairment identified in the CSO LTCP. Despite not being a Priority MS4 Waterbody as defined by the Permit, DEP has explored opportunities for additional GI along the Bronx River and partnered with the Soil & Water Conservation District and Bronx River Alliance for a trash wheel feasibility study. Additionally, the “Don’t Trash Our Waters Campaign” targeted communities near the Bronx River. 12. Recordkeeping and Reporting 12a. Is the City only keeping records for 5 years? [15] Response: As required by the MS4 Permit, the City will retain records related to the SWMP for a minimum of 5 years. The Consolidated Information Tracking System, which is the database that will store records related to the SWMP, is designed to keep these records in perpetuity. 13. General SWMP 13a. We do request that the uniqueness of each site is taken into consideration. A one size fits all sites plan may not be best. Here at Alley Creek we have a huge tidal difference that sometimes leaves the tiniest trickle of water in the creek and at other times a very high tide occurs. We are concerned that some of the proposed actions might have more of an impact on the native flora and fauna as those very low tide periods and maybe less effective than thought during those very high tide periods. [3] 278 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: As required by the MS4 Permit, the programs described in the SWMP Plan are applicable in all MS4 areas of NYC. The Priority Waterbody Plan will address the designated waterbody’s pollutants of concern through pilot projects and enhanced MS4 program measures specific to that waterbody, using an integrated approach to consider other programs and improvement plans for the waterbody and the areas draining to it. 13b. Please consider the importance of the Alley Pond watershed when going forward with your Municipal Storm water management plan. Alley Pond Park and The Alley Pond Environmental Center in particular should be kept clear of pollutants and sewage overflow. As the population of Northeast Queens continues to grow, we need to protect our natural environments, so that everyone in our city has some breathing room. The Alley Pond Environmental Center has taught generations of Queens’s students to value and protect our urban natural spaces. They deserve to be considered and protected in any plan put forward by the DEP. [4] Response: The City will implement the SWMP in all MS4 Areas, and we look forward to working with the Alley Pond Environmental Center and other community groups on implementation in the Alley Creek watershed. 13c. Please consider alley pond Environmental center for MS4. [9] Response: Thank you for this comment. We will consider all MS4 areas in the City. If the Environmental Center has specific MS4 programs (e.g. Public Education and Outreach) that it would like to participate in implementing, we are happy to coordinate. 13d. Since uncontrolled stormwater is the driving factor for combined sewer overflows, which is the single most important contributor to poor water quality, it is critical that urban stormwater be reduced in order to improve coastal water quality for millions of New Yorkers. Particularly in combined sewer areas, important progress has been made using both gray and green infrastructure (GI) approaches, however we believe that New York City should prioritize and invest more in many opportunities to use Green Infrastructure to reduce stormwater at its source, including in separated sewered areas. [11] Response: The MS4 SWMP addresses the separately sewered areas of NYC. The MS4 Permit includes two important requirements for green infrastructure. One is addressed in the PP/GH program (Chapter 7) and applies to planned municipal upgrade projects. The other is piloting green infrastructure or other stormwater runoff control techniques in Priority MS4 Waterbodies (Chapter 11). Additionally, the Construction/Post-Construction program (Chapter 6) requires runoff reduction from development and redevelopment projects, and green infrastructure or other on-site infiltration practices are the preferred approach. 13e. We understand the layout of the document and material covered in individual chapters is influenced by regulatory requirements, and many areas of focus in individual chapters are very important to the success of the MS4 program, such as Chapter 2 Public Education and Outreach, and Chapter 4 Mapping. However, we find it most disconcerting that there is no significant discussion or specific chapter heading on the topic of stormwater source reduction. As a transport agent, stormwater often carries a very high pollutant load (fecal bacteria, metals, oxygen-consuming wastes, etc.) to receiving waters, therefore it follows that reduction of the transport agent, i.e. stormwater, will be the most efficient way of reducing pollution. [11] Response: The City has numerous policies and programs to reduce the volume of stormwater, but the MS4 permit does not specifically govern those programs. The MS4 Permit requires the City to implement measures to reduce pollution in stormwater runoff. The purpose of the MS4 Permit is to control at their source pollutants that stormwater may carry into the MS4 system and waterways. If less pollution enters stormwater runoff, then, regardless of the volume of stormwater entering the waterbody, it is cleaner and poses less threat to aquatic life and human health. However, the Construction/Post Construction program (Chapter 6) does require runoff reduction from development and redevelopment projects. 13f. We believe that the lack of action or specific proposals to reduce uncontrolled stormwater through MS4 permitting will needlessly prolong the current situation of intermittently unacceptable water quality in City embayments and coastal waters. In particular, Green Infrastructure (GI), which is globally recognized as the single most effective approach to reducing stormwater, is only mentioned briefly in scattered locations in the report. This is in contrast to US EPA guidance in its Green Infrastructure Strategic Agenda which lists Green Infrastructure approaches among the top objectives to reduce stormwater runoff related to SSOs, CSOs, and MS4s (US EPA 2013). [11] 279 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses Response: The MS4 Permit requires the City to implement measures to reduce pollution in stormwater runoff. The purpose of the MS4 Permit is to control at their source pollutants that may be carried by stormwater. The programs described in the SWMP will improve the water quality of stormwater discharges from the MS4, as required by the MS4 Permit. Green Infrastructure is not feasible in all locations, and in some areas poses other environmental concerns such as increasing levels of contaminants underground at industrial sites. DEP has an existing robust Green Infrastructure Program separate from the MS4 SWMP. Refer to the Introduction of the SWMP and the DEP website ((https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/green-infrastructure.page)) for more information on this program. 13g. Porous paving in parks, pedestrian plazas and other large spaces should be mandated. Green roofs or similar storm water reducing measures, should be mandated for any project that receives public funding, i.e., homeless shelters, schools, health centers, etc. [14] Response: Local Law 97 of 2017 requires City agencies to determine the feasibility of incorporating green infrastructure into capital projects, and applies to all areas of the City (not limited to the MS4). 13h. To create the MS4 system, does the City have to rip up the streets? [15] Response: The vast majority of the municipal separate storm sewers covered by this program already exist. To maintain the sewer system, DEP conducts inspections and, as needed, repairs or replaces sewer structures. There are some areas where new storm sewers are being constructed, which are typically tied to high level storm sewer projects near the waterfront or part of planned storm sewer buildout, such as in Southeast Queens and East New York. 13i. Most New Yorkers live in the combined areas of the city, why doesn’t this plan do anything to address stormwater in those areas? [15] Response: DEP has a separate and robust program to address stormwater in areas of NYC with a combined sewer system. That program seeks to reduce combined sewer overflows through waterbody-specific Long Term Control Plans. To date, DEP has allocated 8 billion dollars to this effort. More information is available at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/ citywide-long-term-control-plan.page. 13j. How does the Bluebelt System fit into MS4 requirements? [15] Response: Bluebelts are part of the MS4 and are an important tool to mitigate stormwater pollution and flooding. A Bluebelt is a collection of streams, ponds and wetlands that naturally convey, store, and filter stormwater runoff. The Bluebelt program preserves natural drainage corridors such as streams and ponds, and optimizes natural drainage through the design and construction of stormwater controls to filter stormwater before it empties into the New York Harbor. 13k. Will the draft SWMP presentation be available online? [15] Response: MS4 presentations and other educational material on the Stormwater Management Program can be viewed at nyc.gov/ dep/ms4. 13l. Will the plan expedite plans to upgrade old infrastructure responsible for CSOs? [15] Response: Combined Sewer Overflows are addressed through a separate program. The SWMP complements the combined sewer overflow reduction program, but addresses a different problem. 13m. Is the State the regulator? [15] Response: NYSDEC is the State regulatory agency that issued the MS4 Permit and oversees the City’s compliance. The Permit requires the City to administer several regulatory programs, including two related to existing State regulatory programs. As explained in detail in the SWMP, the City will administer a new regulatory program for stormwater runoff from new construction and redevelopment projects (see Chapter 6) and will take on inspection and enforcement functions for NYSDEC’s Multisector General Permit for stormwater from industrial activities (see Chapter 8). https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/citywide-long-term-control-plan.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/citywide-long-term-control-plan.page http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ms4 280 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 13n. What is the May 15th deadline? [15] Response: May 15th was the deadline for all public comments on the SWMP Plan. 13o. Will the City acquire vacant or other properties for installing GI? [15] Response: The City does not have any current plans to acquire vacant or other properties for green infrastructure as part of the MS4 program. DEP does offer a grant program citywide to private property owners who wish to retrofit their property with Green Infrastructure. 13p. Are there any DEP efforts to identify properties and fund Bluebelts before properties get developed (e.g. North Shore)? [15] Response: DEP will expand the Mid-Island Bluebelt in Staten Island to provide local residents with high quality drainage infrastructure and explore opportunities to install Bluebelts in other advantageous locations citywide. A planned Bluebelt must go through the environmental review process, which includes opportunities for public review and comment. 13q. Do NYC wastewater treatment plants have the capacity to treat all this stormwater? [15] Response: Generally, NYC’s 14 wastewater treatment plants can treat 2x the dry weather flow. For the MS4 area and for the purposes of the SWMP, stormwater that drains to the MS4 is discharged directly to local waterbodies and does not go to wastewater treatment plants. 13r. What effect will this program have on private homeowners? [15] Response: There will be no effect on private homeowners unless they have an illicit sewer connection in their home, are illegally dumping into the MS4, or plan to construct or re-develop their property and will disturb an acre or more of land making them subject to the Construction/Post-Construction program requirements. 14. Other 14a. I am concerned about the amount of stormwater that is entering Alley Creek or Little Neck Bay at various points, either because of stormwater outflow, or the way that it mixes with sewage in the CSO, or, how it runs down the streets and enters the Creek and Bay without entering any part of the enclosed system. It appears from my understanding of what you have presented in the LTCP for Alley Creek that the creek itself will not attain swimmable goals for a long time, because of illegal connections and other sources of pathogens. A walk to the southern end of the estuary along Alley Creek, along its western side, just short of the Long Island Expressway suggests just how much work is needed. The visible amount of garbage that is retained in the “lion’s cage” would suggest a great deal more of unwanted microbes of all levels of danger. This is when the amount of recreational use along the trails surrounding Alley Creek is continuing. Stormwater entering the system which then just mixes with the combined sewage to spill out into the Creek and Bay during rain events is simply confounding. [5] Response: This comment is unrelated to the MS4 SWMP, but the Alley Creek LTCP provides extensive related information. Alley Creek is designated as a Class I waterbody by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, suitable for secondary contact recreation and aquatic life propagation and survival, not for primary recreation (i.e. swimming). As noted in the LTCP, no evidence of primary recreation could be identified in Alley Creek. However, the LTCP did evaluate the ability of Alley Creek to achieve the “swimming” or primary contact bacterial standards during the recreational season for the recommended plan. The LTCP projected 98% attainment with the fecal coliform primary contact standard (see Table 8-18 in Alley Creek LTCP Supplemental Documentation), a very high level of attainment. With regard to the illicit sources of pathogens to Alley creek, DEP has made efforts to track down illicit discharges to the Creek and reports on these efforts to NYSDEC on a regular basis. DEP periodically cleans the “Lion’s Cage.” This structure captures street litter and trash that washes through the sewer system during rain events, which would otherwise be a source of floatables to Alley Creek. The stormwater that mixes with CSO is directed to and captured at the Alley Creek CSO Facility, which reduces the quantity of stormwater that would have discharged to the Creek. In calendar year 2016, the Alley Creek CSO Facility captured over 300 MG of CSO and stormwater, which was subsequently treated at the Tallman Island wastewater treatment plant. 281 14b. We need the Bluebelt expanded to meet the demand of billions of gallons of CSO. We are requesting the LTCP include funds for acquisition of parcels for Bluebelt expansion. [8] Response: The MS4 Permit and the SWMP Plan address separately sewered areas of the City, rather than CSO areas. DEP plans to expand the Mid-Island Bluebelt in Staten Island to provide local residents with high quality drainage infrastructure and explore opportunities to install Bluebelts in other advantageous locations citywide. 14c. We oppose the use of post discharge chlorine, the effects on the marine ecology are not fully known, and how can DEP state chlorination is acceptable? [8] Response: The MS4 SWMP does not include any chlorination projects. For information on the Long Term Control Plans that include chlorination projects visit www.nyc.gov/dep/ltcp. 14d. We are fed-up with so called “forced main” and or private WTCP, your LTCP must have a provision to amend Local Law to make private WTCP unlawful. Previous private WTCP of development become unmanageable and unmaintained, then DEP and taxpayers are required to bail out development that should not have been permitted. [8] Response: The MS4 Permit and SWMP Plan address the storm sewer system. If there are any specific questions or concerns about a privately-owned pumping station or privately-owned wastewater treatment plant, you can contact the State (NYSDEC) and/or the DOHMH. 14e. NYC DEP to pay particular attention to the unique aspects of the Alley Pond watershed, and, in particular, all that flows into Alley Creek. The larger issues of effluent from stormwater entering the combined sewage system and creating an overflow is of course related. The less stormwater entering the system or carrying garbage and pollutants into the Creek and Bay, the better. [10] Response: The MS4 SWMP addresses the separately sewered areas of NYC. It does not address combined sewer overflows or stormwater that enters the combined sewer system. The City will implement MS4 programs as described in the SWMP for all MS4 areas draining to Alley Pond. 14f. The tight connection between uncontrolled stormwater and the occurrence of combined sewer overflows in wet weather is aptly illustrated by the figure on page 5, showing how stormwater is a direct cause of CSO entering coastal waterways. Hence, in CSO areas, stormwater reductions that limit CSO volume are a far better treatment than CSO chlorination, which is the approach promoted in many of the approved Long Term Control Plans (LTCP). Furthermore, Stormwater by itself is a direct discharge pollutant to local waterways, and some approved LTCPs (e.g. Flushing Creek) suggest that even with total CSO capture (not planned), these waterways would still not meet fecal pathogen water quality standards. Therefore, stormwater source reduction, capture and treatment are important to ensure water quality improvement in addition to the approved CSO LTCPs. [11] Response: While stormwater runoff and CSOs are linked in areas of the City with combined sewers, this issue is addressed through the City’s CSO Mitigation Program, and the Long Term Control Plans. Additionally, reducing stormwater runoff is one of main drivers of New York City’s Green Infrastructure (GI) Program. DEP and agency partners design, construct and maintain a variety of sustainable green infrastructure practices such as green roofs and rain gardens on City owned property such as streets, sidewalks, schools, and public housing. Green infrastructure promotes the natural movement of water by collecting and managing stormwater runoff from streets, sidewalks, parking lots and rooftops and directing it to engineered systems that typically feature soils, stones, and vegetation. This process prevents stormwater runoff from entering the City’s sewer systems and waterways. 14g. Although the combined sewer overflow issue is the focus of a separate Long Term Control Plan regulatory process, the lack of specific stormwater reduction actions in the NYC Stormwater Management Report will undercut the effectiveness of both efforts. This is an enormous missed opportunity, because robust stormwater reduction efforts have the potential not just to combat stormwater pollution but to overcome some of the inadequacies of the Long Term Control Plans in improving coastal water quality. [11] Response: As noted in the response above, the LTCP projected 98% attainment with the fecal coliform primary contact standard (see Table 8-18 in Alley Creek LTCP Supplemental Documentation), a very high level of attainment, and the GI program is focused on reducing stormwater loadings to the waterways. Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses http://www.nyc.gov/dep/ltcp 282 Appendix 3.1 Stakeholder Meeting Log with Summary of Public Comments and City Responses 14h. Does this program address chlorine discharge from wastewater treatment plants? [15] Response: No, this program does not apply to wastewater treatment plants, which have their own SPDES permits to address wastewater discharges. 283 Appendix 5.1 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program 284 Appendix 5.1 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program The New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Bureau of Wastewater Treatment’s (BWT) Compliance Monitoring Section (CMS) is required by its 14 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits to survey New York City’s shoreline outfalls through the Shoreline Survey Program, and to monitor New York City’s harbor for illicit discharges through the Sentinel Monitoring Program. Shoreline Survey Program The Shoreline Survey Unit (SSU) conducts field surveys and regular outfall surveillance by land, boat, and rigid inflatable rubber raft with an emphasis on boat surveillance of the entire NYC shoreline and the following inland waters within NYC boundaries: Van Cortlandt Lake (Bronx), Grasmere Lake (Staten Island), Arbutus Lake (Staten Island), and Wolfes Lake (Staten Island). Each outfall is identified as to whether it is a City-owned sewer, highway drain, storm sewer, combine sewer outfall or SPDES-permitted discharge line, private, etc. DEP conducts an outfall reconnaissance inventory in line with the principles described in “Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments” (Center for Watershed Protection and Robert Pitt, October 2004). Example of Shoreline Mapping from the 2013 Shoreline Survey Report 285 Appendix 5.1 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program As outlined in the Schedules of Compliance part of the SPDES permit, CMS provides Shoreline Survey Reports every five years to DEC representing 50 percent of the NYC shoreline outfalls. The Report includes spreadsheets of all identified outfalls by WWTP drainage area and maps with the outfalls identified. The information includes: outfall ID, classification (CSO, MS4, direct, etc.), location by description and GIS coordinates, size, and receiving water. Through the Shoreline Survey, 4,861 outfalls have been identified between 1998 and 2018 to date, including 431 DEP-owned CSO outfalls and 376 DEP-owned MS4 outfalls. If a dry weather discharge is observed from a city-owned outfall during the shoreline survey, laboratory analysis may be conducted to test for fecal coliform levels. The nature of the discharge is determined based on laboratory analysis of samples collected. The discharge is identified as either an illicit discharge, such as sewage, or an allowable discharge authorized by the DEP Commissioner. DEP tracks discharges authorized by the DEP Commissioner, which helps determine if an observed dry weather flow is allowable. If the lab confirms a discharge is sanitary flow, then SSU will begin the trackdown process for the discharge source. SSU also uses visual indicators for all types of illicit discharges (e.g. oil, soap suds, etc.) that may initiate the trackdown process. Trackdown includes various procedures, such as dye testing, to attempt to identify the discharge. Once the source of an illicit discharge is identified, SSU works to eliminate the issue. Discharge from collection system, due to failures such as blockage or mechanical failure of regulator and pump is usually identifiable. Such discharges are reported immediately upon discovery to the SPDES Compliance Section and Collection Facilities Operations that are responsible for undertaking immediate corrective actions. Discharge from suspected illegal sanitary connections to the storm sewer, is reported to DEC by SPDES Compliance Section within two hours of the confirmation, and is followed by a letter within 5 days that an untreated discharge exists. CMS normally prepares abatement schedules and conducts investigations. However, appropriate Bureaus/Sections within DEP are contacted if jurisdiction requires their approval or cooperation. Discharges that are identified as non-sanitary are reported to DEC. If the non-sanitary discharge is coming out of a City owned storm sewer, the shoreline crew will investigate and attempt to mitigate the discharge. However, if the discharge is not under City ownership, the crew will defer to DEC for investigation. When DEP identifies that the source of an illegal discharge will require lengthy investigation, it follows up with a phone call to DEC within 2 hours and a letter to DEC within 5 days. Then, within 30 days, DEP submits a two-phase abatement schedule to DEC. The first phase indicates a timetable for the completion of the investigation to determine the source(s) of the discharge. The second phase is submitted upon the identification of the source(s) and reflects a schedule for the ultimate abatement. Between 1998 and 2017, the Citywide IDDE Program identified 412 contaminated discharges, representing 4.38 million gallons per day (MGD) of flow. Of the contaminated discharges identified in that timeframe, 402 discharges or 4.35 MGD have been abated, with 8 discharges or 0.03 MGD currently under continued investigation. The City will continue to implement its well-developed IDDE program while exploring additional actions to prevent, detect, and eliminate illicit discharges to all City agencies’ storm sewers. Shoreline Survey Investigation Procedure: 1 Prior to commencement of the field survey, the shoreline crew reviews the sewer map of the outfall(s)/area(s) that are in question. The crew needs to trace back the sewer lines leading to the outfall and their locations. This knowledge will then allow for proper preparedness in the field. 2 When the crew arrives at the site in question, crew members first begin to note observations and details of possible discharge sources. All observations are documented in an investigation report and photographed; if needed, a sample will be collected (procedures below). 3 The crew then follows all possible sources of discharge to its source as much as is physically and safely possible, noting all observations of possible sources of illicit discharge. 286 Appendix 5.1 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program 4 If a sample needs to be collected for testing, the crew: » Uses a clean Fecal Coliform 500 ml Clear Plastic Bottle to collect the water using either rubber gloves and personal protective equipment (PPE) or a rope and PPE. » Preserves the sample with sodium thiosulfate. » Labels the sample and place immediately on Ice to thermo-preserve the sample. » Delivers the sample to Newtown Creek Microbiology Lab upon completion of the job. Dye Testing Procedure: If it has been determined that a facility requires a dye test for confirmation of discharge location, the following steps are taken: 1 All necessary equipment is gathered: » Dye (red or green) » Hook, crow bar & sledge hammer » Traffic safety cones » Flashlights » PPE » Two-way radios » DEP vehicle » Camera » Sewer map of the location » Notepad & pen » Gas techs (Lower Explosive Limit gas analyzer or Photoionization Detector gas analyzer) » GPS 2 A traffic work zone safety area around the manhole(s) of interest is created using the DEP Vehicle, traffic safety zone cones, traffic flags, traffic signs and lights. 3 Crew members open the manhole(s) in question. » Using a hook, sledgehammer and/or crow bar, CMS Employees open the manhole(s) and take a step back to allow any tapped gasses to be expelled. A gas tech must be used for this task. » Traffic safety cones are to surround the open manhole at all times. A DEP Employee is to remain with the open manhole at all times until the job is completed. 4 A crew member pours the dye into the drain and then notifies the other crew members outside using the two-way radio. 5 When the dye is observed in the manhole, the crew member takes a picture noting the result. 6 A field report is completed and submitted the CMS Supervisor. 287 Appendix 5.1 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program Sentinel Monitoring Program The Sentinel Monitoring Program is an enhancement and modification of the Shoreline Survey Program’s procedures for identifying and eliminating transitory and intermittent illicit discharges. The Program was designed, in cooperation with NYSDEC, to monitor specific sampling areas for fecal coliform in water bodies throughout New York City. As of October 2017, DEP is now also collecting samples for enterococcus to be consistent with the Harbor Survey Monitoring Program. DEP currently performs sentinel monitoring at 80 ambient monitoring stations in accordance with the WWTP SPDES Permits and MS4 Permit. Sampling for fecal coliform at these stations is done quarterly. It is performed after a dry antecedent period of 48-hours and during various tidal cycles and seasons to ensure statistical integrity. The sampling results are compared to an established baseline. Currently, the fecal coliform baseline is 200 colonies/100 ml. If sampling results are above the baseline trigger limits, DEP aggressively pursues field investigations and surveillance of the adjacent shoreline. The goal of these “mini-shoreline surveys” is to determine the source of the contamination and take immediate action to abate any found illegal discharges. Sentinel Sampling Procedure: Prior to sampling, arrangements are made with the Marine Section and Newtown Creek Lab as there is a 6 hour timeframe window to deliver the samples to Newtown Creek Lab. The timeframe begins when the first sentinel sample is collected. Typically samples from 10-12 stations are collected each run after a dry weather period of 48 hours or longer. 1 Materials are collected for sampling: » Sample vials from Newtown Creek Lab » Preservative Sodium Thiosulfate » Ice cooler and ice can 2 Using GPS coordinates, the boat arrives at the sampling location and the sample vial is affixed to the sampling pole located on the boat via rubber bands. The pole is then immersed in the water to the indicated mark. 3 As the sample is collected, air bubbles will be seen. Once the bubbling ceases, the pole is carefully lifted out of the water and the vial removed from the pole. 4 3 pellets of sodium thiosulfate are added to the vial and capped. 5 The vial is labeled with the sampling point location and time of sampling. 6 The sample is then placed on ice in the cooler. Sampling is continued until all of the days locations are taken, unless the captain of the boat cancels the job and/or precipitation begins. 7 Once back on land, the samples are immediately delivered to Newtown Creek Microbiology Lab. 288 Appendix 5.1 DEP IDDE Standard Operating Procedures for the Shoreline Survey and Sentinel Monitoring Program 289 Appendix 5.2 Rules, Sewer Design Standards, and Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications for the City 290 Appendix 5.2 Rules, Sewer Design Standards, and Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications for the City Title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York Chapter 31, section 31-05 outlines standards for installation of sanitary sewer connections and has multiple design requirements for all new sewer connections, which limit the potential for infiltration or exfiltration problems. Examples include minimum cover/encasement, specific pipe and bedding materials for connections to sewers on piles, and repairs of damages during installation. The Sewer Design Standards include multiple design requirements that may also aid in preventing seepage from sanitary sewers or into storm sewers. Examples include specific design standards for sewers, manholes, and catch basins intended to ensure durability based on their material; location in earth, rock, piles, cradles, wet locations and dry locations; whether they are precast or cast in place; and whether they are new construction or reconstruction. Additionally, there are loading requirements for watertight and non-watertight sheeting. Section 53.11 pg. V-66 of the 2014 NYCDEP Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications manual, and section 5.05D.7, pg.V-58 of the 2009 manual explains the inspection process and digital audio-visual recording of all new sewers constructed for sewer pipes 54 inches or smaller in their least inside dimension. All the inspection results and recordings are documented in a report that includes information of all sections of sewers inspected, all audio-visual digital recordings, collected data and specific details as to service connections, water infiltration from the joints, and other points of interest noted during the inspection and the report is the property of the Department of Design and Construction. Both the 2014 and 2009 NYCDEP Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications (Section 40.11.9 and Section 4.11, respectively) describe leakage and leakage tests for sewer lines and the allowable quantity of leakage or infiltration, which is important to detect and eliminate any infiltration from newly constructed sewers. Furthermore, DEP is initiating a study to understand the infiltration and inflow (I&I) issues in the areas of Rockaways, Coney Island and Oakwood Beach. Both NYCDEP Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications Section 40.11.2, pg. 31 sets forth requirements for all sewers (whether tested or not) to be constructed such that the quality and quantity of leakage or infiltration are not to exceed specified criteria. The quantity of leakage for concrete pressure sewer lines shall not exceed one hundred fifty gallons per inch of inner diameter, per mile of sewer, per day. No individual joint in any completed sewer under test shall leak an amount in excess of one-eighth gallon per hour per inch of inner diameter. 291 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 292 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 1.0 Introduction The New York City (NYC) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) received its first Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit in 2015 that covers approximately 40% of the NYC land area. DEP has been preparing a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) plan due by August 2018. One of the SWMP components is to determine the lot size soil disturbance/new impervious area threshold for triggering the applicability of construction and post construction stormwater runoff management requirements at new development and redevelopment sites within NYC. This report summarizes the Lot Size Threshold Study and supporting analysis. DEP pursued a multi-step approach to guide the selection of an appropriate lot size threshold for MS4 drainage areas, beginning with a peer survey from utilities across the U.S to develop an inventory of stormwater regulatory requirements in other cities. The second step in this study consisted of a statistical analysis of historical new and redevelopment permit applications within NYC to determine the extent of potential disturbed acres, with consideration given to properties that would be constrained by space and/or soil conditions. Representative properties were selected under the broad land use categories of industrial, mixed use commercial, and residential to develop conceptual designs of stormwater control measures (SCMs) and associated construction and long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Stormwater system modeling was then performed to estimate the benefits associated with implementation of SCMs to meet the New York State (NYS) water quality volume requirements. The results of the study were combined to complete cost-benefit evaluations of various new and redevelopment lot size thresholds for construction and post-construction stormwater controls while taking into account site constraint and watershed characteristics. Multiple stakeholder workshops with industry professionals and technical experts were held in collaboration with the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and Urban Green Council (UGC) to solicit input on the typical SCM designs, costs, and potential constraints. 2.0 Utility Survey For guiding the selection of thresholds for construction and post-construction stormwater management requirements, DEP surveyed selected utilities from across the country. This survey was designed specifically to assemble technical as well as administrative elements such as the different departments within a municipal government that manage the construction and post-construction requirements, staffing, and regulatory flexibility. DEP compiled a list of utilities that NYC had been interfacing with, and the Arcadis team supplemented it with additional utilities with similar technical/administrative elements. Specifically, the selected peer utilities have advanced stormwater management programs hence adopted regulations to reflect that. These utilities are subject to national regulations for 1+ acre lots based on United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) or their respective state’s MS4 programs, and have adopted thresholds of one acre or less for construction and post-construction stormwater control requirements. Most of the surveyed utilities also have combined and separate sanitary sewer systems or predominantly separate systems and administer their stormwater management programs related to construction and post-construction requirements. DEP and the Arcadis team developed a detailed questionnaire for soliciting input from these utilities. This detailed questionnaire is presented in Appendix A, and the 12 peer utilities chosen for the utility survey from across the U.S. are listed in Table 2-1: Utility Name and Location. 293 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Table 2-1: Utility Name and Location Utility Name Municipality Department of Watershed Management Atlanta, GA Watershed Protection Department Austin, TX Department of Public Works (DPW) Baltimore, MD Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) Boston, MA Department of Water Management Chicago, IL Department of Sanitation Los Angeles, CA Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) Philadelphia, PA Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) Portland, OR Transportation and Storm Water Department San Diego, CA San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) San Francisco, CA Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Seattle, WA District Department of the Environment (DOEE) for MS4 areas, DC Water for Combined areas Washington, DC The utility survey was performed as a two-step process. A review of each utility’s stormwater technical manual and other publicly available guidance/policy documents served as the first step of completing the questionnaire. In the second step, the utilities were contacted directly to fill in any information gaps based on documents that are not publicly available, including the specific administrative information that is not typically listed on utilities’ websites. In addition to the 12 peer utilities that were directly surveyed, information readily available from Fairfax County, VA; Indianapolis, IN; Miami, FL; New Orleans, LA; and Richmond, VA were compiled for the construction and post-construction runoff threshold size (minimum new impervious or soil disturbance cover that triggers stormwater control requirements) and performance standard (criterion/criteria that the stormwater controls must meet). The survey documented the utilities’ stormwater management programs/procedures including but not limited to: (a) adopted thresholds based on soil disturbance and/or creation of new impervious area for new and redevelopment projects and if any analyses were done for determining a particular threshold and associated retention/detention or treatment standards; (b) off-site mitigation or in-lieu fee applications; (c) administrative process including Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) review times, and (d) staffing resources for managing permits and performing inspections and fees charged by the utilities. The utilities’ stormwater management programs for construction and post-construction differed based on factors such as geographical location, maturity of the MS4 program, size of the community served, and various local priorities. Some programs have been around for over 10 years with well-established staffing and financial resources to successfully manage the permitting and inspections, while others are in the early to mid-stages of their programs. 294 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 2.1 Performance Standard 2.1.1 Threshold Size Peer utilities focus on threshold size as an important performance standard. As the threshold size that determines construction or post-construction requirements decreases, the resulting number of permits or inspections that the utility staff perform increases significantly. On the other hand, the improvement in water quality in terms of volume and pollutant load reductions is minimal with smaller lots in comparison to the larger lots. Therefore, the information from peer utilities on threshold size provided insight on the tradeoffs between administrative and technical costs versus the achieved benefits. The thresholds for the utilities surveyed for the construction runoff control requirement (i.e., erosion and sediment control) are summarized in Figure 2-1. Lot Size Disturbance Construction Thresholds. While Austin, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle require all construction activities to adhere to the requirement, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, and New Orleans use the recommended U.S. EPA Phase 2 Stormwater Guidance of one acre and above for construction runoff control. The remaining surveyed utilities use construction thresholds of less than one acre with Baltimore, Fairfax County, Miami and Philadelphia applying the same thresholds for both construction and post construction runoff control (see Figure 2-2 below). Figure 2-1. Lot Size Disturbance Construction Thresholds The post-construction threshold size was specified based on the extent of soil disturbance within a new or redevelopment site or the increase in impervious cover resulting from new/redevelopment. The interviewed utilities and those reviewed based on available literature used either the new impervious or soil disturbance as thresholds, and Figure 2-2. Lot Size Disturbance Post-Construction Thresholds summarizes these threshold sizes for these utilities. Several observations were made from the responses on threshold size (expressed in square feet, SF, in this report). , 295 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 2-2. Lot Size Disturbance Post-Construction Thresholds As shown in Figure 2-2. Lot Size Disturbance Post-Construction Thresholds, the selection of minimum post-construction thresholds varies significantly among cities of varied sizes and program development levels with respect to stormwater management in MS4 areas, including some with as high a threshold as one acre. Most of the interviewed utilities implement a smaller than one-acre post-construction threshold, which refers to the condition that necessitates the permanent application of the stormwater control requirement for a property after construction. While Portland has a low threshold of 500 SF, the permitting and inspections are done through a self-certification process for single family residential homes. Boston does not have a minimum soil disturbance threshold. Instead, every new or redevelopment project requires a construction permit, but not a post-construction (inspection) requirement, which reduces the administrative burden. DEP was also interested in whether the utilities with combined and separately sewered systems have different permit requirements for these two systems. Most of the utilities have the same performance standards and administrative requirements for both systems. However, some utilities such as Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco each impose requirements that differ between combined and separate areas for certain criteria. San Francisco has the same retention standard for combined areas and for large MS4 areas (>5,000 SF), and a less stringent standard for smaller MS4 areas (2,500-5,000 SF). Philadelphia has different infiltration volume requirements for combined and MS4 areas (i.e., 20% of directly connected impervious area to be routed through volume reduction stormwater management practice (SMP) in combined areas, whereas 100% of water quality control volume to be routed through infiltrating or treatment SMPs in MS4 areas). Similarly, Portland has different allowable discharge rates for the combined and MS4 areas (i.e., maintenance of pre-development rates for 2, 5 and 10-year 24-hour storms in all areas, whereas half the pre-development rates for 2-year 24-hour storm for areas that drain into waterways directly or MS4 outfalls to prevent channel erosion). , 296 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 2.1.2 Stormwater Water Quality Volume Standard The stormwater management or control volume standard specifies the extent of stormwater volume to be managed from disturbed areas (whether new impervious cover or soil disturbance area) with stormwater control measures (SCM). This volume standard can be adopted from state guidelines or developed to meet specific water quality improvement levels of service sought by individual utilities. It is often referred to as water quality volume (WQv). Figure 2-3 depicts the distribution of rainfall depths used to compute WQv volumes as defined by each municipal utility. East coast utilities such as Boston and Philadelphia had a WQv in the range of 1 to 1.5 inches, which is typically the 90th percentile storm based on historical analysis of local precipitation records. San Diego and Seattle did not adhere to a uniformly applied volume value, instead defining their WQv requirements based on the 85th and 91st percentile storms, respectively, around the stormwater management asset. Potential soil and space constraints can limit the implementation of retention-based stormwater controls. This is particularly relevant to dense urban areas with compacted soils or underlying soil with poor permeability. It is important to recognize the soil and space constraints for SCM implementation and develop alternative compliance measures to achieve the same water quality improvement goals. One of the questions in the utility survey focused on whether the utilities offered alternative compliance strategies when individual lots have soil and/or space constraints. Some utilities (e.g., San Francisco, Portland, and Philadelphia) have developed a stormwater management hierarchy that requires retention and water reuse whenever possible, and provides detention and treatment of stormwater as secondary options. Figure 2-3. Retention/Treatment Storm Depth Requirement Most utilities who participated in the survey offer alternative measures for sites that may not be able to meet the stormwater management requirements in the forms of in-lieu fees and offsite mitigation options. The alternative measures are in the form of in-lieu fee (penalty for not implementing an SCM so that the money can be used to implement SCM in another feasible lot), offsite mitigation (implementation of SCM in another feasible lot to compensate for not being able to implement at the site seeking a permit), or stormwater credit (similar to a trading model, where credits are created for implementation of SCMs and the site not being able to implement SCMs can buy credits from other lots that have already implemented more-than-required SCMs to create a credit). , 297 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management These allowances tend to be awarded on a case-by-case basis, and usually the site needs to demonstrate an inability to infiltrate the necessary volume that would preclude it from offering stormwater management potential. Table 2-2 summarizes the options allowed by different utilities. An “X” for a measure indicates that this option is not offered by the utility and NA indicates that there was no reference as to whether this option was allowed or not. Table 2-2. Alternative Compliance Measures Utility Name In-lieu Fee Offsite Mitigation Stormwater Credit Atlanta X P P Austin P P NA Baltimore P P P Boston X X X Chicago X X X Los Angeles X P NA Philadelphia P P P Portland X P NA San Diego P P P San Francisco P P NA Seattle X NA P Washington, DC X NA P Boston and Chicago were the only cities that strictly adhere to on-site stormwater management regulations. Both Seattle and Washington, DC did not explicitly state as to whether they would accept in-lieu fees or offsite mitigation, but they do utilize a stormwater credit system that offers some flexibility for developers to meet the stormwater management regulations. 2.2 Resource Utilization This is a key consideration for a utility for overall management of the permits and inspections that need to be administered for a given threshold size. As the number of permits and inspections increase with smaller threshold sizes, more staff resources are needed to manage them effectively and efficiently. This consideration was sought in the questionnaire to peer utilities and the specific metrics requested are discussed below. 2.2.1 Staffing Allocation Most utilities have different departments (e.g., Department of Public Works or Stormwater Programs or Buildings and Inspections) for review and approval of permits for construction requirements and for inspections after construction and long-term operation and maintenance. The utility survey focused on contacting these different departments to get a holistic picture of staff allocation and administration. The number of staff utilized for review during construction varies significantly, from 1-2 staff dedicated to reviews and inspections in Boston to as many as 33 dedicated staff in Atlanta, with mostly engineers performing the permit reviews. There is also a wide range in the number of inspection staff for post-construction. Some utilities such as Boston do not currently have an inspection program, so there is no dedicated staff for inspections, whereas Washington, DC and Seattle have more than 10 dedicated inspection staff. While some cities such as Boston, Portland, and Seattle concentrate permit reviews and inspections within only one or two departments, other cities such Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Diego involve at least three departments in permit review and inspection tasks. 298 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 2.2.2 Production Using Given Resources The survey also requested information from utilities on how many permits/inspections were performed to get information on the production aspects. This information can be used to guide the number of staff members needed for New York City’s program based on the chosen threshold size. Fewer responses were received for the number of permit reviews and inspections performed over the given period and the average time spent on SWPPP reviews by the permit reviewer. Therefore, any conclusions regarding trends between utilities could not be drawn. However, the responses received present some interesting points for consideration. The economic downturn affected the number of projects being constructed and the number of permits reviewed in Portland. As far as the average time spent on SWPPP reviews, all respondents noted that it depends on the complexity of the project. However, Portland also indicated that incorporating a web-based interface had increased the speed of the review process. The level of automation and online interfacing each utility has in its permit application process were also reviewed. Portland has an electronic application process, and both Philadelphia and Washington, DC utilize similar web-based processes to accelerate the review process and ease some of the administrative burden. San Francisco allows for electronic submission of some applications, and Chicago offers a stormwater detention calculation tool for developers to use in developing their applications. However, most utilities still work with print-based applications. 2.3 Administrative Costs The indicators for administrative costs included the number of staff to manage permits, perform construction permit inspections and post-construction periodic inspections, as well as the number of permits/inspections handled and the departments/municipal jurisdictions that manage the permitting and inspections. Full-time salary and benefits of permitting/inspection staff and the supervisors’ time increase significantly with smaller threshold sizes due to the large number of permits/inspections involved. Considering the minimal water quality improvement associated with smaller threshold sizes, the overall cost-benefit comparison needs to include both technical costs for implementation of SCMs by property owners and the administrative costs for utility staff to administer them. Based on the survey responses, it was observed that mature stormwater management programs have a larger number of staff as well as dedicated funding mechanisms (e.g., stormwater utility, component stormwater bill to customers, etc.), whereas the newer programs are still establishing the staffing and funding needs. Administrative costs must be recovered through appropriation of additional budget to the permitting/inspection operations (thereby increasing the financial burden on the utility) or through full-cost recovery with permitting/inspection fees charged to the property owners. One of the survey questions (included in Appendix A) focused on whether specific utilities adopted financial models based on discussions with ratepayers and elected officials. The fees charged for stormwater management applications, reviews, and inspections vary. Most utilities have fees for construction review, but do not have post-construction inspection fees. Fees range from no fee in San Francisco, where stormwater fees are included as part of the regular water and sewer fees; to Los Angeles, where there is a city fee for construction and only a state fee for post-construction; to over $10,000 for a combination of several different fees in Washington, DC. Another consideration that was of interest to DEP was whether the utilities imposed surcharges or additional fees for expedited review of permit applications. Of the utilities surveyed, only Los Angeles and Philadelphia have a formal expedited permit review process and additional fees charged for an expedited review. While Los Angeles requires a higher cost for an expedited review, Philadelphia offers it as an incentive depending on the SCMs used. 299 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 2.4 Key Findings from Survey The responses gathered from 12 interviewed utilities represent stormwater management programs in various stages of development and implementation. The findings also indicated that there is a wide variation among the responding utilities in the administration of stormwater management and the performance standards that developers are required to follow. Some programs are mature (more than 10 years old) and efficiently manage the permitting and inspections, while others are in the early to mid-stages of the program with evolving staffing and financial resources. Most utilities establish performance standards for stormwater management to address their water quality and watershed based (e.g., TMDL or healthy streams) requirement needs. Peak flow mitigation, WQv, and detention performance standards are developed to achieve these goals. Some utilities offer a tiered approach to the developer community, in which retention is the highly preferred strategy, and detention or connection to combined sewers is the least preferred strategy and only an option when retention or treatment-based controls are infeasible. Both construction and post-construction thresholds vary significantly among cities of varied sizes and program development levels with respect to stormwater management in MS4 areas. Construction stormwater runoff threshold varies from all activities (Austin, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle) to one acre (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, and New Orleans) with several utilities in-between. Baltimore, Fairfax County, Miami and Philadelphia use the same thresholds for both construction and post-construction runoff control. The minimum post-construction stormwater runoff threshold based on soil disturbance or increase in impervious cover ranges from no-minimum value for Boston to one acre for Richmond (outside Chesapeake Bay Area) with most of the interviewed utilities using a smaller than one-acre threshold based on local needs and priorities. Some utilities have low threshold requirements for post-construction, but they allow self-certification by single family residential thereby reducing their administrative workload significantly. Philadelphia for Darby Cobbs watershed and Richmond for Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas have different thresholds for the rest of their respective communities to meet their specific watershed based requirements. Most utilities that have combined and MS4 areas have chosen the same minimum threshold for stormwater controls. Some utilities (e.g., Philadelphia and San Francisco) have developed specific provisions for combined and MS4 areas. Even though this questionnaire was primarily aimed at on-site projects, one of the questions focused on the right-of-way (ROW) stormwater control from a standpoint of watershed-based pollutant sources mitigation. Most utilities follow the national guideline of >1 acre for ROW projects. Some utilities have developed policies and associated performance standards for ROW projects (e.g., Portland’s Green Street policy developed in 2007 to reduce flows and pollutant loads from over 60% of the city’s stormwater that was estimated to be generated from ROW and adjacent private driveways). 3.0 NYC MS4 Drainage Areas DEP had previously compiled MS4 subcatchment delineations for internal use. Prior watershed modeling efforts undertaken to support the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) and other CSO-related water quality studies had also approximated delineations for the MS4 and direct drainage (MS4/DD) areas. Therefore, in this project, any overlaps of these delineations were reconciled in ArcGIS. This resulted in a MS4/DD subcatchment layer that integrated and reconciled the information available as of October 2016. Consistent with the LTCP designation, each MS4 subcatchment was assigned a waterbody based on where the runoff from the area drained. Typically, the tributary drainage areas that do not drain into one of the 10 LTCP priority waterbodies are considered to drain into a waterbody referred to as the East River Open Water (EROW). However, it was understood that EROW tributary areas within each borough would not share similar space and subsurface characteristics, factors important for SCM selection. Therefore, the EROW waterbody was further broken down into four separate categories by respective boroughs: EROW Manhattan, EROW Bronx, EROW Brooklyn/Queens, and EROW Staten Island. The waterbody-specific drainage areas are shown in Figure 3-1: NYC Waterbodies and Drainage Areas. Areas shown in white color are served by combined sewers, therefore, are not included in the analyses described herein. 300 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 3-1: NYC Waterbodies and Drainage Areas 4.0 Statistical Analysis of New and Redeveloped Lots NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) construction permit data from the 15-year period between 2000 and 2014 was analyzed to determine an annual average number of lots and acres for new and redevelopment for both public and private projects within each watershed of the NYC’s MS4 drainage area. All permits were assigned to one of the three main property type categories based on land use designations: 1 Industrial; 2 Commercial/Mixed Use; and 3 Residential. Many lots had two or more permits in the DOB record but, the data was normalized by assuming that each lot had only one permit and as such number of lots was used in lieu of DOB permits for the subsequent evaluations. The DOB permit data did not provide any information on the percentage of the lot disturbed for each new and redevelopment construction. To account for the fact that some of the larger size lots may be only partially disturbed by construction, percent disturbance discount factors were applied to the historical new and redeveloped acres which varied based on the lot size as shown in Table 4-1: Disturbance Discount Factors. Alley Creek and Little Neck Bay Waterbody Legend Bronx River Coney Island Creek East River and Open Waters Flushing Bay Flushing Creek Gowanus Bay Gowanus Canal Harlem River Hutchinson River Jamaica Bay and Tributaries Newtown Creek Westchester Creek 301 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Table 4-1: Disturbance Discount Factors Lot Size Amount of Lot Area Used for Analyses 50 – 75 ac 15% 25 – 50 ac 20% 10 – 25 ac 30% 5 – 10 ac 40% 2 – 5 ac 50% 1 – 2 ac 55% 40,000 SF – 1 ac 70% 30,000 – 40,000 SF 75% 25,000 – 30,000 SF 85% 5,000 – 25,000 SF 100% The new and redeveloped lot and acre data for each of the three property types was then sorted into nine lot size bins with 5,000 SF lot size increments representing potential construction and post-construction stormwater management thresholds. Two additional thresholds, 7,500 SF and 12,500 SF, were added for subsequent evaluations to address stakeholder’s feedback. Cumulative values for the number of lots and acres were then developed for each potential lot size threshold starting with greater than 1 acre. Figure 4-1: Cumulative number of lots vs. potential lot size threshold presents the cumulative number of lots and Figure 4-2: Cumulative number of acres vs. potential lot size threshold presents the cumulative number of acres for each potential lot size threshold. Figure 4-1: Cumulative number of lots vs. potential lot size threshold As shown in Figure 4-1: Cumulative number of lots vs. potential lot size threshold, the number of residential lots increases significantly for thresholds below 15,000 to 20,000 SF with residential lots heavily dominating the smaller sized properties. Commercial properties also see a slight increase in the number of lots for smaller sized properties, while industrial properties remain relatively flat. Cumulative Lot Size Threshold (SF) # o f L o ts /P e rm its A n n u a lly (C u m u la tiv e ) 302 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 4-2: Cumulative number of acres vs. potential lot size threshold Figure 4-2: Cumulative number of acres vs. potential lot size threshold indicates that commercial properties represent over 50% of the total number of acres for all lot sizes above 12,500 SF. The number of residential acres increases exponentially for smaller lots (below 15,000 to 20,000 SF) while commercial acres increase moderately and industrial acres stay relatively flat with most industrial properties having lot sizes greater than 1 acre. presents the cumulative number of acres versus number of lots for all evaluated thresholds. The figure indicates that the rate of increase in number of lots significantly outpaces the rate of increase in number of acres for thresholds below 20,000 SF. As previously indicated in Figure 4-1, this rate of increase is heavily dominated by smaller sized residential properties. Figure 4-3: Cumulative Number of Acres vs. Lots Cumulative Lot Size Threshold (SF) Cumulative # of Lots Annually > 5,000 SF >7,500 SF >10,000 SF >12,500 SF > 1 acre >40,000 SF >35,000 SF >30,000 SF >25,000 SF >20,000 SF >15,000 SF # o f A c re s R e d e ve lo p e d A n n u a lly (C u m u la tiv e ) C u m u la tiv e # o f A c re s R e d e ve lo p e d A n n u a lly 303 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management The type and extent of SCMs can vary extensively for individual lot size thresholds. Selection of properties under each lot size threshold and associated SCM design and cost estimation was not practical. Instead, two representative lot sizes for each land use type were identified using cumulative probability versus lot size curves for the 15 years of historical new and redevelopment data. The cumulative probability versus lot size curves for the commercial/mixed use, industrial, and residential properties are presented in Figure 4-4: Lot Size Distribution of All Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Properties, Figure 4-5: Lot Size Distribution of All Industrial Properties and Figure 4-6: Lot Size Distribution of All Residential Properties respectively. The 25th (1st Quartile) and 75th (3rd Quartile) percentiles were used as targets for selecting two representative lot sizes for the industrial and commercial properties. Figure 4-4: Lot Size Distribution of All Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Properties 304 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 4-5: Lot Size Distribution of All Industrial Properties Figure 4-6: Lot Size Distribution of All Residential Properties 305 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management As shown in Figure 4-6: Lot Size Distribution of All Residential Properties, the cumulative probability curve for the residential property types is heavily skewed towards smaller lot sizes with the 25th and 75th percentiles representing two smallest potential thresholds (approximately 5,000 SF and 10,000 SF). A subset of the historical residential new and redevelopment data with lot sizes greater than 10,000 SF was further evaluated and presented in Figure 4-7. Lot Size Distribution of Residential Properties Greater than 10,000 SF. The two representative lot sizes for residential properties were selected as the median lot size for the entire residential dataset as illustrated on Figure 4-6: Lot Size Distribution of All Residential Properties and median lot size for the residential properties above 10,000 SF as illustrated on Figure 4-7. Lot Size Distribution of Residential Properties Greater than 10,000 SF. A summary of representative lot sizes for industrial, commercial, and residential property types used for the concept ual SCM design and cost evaluations presented in the subsequent sections of this report is presented in Table 4-2: Lot Size Breakdown. Category A lot size bins highlighted in blue represent lot sizes for smaller properties. Category B bins are highlighted in green to indicate larger properties. Properties that fell in between the two categories (purple) were later interpolated during the cost analyses. It should be noted that the actual lot sizes for representative properties selected for subsequent cost evaluations (as presented in Section 7) varied slightly from the breakdown analyses targets due to the limited availability of data (e.g., impervious cover, space potential for certain SCMs, etc.) for the actual properties reviewed during this lot size study. Figure 4-7. Lot Size Distribution of Residential Properties Greater than 10,000 SF 306 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Table 4-2: Lot Size Breakdown Lot Size Bins, SF Residential Commercial/ Mixed Use Industrial > 1ac 40,000 - 1 ac 35,000 - 40,000 30,000 - 35,000 25,000 - 30,000 20,000 - 25,000 15,000 - 20,000 10,000 - 15,000 5,000 - 10,000 Legend: Category A – 25th Percentile & Below Category B – 75th Percentile & Above Interpolated 5.0 Constraint Analysis Each SCM practice must be designed specifically for each required location, with factors such as available space and localized soil conditions driving the design. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, it was important to understand the space limitations and subsurface conditions across the NYC MS4 areas. The constraint analysis was performed for the citywide MS4 areas and then grouped into the waterbodies used by the LTCP. This section describes the analysis that was completed to define space and soil constrains within each waterbody. 5.1 Space Constraint Analysis A space constraint analysis was performed to understand the amount of space available to construct an SCM practice within a range of NYC lots. The goal of this analysis was to quantify the percentage of properties that could be considered space constrained within each MS4 waterbody area of the NYC. It was completed using ArcGIS and publicly available datasets. Information for the city lots was taken from MapPLUTO v.16 developed by the NYC Department of City Planning (DCP) and information for the building footprints was taken from DOB shapefiles. Using ArcGIS, the building shapefile was mapped to the lot shapefile, and the data was exported to Excel for post-processing. The percentage of each lot covered by a building footprint was calculated and summed on a subcatchment and ultimately a waterbody basis. The decision of the percentage of free space that should allow the lot to be considered “space unconstrained” was generally based on the suitability to accommodate an infiltration-based SCM to manage stormwater runoff within the property lot. For this analysis, space constrained and space unconstrained were defined as the following: � For lots between 5,000 SF and 14,999 SF » Space Unconstrained: less than 50% of the lot is covered by a building footprint » Space Constrained: more than 50% of the lot is covered by a building footprint � For lots equal to or greater than 15,000 SF » Space Unconstrained: less than 75% of the lot is covered by a building footprint » Space Constrained: more than 75% of the lot is covered by a building footprint The results of this analysis (summarized in Table 5-1) defined the overall percentage of space unconstrained and constrained lots within the tributary areas for each waterbody and citywide. 307 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 5.2 Subsurface Suitability Analysis In addition to understanding the space available for the construction of an SCM practice, it is important to understand the subsurface conditions. If the subsurface conditions are favorable, meaning there is low groundwater table, low bedrock, and good soil permeability, then an infiltration-based practice can typically be used. However, if any of these conditions are not met, then an alternative SCM practice must be selected. This analysis was completed using ArcGIS and two datasets provided by DEP: “Depth to Groundwater” and “Depth to Bedrock”. The data was spot checked using existing soil permeability and boring data previously collected by DEP as part of the Green Infrastructure (GI) Program. Consistent with DEP’s GI standards, a minimum depth of 10 feet (ft) was used for both groundwater and bedrock, defining high and low subsurface suitability as follows: � High subsurface suitability: groundwater depth > 10 ft and bedrock depth > 10 ft � Low subsurface suitability: groundwater depth < 10 ft and bedrock depth > 10 ft � Low subsurface suitability: groundwater depth > 10 ft and bedrock depth < 10 ft � Low subsurface suitability: groundwater depth < 10 ft and bedrock depth < 10 ft The results of this analysis (summarized in Table 5) defined the overall percentage of high subsurface suitability lots within the tributary areas for each waterbody. 5.3 Combining Space Constraint and Subsurface Suitability Analysis The final step in this analysis was to combine the space constraint analysis and the subsurface suitability analysis, defining the average conditions of each waterbody. To do so, the matrix shown in Figure 5-1 was developed and applied to each subcatchment, and ultimately each waterbody and citywide. Figure 5-1: Matrix Used to Define Space and Subsurface Constraints *50% for lots <15,000 SF L o w S p ac e A va ila b ili ty � Depth to bedrock and groundwater > 10 ft � Building footprint covers > 75% of the lot � Depth to bedrock and groundwater < 10ft � Building footprint covers > 75% of the lot H ig h S p ac e A va ila b ili ty � Depth to bedrock and groundwater > 10 ft � Building footprint covers < 75% of the lot* � Depth to bedrock and groundwater < 10ft � Building footprint covers < 75% of the lot* High Subsurface Suitability Low Subsurface Suitability 308 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management All properties in each waterbody were divided into one of four categories: 1.) unconstrained, 2.) space constrained, 3.) subsurface constrained, and 4.) space and subsurface constrained. The results of this analysis are presented in . Table 5-1. Constraint Characterization of Each Waterbody Waterbody Unconstrained Space Constrained Subsurface Constrained Space and Subsurface Constrained Confined Tributaries 34% 1% 62% 3% EROW 40% 1% 57% 2% Citywide 37% 1% 60% 2% The percentages shown in were then utilized to estimate the number of lots and acres with SCM technologies assigned to each of the four constraint categories. 6.0 Post-Construction Stormwater Control Measure Selection Representative Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) technologies for each of the constraint types were selected based on DEP’s expertise on Green Infrastructure Program implementation and technical information obtained from the peer utility surveys. Designs for the SCM practices were then prepared for each of the representative properties identified in 4.0 Statistical Analysis of New and Redeveloped Lots and cost estimates were developed. This section discusses the selection, ranking, and design of the representative SCM technologies used. 6.1 SCM Selection and Ranking A hierarchy of SCM technologies considered for evaluations was determined based on DEP’s expertise on GI implementation, discussion with developers and their technical experts and information obtained from utility surveys. SCM technologies were divided into two categories given subsurface conditions: infiltration and treatment. Infiltration practices can be either on-site vegetated practices or subsurface infiltration. Treatment practices can be either vegetated detention with treatment or physical treatment. In locations with favorable subsurface conditions, infiltration practices are preferred over treatment processes. However, as infiltration practices typically require more space, the size and configuration of the lot will also dictate which SCM can be implemented. A preliminary matrix of preferred SCM technologies is shown in Figure 6-1: Preliminary Post-Construction SCM Hierarchy Matrix for MS4 Tributary Areas. Within each category, multiple examples of SCM technologies are shown and the preferred technology used for the evaluations in this study is underlined. Further refinement of the hierarchy of preferred SCM technologies may be performed as the program evolves. 309 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 6-1: Preliminary Post-Construction SCM Hierarchy Matrix for MS4 Tributary Areas Infiltration practices are ranked higher than treatment practices, with on-site vegetated infiltration being the preferred SCM category. While permeable pavement is a preferred option when space availability is low, it is most often used in open areas such as parking lots. Green roofs may be considered if the space is constrained due to the building footprint. It should be noted that green roofs do not fall exclusively into a single category. They were instead placed into the two categories designated as having low space availability, the condition most likely to lead to the consideration of a green roof. Descriptions of the preferred SCMs utilized in this analysis are provided below. 6.2 Bioretention Bioretention is the preferred SCM technology because it prevents stormwater from entering the sewer system via storage and infiltration and provides numerous co-benefits. This technology is utilized in locations where subsurface conditions are favorable and there is adequate space for construction. Thousands of bioretention practices, most commonly Right-of-Way Bioswales (ROWBs), have been constructed across NYC based on a standard design developed by DEP1) and shown in Figure 6 -2: DEP Standard Design for a Bioretention Practice. 1 DEP Bureau of Engineering Design and Construction – Green Infrastructure, Standard Designs and Guidelines for Green Infrastructure Practices, March 2016 310 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 6 -2: DEP Standard Design for a Bioretention Practice This DEP standard design for a bioretention practice was used in this analysis, as shown in Figure 6-3: Example Bioretention Design (Residential Category B – Subsurface Unconstrained, Space Unconstrained) on a representative residential property. The depth of the engineered soil and open-graded stone base remained unchanged, and the footprint of the practice varied depending on the size of the lot and volume of stormwater management required. Bioretention practice sizing was based on the ROWB Performance Calculator developed by DEP. Figure 6-3: Example Bioretention Design (Residential Category B – Subsurface Unconstrained, Space Unconstrained) 311 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 6.3 Bioretention with Underdrain and Permeable Pavement Bioretention with underdrain practices can be utilized in locations in which the subsurface conditions are not favorable but there is adequate space. These practices store and treat the stormwater as it passes through the engineered soil and open graded stone base before the treated stormwater is returned to the collection system through an underdrain. In order to increase the storage capacity of the bioretention units, DEP standard designs incorporate permeable pavement strips which collect the extra stormwater and slowly feed it into the bioretention system, as shown in Figure 6-4: DEP Standard Design for a Bioretention Practice with Underdrain and Permeable Pavement. Figure 6-4: DEP Standard Design for a Bioretention Practice with Underdrain and Permeable Pavement Figure 6-5: Example Bioretention Practice with Underdrain and Permeable Pavement (Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Category B – Subsurface Constrained, Space Unconstrained) 312 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management This DEP standard design for a bioretention practice with underdrain and permeable pavement was utilized in this analysis, as shown in Figure 6-5: Example Bioretention Practice with Underdrain and Permeable Pavement. The relative amount of bioretention and permeable pavement varied for each site, to accommodate space availability and to incorporate the design into the lot. The unit sizing was based on the ROWB Performance Calculator developed by DEP. Sand Filters Sand filters are one of the two preferred technologies that were utilized for locations with both space and soil constraints. Collected stormwater is fed to the sand filter where it is treated as it trickles through the sand before being returned to the collection system. DEP does not currently have a standard design2 for this SCM practice, so the New York State standard design was utilized. The section view of the DEC standard design is shown in Figure 6-6. Section View of the Sand Filter Standard Design Developed by NYS DEC, and the plan and profile are shown in Figure 6-7. Plan and Profile Views of the Sand Filter Standard Design Developed by NYS DEC. An example of the sand filter SCM practice is shown in Figure 6-8: Example Sand Filter Practice (Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Category B – Subsurface Unconstrained, Space Constrained). Figure 6-6. Section View of the Sand Filter Standard Design Developed by NYS DEC 2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, January 2015 Figure 6-7. Plan and Profile Views of the Sand Filter Standard Design Developed by NYS DEC 313 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 6-8: Example Sand Filter Practice (Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Category B – Subsurface Unconstrained, Space Constrained) For this analysis, it was assumed that the sand filters would be constructed in the basement of a building to minimize the value of the real estate devoted to this practice. Sand filter sizing was done using the methodology outlined in the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual. 6.5 Green Roofs Green roofs can be implemented under almost any condition, providing that the roof is flat and has sufficient structural capacity. As shown in the hierarchy matrix, green roofs were only used in space constrained locations as an alternative to sand filters. Green roofs collect and store rainwater, allowing it to slowly return to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration. Due to building codes in NYC, green roofs cannot cover the entire surface of the roof; space must be left around the perimeter of the roof and around interior items such as windows and utilities to allow for access. Permeable pavers can fill in these areas to collect and detain the remaining stormwater, slowly feeding it to the collection system. The green roof design used in this analysis was a 6” deep modular green roof tray provided by a vendor, examples of which are shown in Figure 6-9. Modular 6” Deep Green Roof Tray and Figure 6–10. Dimensions of the 6” Deep Modular Green Roof Tray. Figure 6-9. Modular 6” Deep Green Roof Tray 314 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 6–10. Dimensions of the 6” Deep Modular Green Roof Tray For this analysis, it was estimated that 70% of space constrained lots have buildings with flat roofs capable of accommodating a green roof, as depicted in Figure 6-11. Example Green Roof Practice (Industrial Category A – Subsurface Unconstrained, Space Constrained). Figure 6-11. Example Green Roof Practice (Industrial Category A – Subsurface Unconstrained, Space Constrained) 315 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 6.6 Selection of Representative SCM Technologies For each property type (residential, commercial/mixed-use, and industrial), two Category A and two Category B (as defined in section 4) properties were selected, representing space constrained and space unconstrained property types. For each of these properties, two SCM designs were selected to represent the scenario of favorable subsurface conditions and unfavorable subsurface conditions. The technology selected for each type of constraint are shown in Table 6-1. Selected Technologies Used Under Each Constraint Type. Table 6-1. Selected Technologies Used Under Each Constraint Type Constraint Technology Unconstrained Bioretention Subsurface Constrained Bioretention w/ Underdrain + Permeable Pavement Space Constrained Sand Filter or Green Roof Subsurface and Space Constrained Sand Filter or Green Roof A total of 24 conceptual designs utilizing these representative SCM technologies for two size categories and a variety of subsurface and space conditions were developed and are presented in Appendix B. 7.0 Post-Construction SCM Cost Analysis The next step in the analysis was to develop capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the representative SCM technologies. Based on discussions with DEP and feedback from stakeholders, a 30-year SCM lifecycle was selected. The cost evaluation approach outlined in Figure 7–1: Cost Evaluation Approach combined the earlier analyses of lot type, size, and constraints with conceptual designs to estimate the SCM lifecycle cost for each SF of disturbed area. The methodology is further described in the following subsections. Figure 7–1: Cost Evaluation Approach ANALYZE 15 YEARS OF DOB DATA TO: � Determine Annual Redevelopment Rates � Lot Types � Lot Size � Select example properties DETERMINE SPACE AND SOIL CONSTRAINTS by waterbody using: � Soil Constraint � Groundwater Data � Bedrock Data � Space Constraint � Building % of lot � Lot Size Ranges DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR EXAMPLE PROPERTIES � Soil & Space Constraints � SCM Hierarchy SCM LIFECYCLE COSTS PER SF OF DISTURBED AREA 316 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 7.1 Capital Cost Development The conceptual designs for the representative SCM technologies were utilized to develop capital costs for each project. It was assumed that the SCM practices would be incorporated as part of a larger redevelopment or new development project, so line items for mobilization were not included. For areas that are considered “space constrained,” the costs for disposal of excavated material was not included, as the cost for disposal was assumed to be necessary regardless of the inclusion of the SCM practice. The line item cost estimates were shared with industry professionals and technical experts at stakeholder workshops and revised based on feedback received. Unlike the other SCM types, the capital costs for the modular green roof trays were obtained from a vendor. Additionally, no engineering cost markups were used for the green roof capital cost estimates as they are assumed to be designed by a vendor. A list of the markups used is shown in Table 7-1. Markups Used in the Development of Capital Costs for SCM Practices. Table 7-1. Markups Used in the Development of Capital Costs for SCM Practices Markup Percentage of Subtotal General conditions, bonds and insurance 10% General contractor overhead and profit 21% Contingency 20% Engineering (not included for green roofs) 15% Once the capital costs were developed, the unit capital cost per SF of disturbed area was estimated for each type of property so that it could be utilized to scale costs for the historical new and redevelopment properties in the DOB data. 317 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 7.2 O&M Cost Development O&M costs were developed over a 30-year lifecycle based on familiarity with the SCM technologies and experience in other cities. For SCM practices with vegetation, the first two years focus on plant establishment and subsequent years on maintenance and plant replacement. A conservative assumption was used for replacing bioretention and filter media once over the lifecycle of the respective SCMs based on feedback received at stakeholder workshops. This includes replacement of engineered soil and stone base for the bioretention practices and sand media for the sand filter. It was assumed that all green roof trays would be replaced once over the lifecycle. Table 7-2. O&M Activities included in SCM Lifecycle Costs summarized the major categories of O&M and media replacement activities for each SCM type. Table 7-2. O&M Activities included in SCM Lifecycle Costs Bioretention Maintenance Tasks and Description Years One and Two � Establishment watering, establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest management, mulching � Debris and sediment removal, general site cleanup � Painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair After the First Two Years � Weeding, plant replacement, pest management � Debris and sediment removal, general site cleanup � Painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair One-time Media Replacement � Replacement of open graded stone base, engineered soil, and mulch layer Bioretention with Underdrain and Porous Pavement Maintenance Tasks and Description Years One and Two � Establishment watering, establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest management, mulching � Debris and sediment removal, general site cleanup � Painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair � Vacuuming porous pavement strip(s) After First Two Years � Weeding, plant replacement, pest management � Debris and sediment removal, general site cleanup � Painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair � Vacuuming porous pavement strip(s) One-time Media Replacement � Replacement of open graded stone base, engineered soil and mulch layers � Replacement of permeable pavers and open graded stone base for permeable pavers Sand Filter Maintenance Tasks and Description Annually � Inlet/pre-treatment inspection and vacuuming (sedimentation and overflow chambers) � Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and detention areas and the dewatering system and vacuuming gravel layer � Replacement of gravel and/or sand media as necessary � Observe drawdown rate following a large storm One-time Media Replacement � Vacuum removal of the sand using a vac truck � Replacement of stone base, clean, washed sand, debris screen, and gravel Green Roof Maintenance Tasks and Description Years One and Two � Establishment watering, establishment weeding, plant replacement, and pest management 318 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management After First Two Years � Weeding, plant replacement, and pest management � Soil testing and amendments One-time Media Replacement � Complete replacement of green roof trays Once the 30-year O&M costs were developed, they were converted into a unit cost per SF of disturbed area. This was then added to the capital cost to determine the overall lifecycle post-construction stormwater management cost per SF of disturbed area. The unit costs for each lot size threshold are presented in Appendix C. The unit costs for Category A and Category B properties were applied based on the size of the sample properties utilized to develop the example SCM designs. For the lot size thresholds that fell between these two categories, the unit costs were interpolated to incorporate an economy of scale into the costs. These unit costs were then applied to the historical DOB new and redevelopment data to estimate citywide post-construction SCM lifecycle costs. 7.3 Development of Cost Curves The 15 years of historical DOB data was also analyzed to estimate the average annual new and redeveloped acres in NYC. The acreage was broken down by waterbody, and divided into one of the four constraint categories. The lifecycle unit costs were then applied to each of these areas to calculate the total lifecycle cost required to manage up to 1.5 inches of stormwater runoff from the annually disturbed acres in each lot size threshold. The citywide MS4 area cumulative post-construction lifecycle cost for each evaluated lot size threshold is presented in Figure 7-2: Annual Cumulative Cost Citywide for Post Construction Stormwater Management. Note that this cost represents the total estimated lifecycle SCM cost for one year of new and redeveloped properties with 30 years of operation and maintenance. Each year of new and redevelopment construction would result in repeat costs. Figure 7-2: Annual Cumulative Cost Citywide for Post-Construction Stormwater Management Cumulative Lot Size Threshold (SF) C u m u la tiv e P o st C o n st ru c tio n S C M L ife c yc le C o st ≥ 1 acre ≥ 40,000 ≥ 35,000 ≥ 30,000 ≥ 25,000 ≥ 20,000 ≥ 15,000 ≥ 12,500 ≥ 10,000 ≥ 7,500 ≥ 5,000 Total Lifecycle Costs Capital Cost 30 Year O&M Cost $2,000,000 $0 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 319 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management The capital and O&M costs each contribute to approximately 50% of the total lifecycle costs at all lot sizes. The costs remain relatively constant until roughly the 20,000 SF lot size threshold, after which the costs increase exponentially. This can be attributed to the increased unit costs for small lot SCMs combined with the increase in smaller lots and acres for lower thresholds. Figure 7–3: Non-Cumulative Annual Post-Construction SCM Lifecycle Costs by Property Type Figure 7–3: Non-Cumulative Annual Post-Construction SCM Lifecycle Costs by Property Type represents the non cumulative annual post-construction SCM lifecycle cost by property type. Since residential properties make up most properties at thresholds below 15,000 SF, they were further broken down into one- and two-family residential and multifamily residential properties. This figure indicates that the SCM costs for lower lot size thresholds are predominantly driven by one- and two-family residential properties, with commercial and/or mixed-use properties becoming predominant at the thresholds larger than 20,000 SF. provides the post-construction SCM capital costs per residential unit for each evaluated lot size bin. Majority of the Staten Island is managed by a separate storm sewer system and roughly 51% of the permit data evaluated came from Staten Island, much of which is residential properties. To understand the potential impact to Staten Island residential developers and/or homeowners, that borough is shown separately, in addition to the citywide results. 40,000—43,560 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 35,000—40,000 30,000—35,000 25,000—30,000 20,000—25,000 Non-Cumulative Lot Size Threshold (SF) N o n C u m u la tiv e P o st C o n st ru c tio n S C M L ife c yc le C o st 15,000—20,000 10,000—15,000 5,000—10,000 1&2 Family Residential Multifamily Residential Total Commercial/Mixed-Use Industrial 320 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 7-4: Non-Cumulative Post Construction SCM Capital Cost per Residential Unit Citywide and Staten Island Only At lot size thresholds below 20,000 SF, the SCM cost per residential unit increases exponentially and would present a significant burden to the developer and/or owner as compared to the cost of the property. Additionally, the SCM cost per residential unit in Staten Island is significantly higher than the citywide average, likely due to “horizontal” residential construction as opposed to the “vertical” construction which is more predominant in Brooklyn and Queens. 8.0 Post-Construction Stormwater Control Measure Benefit Analysis Benefit analyses in terms of SCM implementation related stormwater runoff and pollutant load reductions were performed for each waterbody and then combined on a citywide basis. A summary of the approach and results are presented in this section. 8.1 InfoWorks Modeling Existing InfoWorks models were reviewed for all wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) services areas, except for Oakwood Beach WWTP. This review allowed MS4 areas that eventually connect to combined sewers to be excluded from further evaluation. MS4 areas that are connected to CSO outfalls downstream of the regulator structures were retained. 321 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management The Oakwood Beach WWTP area was characterized in earlier studies using a simple rainfall-runoff model. Consistent with the LTCP methodology, the baseline scenario for the benefit analysis was setup with the following conditions: 1 rainfall from John F. Kennedy International Airport for the calendar year 2008 as typical hydrologic year; 2 no delineation of drainage areas and runoff estimation at the scale of private outfalls, but modeling was performed for lumped areas that may be discharging to a single waterbody through numerous small outfalls or directly as overland flow; and 3 unless provided by DEP from ongoing studies, no effort was undertaken in this project to delineate or confirm drainage areas for individual MS4 outfalls. DEP is currently undertaking a major mapping effort to delineate subcatchments in MS4 areas hence the loading estimates may require revisions. Table 8-1: Baseline Scenario - Summary of Areas and Annual Stormwater Runoff Volumes shows the summary of drainage area characteristics (total and impervious areas in acres, ac) and baseline scenario runoff volumes (in million gallons, MG) for the typical hydrologic year, developed from the 14 WWTP drainage area InfoWorks models. Table 8-1: Baseline Scenario - Summary of Areas and Annual Stormwater Runoff Volumes Waterbodies Total Area (ac) Impervious Area (ac) Baseline Runoff (MG) Confined Tributaries 44,684 27,594 19,774 EROW 43,332 17,824 19,586 Citywide 88,016 45,418 39,360 Although there may be some SCMs implemented in public and private lots or the public right-of-way, it was conservatively assumed that no SCMs existed in the MS4/DD areas under baseline or existing conditions. The benefit assessment phase of InfoWorks modeling incorporated the SCMs for disturbed acres in the MS4/DD areas for each waterbody. The goal is to represent the disturbed acres explicitly in InfoWorks models so that the benefits associated with implementation of retention- and treatment-based SCMs can be quantified. The impervious acres within each subcatchment drainage area were divided into three categories in the models: a impervious areas that are not managed by SCMs; b impervious areas that are managed with retention-based SCMs; and c impervious areas that are managed with treatment-based SCMs. The disturbed areas managed by retention were categorized as “unconstrained” for subsurface and space. For subcatchment areas with retention controls, consistent with the LTCP methodology for modeling bioretention, storage nodes (designed as 5-foot depth retention tanks) were added to the baseline model to capture and infiltrate up to 1.5 inches of stormwater volume from the contributing drainage area. A 1.5-inch event was selected as a conservative value for the 90th percentile storm in NYC area. Infiltration rates were set to 1 inch per hour so that the captured stormwater would be depleted before the next storm. Bypasses from these storage elements were estimated using the storage-infiltration methodology. Similarly, the disturbed areas managed by treatment-based controls were divided into areas managed by bioretention with underdrains (for subsurface constrained lots), sand filters (for subsurface and space constrained lots), and green roofs (for space-constrained or subsurface and space constrained portions). These were individually modeled in the InfoWorks models or clustered and segregated proportionally in the post-processing step, as applicable. The 1.5-inch target runoff capture was used for both retention and treatment calculations. For treatment using sand filters, an orifice was sized to drain stormwater runoff in two days. The incorporation of the green roofs assumed that they would provide 50% retention and 50% treatment benefit. 322 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management The retention and treatment SCMs were modeled for four threshold lot sizes: greater than 5,000 SF, greater than 10,000 SF, greater than 20,000 SF, and greater than 1 acre. The greater than 5,000 SF threshold size had the most stringent stormwater management requirement, with the most managed disturbed areas being included in the benefit analysis. Alternatively, the greater than 1 acre threshold size had the smallest area to be managed by SCMs. For a given waterbody and threshold, the InfoWorks models generated the unmanaged runoff volume, bypass volume from the retention tank, treated volume, and the treated bypass volume, all expressed in millions of gallons per year (MG/Year). The unmanaged impervious areas and pervious areas contributed the same amount of stormwater discharges and pollutant loads in all scenarios including the baseline, and only the managed impervious areas contributed reduced runoff and/or pollutant loads based on the extent of retention or treatment-based SCMs used. Because the thresholds were cumulative, the unmanaged runoff increased and the rate of treated runoff decreased as the threshold size increased. 8.2 Post-Processing Based on the vendor data and literature review a conservative assumption was used for green roof performance with the retention benefit assumed to be 50% of the generated runoff treatment benefit assumed for the remaining 50% of the runoff. This process was implemented using linear interpolation in the post-processing step. Additional threshold sizes were considered beyond the four that were modeled using InfoWorks. The disturbed areas to be managed for the threshold sizes of greater than 7,500 SF, greater than 7,500 SF, greater than 15,000 SF and greater than 25,000 SF were also linearly interpolated from the results of four modeled thresholds. Once the managed areas were estimated, the unmanaged runoff volume, the bypass volume from the retention tank, the treated volume, the treated bypass volume, and the green roof runoff volume were apportioned linearly to assess the resulting stormwater flow volume reductions from the MS4/DD areas. 8.3 Event Mean Concentrations Pollutant loads were estimated using time-variant or representative pollutant concentrations applied for the various runoff components. Extensive water quality monitoring data and associated model calibration/validation helped justify a complex representation of time-variant concentrations. Based on limited monitoring data available in the NYC’s MS4/DD areas, the concept of event mean concentrations (EMCs) was adopted in this analysis. The EMCs for total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), fecal coliforms (FC) and enterococci (ENT) were sourced from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD), and NYC’s LTCP reports. For TSS and TN, a pooled mean was calculated from NURP and NSQD. Data from NYC were given the highest consideration to develop representative EMCs, and the concentrations from literature were supplemented where limited or no NYC-specific information was available. Selected EMC values for these parameters are summarized in Table 8-2: Selected EMC Values for Key Water Quality Parameters, which were used consistently for baseline and the varying threshold size scenarios. Table 8-2: Selected EMC Values for Key Water Quality Parameters Parameter TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) FC (#/100mL) ENT (#/100mL) EMC Value 80 2.50 0.37 35,000 15,000 323 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Baseline pollutant loadings were calculated for each waterbody by multiplying the waterbody’s baseline runoff volumes with each of the five water quality parameters’ EMCs. Table 8-3: Baseline Pollutant Load by Waterbody summarizes these pollutant loads, which were used to compare against and estimate the incremental benefits of adopting different disturbance threshold sizes and implementing SCMs to achieve the pollutant load reductions at the corresponding lifecycle costs. Table 8-3: Baseline Pollutant Load by Waterbody Waterbody TSS (Lb/yr) TN (Lb/yr) TP (Lb/yr) FC (Trillion/yr) Ent (Trillion/yr) Confined Tributaries 13,205,600 412,900 61,000 26,229,500 11,241,214 EROW 13,080,700 408,900 60,600 25,981,800 11,135,100 Citywide 13,080,700 408,900 60,600 25,981,800 11,135,100 The EMCs were also applied to the unmanaged runoff and bypasses from the implementation of SCMs. For each threshold scenario, the bypass volume from the retention tank, the treated volume, the treated bypass volume, and the green roof retained and treated runoff volume were multiplied by the EMC to get the pollutant load for each type of runoff. Partial treatment of bypassed volume during the retention or treatment-based unit process is not accounted for as a conservative assumption in this analysis. Reductions in pollutant loads due to treatment are discussed in terms of percent reduction factors in the next section. 8.4 Performances of Stormwater Control Measures The effectiveness of SCMs for the various water quality parameters were extracted from the Preliminary Data of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices3, the National Pollutant Removal Performance Database4 , the Pathogens in Urban Stormwater Systems (International BMP Database 2014), the Stormwater Best Management Practices Performance Analysis5, and the Literature Review of Existing Treatment Technologies for Industrial Stormwater6. Pollutant reduction effectiveness of individual SCMs have been reported in the literature in the form of percent removal (a constant reduction applied irrespective of storm patterns) or effective reduction (varied performance based on storm patterns). The percent removal methodology was adopted for this study, again with the limited performance data available in NYC’s MS4/DD areas, to quantify the reductions achieved with the selected SCM technologies. The selected percent removals for treatment-based SCMs are shown in Table 8-4: Percent Removals for Water Quality Performance of SCMs. Retention-based SCMs were considered to provide 100% removal for all pollutants associated with the eliminated stormwater runoff. Table 8-4: Percent Removals for Water Quality Performance of SCMs Selected SCMs Removal Rate per Pollutant TSS* TN TP* FC ENT Green Roof 80% 42% 40% 65% 65% Bioretention with Underdrain 80% 24% 40% 30% 30% Sand Filter 80% 30% 40% 30% 30% *Performance targets established by NYS for TSS and TP load reductions from stormwater are used as removal rates in this analysis, with the intent that these regulatory requirements can be included as part of permits for on-site projects. 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-821-R-99-012, August 1999 4 Center for Watershed Protection, Version 3¸September 2007 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Revised March 2010 6 Science Applications International Corporation and Washington Department of Ecology, July 22, 2011 324 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management The reduced pollutant load associated with retention-based controls resulted from the direct reduction in runoff due to storage and infiltration of up to the 1.5-inch design event. There were no removal rates applied to the stormwater that bypasses the retention-based SCMs for the portion of events greater than 1.5 inches, as a conservative assumption. However, trapping of suspended solids and other nutrients and pathogens could occur from runoff that enters an SCM even if bypasses occur due to capacity constraints. For the treatment-based controls, including the sand filter and the green roof, the pollutant loading was an outcome of applying the appropriate pollutant removal rate and EMC to the managed runoff. Once the EMCs and removal rates were applied, the total pollutant load for a given threshold size was estimated by adding the pollutant loads from unmanaged runoff volume, the bypass volume from the retention tank, the treated volume, the treated bypass volume, and the green roof treated volume. This total number corresponds to the remnant pollutant load to each waterbody after the SCMs are implemented in all the new or re-development projects in public and private lots for a given threshold size. In each waterbody, the final water quality benefit for each threshold scenario was determined by calculating the percent difference between the baseline and the threshold scenarios with stormwater management. The percent difference was determined for each water quality parameter as well as the total runoff volume using the citywide MS4 area onsite runoff and pollutant load values as a basis. The citywide water quality benefits were assessed by summing the baseline and threshold scenarios from each waterbody. The reductions were then translated to annual benefit by dividing by 15 years for normalizing the benefits that are summarized in Table 8-5: Annual Post-Construction Flow and Water Quality Benefits (Cumulative). Table 8-5: Annual Post-Construction Flow and Water Quality Benefits (Cumulative) Threshold Size (SF) Runoff Volume Reduction (%) TSS Reduction (%) TN Reduction (%) TP Reduction (%) FC Reduction (%) ENT Reduction (%) >5,000 0.63% 0.91% 0.71% 0.77% 0.74% 0.74% >7,500 0.46% 0.68% 0.53% 0.57% 0.55% 0.55% >10,000 0.40% 0.59% 0.46% 0.50% 0.47% 0.47% >12,500 0.35% 0.52% 0.40% 0.44% 0.42% 0.42% >15,000 0.32% 0.48% 0.37% 0.40% 0.38% 0.38% >20,000 0.29% 0.43% 0.33% 0.36% 0.35% 0.35% >25,000 0.26% 0.40% 0.31% 0.33% 0.32% 0.32% >1 acre 0.23% 0.34% 0.26% 0.29% 0.27% 0.27% 325 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Figure 8-1: Cumulative Tons of TSS Removed vs. Number of Lots and Acres presents the cumulative TSS reduction benefits associated with the cumulative accumulation of the number of lots and disturbed acres being managed by SCMs. Pollutant load reduction is linearly proportional to the managed impervious acres, and the rate of increase in pollutant load reduction decreases generally with lower lot size thresholds (as reflected by the increase in lots with lower threshold sizes). Figure 8-1: Cumulative Tons of TSS Removed vs. Number of Lots and Acres Figure 8-2: Cumulative cost benefit curves for pollutant percent removal shows the relationship between life cycle costs and percent reductions in runoff/pollutant loads estimated for different lot size thresholds. Generally, these relationships become steeper with lower thresholds, indicating that the incremental costs of SCMs are higher to achieve the unit reductions in pollutant loads for smaller thresholds. Figure 8-2: Cumulative cost benefit curves for pollutant percent removal 326 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Table 8–6: Summary of Post-Construction Cost/Benefit Analysis (Cumulative) provides an overall summary of disturbed acres, number of lots, SCM costs to developers and associated administrative costs to DEP, and the corresponding pollutant load reductions and cost/unit reduction in pollutant loads. The increases in benefits (pollutant load reductions) with incremental costs show similar trends seen in Figure 8-2: Cumulative cost benefit curves for pollutant percent removal, for the various lot size thresholds. Table 8–6: Summary of Post-Construction Cost/Benefit Analysis (Cumulative) Lot Size Threshold Annual # of Acres Annual # of Permits/ Lots Post Construction Lifecycle Cost to Developer Annual Cost to DEP Tons of TSS Removed from First Year’s Lots over 30 Years Developer Cost Per Ton of TSS Removed ≥ 1 Acre (Baseline) 56 25 $47,744,400 $ 2,540,500 555 $86,000 ≥ 30,000 SF 61 34 $52,241,300 $2,764,800 604 $86,500 ≥ 25,000 SF 65 41 $55,098,800 $2,876,900 643 $85,700 ≥ 20,000 SF 71 53 $59,845,000 $ 2,989,100 701 $85,400 ≥ 15,000 SF 79 73 $65,903,000 $ 3,213,300 778 $84,700 ≥ 12,500 SF 85 95 $71,418,500 $ 3,325,500 846 $84,400 ≥ 10,000 SF 97 141 $81,762,100 $3,920,400 954 $85,700 ≥ 7,500 SF 112 220 $97,772,500 $4,481,100 1,100 $88,900 ≥ 5,000 SF 152 514 $139,255,600 $6,646,000 1,468 $94,900 9.0 Construction Stormwater Management Cost-Benefit Analysis This section presents the results of cost-benefit analyses for lot size threshold selection for stormwater runoff management during construction. Typical construction stormwater runoff management requirements include erosion and sedimentation controls and, unlike the post-construction SCMs, the construction runoff technology selection is mostly independent of the space and subsurface conditions. The construction runoff management evaluations were built off the post-construction SCM cost-benefit analyses presented in the previous sections and include the key steps described in the following sections. 327 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 9.1 Develop conceptual designs and construction cost estimates For the purposes of evaluations in this study, it was assumed that each construction site, independently of the lot size and space and subsurface conditions, would include the following erosion and sedimentation controls: � Perimeter Silt Fence � Construction Entrance � Sedimentation Basin These controls were selected based on the 2016 NYS Blue Book7. Average construction lot dimensions, including area and perimeter were estimated for each lot size bin using the historical permit data. These dimensions were used for estimating silt fence and sedimentation basin quantities for representative lots in each lot size bin. Standard Blue Book construction details were assumed for the silt fence and sedimentation basin. One standard stabilized construction (SCE) site entrance was assumed for each lot. Upper ranges of the Blue Book cost tables were then applied to the estimated quantities within each lot size bin to develop cost estimates for construction stormwater runoff management. Cumulative construction stormwater management costs for each evaluated threshold are presented in Figure 9-1: Annual Cumulative Cost Citywide for Construction Stormwater Management. The costs increase exponentially below the 20,000 SF threshold, mostly due to the significant increase in number of lots and acres. Figure 9-1: Annual Cumulative Cost Citywide for Construction Stormwater Management Note that these construction costs do not include engineering, SWPPP preparation, or the O&M costs. 7 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, November 2016 C u m u la tiv e A n n u a l C o n st ru c tio n S to rm w at e r C o n tr o l C o st s 328 9.2 Estimate Construction Runoff Management WQ Benefits The next step in evaluations was to estimate pollutant loading reductions associated with the construction stormwater management controls. TSS was assumed under this evaluation as the primary pollutant of concern associated with the construction site stormwater runoff. Based on the literature review, a typical TSS EMC value of 200 mg/L8 and an average TSS removal efficiency for the selected stormwater runoff controls of 50%9 were used for the WQ benefit analyses. InfoWorks modeling results, as described in Section , were post-processed to estimate the annual stormwater runoff volumes, TSS loads, and corresponding TSS load reduction from construction sites. An average construction duration of one year and the 2008 rainfall from John F. Kennedy International Airport were used for estimating TSS removals for each lot size threshold. Table 9-1 presents cumulative annual TSS load reduction and percent removal benefits (using TSS load from citywide onsite properties in MS4 area as a basis) for construction stormwater controls for the various lot size thresholds. Table 9-1: Annual Construction TSS Reduction Benefits (Cumulative) Threshold Size (SF) TSS Removal (tons) TSS Reduction (%)* >5,000 55 1.02% >7,500 41 0.76% >10,000 35 0.65% >12,500 31 0.58% >15,000 28 0.52% >20,000 26 0.48% >25,000 23 0.43% >1 acre 20 0.37% *Based on load from onsite properties in MS4 area citywide 9.3 Develop Cost-Benefit Curve The costs and benefit data for the construction stormwater runoff management were assembled in a curve presented in Figure 9-2: Annual Construction Runoff Management Costs vs. Benefits, which shows a relationship between the annual costs and cumulative TSS removal expressed as percentage of the baseline TSS loads from all onsite properties within the NYC MS4 area. As indicated in the figure, both costs and benefits increase with the smaller lot threshold sizes; however, no explicit knee of the curve could be observed. Figure 9-2: Annual Construction Runoff Management Costs vs. Benefits 8 The Hows and Whys of Controlling Runoff Pollution, University of Wisconsin DNR Extension, PUB WT-922-2009 9 New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, February 2014. The manual provides a range of 40-90%, based on specific SCM. A conservative 50% is assumed here. C u m u la tiv e A n n u a l C o n st ru c tio n S to rm w at e r C o n tr o l Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 1.02% 0.76% 0.65% 0.58% 0.52% 0.48% 0.43% 0.37% 329 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management 10.0 Administrative Cost Benefit Analysis To analyze administrative costs versus the benefits of reducing the lot size threshold, the team performed a statistical analysis using the estimated number of annual permits from the DOB permit data and the associated resources anticipated for the overall management of the permit review and inspections for a given threshold size. The analysis includes the base salaries of an executive director that spends one third of their time on MS4 issues, a director to oversee implementation of the program, senior level engineers to assist in the review, inspection and implementation of enforcement actions and assistant level engineers and technicians to perform reviews and inspections. Additionally, the study includes the cost of one IT professional for maintaining the permitting and enforcement group database including the online application systems, the review database, the inspection database and the supporting information such as certifications, contact information and registrations. Finally, the study does not include support staff that will be required to field phone calls, assist with nontechnical application questions and assist the public on retrieving information. Figure 10-1 presents the administrative costs to DEP for each lot size threshold. Figure 10-1: Total Administrative Costs to DEP Under the existing permit, DEP is required to review all permits and prioritize sites for inspection during and after construction. Using the DOB permit data and the lot size disturbance thresholds, larger projects are assumed to require more review time with additional assistance from high-level staff and more time for construction and post-construction site inspection and enforcement. As the area of disturbance, the threshold, is reduced, the staff effort to get and maintain compliance through permit reviews is also reduced since it is likely that smaller projects will take less time to review. However, visiting each project in the field for inspections during construction will become a challenge as the number of permits rises. Since the number of permits increases dramatically below the 20,000 square foot threshold, the need for additional staff increases dramatically even though the additional area covered is minimal. 330 Appendix 6.1 Lot Size Soil Disturbance Threshold Study for Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Management Reducing the threshold increases the need for staff. The area impacted by the program grows with the reduced the threshold, but the number of permits grows at a quicker rate than the area covered as the threshold falls below 20,000 square feet. Additionally, allocating resources to lower thresholds does not support the minimal water quality benefits that would be associated with the smaller threshold sizes. The overall cost-benefit comparison favors larger thresholds both administratively and technically. 11.0 Recommendation of Lot Size Threshold DEP is proposing to adopt a 20,000 SF threshold as a recommendation for reduction from 1 acre; applicable to both construction and post construction stormwater management. This recommendation is supported by most of the evaluations performed in this study, including: � number of managed lots and acres, � cost-benefit analyses and � administrative costs A 20,000 SF threshold size also takes into consideration costs to individual households and borough-specific impacts. The selected threshold considers staffing resources to accommodate permit reviews and inspections and it provides flexibility for site constraints through a hierarchy for stormwater control measures (i.e., soil suitability, site availability). For these reasons, a 20,000 SF disturbance threshold is the maximum extent practicable (MEP) in NYC. 331 Appendix 6.1 A Utility Survey Memorandum 332 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Summary On August 1, 2015, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a permit to the City of New York, which includes a multitude of requirements on stormwater discharges including those related to construction and post-construction activities. Accordingly, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) sought to understand how other peer utilities with combined and/or separate sewer systems comply with their local ordinances or stormwater regulations. The following twelve (12) utilities of various sizes across the country, with the local population served ranging from about 600,000 to 4,000,000 people, were shortlisted for literature review and follow-up interviews: Atlanta (GA), Austin (TX), Baltimore (MD), Boston (MA), Chicago (IL), Los Angeles (CA), Philadelphia (PA), Portland (OR), San Diego (CA), San Francisco (CA), Seattle (WA), and Washington (DC). The questionnaire that was developed by DEP and the Arcadis team to support this survey focused on performance standards, administrative process, number of applications received and staffing resources, etc. related to stormwater management of construction and post-construction activities (see Attachment A at the end of this appendix for the questionnaire). All 12 of the utilities participated in interviews, providing partial or full responses to the questionnaire. The first step was a literature review of each utility’s stormwater manual and other publicly available guidance. Following this, the second step was to reach out to the utilities directly with a standardized interview questionnaire to fill in any gaps in information, particularly the administrative information that is not typically listed on utilities’ websites. There are various technical and administrative topics included in the questionnaire, including but not limited to the stormwater regulations: (a) adopted thresholds based on soil disturbance and/or creation of new impervious area for new and redevelopment projects and if any analyses were done for determining a particular threshold and associated retention/ detention or treatment standards; (b) off-site mitigation or in-lieu fee applications; (c) administrative process including stormwater management pollution prevention plan review times, and (d) staffing resources for managing permits and performing inspections and fees charged by the utilities. Utilities with Phase 2 MS4 permits typically have applied construction and post-construction thresholds in the range of one acre and above, expressed in terms of either the soil disturbance or new impervious cover as trigger for post construction stormwater runoff control. Most of the 12 utilities interviewed under this task applied construction thresholds of less than one acre with the remainder using a one-acre national threshold recommended in the US EPA Phase 2 Stormwater Guidance. All the 12 interviewed utilities have adopted a minimum soil disturbance or new impervious area post-construction threshold that ranged from no-minimum value (i.e., all new or redevelopment applications require permits) to 15,000 square feet (sq ft.). About half specified a post-construction threshold be between 5,000 and 10,000 sq ft., with four out of the 12 utilities using 5,000 sq ft. In addition to the 12 utilities surveyed under this task, DEP has been communicating with other utilities on CSO and stormwater regulations compliance matters, and the information on post-construction threshold from these additional utilities (included below) was used in the comparative evaluations: � City of Miami (half acre); � New Orleans (5,000 sq ft.); � Fairfax County (2,500 sq ft.); � Indianapolis (half acre); and � Richmond (one acre for all areas and 2,500 sq ft. only for Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area). Three out of these five additional utilities have established larger thresholds of half to one acre. Overall, out of 17 utilities considered for the post-construction threshold survey, seven have established thresholds of greater than 5,000 sq ft. 333 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Most of the 17 utilities also have combined sewers as part of their service area and almost all have adopted the same minimum threshold for post-construction runoff requirements in both MS4 and combined areas. It is also important to note that some utilities with smaller thresholds have provisions to significantly minimize the administrative workload for inspections. For example, Portland (OR), with 500 sq ft. as threshold, only requires self-certification for single family residential lots and Boston, with no-minimum threshold, does not have any post construction inspection requirement at this time. Some other utilities have watershed-based varying thresholds to meet their flood control or water quality end goals, e.g., Philadelphia, Washington, DC and Richmond. Most of 12 interviewed utilities offered alternative measures for sites that may not be able to meet the stormwater management requirements, specifically in the forms of in-lieu fees and offsite mitigation options. Boston and Chicago are the only cities that strictly adhere to on-site stormwater management regulations. Neither Seattle nor DC explicitly state whether they accept in-lieu fees or offsite mitigation, but they do utilize a stormwater credit system that offers some flexibility for developers to meet the stormwater management regulations. Performance standard requirements varied among the utilities interviewed, but some general trends were observed. Most utilities listed a water quality control volume (WQv) retention standard below 1.5 inches, with only Portland that has a significantly larger standard of 3.5 inches over a 24-hour period. Some of the utilities have peak flow (i.e., flood control) reduction standard in addition to WQv. Potential soil and space constraints can limit the implementation of retention-based stormwater controls. This is particularly relevant to dense urban areas with compacted soils or underlying soil with poor permeability. Several utilities (e.g., San Francisco, Philadelphia and Portland) have developed tiered approaches to controlling stormwater – starting with retention as the first tier to the maximum extent practicable and using detention or treatment based controls as lower tiered options. The indicators for administrative costs included the number of staff to manage permits, perform construction permit inspections and post-construction periodic inspections, as well as the number of permits/inspections handled and the departments/municipal jurisdictions that manage the permitting and inspections. Mature stormwater management programs appear to have larger number of staff as well as dedicated funding mechanisms (e.g., stormwater utility, component stormwater bill to customers, etc.), whereas the newer programs are still in the midst of establishing the staffing and funding needs. Another topic of interest to DEP was whether the utilities with both combined and separately sewered systems had different permit (stormwater management) requirements. It appears that most have the same performance standards and administrative requirements for both combined and separate systems. However, some utilities such as Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco each impose requirements that differ between combined and separate areas for certain criteria. San Francisco, for example, has the same standard for retention in combined and large MS4 areas (>5,000 sq ft.), whereas a less stringent standard for 2,500-5,000 sq ft. in smaller MS4 areas. Philadelphia has different infiltration volume requirements and Portland has different allowable discharge rates for the combined and MS4 areas. The responses gathered from 12 interviewed utilities represent stormwater management programs in various stages of development and implementation, some dating back nearly 10 years and some others being relatively new – established within the last two years. The findings also indicate that there is a wide variation among the responding utilities in the administration of stormwater management and the performance standards that developers are required to follow. This technical memorandum summarizes the data and information obtained from the interviews conducted by DEP staff and the Arcadis team and a review of existing documentation. This memorandum will be shared with utilities that have participated in this survey for reference upon DEP approval. Due to the wide variation in stormwater rule implementation by the responding utilities, only the key topics of interest to DEP are summarized in this memorandum. 334 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 1.0 Introduction Since 2010, DEP has been constructing and funding stormwater management assets throughout the City’s combined sewer tributary areas. The types of stormwater management assets include but are not limited to bio infiltration, permeable paving, subsurface retention systems, and green roofs. In 2012, DEP established a new stormwater performance standard (Stormwater Rule) with which developers must comply for any new construction or major alteration in the combined sewer areas. This performance standard took effect in 2012, and since then DEP has certified more than 5,300 site or house connection permits. Stormwater management systems constructed so far, to comply with this rule, are primarily detention-based and designed to meet the reduced 0.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) stormwater release rate or 10% of the allowable flow, whichever is greater, or if the allowable flow is less than 0.25 cfs then no more than allowable flow (NYC DEP Green Infrastructure Annual Report, 2016). On August 1, 2015, New York City received its first municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit, and is required to develop a stormwater management program (SWMP) plan within three years to address the various permit provisions. Two provisions specifically apply to construction and post-construction stormwater controls, of which there are two key components. The first component is to implement a program to enforce the existing state requirements for soil disturbances greater than or equal to one acre by August 1, 2018. These existing DEC requirements include a performance standard that prescribes a water quality control volume (WQv) ranging from 1.4 to 1.5 inches over different parts of New York City, which corresponds to the 90th percentile 24-hour storm volume appropriate for the City’s geographic area. The second key component of this permit is to determine an appropriate reduction below one acre for the threshold triggering construction and post-construction stormwater management requirements. Accordingly, the City convened a group of stakeholders, including representatives from the developer and environmental advocacy communities, to determine a new threshold based on soil disturbance and/or creation of new impervious area for new and redevelopment projects. The determination of this threshold is guided by the anticipated benefits (stormwater volume and pollutant load reductions) and associated costs (construction and post-construction stormwater control implementation and operation and maintenance costs incurred by developers to meet the performance standard and municipal costs to administer the program). In order to gain additional information from other urban cities and their stormwater regulations and associated administrative requirements for the long-term management of a construction and post-construction stormwater program, DEP conducted a survey of peer utilities across the U.S. The utility survey was performed as a two-step process. A review of each utility’s stormwater technical manual and other publicly available guidance/policy documents served as the first step of completing the questionnaire. In the second step, the utilities were contacted directly to fill in any information gaps based on documents that are not publicly available, including the specific administrative information that is not typically listed on utilities’ websites. Responses were recorded from participating utilities pertinent to a variety of construction and post-construction stormwater management implementation, regulation, and management topics. This technical memorandum summarizes the data and information acquired from the questionnaire’s responses as well as information resulting from interviews conducted by DEP and the Arcadis team, and is supplemented by a review of existing publicly-available information. As noted earlier, key selected topics are highlighted in subsequent subsections. 335 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 2.0 Data Collection In order to assess the administration of the construction and post-construction aspects of stormwater management programs across the U.S, the DEP and Arcadis team began by gathering data from other large utilities and regional utilities. A questionnaire was developed, and the team compiled more comprehensive information from 12 U.S. utilities. Most utilities provided responses to all questions, whereas some were only able to complete the questionnaire partially. In addition to the 12 municipalities interviewed in this task, DEP has been communicating with five other utilities on combined sewer and MS4 regulatory requirements. Additional information from these five other municipal utilities (Fairfax County, VA; Indianapolis, IN; Miami, FL; New Orleans, LA; and Richmond, VA) on post-construction runoff threshold size and performance standard was also included in this memorandum. Specifically, the selected peer utilities have advanced stormwater management programs hence adopted regulations to reflect that. These utilities are subject to national regulations for 1+ acre lots based on United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) or their respective state’s MS4 programs, and have adopted thresholds of one acre or less for construction and post-construction stormwater control requirements. Most of the surveyed utilities also have combined and separate sanitary sewer systems or predominantly separate systems and administer their stormwater management programs related to construction and post-construction requirements. The 12 peer utilities chosen for the utility survey from across the U.S. are listed in Table 2-1: Utility Name and Location. Table 2-1: Utility Name and Location Utility Name Municipality Department of Watershed Management Atlanta, GA Watershed Protection Department Austin, TX Department of Public Works (DPW) Baltimore, MD Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) Boston, MA Department of Water Management Chicago, IL Department of Sanitation Los Angeles, CA Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) Philadelphia, PA Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) Portland, OR Transportation and Storm Water Department San Diego, CA San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) San Francisco, CA Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Seattle, WA District Department of the Environment (DOEE) for MS4 areas, DC Water for Combined areas Washington, DC The utilities’ stormwater management programs have differed based on factors such as geographical location, maturity of the MS4 program, size of the community served, and various local priorities. Some programs have been around for over 10 years with well-established technical and administrative resources, while others are in the early to mid-stages of their programs. 336 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 2.1 Questionnaire Development DEP sought to understand how other peer utilities with combined and separate sanitary sewer systems were administrating their stormwater management programs related to construction and post-construction requirements. A questionnaire was developed by the DEP and Arcadis team to support the documentation of other selected utilities’ stormwater management programs/procedures in the areas including, but are not limited to, the following: � Performance standards for stormwater best management practices (BMPs), such as WQv, peak flow reduction, erosion and sedimentation control (ESC), etc. � Water quality and any watershed-specific requirements, such as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) � Compliance cost to the developer/owner, that can include total permit fee and cost of stormwater control measures (see Appendix C for municipal guidance documents with cost information) � Administrative cost to the utility, that can include the number of staff required to review and administer permit applications and perform inspections, staff time required for reviews and inspections, and a typical number of permit applications received during construction and inspection applications received during post-construction � Alternative means to meet the stormwater control requirements (e.g., offsets, credits, or in-lieu fees) if the implementation of controls is technically infeasible, and the associated waiver process if applicable. The survey topics included technical, regulatory, administrative and financial elements and the full questionnaire is shown in Attachment A. 337 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 2.2 Interviews with Utilities Once the questionnaire was prepared, DEP and the Arcadis team identified key utilities to target for responses. The utilities selected included some large utilities, regional utilities and utilities with known contacts. As reviewed in Table 2-1, the final list of utilities included: Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. The responding utilities comprise a broad range of utility size and customer accounts, ranging from service areas of 32 sq. miles to 735 sq. miles and populations ranging from 600,000 to 4,000,000 residents. Physical sewer system statistics also varied greatly in terms of miles of sewers and number of combined sewer overflow outfalls (CSOs) and stormwater (MS4) drainage areas and outfalls. Table 2-2 summaries key characteristics for each responding utility. The fields marked with “X” indicate that this characteristic data was not readily available in the utility’s website and the utility did not provide a response during interviews. Table 2-2. Utility Characteristics Utility Name Number of Customer Accounts/ Taps Service Area Size (Sq. Miles) Population Served Total Miles of Public Storm Sewers Total Miles of Public Sanitary Sewers Total Miles of Public Combined Sewers MS4 Drainage Area (Sq Miles) Number of MS4 Outfalls Atlanta 160,000 267 X 158 1900 300 146 1,503 Austin 213,310 548 X 2,789 X 0 X X Baltimore 200,000 X 1,800,000 1,146 3100 0 81.6 1,709 Boston 88,000 32 667,137 595 622 238 24 224 Chicago X 234 2,700,000 50 >10 4,400 X 156 Los Angeles X 600 4,000,000 X X 0 103.9 38 Philadelphia 640,000 143 1,500,000 774 765 1,856 39.6 434 Portland 182,221 145 592,000 460 1001 910 24.2 39 San Diego 311,000 342 1,300,000 900 X 0 X 502 San Francisco 2,600,000 47 800,000 1000 3.84 7.91 2.3 97 Seattle X 84 630,000 X 448 520 X X Washington, DC X 735 2,000,000 X 1900 X 31.2 566 From February 2016 through August 2016, all 12 utilities were initially contacted for discussions on the questionnaire. E-mail follow-up and phone calls were held with utility staff from one or more departments (divisions) that manage the construction and post-construction requirements for onsite and public ROW projects. All the participating utilities expressed interest in the findings of the study. 2.3 Information from Additional Utilities In addition to the 12 interviewed municipalities in this task, DEP has been communicating on CSO and MS4 program requirements with five additional utilities (New Orleans LA; Miami FL; Richmond VA; Fairfax County VA; and Indianapolis IN). A separate survey questionnaire was used to compile information from these additional utilities. Information pertinent to post-construction stormwater management requirement in terms of soil disturbance or new impervious cover threshold lot size was extracted by DEP from the responses of these five utilities and incorporated in the summary presented in this memorandum. 338 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 3.0 Findings Once all the 12 completed questionnaires were collected and the preliminary interviews were conducted, the results were compiled and summarized to provide a review of construction and post-construction stormwater management requirements and administrative processes. In general, all utilities have minor differences in performance standards as well as the administrative elements pertinent to the implementation and management of their respective stormwater management programs. The differences can be attributed to factors such as geographical location, maturity of the MS4 program, size of the community served, and various local priorities. The key findings are highlighted in the subsequent subsections and were divided into three major areas for organizational purposes, as below. The remaining subject areas are included in the questionnaire in Attachment A, for which only some municipalities provided additional information. These partial information is not discussed in this memorandum. � Performance standard (soil disturbance threshold and stormwater retention volume standard) and if in lieu fee or offsite mitigation is applied; � Resource utilization (number of staff utilized, and the departments in which these staff reside); production using the given resources (number of permit reviews and inspections performed over a given period, average time spent on Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) reviews, and level of automation and web-based interfacing in the permit application process); and � Administrative costs (fees charged for stormwater management applications, reviews, and inspections, and where applicable, the costs for an expedited permit review). 339 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 3.1 Performance Standard 3.1.1 Threshold Size Peer utilities focus on threshold size as an important performance standard. As the threshold size that determines construction or post-construction requirements decreases, the resulting number of permits or inspections that the utility staff perform increases significantly. On the other hand, the improvement in water quality in terms of volume and pollutant load reductions is minimal with smaller lots in comparison to the larger lots. Therefore, the information from peer utilities on threshold size provided insight on the tradeoffs between administrative and technical costs versus the achieved benefits. The EPA Stormwater Phase II rule on Construction and Post-Construction Site Runoff Control mandates that an operator of a regulated small MS4 develops, implements, and enforces a pollutant reduction program for stormwater runoff from construction activities that result in a land disturbance greater than or equal to one acre (NPDES stormwater permit requirement). The thresholds for the utilities surveyed directly or literature compiled for the construction runoff control requirement (i.e., erosion and sediment control) are summarized in Figure 3-1. Lot Size Disturbance Construction Thresholds. The utilities that require all construction activities include Austin, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle. On the other hand, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, and New Orleans use the recommended U.S. EPA Phase 2 Stormwater Guidance of one acre and above for construction runoff control. Richmond (VA) has implemented a 10,000 sq ft. threshold for meeting the construction runoff control requirement. The remaining surveyed utilities use construction thresholds of less than one acre with Baltimore, Fairfax County, Miami and Philadelphia applying the same thresholds for both construction and post-construction runoff control (see Figure 3-1 below). Figure 3-1. Lot Size Disturbance Construction Thresholds The post-construction threshold size was specified based on the extent of soil disturbance within a new or redevelopment site or the increase in impervious cover resulting from new/redevelopment. The interviewed utilities and those reviewed based on available literature used either the new impervious or soil disturbance as thresholds, and Figure 3-2. Lot Size Disturbance Post-Construction Thresholds summarizes these threshold sizes for these utilities. Several observations were made from the responses on threshold size. W as hi ng to n, D C 340 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Figure 3-2. Lot Size Disturbance Post-Construction Thresholds As shown in Figure 3-2. Lot Size Disturbance Post-Construction Thresholds, the selection of minimum post-construction thresholds varies significantly among cities of varied sizes and program development levels with respect to stormwater management in MS4 areas, including some with as high a threshold as one acre. Most of the interviewed utilities or those with compiled literature have implemented a smaller than one-acre post construction threshold, which refers to the condition that necessitates the permanent application of the stormwater control requirement for a property after construction (e.g., creation of XX sq. ft. of new impervious area, soil disturbance of YY sq. ft. during construction, etc.). This threshold is reported in Figure 3-1. Some cities such as Portland and Los Angeles have a very low threshold for their stormwater management programs (500 sq. ft.), and other cities such as Philadelphia have higher thresholds (15,000 sq. ft.), even for priority watersheds (5,000 sq. ft.). Additional utilities contacted by DEP have the following minimum thresholds: � City of Miami and Indianapolis - half-acre, � New Orleans – 5,000 sq. ft., � Fairfax County - 2,500 sq ft., and � Richmond (VA) - one acre or 2,500 sq ft. for developments in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. While Portland has a low threshold of 500 sq ft., the permitting and inspections are done through a self-certification process for single family residential homes. Boston does not have a minimum soil disturbance threshold, indicating that every new or redevelopment project requires a construction permit. On the other hand, Boston does not have a post construction (inspection) requirement at this time, that reduces the administrative burden significantly. Therefore, the selection of minimum thresholds seems to vary significantly among cities of different sizes and varying maturity levels with respect to stormwater management in MS4 areas, with some even with as high a threshold as one acre. Fa irf ax C ou nt y, VA W as hi ng to n, D C 341 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum DEP was also interested in whether the utilities with combined and separately sewered systems have different permit requirements for these two systems. Most of the utilities have the same performance standards and administrative requirements for both systems. However, some utilities such as Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco each impose requirements that differ between combined and separate areas for certain criteria. San Francisco has the same retention standard for combined areas and for large MS4 areas (>5,000 SF), and a less stringent standard for smaller MS4 areas (2,500-5,000 SF). Philadelphia has different infiltration volume requirements for combined and MS4 areas (i.e., 20% of directly connected impervious area to be routed through volume reduction stormwater management practice (SMP) in combined areas, whereas 100% of water quality control volume to be routed through infiltrating or treatment SMPs in MS4 areas). Similarly, Portland has different allowable discharge rates for the combined and MS4 areas (i.e., maintenance of pre-development rates for 2, 5 and 10-year 24-hour storms in all areas, whereas half the pre-development rates for 2-year 24-hour storm for areas that drain into waterways directly or MS4 outfalls to prevent channel erosion). 3.1.2 Stormwater Retention Volume Standard The stormwater management or control volume standard specifies the extent of stormwater volume to be managed from disturbed areas (whether new impervious cover or soil disturbance area) with stormwater control measures (SCM). This volume standard can be adopted from state guidelines or developed to meet specific water quality improvement levels of service sought by individual utilities. It is often referred to as water quality volume (WQv). Figure 3–3 depicts the distribution of rainfall depths used to compute WQv volumes as defined by each municipal utility. East coast utilities such as Boston and Philadelphia had a WQv in the range of 1 to 1.5 inches, which is typically the 90th percentile storm based on historical analysis of local precipitation records. San Diego and Seattle did not adhere to a uniformly applied volume value, instead defining their WQv requirements based on the 85th and 91st percentile storms, respectively, around the stormwater management asset. Figure 3-3. Retention/Treatment Storm Depth Requirement , 342 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Potential soil and space constraints can limit the implementation of retention-based stormwater controls. This is particularly relevant to dense urban areas with compacted soils or underlying soil with poor permeability. It is important to recognize the soil and space constraints for SCM implementation and develop alternative compliance measures to achieve the same water quality improvement goals. One of the questions in the utility survey focused on whether the utilities offered alternative compliance strategies when individual lots have soil and/or space constraints. Some utilities (e.g., San Francisco, Portland, and Philadelphia) have developed a stormwater management hierarchy that requires retention and water reuse whenever possible, and provides detention and treatment of stormwater as secondary options. Most utilities who participated in the survey offer alternative measures for sites that may not be able to meet the stormwater management requirements in the forms of in-lieu fees and offsite mitigation options. The alternative measures are in the form of in-lieu fee (penalty for not implementing an SCM so that the money can be used to implement SCM in another feasible lot), offsite mitigation (implementation of SCM in another feasible lot to compensate for not being able to implement at the site seeking a permit), or stormwater credit (similar to a trading model, where credits are created for implementation of SCMs and the site not being able to implement SCMs can buy credits from other lots that have already implemented more-than-required SCMs to create a credit). These allowances tend to be awarded on a case-by-case basis, and usually the site needs to demonstrate an inability to infiltrate the necessary volume that would preclude it from offering stormwater management potential. summarizes the options allowed by different utilities. An “X” for a measure indicates that this option is not offered by the utility and NA indicates that there was no reference as to whether this option was allowed or not. Table 3-1. Alternative Compliance Measures Utility Name In-lieu Fee Offsite Mitigation Stormwater Credit Atlanta X P P Austin P P NA Baltimore P P P Boston X X X Chicago X X X Los Angeles X P NA Philadelphia P P P Portland X P NA San Diego P P P San Francisco P P NA Seattle X NA P Washington, DC X NA P Boston and Chicago were the only cities that strictly adhere to on-site stormwater management regulations. Both Seattle and Washington, DC did not explicitly state as to whether they would accept in-lieu fees or offsite mitigation, but they do utilize a stormwater credit system that offers some flexibility for developers to meet the stormwater management regulations. 3.2 Resource Utilization This is a key consideration for a utility for overall management of the permits and inspections that need to be administered for a given threshold size. As the number of permits and inspections increase with smaller threshold sizes, more staff resources are needed to manage them effectively and efficiently. This consideration was sought in the questionnaire to peer utilities and the specific metrics requested are discussed below. 343 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 3.2.1 Staffing Allocation Most utilities have different departments (e.g., Department of Public Works or Stormwater Programs or Buildings and Inspections) for review and approval of permits for construction requirements and for inspections after construction and long-term operation and maintenance. The utility survey focused on contacting these different departments to get a holistic picture of staff allocation and administration. Table 3–2. Number of Staff Performing Permit Reviews and Inspections presents the number of staff performing permit reviews and inspections. The number of staff utilized for review during construction varies significantly, from 1-2 staff dedicated to reviews and inspections in Boston to as many as 33 dedicated staff in Atlanta, with mostly engineers performing the permit reviews. There is also a wide range in the number of inspection staff for post-construction. Some utilities such as Boston do not currently have an inspection program, so there is no dedicated staff for inspections, whereas Washington, DC and Seattle have more than 10 dedicated inspection staff. Table 3–2. Number of Staff Performing Permit Reviews and Inspections Utility Name Construction Related Post-Construction Related Atlanta � 33 full-time equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to implementing SWMP � 33 FTEs dedicated to implementing SWMP Austin � No response given � No response given Baltimore � Five staff doing both reviews and inspections � Five staff in addition to review staff Boston � 1-2 for reviews and inspections � 2-3 for review of site plans for new develop ment projects � None specifically for inspections Chicago � Three Stormwater Reviewers (consultants) + Six Mason Inspectors (sewer inspectors) � Three Stormwater Reviewers (consultants) + Six Mason Inspectors (sewer inspectors) Los Angeles � No staff dedicated- City does not inspect GI on a regular basis, but initial inspec tion is carried out during Certificate of Occupancy review � Inspections of construction BMPs (con ducted by Sanitation Department): Five staff including one supervisor, plus time contributed by Public Works and Building and Safety Departments (FTE estimate not known by respondent) Philadelphia � Four FTE conceptual review staff, Seven FTE technical review staff, 5-6 FTE Active construction inspection group, Four FTE Data analysis/Project Tracking support group. � Consultant augmentation for review and inspection (Six Consultants), in addition to the City Staff. Portland � 8-10 staff from Bureau of Development Services (BDS) do permit and design reviews � Four more staff provide early assistance in preparing the permit applications. � Five more staff for public projects. � 8-10 more engineers in Bureau of Environmental Services Engineering Services Division to support the review. � Six staff positions do construction phase inspections. Those staff do both Inspection and review, and rotate duties. � Inspections: Eight FTE + periodic inspec tion involvement by BES staff � Inspections of large commercial/industrial projects (occur every three years): 1.5 FTE � Additional as-needed support from con tractors: 1-2 FTE 344 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Utility Name Construction Related Post-Construction Related San Diego � 4-6 stormwater pollution prevention plan SWPPP/Water Pollution Control Plan reviewers for City projects � 4-6 for City projects and grading on private developments � For private project review, One Senior Engineer, three Associate Engineers, and three Assistant/Junior Engineers. � For City project review, one Assistant Engineer and four consultants. San Francisco � Two FTE Staff � Stormwater control plan review: 2.5 FTEs � Coordination of post-construction inspec tion: 1.5 FTE � Construction permit-related work: One FTE � Inspections carried out by Department of Building Inspections: 18 (one per zone) + two senior management staff Seattle � No response given � Building inspections: 10 (one per region), plus 2-3 management staff � SWPPP and design reviews: Additional staff as-needed (FTE estimate not provided) Washington, DC � Two staff at permit office performing ero sion and sediment control (E&SC) reviews � 12-15 in-house staff for full reviews (includ ing post-construction) � 2-3 consultant staff assisting in full reviews (including post-construction) � 12 staff performing inspections Table 3-3. Departments/Contractors Involved In/Tasked with Permit Reviews and Inspections details the departments and contractors (if applicable) involved in or tasked with permit reviews and inspections. While some cities such as Boston, Portland, and Seattle concentrate permit reviews and inspections within only one or two departments, other cities such Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Diego involve at least three departments in permit review and inspection tasks. This was partly the reasoning for not being able to obtain complete responses to the questionnaire, as the staff from different departments who were responsible for administrative aspects were not present during the telephone interviews. Table 3-3. Departments/Contractors Involved In/Tasked with Permit Reviews and Inspections Utility Name Construction Related Post-Construction Related Atlanta � Department of Watershed Management � Department of Watershed Management Austin � Watershed Protection Department � Watershed Protection Department Baltimore � Department of Public Works � Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) � Department of Planning � Department of Public Works (DPW). Boston � Boston Water and Sewer Commission � Boston Water and Sewer Commission Chicago � Department of Buildings (consultant storm water reviewers) � Department of Water Management (mason inspectors) � Department of Buildings (consultant storm water reviewers) � Department of Water Management (mason inspectors) Los Angeles � Department of Sanitation � Department of Public Works – Bureau of Contract Administration � Department of Sanitation � Department of Public Works – Bureau of Contract Administration � Department of Building and Safety Inspection 345 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Utility Name Construction Related Post-Construction Related Philadelphia � Philadelphia Water Department � Philadelphia Water Department Portland � Bureau of Environmental Services � Bureau of Development Services � Bureau of Environmental Services � Bureau of Development Services San Diego � Public Works Department - Construction Management & Field Services � Development Services Department (either Drainage & Grades section, Storm Water section, or Utilities Section) reviews the SWPPP/WPCP for private projects depending on project type. � The City's Storm Water Division (Construction & Development Standards section) � Each asset owning department maintains structural best management practices BMPs (Public Utilities, libraries, fire stations, etc). � The Storm Water operations and mainte nance (O&M) division maintains struc tural BMPs on park parcels and in the right-of-way. � Development Services Department con ducts reviews for private development projects. San Francisco � Port of San Francisco � San Francisco Public Utilities Commission � Stormwater regulations: Port of San Francisco or San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (jointly) � Utility inspections: Department of Building Inspections Seattle � Seattle Public Utilities � Review and permitting for lots >1 acre: Department of Ecology (state) � Seattle Public Utilities � Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Washington, DC � DC Water for Combined areas � District Department of Environment (DDOE) for MS4 areas � DC Water for Combined areas � District Department of Environment (DDOE) for MS4 areas 3.2.2 Production Using Given Resources The survey also requested information from utilities on how many permits/inspections were performed to get information on the production aspects. This information can be used to guide the number of staff members needed for New York City’s program based on the chosen threshold size. Fewer responses were received for the number of permit reviews and inspections performed over the given period and the average time spent on SWPPP reviews by the permit reviewer. Therefore, any conclusions regarding trends between utilities could not be drawn. However, the responses received present some interesting points for consideration. As far as permit application reviews, the economic downturn affected the number of projects being constructed and therefore the number of permits reviewed in Portland. As far as the average time spent on SWPPP reviews, all respondents note that it depends on the complexity of the project. However, Portland has also indicated that incorporating a web-based interface has increased the speed of the review process. Table 3-4. Number of Permit Reviews and Inspections Performed details the number of permit reviews and inspections performed over the given period and Table 3-5 provides the average time spent on SWPPP reviews by the permit reviewer, who is usually an engineer, planner, or architect. 346 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Table 3-4. Number of Permit Reviews and Inspections Performed Utility Name Construction Related Post-Construction Related Atlanta � 5,283 Site Plan Reviews Conducted (2016 Annual MS4 Report) � 47 Inspections of Industrial Facilities (2016 Annual MS4 Report) � 14,087 Construction Sites Inspections (2016 Annual MS4 Report) � 59 Highly Visible Pollutant Source Facilities Inspected (2016 Annual MS4 Report) Austin � 1,754 Site Development Plans Reviewed (Fiscal Year 2015) � 455 Inspections by Stormwater Discharge Permit Program (Fiscal Year 2015) � 20,824 Inspections by Environmental Inspection Program (Fiscal Year 2015) � 156 Inspection by On-site Sewage Facility (Fiscal Year 2015) � 866 residential and 1,322 commercial water quality and detention ponds by Watershed Protection Department (Fiscal Year 2015) Baltimore � 130 Concept Plans Received (Fiscal Year 2015) � 94 Site Development Plans Received (Fiscal Year 2015) � 2,164 Inspections of ESD treatment practices and stormwater management facilities during construction phase (Fiscal Year 2015) � 211 Inspections of ESD treatment practices and structural stormwater management facilities as preventive mainte nance inspections (Fiscal Year 2015) Boston � ~480 Site Plans Reviewed � None - BMPs inspected following construction, but not regu larly inspected after construction Chicago � 250 to 300 � 300 to 500 inspections performed by stormwater reviewers Los Angeles � No response given � No response given Philadelphia � 1,400 Reviews total (conceptual, post construction stormwater management plan, Erosion and Sediment Control, and record drawing reviews combined) � 650 reviews performed for PCSM. Most projects undergo 3-5 reviews before they are approved. � Active construction projects may be inspected as fre quently as once/week or more during SMP installation � Since 2011, performed over 3,100 inspections per year. Of that, 200 (6%) are post-construction inspections. Portland � Before recession: 100-150/year for projects over 500 sq. ft. � After recession: 25/year (average) � Green streets (public right-of-way): 1,700 facilities inspected 4 times per year. � Private facilities: 1,340 facilities at 645 properties were inspected during fiscal year 2015 (does not currently includ ed single-family residential). San Diego � No response given � In Fiscal Year 2015, 339 projects that required structural BMPs were approved. Number of construction inspections depend on whether construction takes place during the wet or dry season and the disturbance area of the project, rang ing from weekly, biweekly, monthly to as-needed. San Francisco � FY 2014 – 38, FY 2015 - 26 � Over 100 approved projects and associated inspections on a 3-year cycle (approx. 25% of final projects in the MS4 area, rest in combined areas) Seattle � No response given � No response given Washington, DC � 3,775 in 2015 (of which ~200 include post-construction controls) � In 2015: 1,085 for projects including post-construction con trols and 1,150 for E&SC 347 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Table 3-5. Average Time Spent on SWPPP Reviews Utility Name Construction Related Atlanta � No response given Austin � No response given Baltimore � No response given Boston � 0.5 Days for SWPPP (Site plan could take longer depending on complexity of site) Chicago � 5 to 10 business days to review a submittal � Typically, three rounds of reviews plus the final approval takes 6-10 weeks, depending mostly on the responsiveness of the designer. Los Angeles � Depends on the project. Some projects have taken up to a week for review. Philadelphia � Approximately 36 hours in PCSM Review total per project. � All projects reviewed within 15 days of receipt (five days for expedited review). Portland � Depends on the project. San Diego � 1-3 hours depending on project size, submittal quality, and reviewer experience. San Francisco � 3 -5 days depending on complexity of the plan Seattle � No response given Washington, DC � Current average of 34 days per review round (target of 30 days) The economic downturn affected the number of projects being constructed and the number of permits reviewed in Portland. As far as the average time spent on SWPPP reviews, all respondents noted that it depends on the complexity of the project. However, Portland also indicated that incorporating a web-based interface had increased the speed of the review process. Table 3-6. Level of Automation/Web Interfacing in the Permit Application Process describes the level of automation and online interfacing each utility has in its permit application process were also reviewed. Portland has an electronic application process, and both Philadelphia and Washington, DC utilize similar web-based processes to accelerate the review process and ease some of the administrative burden. San Francisco allows for electronic submission of some applications, and Chicago offers a stormwater detention calculation tool for developers to use in developing their applications. However, most utilities still work with print-based applications. Table 3-6. Level of Automation/Web Interfacing in the Permit Application Process Utility Name Construction Related Atlanta � No automation Austin � No automation Baltimore � No automation Boston � No automation Chicago � Yes, spreadsheet Tool provided via website for aid in calculating required stormwater detention Los Angeles � No response given Philadelphia � Yes, customized online application and applicant login. All technical guidance is web based. Portland � Yes, web-based interface for permit application preparation San Diego � No automation San Francisco � No automation, but Construction Runoff Permit Application and E&SC Plan can be submit ted electronically, Construction Runoff Permit can be filled in online in PDF form Seattle � No automation Washington, DC � Yes all projects must use online Stormwater Database (including standalone E&SC), and DDOE provides a compliance calculator spreadsheet for developer use 348 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 3.3 Administrative Costs The indicators for administrative costs included the number of staff to manage permits, perform construction permit inspections and post-construction periodic inspections, as well as the number of permits/inspections handled and the departments/municipal jurisdictions that manage the permitting and inspections. Full-time salary and benefits of permitting/inspection staff and the supervisors’ time increase significantly with smaller threshold sizes due to the large number of permits/inspections involved. Considering the minimal water quality improvement associated with smaller threshold sizes, the overall cost-benefit comparison needs to include both technical costs for implementation of SCMs by property owners and the administrative costs for utility staff to administer them. Based on the survey responses, it was observed that mature stormwater management programs have a larger number of staff as well as dedicated funding mechanisms (e.g., stormwater utility, component stormwater bill to customers, etc.), whereas the newer programs are still establishing the staffing and funding needs. Compliance cost to the developer/owner includes the total permit fee and cost of stormwater control measures. Since this overall cost depends on the size of the project, the number of inspections required during construction and post construction, soil type that will guide the type of feasible control measures, and other preferences of developer/owner such as the LEED certification. Therefore, utility-specific compliance costs were unavailable from this utility survey. Administrative costs must be recovered through appropriation of additional budget to the permitting/inspection operations (thereby increasing the financial burden on the utility) or through full-cost recovery with permitting/ inspection fees charged to the property owners. One of the survey questions focused on whether specific utilities adopted financial models based on discussions with ratepayers and elected officials. The fees charged for stormwater management applications, reviews, and inspections vary as shown in Table 3-7. Fees Charged for Stormwater Management Applications, Reviews, and Inspections. Most utilities have fees for construction review, but do not have post-construction inspection fees. Fees range from no fee in San Francisco, where stormwater fees are included as part of the regular water and sewer fees; to Los Angeles, where there is a city fee for construction and only a state fee for post-construction; to over $10,000 for a combination of several different fees in Washington, DC. Table 3-7. Fees Charged for Stormwater Management Applications, Reviews, and Inspections Utility Name Construction Related Post-Construction Related Atlanta � No specific stormwater fee in Land Development Permit application � No post-construction inspection fees Austin � Street and Drainage Full Development Application $1,796.40. � Initial permit fee is in the $4,000-6,000 range for residential and increases for commercial � No post-construction inspection fees Baltimore � Initial plan review - $500; � Permit fee - $2,500 to $8,000 by DPW � No post-construction inspection fees Boston � No specific stormwater fee, generic applica tion fee applies � Fees vary by type of inspection, as seen in Exhibit C – Special Service Fee Schedule in 2015 Rate Document Chicago � $1,000 stormwater review fee (developments <50,000 sq ft) � $3,000 stormwater review fee (develop ments >50,000 sq ft) � Fees vary by type of inspection, as seen in 2005 Sewer Permit Requirements and Fees document Los Angeles � Single-family residential: $204 (starting) � Industrial, commercial, multi-family residential (greater than 5 units): $1,000 (starting) � City doesn’t charge separately, but there is a State fee for post-construction inspection. 349 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Utility Name Construction Related Post-Construction Related Philadelphia � Conceptual SWMP review and approval: $600 � Post Construction SWMP: $600 + $90/hour for review � No post-construction inspection fees Portland � Fee: $715 � Commercial Stormwater Facility Inspection Fee - $473 � Additional fees listed in 2015-2016 Sewer and Drainage Rates and Charges San Diego � No fee for public project review � Private development projects subject to fees as per Bulletin 501 (January 2016) � Stormwater high-priority inspection: $240 (covers the first four) � Additional: $240 (each) San Francisco � None at this time � None at this time (no stormwater fees); included as part of water/wastewater fees � Review fee to recover some of the program costs is currently in development Seattle � $95 minimum fee for drainage review, additional fee at $190 hourly rate � No post-construction inspection fees Washington, DC � Range of fees based on review type (E&SC, SWMP, etc.), stage of review, and land disturbance area � No post-construction fees Another consideration that was of interest to DEP was whether the utilities imposed surcharges or additional fees for expedited review of permit applications documented on Table 3-8. Presence of an Expedited Review Process and Additional Fees Charged for an Expedited Review. Of the utilities surveyed, only Los Angeles and Philadelphia have a formal expedited permit review process and additional fees charged for an expedited review. While Los Angeles requires a higher cost for an expedited review, Philadelphia offers it as an incentive depending on the SCMs used. Table 3-8. Presence of an Expedited Review Process and Additional Fees Charged for an Expedited Review Utility Name Construction Related Atlanta � No process Austin � No process Baltimore � Not currently, but expedited review process for small restoration projects is being explored Boston � No process Chicago � Yes – "Green Permit Process" � Additional cost not given Los Angeles � Yes- expedited timeframe for review offered if surcharge fee paid � Fee is a surcharge of 50% on the regular fee Philadelphia � Yes- Disconnection Green Review and Surface green Review � No additional costs; expedited review is one incentive offered based on the type of BMP used Portland � No formal process for expedited review San Diego � Yes – "Express Plan Check" � Additional cost not given San Francisco � None, but special request by involved properties can be accommodated. � Additional cost not given Seattle � No response given Washington, DC � Only for special District projects (e.g., DC Water) � Additional cost not given 350 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 4.0 Conclusions The responses gathered from 12 interviewed utilities represent stormwater management programs in various stages of development and implementation. The findings also indicated that there is a wide variation among the responding utilities in the administration of stormwater management and the performance standards that developers are required to follow. Some programs are mature (more than 10 years old) and efficiently manage the permitting and inspections, while others are in the early to mid-stages of the program with evolving staffing and financial resources. In addition to the 12 interviewed utilities, DEP has been communicating with five other utilities for CSO and MS4 permitting programs. These utilities included Richmond VA, Fairfax County VA, Indianapolis IN, Miami FL, and New Orleans LA. Arcadis team also compiled information from its major clients across the country. Most utilities establish performance standards for stormwater management to address their water quality and watershed based (e.g., TMDL or healthy streams) requirement needs. Peak flow mitigation, WQv, and detention performance standards are developed to achieve these goals. Some utilities offer a tiered approach to the developer community, in which retention is the highly preferred strategy, and detention or connection to combined sewers is the least preferred strategy and only an option when retention or treatment-based controls are infeasible. WQv typically ranged from 1.2 to 1.5 inches. Both construction and post-construction thresholds vary significantly among cities of varied sizes and program development levels with respect to stormwater management in MS4 areas. Construction stormwater runoff threshold varies from all activities (Austin, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle) to one acre (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, and New Orleans) with a number of utilities in-between (e.g., Richmond VA with 10,000 SF). Baltimore, Fairfax County, Miami and Philadelphia use the same thresholds for both construction and post-construction runoff control. The minimum post-construction stormwater runoff threshold based on soil disturbance or increase in impervious cover ranges from no-minimum value for Boston to one acre for Richmond (outside Chesapeake Bay Area) with most of the interviewed utilities using a smaller than one acre threshold based on local needs and priorities. Some utilities have low threshold requirements for post-construction, but they allow self-certification by single family residential thereby reducing their administrative workload significantly. Philadelphia for Darby Cobbs watershed and Richmond for Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas have different thresholds for the rest of their respective communities to meet their specific watershed-based requirements. Most utilities that have combined and MS4 areas have chosen the same minimum threshold for stormwater controls. Some utilities (e.g., Philadelphia and San Francisco) have developed specific provisions for combined and MS4 areas. Even though this questionnaire was primarily aimed at on-site projects, one of the questions focused on the right-of way (ROW) stormwater control from a standpoint of watershed-based pollutant sources mitigation. Most utilities follow the national guideline of >1 acre for ROW projects. Some utilities have developed policies and associated performance standards for ROW projects (e.g., Portland’s Green Street policy developed in 2007 to reduce flows and pollutant loads from over 60% of the city’s stormwater that was estimated to be generated from ROW and adjacent private driveways). 351 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum References � State of Georgia, Stormwater Management Manual, 2016 Edition. Adopted by Atlanta (GA). � City of Atlanta (GA), Green Infrastructure for Single Family Residences, City of Atlanta Stormwater Guidelines, November 2012. � City of Austin (TX), Environmental Criteria Manual, Updated in August 2017. � City of Austin (TX), Drainage Criteria Manual, Updated in May 2017. � City of Baltimore (MD), Stormwater Management Manual, Department of Public Works, February 2003. � City of Boston (MA), Stormwater Best Management Practices: Guidance Document, Boston Water and Sewer Commission, January 2013. � City of Chicago (IL), 2016 Regulations for Sewer Construction and Stormwater Management, Department of Water Management, January 2016. � City of Chicago (IL), Stormwater Management Ordinance Manual, January 2014. � County of Los Angeles (CA), Low Impact Development Standards Manual, Department of Public Works, February 2014. Adopted by City of Los Angeles (CA). � City of Philadelphia (PA), Stormwater Management Guidance Manual, Philadelphia Water Department, 2015. � City of Portland (OR), Stormwater Management Manual, 2016. � City of Portland (OR), Source Control Manual, August 2016. � City of Portland (OR), Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, Bureau of Environmental Services and other City Bureaus, March 2008. � City of San Diego (CA), Storm Water Standards Manual, Accessed in 2016. Updated in 2018. � City of San Francisco (CA), Stormwater Management Requirements and Design Guidelines, May 2016. � City of Seattle (WA), Stormwater Manual, Seattle Public Utilities, August 2017. � Washington (DC), Stormwater Management Guidebook, District Department of the Environment, July 2013. � Miami-Dade County (FL), Stormwater Design and Construction Standards. Accessed in November 2016. Adopted by City of Miami (FL). � New Orleans (LA), Stormwater Management Manual, Accessed online in November 2016 and in March 2018. � State of Louisiana, Stormwater BMP Guidance Tool – A Stormwater BMP Guide for Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, September 2010. � Commonwealth of Virginia, 2013 Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook (Second Edition, DRAFT), Adopted by Fairfax County (VA). � Fairfax County (VA), Code of Ordinances Chapter 124 on Stormwater Management Ordinance, Accessed in November 2016. � City of Indianapolis (IN), Stormwater Design and Construction Specifications Manual, June 2011. � City of Richmond (VA), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program, Public Information Manual, Adopted in March 2009. � City of Richmond (VA), Stormwater Management Design and Construction Standards Manual, Department of Public Utilities, July 2012. 352 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Attachment A The blank questionnaires for construction and post-construction related criteria circulated to and discussed with various municipalities are shown in the following two tables. Construction Related City 1 City 2 Te ch n ic al C ri te ri a Retention Citerion Water Quality (WQv) Criterion Public Right of Way Detention ( Peak Discharge Reduction) Criterion Extreme Storm Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/SWPPP Requirement Offsite alternative ( Offsets, trade credits, etc.) Watershed-based Criterion (Geomorphology, TMDL, Instream Erosion Control, etc.) - Please specify Existence of variance opportunities ( waviers, offsite alternatives, in-lieu fees, etc.)? If so, briefly describe the process (distinguish those allowed "by-right" and those require special approval). A d m in is tr at iv e C ri te ri a Number of Reviews performed Per Year Number of Staff Performing Reviews (in-house or contractor) Number of Staff Performing both Reviews and Inspections Any automation in permit application ( e.g, eNOI, customized online applications) Municipal Department tasked with Reviews and Inspections, or Private if conducted by contractors Fees charged for stormwater management applications, reviews, and inspections Provision of waiver for post-construction BMP Requirement? If so what qualifies for waiver? How many waiver applications per year? Average time spent for SWPP Reviews? Existence of an expedited review process? If so briefly describe the process Additional fees charged for expedited review Type of BMP applied for by developer and cost, if available. 353 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum Post-Construction Related City 1 City 2 Te ch n ic al C ri te ri a Retention Citerion Water Quality (WQv) Criterion Public Right of Way Difference in criteria for MS4 vs. Combined Areas Detention ( Peak Discharge Reduction) Criterion Extreme Storm (Flood Control) Offsite alternative ( Offsets, trade credits, etc.) Watershed-based Criterion (Geomorphology, TMDL, Instream Erosion Control, etc.) - Please specify Existence of variance opportunities ( waviers, offsite alternatives, in-lieu fees, etc.)? If so, briefly describe the process (distinguish those allowed "by-right" and those require special approval). A d m in is tr at iv e C ri te ri a Number of Inspections performed Per Year Number of Staff Performing Inspections (in-house or contractor) Number of Staff Performing both Reviews and Inspections Existence of a Maintenance/ Inspection Checklist Municipal Department tasked with Reviews and Inspections, or Private if conducted by contractors Fees charged for stormwater management applications, reviews, and inspections Provision of waiver for post-construction BMP Requirement? If so what qualifies for waiver? How many waiver applications per year? Type of BMP applied for by developer and cost, if available. 354 Appendix 6.1: A Utility Survey Memorandum 355 Appendix 6.1 B Conceptual SCM Designs 356 CATEGORY A - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 141 Storer Avenue, SI BBL: 5073110035 Block: 7311 Lot: 35 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 8,000 sf New Impervious Area: 8,000 sf Runoff Volume: 1,000 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention w/ UD SCM Area: 400 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 5% Retention Volume: 650 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A SCM Practice 2: Porous Pavement Bridge SCM Area: 460 sf Impervious Coverage: 6% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 360 cf Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% Total Runoff Treatment: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention w/ Underdrain BR Dim.: 22’L x 6’W x 4’H 22’L x 6’W x 4’H 22’L x 6’W x 4’H Porous Pave.:28’L x 6’W x 2’H 48’L x 6’W x 2’H Permanent Pooling: 6” BR Media Depth: 36” Engineered Soil 12” Open-Graded Stone Base 6” Perforated PVC Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol PP Media Depth: 9” Permeable Paver 10” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 40 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION POROUS PAVEMENT BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 357 CATEGORY B - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 11 Brick Ct, SI BBL: 5074000100 Block: 7400 Lot: 100 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 27,900 sf New Impervious Area: 27,900 sf Runoff Volume: 3,490 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention w/ UD SCM Area: 1,620 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 4% Retention Volume: 650 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A SCM Practice 2: Porous Pavement Bridge SCM Area: 2,370 sf Impervious Coverage: 8% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 1,870 cf Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% Total Runoff Treatment: 100% SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention w/ Underdrain BR Dim.: 33’L x 6’W x 4’H 33’L x 6’W x 4’H 33’L x 6’W x 4’H 33’L x 6’W x 4’H 33’L x 6’W x 4’H Porous Pave.:20’L x 6’W x 2’H 20’L x 6’W x 2’H 20’L x 6’W x 2’H 20’L x 6’W x 2’H 35’L x 6’W x 2’H 280’L x 6’W x 2’H Permanent Pooling: 6” BR Media Depth: 36” Engineered Soil 12” Open-Graded Stone Base 6” Perforated PVC Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol PP Media Depth: 9” Permeable Paver 10” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 40 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION POROUS PAVEMENT GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 358 CATEGORY A - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 141 South 3 Street, BK BBL: 3024180045 Block: 2418 Lot: 45 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 7,450 sf New Impervious Area: 6,710 sf Runoff Volume: 840 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention w/ UD SCM Area: 400 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 5% Retention Volume: 650 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A SCM Practice 2: Porous Pavement Bridge SCM Area: 460 sf Impervious Coverage: 6% Retention Volume: Detention Volume: 360 cf Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% Total Runoff Treatment: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention w/ Underdrain BR Dim.: 22’L x 9’W x 4’H 17’L x 9’W x 4’H Porous Pave.:18’L x 10’W x 4’H Permanent Pooling: 6” BR Media Depth: 36” Engineered Soil 12” Open-Graded Stone Base 6” Perforated PVC Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol PP Media Depth: 24” Permeable Paver 24” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 40 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION POROUS PAVEMENT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 359 CATEGORY B - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 1759 Hylan Blvd, SI BBL: 5033450032 Block: 3345 Lot: 32 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 21,600 sf New Impervious Area: 21,600 sf Runoff Volume: 2,700cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention w/ UD SCM Area: 1,220 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 9% Retention Volume: 1,990 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A SCM Practice 2: Porous Pavement Bridge SCM Area: 910 sf Impervious Coverage: 3% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 710 cf Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% Total Runoff Treatment: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention w/ Underdrain BR Dim.: 60’L x 16’W x 4’H 16’L x 16’W x 4’H Porous Pave.:22’L x 16’W x 2’H 35’L x 16’W x 2’H Permanent Pooling: 6” BR Media Depth: 36” Engineered Soil 12” Open-Graded Stone Base 6” Perforated PVC Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol PP Media Depth: 9” Permeable Paver 10” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 40 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION POROUS PAVEMENT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 360 CATEGORY A - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 262 Corbin Place, BX BBL: 3087230267 Block: 8723 Lot: 267 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 6,440 sf New Impervious Area: 6,440 sf Runoff Volume: 804 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention w/ UD SCM Area: 240 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 4% Retention Volume: 390 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A SCM Practice 2: Porous Pavement Bridge SCM Area: 560 sf Impervious Coverage: 9% Retention Volume: 830 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% Total Runoff Treatment: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention w/ Underdrain BR Dim.: 20’L x 6’W x 4’H 20’L x 6’W x 4’H Porous Pave.:28’L x 20’W x 2’H Permanent Pooling: 6” BR Media Depth: 36” Engineered Soil 12” Open-Graded Stone Base 6” Perforated PVC Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol PP Media Depth: 9” Permeable Paver 10” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 40 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION POROUS PAVEMENT BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 361 CATEGORY B - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 14 Ottavio Promenade, SI BBL: 5077750135 Block: 7775 Lot: 135 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 14,940 sf New Impervious Area: 6,720 sf Runoff Volume: 840 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention w/ UD SCM Area: 270 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 4% Retention Volume: 430 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A SCM Practice 2: Porous Pavement Bridge SCM Area: 530 sf Impervious Coverage: 8% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 420 cf Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% Total Runoff Treatment: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention w/ Underdrain BR Dim.: 24’L x 11’W x 4’H Porous Pave.:24’L x 22’W x 2’H Permanent Pooling: 6” BR Media Depth: 36” Engineered Soil 12” Open-Graded Stone Base 6” Perforated PVC Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol PP Media Depth: 9” Permeable Paver 10” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 40 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION POROUS PAVEMENT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 362 CATEGORY B - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 89 West Tremont Ave, BX BBL: 2028690047 Block: 2869 Lot: 47 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 19,150 sf New Impervious Area: 11,490 sf Runoff Volume: 1,440 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention w/ UD SCM Area: 840 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 7% Retention Volume: 1,380 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A SCM Practice 2: Porous Pavement Bridge SCM Area: 100 sf Impervious Coverage: 9% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 80 cf Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% Total Runoff Treatment: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention w/ Underdrain BR Dim.: 42’L x 10’W x 4’H 42’L x 10’W x 4’H Porous Pave.:10’L x 10’W x 2’H Permanent Pooling: 6” BR Media Depth: 36” Engineered Soil 12” Open-Graded Stone Base 6” Perforated PVC Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol PP Media Depth: 9” Permeable Paver 10” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 40 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION POROUS PAVEMENT BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 363 CATEGORY B - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 11 Brick Ct, SI BBL: 5074000100 Block: 7400 Lot: 100 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 27,900 sf New Impervious Area: 27,900 sf Runoff Volume: 3,490 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention SCM Area: 990 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 4% Retention Volume: 3,490 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 100% Total Runoff Detention: 0% Total Runoff Treatment: 0% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention SCM Dim.: 33’L x 6’W x 4.5’H 33’L x 6’W x 4.5’H 33’L x 6’W x 4.5’H 33’L x 6’W x 4.5’H 33’L x 6’W x 4.5’H Permanent Pooling: 3” Media Depth: 24” Engineered Soil 30” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEAURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 364 CATEGORY A - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 141 Storer Avenue, SI BBL: 5073110035 Block: 7311 Lot: 35 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 8,000 sf New Impervious Area: 8,000 sf Runoff Volume: 1,000 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention SCM Area: 252 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 3% Retention Volume: 1001 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 100% Total Runoff Detention: 0% Total Runoff Treatment: 0% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention SCM Dim.: 21’L x 4’W x 4.5’H 21’L x 4’W x 4.5’H 21’L x 4’W x 4.5’H Permanent Pooling: 3” Media Depth: 24” Engineered Soil 30” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 365 CATEGORY A - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 141 South 3 Street, BK BBL: 3024180045 Block: 2418 Lot: 45 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 7,450 sf New Impervious Area: 6,710 sf Runoff Volume: 840 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention SCM Area: 240 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 3% Retention Volume: 850 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 100% Total Runoff Detention: 0% Total Runoff Treatment: 0% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention SCM Dim.: 17’L x 6’W x 4.5’H 22’L x 6’W x 4.5’H Permanent Pooling: 3” Media Depth: 24” Engineered Soil 30” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 366 CATEGORY B - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 1759 Hylan Blvd, SI BBL: 5033450032 Block: 3345 Lot: 32 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 21,600 sf New Impervious Area: 21,600 sf Runoff Volume: 2,700 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention SCM Area: 860 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 4% Retention Volume: 2,700 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 100% Total Runoff Detention: 0% Total Runoff Treatment: 0% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention SCM Dim.: 60’L x 10’W x 4.5’H 16’L x 16’W x 4.5’H Permanent Pooling: 3” Media Depth: 24” Engineered Soil 30” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEAUSURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 367 CATEGORY A - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 262 Corbin Place, BX BBL: 3087230267 Block: 8723 Lot: 267 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 6,434 sf New Impervious Area: 6,440 sf Runoff Volume: 810 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention SCM Area: 220 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 3% Retention Volume:810 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 100% Total Runoff Detention: 0% Total Runoff Treatment: 0% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention SCM Dim.: 18.5’L x 6’W x 4.5’H 18.5’L x 6’W x 4.5’H Permanent Pooling: 3” Media Depth: 24” Engineered Soil 30” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 368 CATEGORY B - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 14 Ottavio Promenade, SI BBL: 5077750135 Block: 7775 Lot: 135 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 14,940 sf New Impervious Area: 6,720 sf Runoff Volume: 840 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention SCM Area: 260 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 4% Retention Volume:840 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume Total Runoff Retention: 100% Total Runoff Detention: 0% Total Runoff Treatment: 0% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention Media Dim.: 23’L x 12’W x 4.5’H Permanent Pooling: 3” Media Depth: 24” Engineered Soil 30” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 369 CATEGORY B - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 89 West Tremont Ave, BX BBL: 2028690047 Block: 2869 Lot: 47 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 19,150 sf New Impervious Area: 11,490 sf Runoff Volume: 1,440 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Bioretention SCM Area: 460 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 4% Retention Volume:1,450 cf Detention Volume: N/A Treatment Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 100% Total Runoff Detention: 0% Total Runoff Treatment: 0% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Bioretention Media Dim.: 45.5’L x 10’W x 4.5’H Permanent Pooling: 3” Media Depth: 24” Engineered Soil 30” Open-Graded Stone Base Media Porosity: 25 % vol, 33% vol SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC BIORETENTION Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 370 CATEGORY A - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS / MS4 - SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 508 Smith Street, BK BBL: 3004790027 Block: 479 Lot: 27 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 8,800 sf New Impervious Area: 8,800 sf Runoff Volume: 1,100 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 7,210 sf Pavers Area: 1,530 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof: 83% Retention Volume: 900 cf Detention Volume: 190 cf SCM Practice 2: N/A SCM Area: N/A Impervious Coverage: N/A Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 83% Total Runoff Detention: 17% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth in CS Areas: 5 inch Media Depth in MS4 Areas: 6 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC GREEN ROOF PERMEABLE PAVERS Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 371 CATEGORY A - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC GREEN ROOF SITE INFORMATION Address: 141 Storer Avenue, SI BBL: 5073110035 Block: 7311 Lot: 35 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 8,000 sf New Impervious Area: 8,000 sf Runoff Volume: 1,000 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 2,890 sf Pavers Area: 920 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof : 76% Retention Volume: 360 cf Detention Volume: 120 cf SCM Practice 2: Detention Vault SCM Area: 130 sf Paved Lot Coverage: 3% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 530 cf Total Runoff Retention: 36 % Total Runoff Detention: 64% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth in CS Areas: 5 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide Detention: No Rooftop Connection Effective Vault Storage Depth: 1.5 ft 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers Pretreatment Structure Detention Vault (SingeTrap® shown) PERMEABLE PAVERS DETENTION VAULT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 372 CATEGORY B - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 305 Johnson Avenue, BK BBL: 3030560240 Block: 3056 Lot: 240 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 24,580 sf New Impervious Area: 24,580 sf Runoff Volume: 3,070 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 22,560 sf Pavers Area: 2,020 SCM Area as % of Total Roof: 89% Retention Volume: 2,820 cf Detention Volume: 350 cf SCM Practice 2: N/A SCM Area: N/A Impervious Coverage: N/A Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention:92% Total Runoff Detention: 8% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth in CS Areas: 5 inch Media Depth in MS4 Areas: 6 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC GREEN ROOF PERMEABLE PAVERS Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 373 CATEGORY B - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC SITE INFORMATION Address: 89 West Tremont Ave, BX BBL: 2028690047 Block: 2869 Lot: 47 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 19,150 sf New Impervious Area: 11,490 sf Runoff Volume: 1,440 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 4,220 sf Pavers Area: 1,220 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof: 78% Retention Volume: 530 cf Detention Volume: 150 cf SCM Practice 2: Detention Vault SCM Area: 190 sf Paved Lot Coverage: 3% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 760 cf Total Runoff Retention: 37% Total Runoff Detention: 63% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth: 5 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide Detention: No Rooftop Connection Effective Vault Storage Depth: 1.5 ft 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers Pretreatment Structure Detention Vault (SingeTrap® shown) GREEN ROOF PERMEABLE PAVERS DETENTION VAULT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 374 CATEGORY A - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CS - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC Pretreatment Structure Detention Vault (SingeTrap® shown) SITE INFORMATION Address: 141 South 3 Street, BK BBL: 3024180045 Block: 2418 Lot: 45 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 7,450 sf New Impervious Area: 6,710 sf Runoff Volume: 840 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 2,530 sf Pavers Area: 1,040 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof: 71% Retention Volume: 320 cf Detention Volume: 130 cf SCM Practice 2: Detention Vault SCM Area: 100 sf Paved Lot Coverage: 3% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 400 cf Total Runoff Retention: 38% Total Runoff Detention: 62% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth: 5 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide Detention: No Rooftop Connection Effective Vault Storage Depth: 1.5 ft 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers GREEN ROOF PERMEABLE PAVERS DETENTION VAULT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 375 CATEGORY A - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 132-08 Pople Ave, QN BBL: 4051040009 Block: 5104 Lot: 9 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 6,500 sf New Impervious Area: 6,500 sf Runoff Volume: 810 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 1,580 sf Pavers Area: 4,600 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof : 26% Retention Volume: 200 cf Detention Volume: 610 cf SCM Practice 2: N/A SCM Area: N/A Impervious Coverage: N/A Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 24% Total Runoff Detention: 76% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth in CS Areas: 5 inch Media Depth in MS4 Areas: 6 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Rooftop: Gravel Ballast Private Balcony: No Green Roof Uncovered Balcony: No Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 2 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC GREEN ROOF GRAVEL BALLAST Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 376 CATEGORY B - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 1256 2 Avenue, MN BBL: 1014400049 Block: 1440 Lot: 49 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 20,160 sf New Impervious Area: 17,500 sf Runoff Volume: 2,190 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Area Green Roof Area: 6,790 sf Pavers Area: 10,700 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof : 39% Retention Volume: 850 cf Detention Volume: 1,340 cf SCM Practice 2: N/A SCM Area: N/A Impervious Coverage: N/A Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 39% Total Runoff Detention: 61% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth in CS Areas: 5 inch Media Depth in MS4 Areas: 6 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Building Height: >100 ft Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: >100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC PERMEABLE PAVERS GREEN ROOF Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 377 CATEGORY B - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CS - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC SITE INFORMATION Address: 1759 Hylan Blvd, SI BBL: 5033450032 Block: 3345 Lot: 32 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 21,600 sf New Impervious Area: 21,600 sf Runoff Volume: 2,700 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 4,940 sf Pavers Area: 2,000 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof: 71% Retention Volume: 620 cf Detention Volume: 250 cf SCM Practice 2: Detention Chamber SCM Area: 460 sf Paved Lot Coverage: 3% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 18,300 cf Total Runoff Retention: 23% Total Runoff Detention: 77% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth: 5 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide Detention: No Rooftop Connection Effective Vault Storage Depth: 1.5 ft 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers Pretreatment Structure Detention Vault (SingeTrap® shown) GREEN ROOF PERMEABLE PAVERS DETENTION VAULT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 378 CATEGORY A - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 560 Carroll Street, BK BBL: 3009610003 Block: 961 Lot: 3 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 6,120 sf New Impervious Area: 4,850 sf Runoff Volume: 610 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 1,500 sf Pavers Area: 3,350 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof : 31% Retention Volume: 190 cf Detention Volume: 420 cf SCM Practice 2: N/A SCM Area: N/A Impervious Coverage: N/A Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 31% Total Runoff Detention: 69% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth in CS Areas: 5 inch Media Depth in MS4 Areas: 6 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Rooftop: Gravel Ballast Private Balcony: No Green Roof Uncovered Balcony: No Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: >100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC PERMEABLE PAVERS GREEN ROOF Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 379 CATEGORY B - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS/MS4 - SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED SITE INFORMATION Address: 462 West 58 St, MN BBL: 1010670057 Block: 1067 Lot: 57 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 14,100 sf New Impervious Area: 14,100 sf Runoff Volume: 1,760 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 4,070 sf Pavers Area: 10,000 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof: 34% Retention Volume: 510 cf Detention Volume: 1,250 cf SCM Practice 2: N/A SCM Area: N/A Impervious Coverage: N/A Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: N/A Total Runoff Retention: 29% Total Runoff Detention: 71% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth in CS Areas: 5 inch Media Depth in MS4 Areas: 6 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Rooftop: Gravel Ballast Private Balcony: No Green Roof Uncovered Balcony: No Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC GREEN ROOF PERMEABLE PAVERS Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 380 CATEGORY B - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CS - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC SITE INFORMATION Address: 11 Brick Ct, SI BBL: 5074000100 Block: 7400 Lot: 100 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 27,900 sf New Impervious Area: 27,900 sf Runoff Volume: 3,490 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Green Roof + Permeable Pavers Green Roof Area: 10,670 sf Pavers Area:1,660 sf SCM Area as % of Total Roof: 87% Retention Volume: 1,335 cf Detention Volume: 210 cf SCM Practice 2: Detention Vault SCM Area: 490 sf Paved Lot Coverage: 3% Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 1,950 cf Total Runoff Retention: 38% Total Runoff Detention: 62% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Type: Modular Tray System Media Depth: 5 inch Media Porosity: 55 %vol Media Field Capacity: 36 %vol Media Water Content: 0 %vol Uncovered Area: Gravel Ballast Ballast Storage: 0.08 inch Depression Storage: 0.06 inch Building Height: <100 ft Perimeter Edging: 1 ft wide Mechanical Edging: 3 ft wide Landing and Clear Paths: 6 ft wide Detention: No Rooftop Connection Effective Vault Storage Depth: 1.5 ft 1 foot perimeter with porous pavers Pretreatment Structure Detention Vault (SingeTrap® shown) GREEN ROOF PERMEABLE PAVERS DETENTION VAULT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 381 CATEGORY A - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC SITE INFORMATION Address: 262 Corbin Place, BK BBL: 3087230267 Block: 8723 Lot: 267 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 6,440 sf New Impervious Area: 6,440 sf Runoff Volume: 810 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Detention Vault SCM Area: 200 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 3% Vault Dimensions: 3’H x 20’W x 10’D Pretreatment Dimensions: 1.5’H x 10’W x 13.5’D Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 810 cf Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Detention: Rooftop Connected Effective Vault Storage Depth: 1.5 ft Pretreatment Structure Detention Vault (SingeTrap® shown) DETENTION VAULT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 382 CATEGORY B - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CS - SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED SITE SCHEMATIC with STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) SCM SCHEMATIC SITE INFORMATION Address: 14 Ottavio Promenade, SI BBL: 5077750135 Block: 7775 Lot: 135 DESIGN CRITERIA Area Disturbed: 14,940 sf New Impervious Area: 7,550 sf Runoff Volume: 950 cf Peak Runoff Rate: N/A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCM Practice 1: Detention Vault SCM Area: 240 sf SCM Area as % of Total Lot: 3% Vault Dimensions: 3’H x 20’W x 12’D Pretreatment Dimensions: 1.5’H x 10’W x 16’D Retention Volume: N/A Detention Volume: 950 cf Total Runoff Retention: 0% Total Runoff Detention: 100% GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Event: 1.5 inch over 24 hours Rainfall distribution: Type III Maximum Discharge: 0.1 cfs/acre SCM ASSUMPTIONS Detention: Rooftop Connected Effective Vault Storage Depth: 1.5 ft Pretreatment Structure Detention Vault (SingeTrap® shown) DETENTION VAULT Appendix 6.1: B Conceptual SCM Designs 383 Appendix 6.1 C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 384 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 141 Storer Avenue, Staten Island DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 252 SF DISTURBED AREA 8,000 SF RETENTION VOL 1,001 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 51 CY 100.00$ 5,133$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 62 CY 50.00$ 3,080$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 627 SF 0.75$ 470$ Install 30" open graded stone base 23 CY 82.00$ 1,913$ Install 24" engineered soil 19 CY 106.00$ 1,979$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 2 CY 40.00$ 93$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 252 SF 7.50$ 1,890$ SUBTOTAL 21,659$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $2,141 SUBTOTAL $23,800 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $5,000 SUBTOTAL $28,800 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $5,800 SUBTOTAL $34,600 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $5,200 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $39,800 LARGE SIZED INDUSTRIALL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 11 Brick Court, Staten Island DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 990 SF DISTURBED AREA 27,903 SF RETENTION VOL 3,487 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 202 CY 100.00$ 20,167$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 242 CY 50.00$ 12,100$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 1,173 SF 0.75$ 880$ Install 30" open graded stone base 92 CY 82.00$ 7,517$ Install 24" engineered soil 73 CY 106.00$ 7,773$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 9 CY 40.00$ 367$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 990 SF 7.50$ 7,425$ SUBTOTAL 63,328$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $6,372 SUBTOTAL $69,700 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $14,600 SUBTOTAL $84,300 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $16,900 SUBTOTAL $101,200 ENGINEERING ‐ 15% $15,200 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $116,400 QUANTITY (21' x 4' x 4.5' depth x 3) QUANTITY (33' x 6' x 4.5' depth x 5) 385 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 141 South 3 Street, Brooklyn DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 234 SF DISTURBED AREA 7,450 SF RETENTION VOL 846 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 48 CY 100.00$ 4,767$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 57 CY 50.00$ 2,860$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 489 SF 0.75$ 367$ Install 30" open graded stone base 22 CY 82.00$ 1,777$ Install 24" engineered soil 17 CY 106.00$ 1,837$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 2 CY 40.00$ 87$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 234 SF 7.50$ 1,755$ SUBTOTAL 20,549$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $2,051 SUBTOTAL $22,600 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $4,700 SUBTOTAL $27,300 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $5,500 SUBTOTAL $32,800 ENGINEERING ‐ 15% $4,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $37,700 LARGE SIZED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 1759 Hylan Blvd, Staten Island DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 856 SF DISTURBED AREA 21,600 SF RETENTION VOL 2,715 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 174 CY 100.00$ 17,437$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 209 CY 50.00$ 10,462$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 1,366 SF 0.75$ 1,025$ Install 30" open graded stone base 79 CY 82.00$ 6,499$ Install 24" engineered soil 63 CY 106.00$ 6,721$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 8 CY 40.00$ 317$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 856 SF 7.50$ 6,420$ SUBTOTAL 55,981$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $5,619 SUBTOTAL $61,600 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $12,900 SUBTOTAL $74,500 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $14,900 SUBTOTAL $89,400 ENGINEERING ‐ 15% $13,400 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $102,800 MEDIUM SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY QUANTITY (17' x 6' x 4.5' depth) (22' x 6' x 4.5' depth) QUANTITY (60' x 10' x 4.5' depth) (16' x16' x 4.5' depth) 386 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 262 Corbin Place, Bronx DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 222 SF DISTURBED AREA 6,434 SF RETENTION VOL 806 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 45 CY 100.00$ 4,522$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 54 CY 50.00$ 2,713$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 467 SF 0.75$ 350$ Install 30" open graded stone base 21 CY 82.00$ 1,686$ Install 24" engineered soil 16 CY 106.00$ 1,743$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 2 CY 40.00$ 82$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 222 SF 7.50$ 1,665$ SUBTOTAL 19,862$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $1,938 SUBTOTAL $21,800 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $4,600 SUBTOTAL $26,400 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $5,300 SUBTOTAL $31,700 ENGINEERING ‐ 15% $4,800 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $36,500 LARGE SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 14 Ottavio Promanade, Staten Island DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 260 SF DISTURBED AREA 14,935 SF RETENTION VOL 840 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 53 CY 100.00$ 5,296$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 64 CY 50.00$ 3,178$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 435 SF 0.75$ 326$ Install 30" open graded stone base 24 CY 82.00$ 1,974$ Install 24" engineered soil 19 CY 106.00$ 2,041$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 2 CY 40.00$ 96$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 260 SF 7.50$ 1,950$ SUBTOTAL 21,962$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $2,238 SUBTOTAL $24,200 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $5,100 SUBTOTAL $29,300 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $5,900 SUBTOTAL $35,200 ENGINEERING ‐ 15% $7,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $42,200 QUANTITY (18.5' x 6' x 4.5' depth) (18.5' x 6' x 4.5' depth) QUANTITY (23' x 12' x 4.5' depth) 387 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 89 West Tremont Avenue, Bronx DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 455 SF DISTURBED AREA 19,146 SF RETENTION VOL 1,449 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 93 CY 100.00$ 9,269$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 111 CY 50.00$ 5,561$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 733 SF 0.75$ 549$ Install 30" open graded stone base 42 CY 82.00$ 3,455$ Install 24" engineered soil 34 CY 106.00$ 3,573$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 4 CY 40.00$ 169$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 455 SF 7.50$ 3,413$ SUBTOTAL 33,087$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $3,313 SUBTOTAL $36,400 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $7,600 SUBTOTAL $44,000 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $8,800 SUBTOTAL $52,800 ENGINEERING ‐ 15% $7,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $60,700 QUANTITY (45.5' x 10' x 4.5' depth) 388 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 89 West Tremont Avenue, Bronx DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 455 SF DISTURBED AREA 19,146 SF RETENTION VOL 1,449 CF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 24 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 30 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 93 CY 100.00$ 9,269$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 111 CY 50.00$ 5,561$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & sides 733 SF 0.75$ 549$ Install 30" open graded stone base 42 CY 82.00$ 3,455$ Install 24" engineered soil 34 CY 106.00$ 3,573$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 4 CY 40.00$ 169$ Conveyance 50 LF 7,100$ Planting Area 455 SF 7.50$ 3,413$ SUBTOTAL 33,087$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $3,313 SUBTOTAL $36,400 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $7,600 SUBTOTAL $44,000 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $8,800 SUBTOTAL $52,800 ENGINEERING ‐ 15% $7,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $60,700 QUANTITY (45.5' x 10' x 4.5' depth) 389 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAIN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 141 STORER AVE , STATEN ISLAND DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA ‐ BIORETENSION 396 SF (22x 6 x4 x3) RETENTION VOL 648 CF SMP AREA ‐ POROUS PAVEMENT BRIDGE 456 SF (28 x 6 x2) (48 x 6x 2) RETENTION VOL 358 CF DISTURBED AREA 8,000 SF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 36 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 12 INCH PERFORATED PIPE SIZE 6 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (142' x 6' x 4') 126 CY 100.00$ 12,622$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 151 CY 50.00$ 7,573$ Install 12" open graded stone base 15 CY 82.00$ 1,203$ 6" PVC perforated pipe 142 LF 25.00$ 3,550$ Perforated pipe cleanouts 3 EA 150.00$ 450$ Concrete trough for overflow pipe 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & bottom 792 SF 0.75$ 594$ Install 36" engineered soil‐ 44 CY 106.00$ 4,664$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 4 CY 40.00$ 147$ 18 x 18" concrete header curb 120 LF 25.00$ 3,000$ Install 3‐1/2" permeable paver on 5‐1/2" stone bed 456 SF 40.00$ 18,240$ Install 10" open graded stone base 14 CY 82.00$ 1,149$ 24" x 8" concrete curb 24 LF 55.00$ 1,320$ Install 24" controlled backfill 34 CY 75.00$ 2,533$ Deduct Concrete Paving (456) SF 25.00$ (11,400)$ 3' x 6' Access Hatch by Syracuse Castings 1 EA 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 4" wide concrete apron at Hatch 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Outlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Repair disturbed area 8,000 SF 2.50$ Conveyance 50 LF 9,000$ Planting Area 396 SF 7.50$ 2,970$ SUBTOTAL 70,366$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $7,034 SUBTOTAL $77,400 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $16,300 SUBTOTAL $93,700 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $18,700 SUBTOTAL $112,400 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $16,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $129,300 QUANTITY 390 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAIN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 11 Brick Court, Staten Island DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA ‐ BIORETENSION 1,620 SF 33 x 6 x 4 x 5ea) RETENTION VOL 648 CF SMP AREA ‐ POROUS PAVEMENT BRIDGE 2,370 SF (395 x6 x2 ) RETENTION VOL 1,867 CF DISTURBED AREA 27,903 SF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 36 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 12 INCH PERFORATED PIPE SIZE 6 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (560' x 6' x 4') + 498 CY 100.00$ 49,778$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 597 CY 50.00$ 29,867$ Install 12" open graded stone base 60 CY 82.00$ 4,920$ 6" PVC perforated pipe 560 LF 25.00$ 14,000$ Perforated pipe cleanouts 5 EA 150.00$ 750$ Concrete trough for overflow pipe 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & bottom 3,240 SF 0.75$ 2,430$ Install 36" engineered soil‐ 180 CY 106.00$ 19,080$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 15 CY 40.00$ 600$ 18 x 18" concrete header curb 900 LF 25.00$ 22,500$ Install 3‐1/2" permeable paver on 5‐1/2" stone bed 2,370 SF 40.00$ 94,800$ Install 10" open graded stone base 73 CY 82.00$ 5,974$ 24" x 8" concrete curb 60 LF 55.00$ 3,300$ Install 24" controlled backfill 176 CY 75.00$ 13,167$ Deduct Concrete Paving (2,370) SF 25.00$ (59,250)$ 3' x 6' Access Hatch by Syracuse Castings 1 EA 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 4" wide concrete apron at Hatch 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Outlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Repair disturbed area 27,903 SF 2.50$ Conveyance 50 LF 9,000$ Planting Area 1,620 SF 7.50$ 12,150$ SUBTOTAL 235,815$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $23,585 SUBTOTAL $259,400 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $54,500 SUBTOTAL $313,900 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $62,800 SUBTOTAL $376,700 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $56,500 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $433,200 QUANTITY 391 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAIN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED COMMERCIA PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 141 South 3 Street, Brooklyn DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA ‐ BIORETENSION 396 SF (22 x 9 x 4 ) (17x9x4) RETENTION VOL 648 CF SMP AREA ‐ POROUS PAVEMENT BRIDGE 456 SF (18 x 10 x 4 ) RETENTION VOL 358 CF DISTURBED AREA 7,450 SF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 36 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 12 INCH PERFORATED PIPE SIZE 6 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (142' x 6' x 4') 51 CY 100.00$ 5,067$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 61 CY 50.00$ 3,040$ Install 12" open graded stone base 15 CY 82.00$ 1,203$ 6" PVC perforated pipe 57 LF 25.00$ 1,425$ Perforated pipe cleanouts 2 EA 150.00$ 300$ Concrete trough for overflow pipe 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & bottom 792 SF 0.75$ 594$ Install 36" engineered soil‐ 44 CY 106.00$ 4,664$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 4 CY 40.00$ 147$ 18 x 18" concrete header curb ‐ +/‐ 140 LF 25.00$ 3,500$ Install 3‐1/2" permeable paver on 5‐1/2" stone bed 456 SF 40.00$ 18,240$ Install 10" open graded stone base 34 CY 82.00$ 2,770$ 24" x 8" concrete curb 12 LF 55.00$ 660$ Install 24" controlled backfill 34 CY 75.00$ 2,533$ Deduct Concrete Paving (456) SF 25.00$ (11,400)$ 3' x 6' Access Hatch by Syracuse Castings 1 EA 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 4" wide concrete apron at Hatch 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Outlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Repair disturbed area 7,450 SF 2.50$ Conveyance 50 LF 9,000$ Planting Area 396 SF 7.50$ 2,970$ SUBTOTAL 57,462$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $5,738 SUBTOTAL $63,200 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $13,300 SUBTOTAL $76,500 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $15,300 SUBTOTAL $91,800 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $13,800 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $105,600 QUANTITY 392 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAIN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 1759 Hylan Blvd, Staten Island DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA ‐ BIORETENSION 1,216 SF (60 x 16 x 4 ) (16 x16 x 4) RETENTION VOL 1,989 CF SMP AREA ‐ POROUS PAVEMENT BRIDGE 912 SF (22 x16 x 2 ) (35 x16 x2) RETENTION VOL 712 CF DISTURBED AREA 21,600 SF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 36 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 12 INCH PERFORATED PIPE SIZE 6 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 315 CY 100.00$ 31,526$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 378 CY 50.00$ 18,916$ Install 12" open graded stone base 45 CY 82.00$ 3,693$ 6" PVC perforated pipe 133 LF 25.00$ 3,325$ Perforated pipe cleanouts 2 EA 150.00$ 300$ Concrete trough for overflow pipe 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & bottom 2,432 SF 0.75$ 1,824$ Install 36" engineered soil‐ 135 CY 106.00$ 14,322$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 11 CY 40.00$ 450$ 18 x 18" concrete header curb 276 LF 25.00$ 6,900$ Install 3‐1/2" permeable paver on 5‐1/2" stone bed 912 SF 40.00$ 36,480$ Install 10" open graded stone base 68 CY 82.00$ 5,540$ 24" x 8" concrete curb 12 LF 55.00$ 660$ Install 24" controlled backfill 68 CY 75.00$ 5,067$ Deduct Concrete Paving (912) SF 25.00$ (22,800)$ 3' x 6' Access Hatch by Syracuse Castings 1 EA 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 4" wide concrete apron at Hatch 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Outlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Repair disturbed area 21,600 SF 2.50$ Conveyance 50 LF 9,000$ Planting Area 1,216 SF 7.50$ 9,120$ SUBTOTAL 137,072$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $13,728 SUBTOTAL $150,800 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $31,700 SUBTOTAL $182,500 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $36,500 SUBTOTAL $219,000 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $32,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $251,900 QUANTITY 393 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAIN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 14 Ottavio Promanade, Staten Island DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA ‐ BIORETENSION 264 SF (24 x 11 x 4 ) RETENTION VOL 432 CF SMP AREA ‐ POROUS PAVEMENT BRIDGE 528 SF (24 x22 x 2 ) RETENTION VOL 415 CF DISTURBED AREA 7,450 SF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 36 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 12 INCH PERFORATED PIPE SIZE 6 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 78 CY 100.00$ 7,822$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 94 CY 50.00$ 4,693$ Install 12" open graded stone base 10 CY 82.00$ 802$ 6" PVC perforated pipe 48 LF 25.00$ 1,200$ Perforated pipe cleanouts 1 EA 150.00$ 150$ Concrete trough for overflow pipe 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & bottom 528 SF 0.75$ 396$ Install 36" engineered soil‐ 29 CY 106.00$ 3,109$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 2 CY 40.00$ 98$ 18 x 18" concrete header curb 114 LF 25.00$ 2,850$ Install 3‐1/2" permeable paver on 5‐1/2" stone bed 528 SF 40.00$ 21,120$ Install 10" open graded stone base 16 CY 82.00$ 1,331$ 24" x 8" concrete curb 12 LF 55.00$ 660$ Install 24" controlled backfill 39 CY 75.00$ 2,933$ Deduct Concrete Paving (528) SF 25.00$ (13,200)$ 3' x 6' Access Hatch by Syracuse Castings 1 EA 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 4" wide concrete apron at Hatch 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Outlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Repair disturbed area 7,450 SF 2.50$ Conveyance 50 LF 9,000$ Planting Area 264 SF 7.50$ 1,980$ SUBTOTAL 57,695$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $5,805 SUBTOTAL $63,500 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $13,300 SUBTOTAL $76,800 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $15,400 SUBTOTAL $92,200 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $13,800 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $106,000 QUANTITY 394 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAIN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 89 West Tremont Avenue, Bronx DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA ‐ BIORETENSION 840 SF (42 x 10 x 4 x 2 ea) RETENTION VOL 1,374 CF SMP AREA ‐ POROUS PAVEMENT BRIDGE 100 SF (10 x10 x 2 ) RETENTION VOL 79 CF DISTURBED AREA 19,146 SF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 36 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 12 INCH PERFORATED PIPE SIZE 6 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 139 CY 100.00$ 13,926$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 167 CY 50.00$ 8,356$ Install 12" open graded stone base 31 CY 82.00$ 2,551$ 6" PVC perforated pipe 94 LF 25.00$ 2,350$ Perforated pipe cleanouts 2 EA 150.00$ 300$ Concrete trough for overflow pipe 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & bottom 1,680 SF 0.75$ 1,260$ Install 36" engineered soil‐ 93 CY 106.00$ 9,893$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 8 CY 40.00$ 311$ 18 x 18" concrete header curb 124 LF 25.00$ 3,100$ Install 3‐1/2" permeable paver on 20‐1/2" stone bed 100 SF 55.00$ 5,500$ Install 24" open graded stone base 3 CY 82.00$ 252$ 24" x 8" concrete curb 12 LF 55.00$ 660$ Install 24" controlled backfill 7 CY 75.00$ 556$ Deduct Concrete Paving (100) SF 25.00$ (2,500)$ 3' x 6' Access Hatch by Syracuse Castings 1 EA 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 4" wide concrete apron at Hatch 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Outlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Repair disturbed area 19,146 SF 2.50$ Conveyance 50 LF 9,000$ Planting Area 840 SF 7.50$ 6,300$ SUBTOTAL 74,565$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $7,435 SUBTOTAL $82,000 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $17,200 SUBTOTAL $99,200 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $19,800 SUBTOTAL $119,000 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $17,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $136,900 QUANTITY 395 BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAIN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 262 Corbin Place, Bronx, NY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA ‐ BIORETENSION 240 SF (20 x 6 x 4 x 2 ea) RETENTION VOL 393 CF SMP AREA ‐ POROUS PAVEMENT BRIDGE 560 SF (28 x20 x 2 ) RETENTION VOL 833 CF DISTURBED AREA 6,434 SF ENGIN SOIL DEPTH 36 INCH STONE BASE DEPTH 12 INCH PERFORATED PIPE SIZE 6 INCH Excavate to specfied depth 77 CY 100.00$ 7,704$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 92 CY 50.00$ 4,622$ Install 12" open graded stone base 9 CY 82.00$ 729$ 6" PVC perforated pipe 40 LF 25.00$ 1,000$ Perforated pipe cleanouts 2 EA 150.00$ 300$ Concrete trough for overflow pipe 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500$ Install geotech fabric at stone‐wrap top & bottom 480 SF 0.75$ 360$ Install 36" engineered soil‐ 27 CY 106.00$ 2,827$ Install mulch layer (allow 3") 2 CY 40.00$ 89$ 18 x 18" concrete header curb 92 LF 25.00$ 2,300$ Install 3‐1/2" permeable paver on 20‐1/2" stone bed 560 SF 55.00$ 30,800$ Install 24" open graded stone base 17 CY 82.00$ 1,412$ 24" x 8" concrete curb 24 LF 55.00$ 1,320$ Install 24" controlled backfill 41 CY 75.00$ 3,111$ Deduct Concrete Paving (560) SF 3' x 6' Access Hatch by Syracuse Castings 1 EA 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 4" wide concrete apron at Hatch 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Outlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Repair disturbed area 6,434 SF 2.50$ Conveyance 50 LF 9,000$ Planting Area 240 SF 7.50$ 1,800$ SUBTOTAL 80,123$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $7,977 SUBTOTAL $88,100 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $18,500 SUBTOTAL $106,600 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $21,300 SUBTOTAL $127,900 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $19,200 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $147,100 QUANTITY Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 396 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL SPACE CONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED 508 Smith Street, BK DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 7,210 SF SCM Volume 134 CY Managed Area 7,210 SF Retention Volume 901 CF Greened Acre 0.17 Ac Pavers SCM Area 1,525 SF Managed Area 1,525 SF Detention Volume 191 CF ‐ 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 7,210 SF 15.25$ 109,953$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 1,525 SF 15.00$ 22,875$ SUBTOTAL 132,828$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $13,283 SUBTOTAL $146,110 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $30,683 SUBTOTAL $176,793 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $35,359 SUBTOTAL $212,152 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $212,152 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 397 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 141 Storer Avenue, SI DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 2,890 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 54 CY Managed Area 2,890 SF Retention Volume 361 CF Greened Acre 0.07 Ac Pavers SCM Area 920 SF Managed Area 920 SF Detention Volume 115 CF Detention Vault SCM Area 130 SF Managed Area 4,190 SF Detention Volume 530 CF Engineered Chamber Depth 3 LF Engineered Chamber Width 8 LF Engineer Chamber Length 16 LF Wall Thickness 6 IN. 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 2,890 SF 15.25$ 44,073$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 920 SF 15.00$ 13,800$ Excavate to specfied depth (assume 24' x 16') 57 CY 100.00$ 5,689$ Finish grade for bottom slab 131 SF 5.00$ 655$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 68 CY 50.00$ 3,413$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 554 SF 30.00$ 16,620$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 150 CY 70.00$ 10,500$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 131 SF 40.00$ 5,240$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 28 CY 80.00$ 2,240$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 43 CY 65.00$ 2,795$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 6.5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth (assume 19' x 16') 19 CY 100.00$ 1,852$ Finish grade for bottom slab 131 SF 5.00$ 655$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 22 CY 50.00$ 1,111$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 65 SF 30.00$ 1,950$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 65 SF 40.00$ 2,600$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 11 SF 80.00$ 880$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 15 CY 65.00$ 969$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 139,357$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $13,936 SUBTOTAL $153,292 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $32,191 SUBTOTAL $185,484 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $37,097 SUBTOTAL $222,580 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $222,580 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 398 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE INDUSTRIAL SPACE CONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED 305 Johnson Ave. BK UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 22,560 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 418 CY Managed Area 22,560 SF Retention Volume 2,820 CF Greened Acre 0.52 Ac Pavers SCM Area 2,020 SF Managed Area 2,020 SF Detention Volume 253 CF 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 22,560 SF 15.25$ 344,040$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 2,020 SF 15.00$ 30,300$ SUBTOTAL 374,340$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $37,434 SUBTOTAL $411,774 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $86,473 SUBTOTAL $498,247 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $99,649 SUBTOTAL $597,896 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $597,896 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 399 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE RESIDENTIAL SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 89 West Tremont Ave. BX DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 4,220 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 78 CY Managed Area 4,220 SF Retention Volume 528 CF Greened Acre 0.10 Ac Pavers SCM Area 1,220 SF Managed Area 1,220 SF Detention Volume 153 CF Detention Vault SCM Area 190 SF Managed Area 6,050 SF Detention Volume 756 CF Engineered Chamber Depth 3 LF Engineered Chamber Width 10 LF Engineer Chamber Length 19 LF Wall Thickness 6 IN. 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 4,220 SF 15.25$ 64,355$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 1,220 SF 15.00$ 18,300$ Detention Vault (10 x19 x3) Excavate to specfied depth (25'x 16' x 4') 59 CY 100.00$ 5,926$ Finish grade for bottom slab 0 SF 5.00$ ‐$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 71 CY 50.00$ 3,556$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 0 SF 30.00$ ‐$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 0 SF 70.00$ ‐$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 0 SF 40.00$ ‐$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 48 SF 80.00$ 3,840$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 45 CY 65.00$ 2,913$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 6.5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth (assume 19' x 16') 19 CY 100.00$ 1,852$ Finish grade for bottom slab 65 SF 5.00$ 325$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 22 CY 50.00$ 1,111$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 65 SF 30.00$ 1,950$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 65 SF 40.00$ 2,600$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 11 SF 80.00$ 880$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 15 CY 65.00$ 987$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 132,509$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $13,251 SUBTOTAL $145,760 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $30,610 SUBTOTAL $176,370 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $35,274 SUBTOTAL $211,644 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $211,644 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 400 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE COMMERCIAL SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 141 South 3rd Street, BK DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 2,530 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 47 CY Managed Area 2,530 SF Retention Volume 316 CF Greened Acre 0.06 GA Pavers SCM Area 1,040 SF Managed Area 1,040 SF Detention Volume 130 CF Detention Vault SCM Area 100 SF Managed Area 3,135 SF Detention Volume 400 CF Engineered Chamber Depth 3 LF Engineered Chamber Width 10 LF Engineer Chamber Length 10 LF Wall Thickness 6 IN. 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 2,530 SF 15.25$ 38,583$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 1,040 SF 15.00$ 15,600$ Detention Vault (10 x 10 x3) Excavate to specfied depth (16'x 16' x 4') 38 CY 100.00$ 3,793$ Finish grade for bottom slab 100 SF 5.00$ 500$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 46 CY 50.00$ 2,276$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 100 SF 30.00$ 3,000$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 120 SF 70.00$ 8,400$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 100 SF 40.00$ 4,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 36 SF 80.00$ 2,880$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 23 CY 65.00$ 1,526$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 11' x 16' X 2.5) 17 CY 100.00$ 1,704$ Finish grade for bottom slab 50 SF 5.00$ 250$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 20 CY 50.00$ 1,022$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 50 SF 30.00$ 1,500$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 50 SF 40.00$ 2,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 8 SF 80.00$ 640$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 14 CY 65.00$ 927$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 112,115$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $11,211 SUBTOTAL $123,326 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $25,899 SUBTOTAL $149,225 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $29,845 SUBTOTAL $179,070 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $179,070 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 401 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE COMMERCIAL SPACE CONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED 1256 2nd Avenue, MN UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 6,790 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 126 CY Managed Area 6,790 SF Retention Volume 850 CF Greened Acres 0.16 Ac Pavers SCM Area 10,700 SF Managed Area 10,700 SF Detention Volume 1,340 CF 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 6,790 SF 15.25$ 103,548$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 10,700 SF 15.00$ 160,500$ SUBTOTAL 264,048$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $26,405 SUBTOTAL $290,452 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $60,995 SUBTOTAL $351,447 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $70,289 SUBTOTAL $421,737 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $421,737 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 402 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE COMMERCIAL SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 1759 Hylan Blvd, SI UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 4,940 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 91 CY Managed Area 4,940 SF Retention Volume 620 CF Greened Acre 0.11 Ac Pavers SCM Area 2,000 SF Managed Area 2,000 SF Detention Volume 250 CF Detention Vault SCM Area 460 SF Managed Area 14,660 SF Detention Volume 1,883 CF Engineered Chamber Depth 3 LF Engineered Chamber Width 16 LF Engineer Chamber Length 30 LF Wall Thickness 6 IN. 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 4,940 SF 15.25$ 75,335$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 2,000 SF 15.00$ 30,000$ Detention Vault (30 x 15.5 x 3) Excavate to specfied depth (36'x 21 x 4') 112 CY 100.00$ 11,200$ Finish grade for bottom slab 465 SF 5.00$ 2,325$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 134 CY 50.00$ 6,720$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 465 SF 30.00$ 13,950$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 273 SF 70.00$ 19,110$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 465 SF 40.00$ 18,600$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 62 SF 80.00$ 4,960$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 60 CY 65.00$ 3,922$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 11' x 16' X 2.5) 17 CY 100.00$ 1,704$ Finish grade for bottom slab 50 SF 5.00$ 250$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 20 CY 50.00$ 1,022$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 50 SF 30.00$ 1,500$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 50 SF 40.00$ 2,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 8 SF 80.00$ 640$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 17 CY 65.00$ 1,107$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 218,260$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $21,826 SUBTOTAL $240,086 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $50,418 SUBTOTAL $290,504 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $58,101 SUBTOTAL $348,605 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $348,605 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 403 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL SPACE CONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED 560 Carroll Street, BK UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 1,500 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 28 CY Managed Area 1,500 SF Retention Volume 188 CF Greened Acre 0.03 Ac Pavers SCM Area 3,350 SF Managed Area 3,350 SF Detention Volume 419 CF 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 1,500 SF 15.25$ 22,875$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 3,350 SF 15.00$ 50,250$ SUBTOTAL 73,125$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $7,313 SUBTOTAL $80,438 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $16,892 SUBTOTAL $97,329 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $19,466 SUBTOTAL $116,795 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $116,795 LARGE RESIDENTIAL SPACE CONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED 462 West 58th Street, MN UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 4,070 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 75 CY Managed Area 4,070 SF Retention Volume 509 CF Greened Acre 0.09 Ac Pavers SCM Area 10,000 SF Managed Area 10,000 SF Detention Volume 1,250 CF 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 4,070 SF 15.25$ 62,068$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 10,000 SF 15.00$ 150,000$ SUBTOTAL 212,068$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $21,207 SUBTOTAL $233,274 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $48,988 SUBTOTAL $282,262 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $56,452 SUBTOTAL $338,714 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $338,714 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 404 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE INDUSTRIAL SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 11 Brick Ct, SI UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 10,670 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 198 CY Managed Area 10,670 SF Retention Volume 1,334 CF Greened Acre 0.24 Ac Pavers SCM Area 1,660 SF Managed Area 1,660 SF Detention Volume 208 CF Detention Vault SCM Area 485 SF Managed Area 15,570 SF Detention Volume 1947 CF Engineered Chamber Depth 3 LF Engineered Chamber Width 16.2 LF Engineer Chamber Length 30 LF Wall Thickness 6 IN. 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 10,670 SF 15.25$ 162,718$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 1,660 SF 15.00$ 24,900$ Detention Vault (30 x 16.2 x 3) Excavate to specfied depth (36'x 23 x 4') 123 CY 100.00$ 12,267$ Finish grade for bottom slab 486 SF 5.00$ 2,430$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 147 CY 50.00$ 7,360$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 486 SF 30.00$ 14,580$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 276 SF 70.00$ 19,320$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 486 SF 40.00$ 19,440$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 61 SF 80.00$ 4,864$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 51 CY 65.00$ 3,293$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (20 x 12.5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 11' x 16' X 2.5) 17 CY 100.00$ 1,704$ Finish grade for bottom slab 50 SF 5.00$ 250$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 20 CY 50.00$ 1,022$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 50 SF 30.00$ 1,500$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 50 SF 40.00$ 2,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 8 SF 80.00$ 640$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 4 CY 65.00$ 277$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 302,479$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $30,248 SUBTOTAL $332,727 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $69,873 SUBTOTAL $402,600 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $80,520 SUBTOTAL $483,120 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $483,120 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 405 GREEN ROOF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL SPACE CONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL (UN)CONSTRAINED 132‐08 Pople Ave, QN UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL Green Roof SCM Area 1,549 SF Green Roof SCM Volume 29 CY Managed Area 1,549 SF Retention Volume 194 CF Greened Acre 0.04 Ac Pavers SCM Area 4,600 SF Managed Area 4,600 SF Detention Volume 575 CF 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 1,549 SF 15.25$ 23,622$ 1' square pavers (instalation included) 4,600 SF 15.00$ 69,000$ SUBTOTAL 92,622$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $9,262 SUBTOTAL $101,884 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $21,396 SUBTOTAL $123,280 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $24,656 SUBTOTAL $147,936 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $147,936 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 406 SAND FILTER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 508 Smith Street, Brooklyn DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 204 SF DISTURBED AREA 8,800 SF RETENTION VOL 1,103 CF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH 9 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 8 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 31.58 LF WALL THICKNESS- 12 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (assume 14' x 44') 228 CY 100.00$ 22,815$ Finish grade for bottom slab 253 SF 5.00$ 1,263$ truck away spoil- add 20% 274 CY 50.00$ 13,689$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab - 12" 253 SF 25.00$ 6,316$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls - 12" 20.7 CY 1,500.00$ 31,111$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab - 12" 253 SF 75.00$ 18,948$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls - assume 6 1.9 CY 1,500.00$ 2,833$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 144 CY 65.00$ 9,356$ Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Access grates at Chamber slab 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Ladder to Access Grate- 6' 1 EA 600.00$ 600$ Sandfilter Chamber: (assume 15' x 8' X 3') 120 SF Install 11" stone base-M 4 CY 100.00$ 409$ Install 6" PVC Perf. Pipe Underdrain 45 LF 25.00$ 1,125$ Install 24" clean washed sand 8.9 CY 75.00$ 667$ Install 1" debris screen 120 SF 5.00$ 600$ Install 12" +/- gravel 4.4 CY 75.00$ 333$ Cleanouts 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Dewatering Valve 1 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500$ $ Outlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ $ SUBTOTAL 126,465$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS - 10.0% $12,635 SUBTOTAL $139,100 G.C. OH & P - 21.0% $29,200 SUBTOTAL $168,300 CONTINGENCY - 20.0% $33,700 SUBTOTAL $202,000 ENGINEERING- 15.0% $30,300 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $232,300 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 407 SAND FILTER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 305 Johnson Ave, Bronx DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 565.5 SF DISTURBED AREA 24,580 SF RETENTION VOL 3,086 CF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH - 9 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH - 13 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 49.58 LF WALL THICKNESS- 12 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (assume 15' x 49') 394 CY 100.00$ 39,407$ Finish grade for bottom slab 650 SF 5.00$ 3,250$ truck away spoil- add 20% 473 CY 50.00$ 23,644$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab - 12" 650 SF 25.00$ 16,250$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls - 12" 32.7 CY 1,500.00$ 49,000$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab - 12" 650 SF 75.00$ 48,750$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls - assume 6 3.5 CY 1,500.00$ 5,194$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 286 CY 65.00$ 18,573$ $ Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Access grates at Chamber slab 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Ladder to Access Grate- 6' 1 EA 600.00$ 600$ Sandfilter Chamber: (assume 25' x13' X 3') 325 SF Install 11" stone base-M 4 CY 100.00$ 409$ Install 6" PVC Perf. Pipe Underdrain 75 LF 25.00$ 1,875$ Install 24" clean washed sand 24.1 CY 75.00$ 1,806$ Install 1" debris screen 325 SF 5.00$ 1,625$ Install 12" +/- gravel 12.0 CY 75.00$ 903$ Cleanouts 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Dewatering Valve 1 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500$ $ Outlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ $ SUBTOTAL 227,687$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS - 10.0% $22,813 SUBTOTAL $250,500 G.C. OH & P - 21.0% $52,600 SUBTOTAL $303,100 CONTINGENCY - 20.0% $60,600 SUBTOTAL $363,700 ENGINEERING- 15.0% $54,600 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $418,300 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 408 SAND FILTER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED 11 Brick Court, Staten Island DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 644 SF DISTURBED AREA 27,903 SF RETENTION VOL 1,541 CF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH 9 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 14 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 52.08 LF WALL THICKNESS- 12 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (assume 20' x 58') 430 CY 100.00$ 42,963$ Finish grade for bottom slab 728 SF 5.00$ 3,640$ truck away spoil- add 20% 516 CY 50.00$ 25,778$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab - 12" 700 SF 50.00$ 35,000$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls - 12" 34.2 CY 1,500.00$ 51,333$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab - 12" 700 SF 75.00$ 52,500$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls - assume 6 4.7 CY 1,500.00$ 7,000$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 187 CY 65.00$ 12,153$ $ Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Access grates at Chamber slab 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Ladder to Access Grate- 6' 1 EA 600.00$ 600$ Sandfilter Chamber: 27' X14' X3' 378 SF Install 11" stone base-M 13 CY 100.00$ 1,288$ Install 6" PVC Perf. Pipe Underdrain 81 LF 25.00$ 2,025$ Install 24" clean washed sand 28.0 CY 75.00$ 2,100$ Install 1" debris screen 378 SF 5.00$ 1,890$ Install 12" +/- gravel 14.0 CY 75.00$ 1,050$ Cleanouts 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Dewatering Valve 1 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500$ $ Outlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ $ SUBTOTAL 255,720$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS - 10.0% $25,580 SUBTOTAL $281,300 G.C. OH & P - 21.0% $59,100 SUBTOTAL $340,400 CONTINGENCY - 20.0% $68,100 SUBTOTAL $408,500 ENGINEERING- 15.0% $61,300 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $469,800 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 409 SAND FILTER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED - SOIL CONSTRAINED 132-08 Pople Street, Queens DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 154 SF DISTURBED AREA 6,500 SF RETENTION VOL 828 SF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH 9 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 7 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 28.08 LF WALL THICKNESS 12 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (assume 13' x 35') 169 CY 100.00$ 16,852$ Finish grade for bottom slab 196 SF 5.00$ 980$ truck away spoil- add 20% 202 CY 50.00$ 10,111$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab - 12" 196 SF 25.00$ 4,900$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls - 12" 18.1 CY 1,500.00$ 27,222$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab - 12" 196 SF 75.00$ 14,700$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls - assume 6 1.6 CY 1,500.00$ 2,361$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 26 CY 65.00$ 1,668$ Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Access grates at Chamber slab 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Ladder to Access Grate- 6' 1 EA 600.00$ 600$ Sandfilter Chamber: (assume 13' x 7' X 3') 91 SF Install 11" stone base-M 4 CY 100.00$ 409$ Install 6" PVC Perf. Pipe Underdrain 45 LF 25.00$ 1,125$ Install 24" clean washed sand 6.7 CY 75.00$ 506$ Install 1" debris screen 120 SF 5.00$ 600$ Install 12" +/- gravel 3.4 CY 75.00$ 253$ Cleanouts 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Dewatering Valve 1 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500$ $ Outlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ $ SUBTOTAL 98,687$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS - 10.0% $9,913 SUBTOTAL $108,600 G.C. OH & P - 21.0% $22,800 SUBTOTAL $131,400 CONTINGENCY - 20.0% $26,300 SUBTOTAL $157,700 ENGINEERING- 15.0% $23,700 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $181,400 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 410 SAND FILTER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 1256 2nd Avenue. Manhattan DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 402 SF DISTURBED AREA 20,164 SF RETENTION VOL 2,192 SF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH 9 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 11 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 42.58 LF WALL THICKNESS 12 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (assume 16' x 49') 290 CY 100.00$ 29,037$ Finish grade for bottom slab 468 SF 5.00$ 2,342$ truck away spoil- add 20% 348 CY 50.00$ 17,422$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab - 12" 468 SF 25.00$ 11,710$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls - 12" 28.0 CY 1,500.00$ 42,000$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab - 12" 468 SF 75.00$ 35,129$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls - assume 6 2.8 CY 1,500.00$ 4,250$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 151 CY 65.00$ 9,837$ Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Access grates at Chamber slab 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Ladder to Access Grate- 6' 1 EA 600.00$ 600$ Sandfilter Chamber: - 21' x 11' X 3') 231 SF Install 11" stone base-M 8 CY 100.00$ 787$ Install 6" PVC Perf. Pipe Underdrain 63 LF 25.00$ 1,575$ Install 24" clean washed sand 17.1 CY 75.00$ 1,283$ Install 1" debris screen 231 SF 5.00$ 1,155$ Install 12" +/- gravel 8.6 CY 75.00$ 642$ Cleanouts 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Dewatering Valve 1 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500$ $ Outlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ $ SUBTOTAL 174,168$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS - 10.0% $17,432 SUBTOTAL $191,600 G.C. OH & P - 21.0% $40,200 SUBTOTAL $231,800 CONTINGENCY - 20.0% $46,400 SUBTOTAL $278,200 ENGINEERING- 15.0% $41,700 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $319,900 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 411 SAND FILTER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 560 Carroll Street, Bronx DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 114 SF DISTURBED AREA 6,114 SF RETENTION VOL 618 SF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH 9 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 6 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 25.08 LF WALL THICKNESS- GIVEN 12 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (assume 15' x 49') 138 CY 100.00$ 13,778$ Finish grade for bottom slab 150 SF 5.00$ 750$ truck away spoil- add 20% 165 CY 50.00$ 8,267$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab - 12" 150 SF 25.00$ 3,750$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls - 12" 18.7 CY 1,500.00$ 28,000$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab - 12" 150 SF 75.00$ 11,250$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls - assume 6 1.3 CY 1,500.00$ 1,889$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 88 CY 65.00$ 5,720$ Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Access grates at Chamber slab 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Ladder to Access Grate- 6' 1 EA 600.00$ 600$ Sandfilter Chamber: - 11' x 6' X 3') 66 SF Install 11" stone base-M 2 CY 100.00$ 225$ Install 6" PVC Perf. Pipe Underdrain 33 LF 25.00$ 825$ Install 24" clean washed sand 4.9 CY 75.00$ 367$ Install 1" debris screen 66 SF 5.00$ 330$ Install 12" +/- gravel 2.4 CY 75.00$ 183$ Cleanouts 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Dewatering Valve 1 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500$ $ Outlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ $ SUBTOTAL 92,333$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS - 10.0% $9,267 SUBTOTAL $101,600 G.C. OH & P - 21.0% $21,300 SUBTOTAL $122,900 CONTINGENCY - 20.0% $24,600 SUBTOTAL $147,500 ENGINEERING- 15.0% $22,100 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $169,600 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 412 SAND FILTER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED REIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE CONSTRAINED - SOIL UNCONSTRAINED 462 West 58 Street, Manhattan DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 325 SF DISTURBED AREA 14,095 SF RETENTION VOL 1,763 SF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH 9 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 10 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 38.58 LF WALL THICKNESS- 12 INCH Excavate to specfied depth (assume 16' x 45') 267 CY 100.00$ 26,667$ Finish grade for bottom slab 390 SF 5.00$ 1,950$ truck away spoil- add 20% 320 CY 50.00$ 16,000$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab - 12" 390 SF 25.00$ 9,750$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls - 12" 18.7 CY 1,500.00$ 28,000$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab - 12" 390 SF 75.00$ 29,250$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls - assume 6 2.5 CY 1,500.00$ 3,778$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 138 CY 65.00$ 8,974$ Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Access grates at Chamber slab 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Ladder to Access Grate- 6' 1 EA 600.00$ 600$ Sandfilter Chamber: - 19' x10' X 3') 190 SF Install 11" stone base-M 2 CY 100.00$ 225$ Install 6" PVC Perf. Pipe Underdrain 57 LF 25.00$ 1,425$ Install 24" clean washed sand 14.1 CY 75.00$ 1,056$ Install 1" debris screen 190 SF 5.00$ 950$ Install 12" +/- gravel 7.0 CY 75.00$ 528$ Cleanouts 2 EA 500.00$ 1,000$ Dewatering Valve 1 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500$ $ Outlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ $ SUBTOTAL 145,552$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS - 10.0% $14,548 SUBTOTAL $160,100 G.C. OH & P - 21.0% $33,600 SUBTOTAL $193,700 CONTINGENCY - 20.0% $38,700 SUBTOTAL $232,400 ENGINEERING- 15.0% $34,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $267,300 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 413 DETENTION VAULT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 141 Storer Ave, Bklyn DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 131 SF DISTURBED AREA 8,000 SF DETENTION VOLUME 524 CF ENGIN CHAMBER DEPTH 3 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 10 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 13 LF WALL THICKNESS 6 INCH Detention Vault (10 x13 x3) Excavate to specfied depth (assume 19' x 16' x 4) 45 CY 100.00$ 4,504$ Finish grade for bottom slab 131 SF 5.00$ 655$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 54 CY 50.00$ 2,702$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 131 SF 30.00$ 3,930$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 150 SF 70.00$ 10,500$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 131 SF 40.00$ 5,240$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 48 SF 80.00$ 3,840$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 31 CY 65.00$ 1,989$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 6.5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth (assume 19' x 16') 19 CY 100.00$ 1,852$ Finish grade for bottom slab 131 SF 5.00$ 655$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 22 CY 50.00$ 1,111$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 65 SF 30.00$ 1,950$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 65 SF 40.00$ 2,600$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 11 SF 80.00$ 880$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 15 CY 65.00$ 969$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 73,541$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $7,359 SUBTOTAL $80,900 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $17,000 SUBTOTAL $97,900 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $19,600 SUBTOTAL $117,500 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $17,600 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $135,100 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 414 DETENTION VAULT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 89 West Tremont Avenue, Bronx DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 188 SF DISTURBED AREA 19,146 SF DETENTION VOLUME 756 CF ENGIN CHAMBER HEIGHT 3 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 10 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 19 LF WALL THICKNESS 6 INCH Detention Vault (10 x19 x3) Excavate to specfied depth (25'x 16' x 4') 59 CY 100.00$ 5,926$ Finish grade for bottom slab 190 SF 5.00$ 950$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 71 CY 50.00$ 3,556$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 190 SF 30.00$ 5,700$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 174 SF 70.00$ 12,180$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 190 SF 40.00$ 7,600$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 48 SF 80.00$ 3,840$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 45 CY 65.00$ 2,913$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 6.5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth (assume 19' x 16') 19 CY 100.00$ 1,852$ Finish grade for bottom slab 65 SF 5.00$ 325$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 22 CY 50.00$ 1,111$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 65 SF 30.00$ 1,950$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 65 SF 40.00$ 2,600$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 11 SF 80.00$ 880$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 15 CY 65.00$ 987$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 82,534$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $8,266 SUBTOTAL $90,800 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $19,100 SUBTOTAL $109,900 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $22,000 SUBTOTAL $131,900 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $19,800 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $151,700 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 415 DETENTION VAULT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 141 South 3 Street, Bronx DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 100 SF DISTURBED AREA 7,450 SF DETENTION VOLUME 397 CF ENGIN CHAMBER HEIGHT 3 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 10 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 10 LF WALL THICKNESS ‐ 6 INCH Detention Vault (10 x 10 x3) Excavate to specfied depth (16'x 16' x 4') 38 CY 100.00$ 3,793$ Finish grade for bottom slab 100 SF 5.00$ 500$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 46 CY 50.00$ 2,276$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 100 SF 30.00$ 3,000$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 120 SF 70.00$ 8,400$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 100 SF 40.00$ 4,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 36 SF 80.00$ 2,880$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 23 CY 65.00$ 1,526$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 11' x 16' X 2.5) 17 CY 100.00$ 1,704$ Finish grade for bottom slab 50 SF 5.00$ 250$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 20 CY 50.00$ 1,022$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 50 SF 30.00$ 1,500$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 50 SF 40.00$ 2,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 8 SF 80.00$ 640$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 14 CY 65.00$ 927$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 64,182$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $6,418 SUBTOTAL $70,600 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $14,800 SUBTOTAL $85,400 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $17,100 SUBTOTAL $102,500 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $15,400 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $117,900 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 416 DETENTION VAULT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 1759 Hylan Blvd, Staten Island DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 460 SF DISTURBED AREA 21,600 SF DETENTION VOLUME 1,883 CF ENGIN CHAMBER HEIGHT 3 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 15.5 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 30 LF WALL THICKNESS ‐ 6 INCH Detention Vault (30 x 15.5 x 3) Excavate to specfied depth (36'x 21 x 4') 112 CY 100.00$ 11,200$ Finish grade for bottom slab 465 SF 5.00$ 2,325$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 134 CY 50.00$ 6,720$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 465 SF 30.00$ 13,950$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 273 SF 70.00$ 19,110$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 465 SF 40.00$ 18,600$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 62 SF 80.00$ 4,960$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 60 CY 65.00$ 3,922$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 11' x 16' X 2.5) 17 CY 100.00$ 1,704$ Finish grade for bottom slab 50 SF 5.00$ 250$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 20 CY 50.00$ 1,022$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 50 SF 30.00$ 1,500$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 50 SF 40.00$ 2,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 8 SF 80.00$ 640$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 17 CY 65.00$ 1,107$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 119,175$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $11,925 SUBTOTAL $131,100 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $27,500 SUBTOTAL $158,600 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $31,700 SUBTOTAL $190,300 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $28,500 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $218,800 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 417 DETENTION VAULT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 11 Brick Court, Staten Island DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 485 SF DISTURBED AREA 27,903 SF DETENTION VOLUME 1,947 CF ENGIN CHAMBER HEIGHT 3 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 16.2 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 30 LF WALL THICKNESS ‐ 6 INCH Detention Vault (30 x 16.2 x 3) Excavate to specfied depth (36'x 23 x 4') 123 CY 100.00$ 12,267$ Finish grade for bottom slab 486 SF 5.00$ 2,430$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 147 CY 50.00$ 7,360$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 486 SF 30.00$ 14,580$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 276 SF 70.00$ 19,320$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 486 SF 40.00$ 19,440$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 61 SF 80.00$ 4,864$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 51 CY 65.00$ 3,293$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (20 x 12.5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 11' x 16' X 2.5) 17 CY 100.00$ 1,704$ Finish grade for bottom slab 50 SF 5.00$ 250$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 20 CY 50.00$ 1,022$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 50 SF 30.00$ 1,500$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 50 SF 70.00$ 3,465$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 50 SF 40.00$ 2,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 8 SF 80.00$ 640$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 4 CY 65.00$ 277$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 121,112$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $12,088 SUBTOTAL $133,200 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $28,000 SUBTOTAL $161,200 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $32,200 SUBTOTAL $193,400 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $29,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $222,400 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 418 DETENTION VAULT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LARGE SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 14 Ottavio Promanade, Staten Island DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 235 SF DISTURBED AREA 14,935 SF DETENTION VOLUME 943 CF ENGIN CHAMBER HEIGHT 3 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 12 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 20 LF WALL THICKNESS ‐ 6 INCH Detention Vault (20 x 12 x 3) Excavate to specfied depth (26'x 18 x 4') 69 CY 100.00$ 6,933$ Finish grade for bottom slab 235 SF 5.00$ 1,175$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 83 CY 50.00$ 4,160$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 235 SF 30.00$ 7,050$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 192 SF 70.00$ 13,440$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 235 SF 40.00$ 9,400$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 40 SF 80.00$ 3,200$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 43 CY 65.00$ 2,773$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 16 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 16' x 22' X 2.5) 33 CY 100.00$ 3,259$ Finish grade for bottom slab 160 SF 5.00$ 800$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 39 CY 50.00$ 1,956$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 160 SF 30.00$ 4,800$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 78 SF 70.00$ 5,460$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 160 SF 40.00$ 6,400$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 18 SF 80.00$ 1,440$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 24 CY 65.00$ 1,541$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 100,487$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $10,013 SUBTOTAL $110,500 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $23,200 SUBTOTAL $133,700 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $26,700 SUBTOTAL $160,400 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $24,100 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $184,500 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 419 DETENTION VAULT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEDIUM SIZED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SPACE UNCONSTRAINED ‐ SOIL CONSTRAINED 262 Corbin Place, Brooklyn DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL SMP AREA 200 SF DISTURBED AREA 6,434 SF DETENTION VOLUME 804 CF ENGIN CHAMBER HEIGHT 3 LF ENGIN. CHAMBER WIDTH 10 LF ENGIN CHAMBER LENGTH 20 LF WALL THICKNESS ‐ 6 INCH Detention Vault (20 x 10 x 3) Excavate to specfied depth (26'x 16 x 4') 62 CY 100.00$ 6,163$ Finish grade for bottom slab 200 SF 5.00$ 1,000$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 74 CY 50.00$ 3,698$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 200 SF 30.00$ 6,000$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 6" 180 SF 70.00$ 12,600$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 200 SF 40.00$ 8,000$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 32 SF 80.00$ 2,560$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 39 CY 65.00$ 2,561$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 1 EA 400.00$ 400$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Pretreatment Structure (10 x 13.5 x 1.5) Excavate to specfied depth ( 16' x 19.5' X 2.5) 29 CY 100.00$ 2,889$ Finish grade for bottom slab 160 SF 5.00$ 800$ ‐ truck away spoil‐ add 20% 35 CY 50.00$ 1,733$ Bottom Reinf Concrete Slab ‐ assume 6"/wwm 160 SF 30.00$ 4,800$ Reinf Concrete Chamber Walls 6" 78 SF 70.00$ 5,460$ Reinf Concrete Top Supp. Slab ‐ 6" 160 SF 40.00$ 6,400$ Reinf Interior Concrete Chamber Walls ‐ 4" 18 SF 80.00$ 1,440$ Gravel Backfill at Chamber 21 CY 65.00$ 1,390$ Access Manhole at Chamber slab 2 EA 400.00$ 800$ Outlet Pipe‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ Outlet Pipe Hood 1 EA 500.00$ 500$ Inlet Pipe ‐ ALLOW 50 LF 125.00$ 6,250$ SUBTOTAL 94,195$ GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS & INS ‐ 10.0% $9,405 SUBTOTAL $103,600 G.C. OH & P ‐ 21.0% $21,800 SUBTOTAL $125,400 CONTINGENCY ‐ 20.0% $25,100 SUBTOTAL $150,500 ENGINEERING‐ 15.0% $22,600 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $173,100 Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 420 BIORETENTION O+M COST ESTIMATE ASSET TYPE: BIORETENTION ASSUMED SURFACE AREA (SF): 400 ASSUMED VOLUME MANAGED (CF): 1,200 IMPERVIOUS AREA MANAGED (SF): 9,600 SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156 $ 440 Establishment watering only 15 0.75 0.00 11 1,758$ [once a week for 6 month growing season; assumes water source is available onsite] Establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest managemen; establishment watering 5 1.75 0.00 9 1,368$ [once a month for 6 month growing season] Debris and sediment removal; general site cleanup (painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair, mulching; establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest management; establishment watering 4 3.50 0.00 14 2,188$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and structures 0 0.00 4.00 0 ‐$ Total Labor Fee 5,315$ 425$ 5,740$ SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156 $ 440 Debris and sediment removal; general site cleanup (painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair; Weeding, plant replacement, pest management 4 3.0 0 12 1,876$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and structures 0 ‐$ Total Labor Fee 1,876$ 150$ 2,026$ 2,211.47$ Complete replacement of sand media after 20 year lifespan assumed Install 30" open graded stone base 37.0 CY 82.00$ 3,037$ Install 24" engineered Soil 29.6 CY 106.00$ 3,141$ Install mulch layer (3") 3.7 CY 40.00$ 148$ 6,326$ [Assumes a 400 SF bioretention asset with underdrain and planted with a mix of grasses, herbaceous, and small shrubs.] [Assumes this is for routine maintenance only. Anything that must be completed using a professional is specifically excluded.] [SOURCE: http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/SWRetroManual.pdf AND http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/Retrofit‐O.M.Manual.pdf] YEARS 1 & 2 Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Materials Cost Mark‐Up (8%) TOTAL YEARLY POST‐ESTABLISHMENT MAINTENANCE FEE ANNUALIZED MAINTENANCE FEE INCL ESTABLISHMENT ADDITIONAL COST FOR REPLACEMENT OF MEDIA Materials Cost Mark‐Up (8%) TOTAL YEARLY MAINTENANCE FEE AFTER FIRST TWO YEARS Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 421 BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAINS O+M COST ESTIMATE ASSET TYPE: BIORETENTION ASSUMED SURFACE AREA (SF): 400 ASSUMED VOLUME MANAGED (CF): 800 IMPERVIOUS AREA MANAGED (SF): 6,400 SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156 $ 440 Establishment watering only 15 0.75 0 11 1,758$ [once a week for 6 month growing season; assumes water source is available onsite] Establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest managemen; establishment watering 5 1.75 0 9 1,368$ [once a month for 6 month growing season] Vacuuming porous pavement strip ‐ concurrent with quarterly tasks 4 0.30 0 1 188$ Debris and sediment removal; general site cleanup (painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair, mulching; establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest management; establishment watering 4 3.50 0 14 2,188$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and structures 0 0.00 4 0 ‐$ Total Labor Fee 5,502$ 440$ 5,942$ SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156.31 $ 439.73 Debris and sediment removal; general site cleanup (painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair; Weeding, plant replacement, pest management 4 3.00 0 12 1,876$ Vacuuming porous pavement strip ‐ concurrent with quarterly tasks 4 0.30 0 1 188$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and structures 1 0.00 2 2 879$ Total Labor Fee 2,063$ 235$ 3,178$ 3,316$ Complete replacement of sand media after 20 year lifespan assumed Install 36" engineered soil 44 CY 106.00$ 4,711$ Install 12" open graded stone base 15 CY 82.00$ 1,215$ Install mulch layer (3") 3.7 CY 40.00$ 148$ Install 3‐0.5" permeable paver on 20‐0.5" stone bed 400 SF 55.00$ 22,000$ Install 24" open graded stone base 30 CY 82.00$ 2,430$ 28,074$ [Assumes a 400 SF bioretention asset with underdrain and planted with a mix of grasses, herbaceous, and small shrubs.] [Assumes this is for routine maintenance only. Anything that must be completed using a professional is specifically excluded.] [SOURCE: http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/SWRetroManual.pdf AND http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/Retrofit‐O.M.Manual.pdf] YEARS 1 & 2 Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Materials Cost Mark‐Up (8%) TOTAL YEARLY POST‐ESTABLISHMENT MAINTENANCE ANNUALIZED MAINTENANCE FEE INCL ADDITIONAL COST FOR REPLACEMENT OF MEDIA Materials Cost Mark‐Up (8%) TOTAL YEARLY MAINTENANCE FEE AFTER FIRST TWO YEARS Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 422 BIORETENTION WITH POROUS PAVERS AND UNDERDRAINS O+M COST ESTIMATE ASSET TYPE: BIORETENTION ASSUMED SURFACE AREA (SF): 400 ASSUMED VOLUME MANAGED (CF): 800 IMPERVIOUS AREA MANAGED (SF): 6,400 SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156 $ 440 Establishment watering only 15 0.75 0 11 1,758$ [once a week for 6 month growing season; assumes water source is available onsite] Establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest managemen; establishment watering 5 1.75 0 9 1,368$ [once a month for 6 month growing season] Vacuuming porous pavement strip ‐ concurrent with quarterly tasks 4 0.30 0 1 188$ Debris and sediment removal; general site cleanup (painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair, mulching; establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest management; establishment watering 4 3.50 0 14 2,188$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and structures 0 0.00 4 0 ‐$ Total Labor Fee 5,502$ 440$ 5,942$ SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156.31 $ 439.73 Debris and sediment removal; general site cleanup (painting, structural repair, erosion/settling repair; Weeding, plant replacement, pest management 4 3.00 0 12 1,876$ Vacuuming porous pavement strip ‐ concurrent with quarterly tasks 4 0.30 0 1 188$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and structures 1 0.00 2 2 879$ Total Labor Fee 2,063$ 235$ 3,178$ 3,316$ Complete replacement of sand media after 20 year lifespan assumed Install 36" engineered soil 44 CY 106.00$ 4,711$ Install 12" open graded stone base 15 CY 82.00$ 1,215$ Install mulch layer (3") 3.7 CY 40.00$ 148$ Install 3‐0.5" permeable paver on 20‐0.5" stone bed 400 SF 55.00$ 22,000$ Install 24" open graded stone base 30 CY 82.00$ 2,430$ 28,074$ [Assumes a 400 SF bioretention asset with underdrain and planted with a mix of grasses, herbaceous, and small shrubs.] [Assumes this is for routine maintenance only. Anything that must be completed using a professional is specifically excluded.] [SOURCE: http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/SWRetroManual.pdf AND http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/Retrofit‐O.M.Manual.pdf] YEARS 1 & 2 Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Materials Cost Mark‐Up (8%) TOTAL YEARLY POST‐ESTABLISHMENT MAINTENANCE ANNUALIZED MAINTENANCE FEE INCL ADDITIONAL COST FOR REPLACEMENT OF MEDIA Materials Cost Mark‐Up (8%) TOTAL YEARLY MAINTENANCE FEE AFTER FIRST TWO YEARS Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE GREEN ROOF O+M COST ESTIMATE ASSET TYPE: GREEN ROOF ASSUMED SURFACE AREA (SF): 3,000 SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156 $ 440 Establishment watering only 3 1.0 0 3 469$ [Every other week for 6 month growing season] Establishment weeding, plant replacement, pest management, and establishment watering 9 2.0 0 18 2,814$ [once a month for 9 month growing season] Total Labor Fee 3,283$ 492$ 3,775$ SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156 $ 440 Weeding, plant replacement, pest management 3 1.5 0 5 703$ Soil testing and amendments 1 1.5 0 2 234$ Total Labor Fee 938$ 141$ 1,079$ 1,213$ Complete replacement of green roof trays after 20 years 6" deep green roof trays (installation included) 3000 CY 15.25$ 45,750$ 45,750$ [Assumes this is for routine maintenance only. Anything that must be completed using a professional is specifically excluded.] [SOURCE: http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/SWRetroManual.pdf AND http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/Retrofit‐O.M.Manual.pdf] Materials Cost Mark‐Up (15%) TOTAL YEARLY POST‐ESTABLISHMENT MAINTENANCE FEE ANNUALIZED MAINTENANCE FEE INCL ESTABLISHMENT ADDITIONAL COST FOR REPLACEMENT OF MEDIA Materials Cost Mark‐Up (15%) TOTAL YEARLY MAINTENANCE FEE AFTER FIRST TWO YEARS Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE YEARS 1 & 2 Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 423 SAND FILTER O+M COST ESTIMATE ASSET TYPE: SAND FILTER ASSUMED VOLUME (CF): 2,000 MANAGED IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF): 16,000 SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156 $ 440 Inlet/pre‐treatment inspection and vacuuming (sedimentation and overflow chambers) 1 0 4 4 1,759$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and detention areas; dewatering system and vacuuming gravel layer; replacing gravel and/or sand media as necessary 1 0 8 8 3,518$ Observe drawdown rate after large storm 1 1 0 1 156$ Total Labor Fee 5,433$ 543$ 5,976$ Complete replacement of sand media after 20 year lifespan assumed Vacuum removal of the sand using vac truck 1 $ 16.00 12 7,036$ Install 11" stone base‐M 8 CY 100.00$ 787$ Install 24" clean washed sand 17.1 CY 75.00$ 1,283$ Install 1" debris screen 231 SF 5.00$ 1,155$ Install 12" +/‐ gravel 8.6 CY 75.00$ 642$ 10,903$ [Assumes this is for routine maintenance only. Anything that must be completed using a professional is specifically excluded.] [SOURCE: http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/SWRetroManual.pdf AND http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/Retrofit‐O.M.Manual.pdf] TOTAL YEARLY MAINTENANCE FEE ADDITIONAL COST FOR REPLACEMENT OF MEDIA Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Materials Cost Mark‐Up (10%) Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 424 DETENTION TANK O+M COST ESTIMATE ASSET TYPE: DETENTION TANK ASSUMED VOLUME (CF): 2,000 MANAGED IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF): 16,000 SURFACE CREW ($/HR) SUBSURFACE CREW ($/HR) $ 156.31 $ 439.73 Inspect inflow pipes, screens, and valves for debris that could cause clogs as well as for any structural damage 2 1 0 2 313$ Subsurface inspection and maintenance of pipes and tank 1 0 4 4 1,759$ Total Labor Fee 2,072$ 104$ 2,175$ [Assumes system could be surface or subsurface tank.] [Assumes this is for routine maintenance only. Anything that must be completed using a professional is specifically excluded.] [SOURCE: http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/SWRetroManual.pdf AND http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/Retrofit‐O.M.Manual.pdf] TOTAL YEARLY MAINTENANCE FEE Maintenance Task & Description FREQUENCY (#/YR) LABOR HOURS HOURS ESTIMATED LABOR FEE Materials Cost Mark‐Up (5%) Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 425 UNIT COST ESTIMATES ($/SF MANAGED AREA) UC SOC SPC 2XC SPC 2XC MI 141 Storer Avenue ‐ bioretention 141‐Storer Avenue ‐ bioretention + underdrain MC 141 South 3rd Street ‐ bioretention 141 South 3rd Street ‐ bioretention + underdrain MR 262 Corbin Place ‐ bioretention 262 Corbin Place ‐ bioretention + underdrain LI 11 Brick Ct ‐ bioretention 11 Brick Ct ‐ bioretention + underdrain LC 1759 Hylan Blvd ‐ bioretention 1759 Hylan Blvd ‐ bioretention + underdrain LR 14 Ottavio Prom and 89 West Tremont ‐ bioretention 14 Ottavio Prom and 89 West Tremont ‐ + underdrain UC SOC SPC 2XC SPC 2XC MI 8,000 8,000 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 MC 7,450 7,450 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 MR 6,434 6,434 6,114 6,114 6,114 6,114 LI 27,900 27,900 24,580 24,580 24,580 24,580 LC 21,600 21,600 20,164 20,164 20,164 20,164 LR 17,043 17,043 14,095 14,095 14,095 14,095 UC SOC SPC 2XC SPC 2XC MI 39,800$ 129,300$ 232,300$ 232,300$ 212,152$ 212,152$ MC 37,700$ 105,600$ 181,400$ 181,400$ 147,936$ 147,936$ MR 36,500$ 147,100$ 169,600$ 169,600$ 116,795$ 116,795$ LI 116,400$ 433,200$ 418,300$ 418,300$ 597,896$ 597,896$ LC 102,800$ 251,900$ 319,900$ 319,900$ 421,737$ 421,737$ LR 51,450$ 121,450$ 267,300$ 267,300$ 338,714$ 338,714$ UC SOC SPC 2XC SPC 2XC MI 4.98$ 16.16$ 26.40$ 26.40$ 24.11$ 24.11$ MC 5.06$ 14.17$ 27.91$ 27.91$ 22.76$ 22.76$ MR 5.67$ 22.86$ 27.74$ 27.74$ 19.10$ 19.10$ LI 4.17$ 15.53$ 17.02$ 17.02$ 24.32$ 24.32$ LC 4.76$ 11.66$ 15.86$ 15.86$ 20.92$ 20.92$ LR 3.02$ 7.13$ 18.96$ 18.96$ 24.03$ 24.03$ UC SOC SPC 2XC SPC 2XC MI 0.27$ 0.66$ 0.71$ 0.71$ 0.80$ 0.80$ MC 0.27$ 0.66$ 0.97$ 0.97$ 0.80$ 0.80$ MR 0.27$ 0.66$ 1.03$ 1.03$ 0.80$ 0.80$ LI 0.27$ 0.66$ 0.26$ 0.26$ 0.80$ 0.80$ LC 0.27$ 0.66$ 0.31$ 0.31$ 0.80$ 0.80$ LR 0.27$ 0.66$ 0.45$ 0.45$ 0.80$ 0.80$ Discount Rate 3% A given P (30 yr) 0.051 UC SOC SPC 2XC SPC SPC MI 10.22$ 29.08$ 40.38$ 40.38$ 39.76$ 39.76$ MC 10.30$ 27.09$ 46.83$ 46.83$ 38.41$ 38.41$ MR 10.91$ 35.78$ 47.86$ 47.86$ 34.75$ 34.75$ LI 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.97$ 39.97$ LC 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ LR 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 39.68$ 39.68$ UC SOC SPC 2XC SPC 2XC MI 5.24$ 12.92$ 13.98$ 13.98$ 15.65$ 15.65$ MC 5.24$ 12.92$ 18.92$ 18.92$ 15.65$ 15.65$ MR 5.24$ 12.92$ 20.12$ 20.12$ 15.65$ 15.65$ LI 5.24$ 12.92$ 5.00$ 5.00$ 15.65$ 15.65$ LC 5.24$ 12.92$ 6.10$ 6.10$ 15.65$ 15.65$ LR 5.24$ 12.92$ 8.73$ 8.73$ 15.65$ 15.65$ 508 Smith Street ‐ sand filter 462 w. 58th Street ‐ green roof 508 Smith Street ‐ green roof 132‐08 Pople Ave ‐ green roof 560 Carroll Street ‐ green roof 305 Johnson Ave ‐ green roof 1256 2nd Ave ‐ green roof 132‐08 Pople Ave ‐ sand filter 560 Carroll Street ‐ sand filter 305 Johnson Ave ‐ sand filter 1256 2nd Ave ‐ sand filter 462 w. 58th Street ‐ sand filter SF MANAGED AREA CAPITAL COST Capital Cost per SF Managed Annual O&M Cost per SF Managed (30yrs 3% Disc.) TOTAL NPV COST per SF MANAGED IMPERVIOUS AREA Annualized O&M Cost per SF Managed (30yrs 3% Disc.) Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 426 Bin Sizes UC SOC SPC ‐ SF 2XC ‐ SF SPC ‐ GR 2XC ‐ GR UC SOC SPC ‐ SF 2XC ‐ SF SPC ‐ GR 2XC ‐ GR UC SOC SPC ‐ SF 2XC ‐ SF SPC ‐ GR 2XC ‐ GR >100ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 75‐100ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 50‐75ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 25‐50ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 10‐25ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 5‐10ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 2‐5ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 1‐2ac 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 40,000 ‐ 43,560 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 35,000 ‐ 40,000 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 30,000 ‐ 35,000 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 25,000 ‐ 30,000 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.41$ 28.44$ 22.02$ 22.02$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 20,000 ‐ 25,000 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.00$ 24.58$ 21.96$ 21.96$ 36.56$ 36.56$ 9.57$ 28.57$ 25.69$ 25.69$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 15,000 ‐ 20,000 8.26$ 20.04$ 27.69$ 27.69$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.08$ 25.21$ 28.18$ 28.18$ 37.02$ 37.02$ 9.73$ 28.70$ 29.36$ 29.36$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 12,500 ‐ 15,000 9.14$ 25.29$ 34.41$ 34.41$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.15$ 25.84$ 34.40$ 34.40$ 37.48$ 37.48$ 9.89$ 28.83$ 33.03$ 33.03$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 10,000 ‐ 12,500 10.03$ 30.54$ 41.14$ 41.14$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.23$ 26.46$ 40.61$ 40.61$ 37.95$ 37.95$ 10.06$ 28.95$ 36.70$ 36.70$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 7,500 ‐ 10,000 10.91$ 35.78$ 47.86$ 47.86$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.30$ 27.09$ 46.83$ 46.83$ 38.41$ 38.41$ 10.22$ 29.08$ 40.38$ 40.38$ 39.86$ 39.86$ 5,000 ‐ 7,500 10.91$ 35.78$ 47.86$ 47.86$ 37.21$ 37.21$ 10.30$ 27.09$ 46.83$ 46.83$ 38.41$ 38.41$ 10.22$ 29.08$ 40.38$ 40.38$ 39.86$ 39.86$ Unit Cost per SF of Disturbed Area Residential Commercial Industrial Appendix 6.1: C Post-Construction Capital and O&M Unit Costs 427 Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 August 2018 Prepared in accordance with SPDES Permit Number NY-0287890 Part IV.1.3 428 Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 Appendix 9.1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 REVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES TO DETERMINE LOADING RATES 1 2.1 Los Angeles County, California 2 2.2 Baltimore City and County, Maryland 2 2.3 Washington, District of Columbia 3 2.4 San Francisco, California 4 2.5 New York City, New York 4 3.0 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES 5 3.1 Metrics for Floatables Quantity and Loading Rates 6 3.2 Inclusion of Various Factors Affecting Floatables Loading Rate 6 4.0 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR NEW YORK CITY 7 4.1 Overview of Proposed Approach 7 4.2 Justification for Proposed Approach 8 4.3 Methodology to Implement Proposed Approach 9 5.0 REFERENCES 17 APPENDIX A 18 429 Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 1.0 Introduction The City of New York’s (City) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requires the development of a floatable and settleable trash and debris (herein referred to as “floatables”) management program as part of the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). In particular, Part IV.I of the MS4 Permit requires the submission of a work plan “to determine the loading rate of floatable and settleable trash and debris discharged, including land-based sources, from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables” (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2015). This work plan includes a literature search of methods employed by other municipalities, the proposed methodology for New York City, and a discussion as to why the selected method is best for conditions in New York City. The City submitted a draft of this work plan to NYSDEC on August 1, 2017 for review. The City also posted the draft work plan on the DEP website on August 1, 2017 and presented it publicly at a Trash Free NYC Waters Meeting on October 4, 2017. The public was encouraged to review the draft work plan and submit comments by October 16, 2017. The City modified this work plan as a result of public input. Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing via electronic mail are included in this work plan as Appendix A. 2.0 Review of Methodologiesto Determine Loading Rates The City conducted a literature review of methods employed by other municipalities to determine the loading rate of floatables from separate storm sewer systems. As the control of floatables is not a common provision of MS4 permits, and trash TMDLs are similarly infrequent, only a few municipalities attempted to determine a floatables loading rate. Those municipalities with published methodologies include San Francisco, Los Angeles County, Baltimore City and County, and Washington, DC Each of these municipalities is subject to trash TMDLs except San Francisco, and each of these municipalities calculated loading rates that include both MS4 and combined sewer areas, except Los Angeles, which includes MS4 only. Additionally, the City studied the loading rate of floatables in connection with combined sewer overflows (CSOs). In general, each municipality conducted field monitoring to determine representative floatables loading rates for various land use types, and then applied those representative rates by land use in each catchment area to generate the overall annual loading rate by area. Municipalities selected this method because associating floatables loading rates with land use provided a logical way to extrapolate loading rates from readily available information. However, some municipalities found that land use alone was not a good predictor of loading rate, and attempted to account for other factors such as median income, proximity to “downtown” (high commuter activity) areas, frequency of street sweeping and rainfall. Table 1 summarizes the different methods that each of the other municipalities used to determine loading rates. The following sections provide additional information about the methods used by each municipality. 430 Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 Table 1. Factors Included in Determination of Floatables Loading Rate Municipality Metric Field Sampling Land Use Median Income Rainfall Street Sweeping Los Angeles, CA Volume Yes Yes No No No Baltimore City, MD Weight Yes Yes No Yes (2) No Baltimore County, MD Weight Yes Yes No Yes (2) No Washington, DC Weight Yes Yes No Yes (2) No San Francisco, CA Volume Yes Yes Yes (1) Yes (3) Yes (3) Notes: (1) Used in conjunction with certain land use types (2) Monitoring period rates per inch of rainfall normalized to long-term annual rainfall (3) Application of ratio of frequency of rainfall and street sweeping 2.1 Los Angeles County, California Los Angeles utilized a method to determine floatables loading rates based on land use. Field monitoring was performed between 2002 and 2004 at about 175 sites, with each site consisting of two to four storm-drain inlet structures fitted with full-capture devices (perforated plates) designed to prevent any items larger than 5 mm from exiting the structure for hourly intensities up to the one-year return period. Each site was characterized according to land use in its catchment area, with five land use types: industrial, commercial, open/parks, high-density residential, and low-density residential. Field monitoring involved quantifying the uncompressed volume of trash accumulated in the structure since the prior cleanout, with sediment and vegetation excluded. Los Angeles expressed the observed loading rate for each site as gallons per day of accumulation per acre of catchment. 2.2 Baltimore City and County, Maryland Baltimore City and Baltimore County determined floatables loading rates using a method based upon the Los Angeles method. However, Baltimore City and Baltimore County followed different field monitoring practices and, as described below, reduced the calculation method to reflect just two land-use types, urban and non-urban (forest). Baltimore City monitored five stormwater outfall locations to represent two of the City’s three major watersheds. No stations were sampled in the Baltimore Harbor watershed due to lack of accessibility, high wet-weather flows, and limitations regarding the catchments available for characterization. Field monitoring involved collecting trash accumulated in capture devices at each outfall every two weeks. Field crews separated trash from vegetation, drained liquid from containers, and allowed the trash to air dry before measuring the trash weight. Baltimore City then calculated the observed loading rate for each outfall as weight of floatables per day of accumulation per acre of catchment. Baltimore County monitored trash generated over a one-year period at 17 stormwater management facilities (detention ponds) and at 20 in-stream sites. The County selected in-stream sites based on their suitability for monitoring stormwater trash, safe access, and the upstream area being predominately one land use category. Monitoring at in-stream sites involved marking out a 500-foot section of the stream from which field crews collected all trash at the start of the study 431 and then on a monthly basis. In addition to excluding vegetative debris, draining all liquids from containers, and allowing the trash to air dry, the field crews also separated the trash into five categories (plastic bottles, glass bottles, aluminum cans, bulk “dumped” items, and other). Field crews measured dry weight for each category and counted the number of items in each of the bottle and can categories. Baltimore County expressed the observed loading rates for each site as gallons per day of accumulation per acre of catchment. Variability between sites led Baltimore to consider just two land use types: urban and non-urban (forest). 2.3 Washington, District of Columbia Washington, DC utilized a floatables loading rate methodology similar to that of Los Angeles and Baltimore. Using this methodology, DC conducted field monitoring at 10 outfall locations and 30 in-stream locations. Field crews collected trash from nets installed on the monitored outfalls after each storm event, and from 500-foot segments along the in-stream sites on a quarterly basis. Field crews quantified the visible trash, excluding vegetative debris, emptying liquids from containers, and allowing the trash to air dry. Field crews also separated the trash into 44 item-type categories and counted each. DC then calculated an estimate of total weight based on standardized weights for each item type. Each site was characterized according to its catchment’s predominant upstream land use, based on seven different land use types (roadways, institutional, commercial, industrial, high-density residential, low-density residential and open space/ parks). For each site, DC calculated the observed loading rate as the accumulated trash weight per acre per inch of rainfall during the accumulation period, and then developed average loading rates for each land use category. DC then calculated the overall loading rate by applying each land use category’s loading rate (in terms of trash weight per acre of that land use per inch of rainfall) for the total acreage of that land use in the municipality and for the total long-term average rainfall (inches per year). 2.4 San Francisco, California San Francisco utilized a floatables loading rate methodology that, while based upon land use, also accounted for other drivers such as income level, site-specific factors, and the relative frequency of street sweeping and rainfall. Field monitoring involved 159 stormwater inlet structures, each draining a catchment with at least 70 percent of its area representing one of 10 different categories: low-, mid-, and high-income retail; low-, mid-, and high-income residential; industrial; commercial; urban park; and schools. Each monitored site was retrofitted with a full-capture device (perforated plate) designed to prevent any items larger than 5 mm from exiting the structure for hourly intensities up to the one-year return period. During the monitoring period, field crews cleaned out all accumulated material from the inlet structure, allowed it to air dry, and separated it into eight material/item categories (plastic recyclable beverage containers, plastic single-use bags, plastic foam food ware, plastic other, paper, metal, other trash, and non-trash debris such as sediment and vegetation). Field crews would then measure the dry weight, uncompressed volume, and item counts (for trash categories). San Francisco generated field monitoring results by site and by catchment category. Initial results indicated that there was a high variability of observed loading rates, even within a particular catchment category. San Francisco interpreted this to mean that its calculation method had not taken into account other driving factors. In order to account for this variability, San Francisco refined the method to distinguish between the monitored “trash-loading rate” from the catchment to the receiving water and the “trash-generation rates” within the catchment. The difference between the two is the “trash interception rate,” whereby some of the generated trash is captured via street sweeping or other controls, preventing material from discharging to the receiving water. Only trash remaining on the street is available for rainfall to transport to the stormwater inlet structures. San Francisco adjusted the loading rates to account for these processes by applying a factor based upon the relative frequency of street sweeping and rainfall in each catchment area. In calibrating the refined method’s results for trash-loading rate, San Francisco incorporated other refinements to manually adjust for geographic variations in loading rates. San Francisco conducted a final, limited validation of the refined method using floatables loading measurements for one cleanout period at two sites. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 432 2.5 New York City, New York As documented in its 2005 Citywide Comprehensive Floatables Plan - Modified Facility Planning Report, New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) performed floatables monitoring to identify the sources of floatables pollution in New York Harbor and to understand the processes affecting how the City generates and controls floatables. While there are many ways floatables can reach a waterway including, but not limited to, illegal dumping, shoreline activities, direct disposal or wind action, this study determined that floatables discharging from the storm sewer system are consistent with street litter. However, this conclusion would need to be looked at further as other studies found that the amount of floatables entering the storm sewer system is rainfall dependent but does not necessarily depend on the source (Walker and Wong, December 1999). The amount of trash that enters the sewer system depends on the energy available to re-mobilize and transport deposited litter on street surfaces rather than the amount of litter deposited on street surfaces. The 2005 DEP study also concluded that land use was not a good predictor of street litter levels. Based upon various field studies, DEP developed a model capable of calculating floatables loadings from combined and/or separately sewered areas. This model is based upon the following primary inputs for a given catchment: 1 Street litter generation rate, in terms of quantity (item count, weight, or visible area) per year. This rate was calculated for study-baseline conditions using a build-up/wash-off submodel given: • Average annual litter level, in terms of the City’s “Street & Sidewalk Cleanliness Ratings” • Street sweeping schedule (and litter-removal efficiency of sweeping) • Annual occurrences of storms with at least 0.2 inches of rainfall (and litter-transport efficiency of such storms to flush litter into catch basins) 2 Total length of curb in the catchment 3 Percentage of hooded and non-hooded catch basins in catchment (and associated floatables-removal efficiency of each) 4 Percentage of catchment that is tributary to end-of-pipe controls such as booms or nets (and associated floatables removal efficiency of each) During implementation of its catch basin hooding program, DEP applied this model to track the floatables loading rate, relative to baseline conditions, on an annual basis. Along with other measures, such as yields at end-of-pipe facilities and observed levels of floatables at various locations in New York Harbor and along shorelines, the model results satisfied annual reporting requirements associated with the CSO control program. 3.0 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Methodologies The survey of municipalities that estimate floatables loading rates revealed a range of methods, from simple, per-day rates based solely on urban or non-urban land uses, to complex calculations based on multiple catchment categories including land use and median income, and adjusted to account for street sweeping frequency and rainfall. Differences between the methodologies do offer advantages and disadvantages. This section describes some of the key areas in which the methodologies differ and the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches. 3.1 Metrics for Floatables Quantity and Loading Rates The metric(s) selected for characterization of floatables is an important aspect related to the methodology selected to determine the floatables loading rate. Floatables refers to a class of varied materials that is not easily quantified and for which there is no “standard method” of analysis. Metrics used to quantify floatables include item counts, volume, drained Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 433 weight, and visible surface-area measurements. Once collected, floatables are most easily described in terms of volumes or weights. However, weight metrics are susceptible to skewing from lightweight materials (such as polystyrene) and heavier materials (such as glass or wet materials). Volume metrics can also be skewed by large-area / small-volume materials (such as plastic sheeting) or the presence of natural materials (such as leaves) that are not the target of a floatables loading rates estimate, but these instances are typically less likely or, in the case of leaves, limited to a relatively short period of time. Another difference in the commonly applied metric for loading rate is whether to express the rate in terms of “per day” or “per inch of rain.” Some municipalities, such as San Francisco, Washington, DC, and New York, see a clear relationship between loading rates and rainfall. Other municipalities, such as Los Angeles, do not see a significant correlation between loading rates and rainfall. While differences in weather patterns may in part explain this situation, direct deposition of litter into catch basins (such as by pedestrians and/or mechanical street sweeping equipment) and the practice of associating per-day catch basin accumulations with per-day discharges may be the reasons for this apparent discrepancy. To some extent, expressing loading rates as an annual average helps to even out seasonal variations in wet weather and the associated variation in loading rates. 3.2 Inclusion of Various Factors Affecting Floatables Loading Rate Other municipalities’ studies to monitor and analyze floatables loading rates clearly demonstrated that floatables loading rates are highly variable from site to site and over time. The most comprehensive studies acknowledged that the primary factors affecting loading rates are litter-generation rates, litter-removal rates, and rainfall, while secondary factors include population, land use, street sweeping methods and frequency, storm-sewer infrastructure (such as numbers and types of catch basins), and storm-sewer maintenance activities (such as catch basin cleaning). Because litter-generation rates are dependent upon human behavior, public education and enforcement of anti-littering laws, as well as litter-basket deployment and servicing, can also affect loading rates. The studies also indicated that the relationships between the various factors can be dynamic and difficult to characterize. The simplest methods determine loading rates solely on the basis of land use. The advantage of this approach is that land use is a readily available parameter. Baltimore’s approach to land use was simplest, using only two categories for catchment land use (urban and non-urban). Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and San Francisco utilized up to seven different land use types. Although the intent of using multiple land uses was to explain more of the variation in loading rates between different sites, most studies acknowledged that land use alone is a poor predictor of loading rate. Some municipalities attempted to account for additional factors in their calculation of loading rate. San Francisco performed a correlation analysis and determined that adding median income level to further distinguish catchment land use improved the predictive capability of its method. San Francisco and Washington, DC determined that accounting for rainfall also improved the results. San Francisco recognized that accounting for street sweeping and rainfall frequency also improved the prediction of loading rate from the catch basins because these actions directly impact the portion of litter on the streets that is captured via sweeping versus flushed into the catch basins. The primary differences between the methods adopted to determine loading rate were the factors used to differentiate the loading rates from site to site, and over time. The simplest methods based loading rates solely on land use, while the most complex methods attempted to account for other factors, such as median income, street sweeping frequency and rainfall. DEP’s approach was unique among this group because DEP based its method on measures of street litter level, rather than on land use as a surrogate for street litter level. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 434 4.0 Proposed Methodology for New York City This section presents an overview of the approach that the City proposes to use to determine the floatables loading rate from MS4 outfalls to floatables-impaired waterbodies, a justification for the proposed approach, and specifics on the methodology to implement the proposed approach. Per the Program Development Compliance Schedule in Part IV.O of the City’s MS4 Permit, the City will submit a schedule for completing the floatables loading rate determination within three months after DEC approves the final work plan. 4.1 Overview of Proposed Approach The City’s proposed methodology is a hybrid approach that combines field measurements and model analysis. Using this approach, the City proposes to take field measurements of floatables discharged from catch basins representing various categories of sites that comprise the MS4 drainage areas. These data can then be used to extrapolate a floatables loading rate. In conjunction with field measurements, the City will use an updated version of DEP’s existing floatables model to check the results of the field monitoring and to account for downstream in-water controls such as booms. Figure 1 below describes schematically the application of the existing floatables model to the City’s MS4. Street Catch Basin Sewer Waterway Pedestrians Vehicles Improper Trash Management Street Sweeping Pedestrians Vehicles Catch Basin Cleaning In-line and End-Of-Pipe Capture Sources Proper Disposal In-Water Capture Figure 1. Schematic of MS4 Floatables Sources, Transport, Controls and Fate Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 435 4.2 Justification for Proposed Approach As described in Section 3.0, the approaches utilized by other municipalities for determining floatables loading rates involve a range of complexities in terms of methodologies and factors affecting loading rates. The City’s proposed approach, which combines the field measurement component of approaches utilized by other municipalities with the work done by DEP in the past, is suitable for determining floatables loading rates for the following reasons: � Considers factors beyond land use. Other municipalities found that land use alone was not a good predictor of floatables loading rate. Where the surveyed municipalities characterized the monitored sites based on catchment land use, the City would select monitoring sites based upon important factors already understood to impact floatables discharge rates from catch basins in New York City. These factors include catchment characteristics (such as litter levels) and catch basin attributes (such as presence of a hood). � Utilizes institutional knowledge and already developed tools. DEP previously studied floatables sources and effectiveness of existing floatables controls. Through a combination of field studies and modeling, DEP developed both an understanding of processes and models to estimate the impact of those processes on floatables loading rates. � Provides opportunities to update previous assessments. Through targeted, focused field studies, the City can update its understanding of how floatables discharge rates are related to differences in certain factors such as street litter levels and existing floatables controls. This approach will also enable the City to observe changes in the types of items that make up street litter and floatables. � Isolates floatables contribution at the entry point to the MS4. The proposed field monitoring will focus on characterizing the type and quantity of floatables entering the MS4 from the catch basins. This methodology avoids logistical difficulties and inaccuracies associated with monitoring outfalls in tidal systems, and allows characteristics of floatables to be determined for different areas. 4.3 Methodology to Implement Proposed Approach In summary, the City’s proposed methodology involves the following steps: 1 Selection of representative sites at which to conduct field monitoring 2 Field monitoring using proposed metrics to measure floatables discharge rates from catch basin sites comprising the various site categories within New York City’s MS4 areas 3 Analysis of field measurements to determine unit loading rates by site category 4 Establishment of weather and other conditions suitable for calculation of floatables loadings from MS4 areas 5 Application of unit loading rates to individual catch basins, and summation of the results by MS4 outfall and by waterbody, for each waterbody designated as impaired due to floatables. The following sections describe each of these steps in detail. 4.3.1 Selection of Representative Sites for Field Monitoring In order to represent the full range of factors affecting floatables generation, interception, and loading for MS4 areas in New York City, the City developed 21 site categories to be included in the field monitoring program. Each site category represents a different combination of representative catch basin attributes and catchment characteristics or unique land use types. Catchment Characteristics Catchment characteristics include street litter level and street sweeping frequency. Street litter levels directly impact the quantity of floatable material available for discharge into catch basins, and so monitoring sites will be selected to represent each of three different street litter levels (high, medium, low), as well as “typical” levels or conditions for arterial highways, Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 436 exit ramps/turnouts, and parks. Because street sweeping frequency directly impacts the portion of street litter that is captured versus carried into catch basins during storms, the City will also select monitoring sites to represent each of three different street sweeping frequencies. Preliminary analysis suggests categories of high, medium, and low frequency may be appropriate, but these may change based on further analysis of MS4 areas. For example, categories of high, medium/low, and not applicable (N/A) may better represent conditions in the MS4. Together with rainfall conditions, street sweeping frequency and street litter level represent the secondary factors from which street litter generation can be gauged. Catch Basin Attributes The catch basin attribute that most directly impacts the discharge rate of floatables to storm sewers (and hence to receiving waters) is the presence of hoods. Catch basin hoods are designed to prevent sewer gases from venting through the catch basin. Because the hoods shield the catch basin’s pipe outlet, they also prevent floatable items from entering the sewer system. Where present, catch basin hoods are effective at retaining floatables in catch basins; therefore, monitoring sites will be selected to represent both hooded and unhooded catch basins. Land Use As described above, the City will rely on the above factors known to impact the discharge rate of floatables and not general land use types (such as residential, commercial or industrial) to select catch basin sites for monitoring. However, the City will include three additional categories to represent catch basins located within unique land uses. These land use types include (1) arterial highways, (2) exit ramps/turnouts, and (3) parks. The proposed work plan includes monitoring of catch basins located in these land uses to characterize representative loading rates from catch basins in these site categories. Catch basins along arterial highways, on exit ramps/turnouts, and within parks may not share characteristics with current standard DEP designs or maintenance practices. As a result, none of the other site category factors may be representative of these catch basins. Additionally, limited information about litter levels is available in these areas. The catch basins in these areas were not included in previous DEP floatables studies because they were not previously subject to SPDES permit requirements on floatables control. However, these catch basins are now covered by the MS4 Permit and are therefore included in this methodology. Site Categories for Field Monitoring Table 2 lists the 21 site categories proposed for the field monitoring program. With three different catch basin sites per category, the proposed field monitoring program will include 63 monitored sites. Table 2. Site Categories for Monitoring MS4 Catch Basin Discharges Site Category Catch Basin Attri-butes Street Litter Level Street Sweeping Frequency Site Count per Category 1 Hooded High High 3 2 Hooded High Med 3 3 Hooded High Low 3 4 Hooded Med High 3 5 Hooded Med Med 3 6 Hooded Med Low 3 7 Hooded Low High 3 8 Hooded Low Med 3 Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 437 9 Hooded Low Low 3 10 Unhooded High High 3 11 Unhooded High Med 3 12 Unhooded High Low 3 13 Unhooded Med High 3 14 Unhooded Med Med 3 15 Unhooded Med Low 3 16 Unhooded Low High 3 17 Unhooded Low Med 3 18 Unhooded Low Low 3 19 Arterial Highway Typical N/A 3 20 Exit Ramps/Turn-outs Typical N/A 3 21 Parks Typical N/A 3 Total number of catch basin sites to monitor 63 The City will select specific sites for the field monitoring program based upon a combination of desktop analyses and field verification. Desktop analysis will identify candidate areas based upon information made available to DEP. Areas with high, medium, and low litter levels will be identified based on geographical assessments (“heat maps”) developed using information including: 1 Recent, annual-average Street & Sidewalk Cleanliness Ratings data, which indicate the relative quantity of litter based on visual ratings conducted twice per month on about five percent of city blockfaces by the New York City Mayor’s Office of Operations 2 Litter information from the Street Conditions Observation Unit (SCOUT) of the Mayor’s Office of Operations 3 Catch basin cleaning frequency and similar information that DEP logs, which can be used to track the build-up of debris in DEP catch basins. The City will identify MS4 areas with different street sweeping frequencies based on mechanical sweeper routes and schedules maintained by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY), information concerning sweeping in Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in MS4 areas, and, as applicable, information concerning sweeping programs such as Ready Willing and Able (RWA). Similarly, the City will use DEP’s catch basin database to identify individual catch basins with hoods or no hoods. Finally, the City will also apply desktop analyses to identify potentially suitable catch basin locations along arterial roadways, on exit ramps/turnouts, and within parks that drain directly to waterbodies that are impaired for floatables. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 438 In order to confirm the suitability of candidate sites for inclusion in the monitoring program, the City will visit each site to ensure that it can perform sampling safely and that site conditions match the intended category. Based on this information, the City will revise the site selection as needed. 4.3.2 Field Monitoring and Metrics The City proposes a field monitoring program that will quantify floatables loading rates using suitable metrics. These metrics include a definition of floatables, methods of quantifying floatables in a manner allowing for scalability, and expression of rates in terms of suitable time periods. This section describes each of these metrics, as well as the general sampling procedure. Definition of Floatables The City’s MS4 permit refers to control of “floatable and settleable trash and debris.” This language is consistent with the definition of floatables that DEP adopted for prior floatables studies. As defined in DEP’s 2005 Citywide Comprehensive Floatables Plan - Modified Facility Planning Report, floatables are “manmade materials, such as plastics, papers, or other products which when improperly disposed of onto streets [or] into catch basins […] can ultimately find their way to [waterbodies] and may create nuisance conditions with regard to aesthetics, recreation, navigation, and waterbody ecology […].” For clarity, it is noted that “floatables” include materials that are settleable as well as those that may float on the water surface or are neutrally buoyant, and acknowledged that such materials may float or sink depending on the ambient conditions to which they are subject. In this context, “floatables” does not include natural materials, vegetation, oil and grease, or sediments and small particles. Floatables Metric The City proposes to express floatables quantity in terms of volume. Volume is the most appropriate floatables metric for three important reasons. First, volume is an established metric associated with trash (as collected in garbage cans, dumpsters, trucks, barges, and landfills). Second, volume describes both the visual and spatial impact of floatables, and can better represent the impact on wildlife than weight. Third, unlike item count or surface area, volume is relatively simple to measure in large quantities, and is not as susceptible as weight to skewing due to complicating factors such as water content, heavy material such as glass bottles, or light material such as Styrofoam containers. As in prior studies, the City proposes to record other measures, such as weight, item counts, etc., for purposes of establishing typical relationships between metrics. Rate Metrics for Time Period New York City proposes expressing loading rates in terms of annual average periods. Expressing the loading rate as an annual average helps to normalize seasonal and weather-related variations. Nevertheless, year-to-year variations in loading rate will occur due to differences in the number, timing, and intensity of storm events. As a result, describing loading rates based on long-term average rainfall patterns will help to highlight the impact of operational factors (such as littering behavior, street sweeping practices, and catch basin retrofits) on year-to-year changes in loading rates. Field Monitoring Protocols New York City proposes field monitoring protocols to capture floatables in catch basin discharges to the MS4 using mesh strainer baskets deployed in MS4 manholes, as depicted schematically in Figure 2. Field crews will collect samples with a frequency suitable to characterizing accumulated amounts in dry periods and in wet periods. Floatables collected from each site will be separately sorted to remove sediment and vegetation, quantified at a central processing site, and recorded. This protocol is consistent with the techniques used in DEP’s previous floatables study. The City will select a monitoring period that allows for a minimum of 10 storms with at least 0.2 inches of rainfall to be monitored and seasonal differences to be captured. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 439 Figure 2. Sampling of Catch Basin Discharges to Sewer 4.3.3 Analysis to Determine Unit Loading Rate by Site Category In order to develop a unit loading rate that can be scaled appropriately, the results of the field monitoring program will require analyses to normalize the size of the catchment upstream of the monitored catch basin site as well as the number of days and/or amount of rainfall during the accumulation period. The City will calculate unit loading rates for each site category. As indicated in DEP’s previous floatables studies, the length of curb (curb feet) in a catchment more closely correlates to floatables load than the area (acreage) of the catchment does. This is not surprising, because most street litter is located within 18 inches of the curb1, and because most streets are crowned, with slopes downward to either side of the street, so that drainage is toward and along the curb to the catch basin. As a result, the City proposes using catchment curb length to normalize the measured discharge. Similarly, the City anticipates that days of accumulation between qualifying storm events will correlate to the quantity of material discharged, and therefore proposes using days of accumulation (or inversely, frequency of qualifying storms) to normalize the measured discharge. As a result, these analyses will require information regarding rainfall during the accumulation period at each monitored catch basin site. For this purpose, the City proposes to utilize the nearest-available rain gauge from the rain gauge networks maintained by the National Weather Service, United State Geological Survey, DEP, and other reputable organizations, as well as radar rainfall information available from the National Weather Service. The City will analyze the resulting unit (normalized) loading rates to confirm scalability and adherence to scientific principles (such as mass balance) and relationships established during prior floatables studies (such as relative capture in hooded versus unhooded catch basins). Given an MS4 catch basin’s site category’s unit loading rate, catchment size (curb miles), and rainfall pattern (long-term average year), the catch basin’s overall floatables load can then be calculated. The following two steps describe that process. 4.3.4 Establish Conditions for Calculation of Loading Rate While measured loading rates reflect conditions during the field monitoring program, the expression of loading rates from particular MS4 outfalls or to floatables-impaired waterbodies will be most useful if applied using certain conditions that may be used as a baseline for comparison in the future. For this purpose, the City proposes using long-term average rainfall patterns, as determined from National Weather Service rain gauge data and as applied using the model. The 1 New York City Law requires the adjacent property owner to clean the curb area 18” into the street. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 440 City can also use the model to specify other conditions, such as degree of catch basin hooding, street litter levels, etc., as necessary, to develop an appropriate baseline condition. 4.3.5 Calculation of Loading Rate In order to calculate the total floatables loading rate for a specific floatables-impaired waterbody, DEP proposes the following: 1 For each catch basin in the MS4 area » Identify the unit loading rate corresponding to that catch basin’s site category. Unit loading rate is expressed in terms of floatables volume per length of curb per days of accumulation (or per number of storms) per year. » Apply the unit loading rate for that catch basin to calculate the annual floatables load, in terms of volume, by multiplying the unit loading rate by: • The length of curb in the catch basin’s catchment. • The number of days of accumulation (or number of storms) in the baseline year. 2 Sum the calculated loading rates for each catch basin to determine the total loading rate for the MS4 outfall. This will be a total volume per year. To calculate the total floatables loading rate from MS4 areas to a particular waterbody, the above procedure would be repeated for each MS4 outfall discharging to the waterbody, and the sum of these would then represent the total MS4 loading rate to the waterbody. After developing the unit loading rates as described in the preceding section, DEP will analyze available information on both existing and historical conditions regarding New York City’s floatables controls. The current level of floatables control in MS4 areas reflects changes implemented in various New York City programs, such as the catch basin hooding program (completed in 2010 but ongoing per SPDES permit requirements), the recently launched annual catch basin inspection program (required by City local law through the end of fiscal year 2019), and extensive public education and media campaigns. The City will evaluate the impact of these programs on floatables loading rates for MS4 areas before making a recommendation of a particular baseline loading rate year, against which to track and monitor floatables loadings in future years. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 441 5.0 References BASMAA, 2014. “2014 San Francisco Bay Area Stormwater Trash Generation Rates, Final Technical Report.” Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), June 20, 2014. CRWQCB, 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed,” California Regional Water Quality Control Board, August 9, 2007. DEP, 2005. “Citywide Comprehensive Floatables Plan - Modified Facility Planning Report,” prepared by HydroQual Engineers & Scientists, P.C. for the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Environmental Engineering, July 29, 2005. DOEE, 2010. “Total Maximum Daily Loads of Trash for the Anacostia River Watershed, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland and the District of Columbia,” District of Columbia Department of the Energy and Environment, September 8, 2010. MDE, 2014. “Total Maximum Daily Loads of Trash and Debris for the Middle Branch and Northwest Branch Portions of the Patapsco River Mesohaline Tidal Chesapeake Bay Segment, Baltimore City and County, Maryland,” Maryland Department of the Environment, December 3, 2014. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2015. “State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permit” issued to the City of New York for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of New York City, effective August 1, 2015. Walker, T.A., Wong, T.H.F., 1999. “Effectiveness of Street Sweeping for Stormwater Pollution Control, Technical Report,” Report 99/08, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, December 1999. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 442 Appendix 9.1 A Response to Public Comments The MS4 Permit requires the City of New York to develop a work plan to determine the loading rate of floatable and settleable trash and debris discharged from the MS4 to waterbodies listed as impaired for floatables. On August 1, 2017, the City submitted a draft work plan to NYSDEC for review. The City also posted the draft work plan on the DEP website on August 1, 2017 and presented it publicly at a Trash Free NYC Waters Meeting on October 4, 2017. The public was encouraged to review the draft work plan and submit comments by October 16, 2017. The City prepared the following responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing via electronic mail. For convenience and clarity, the City has combined and grouped similar comments. The City also received some comments or questions that, while related to the topic of trash and debris, were not relevant to the work plan. These comments are not included in this document. Comment: Construction sites can be sources of trash and debris that enter the MS4. Will the City include loads from construction sites in the MS4 Floatables loading rate? Response: Trash and debris from construction sites is regulated by the New York City Construction Code. Additionally, construction activities that disturb an acre or more of soil are required to obtain coverage under the New York State Department of Conservation State Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (GP-0-15-002). The General Permit requires construction activities to use pollution prevention measures to control trash and debris. The construction and post-construction provisions of the Stormwater Management Program further address stormwater runoff from constructions sites within the MS4 area. The City responds to a variety of public complaints related to construction activities including excessive debris; dumping concrete, cement, sand, or construction material in a catch basin; or dumpsters overflowing with construction debris. To make a complaint of this nature, the public can: � Visit 311 Online; � Call 311 or (212) NEW-YORK, (212) 639-9675, from outside New York City; or � Text 311-692; The proposed methodology for determining the floatables loading rate is to sample trash and debris from representative catch basins within the MS4 area. To do this, the methodology divides catch basins in the MS4 into categories based on the characteristics of catch basin attributes, street litter level, and street sweeping frequency, as well as unique land use type. The City will select a sample of catch basins from each category to monitor. While some selected catch basins may be near construction sites, the City does not plan to use proximity to construction sites as a factor in selecting sample locations. If a selected catch basin is near a construction site, and debris happens to enter the catch basin, the City may observe that in the collected samples. Comment: Highways can be a major source of trash and debris. Places where drivers can pull over or slow down are particularly full of litter. Will the City sample at turnouts, exit ramps and other places where drivers can pull over/stop/slow down? Response: The City recognizes that trash and debris loads coming from catch basins along highways may be different from the loads coming from other parts of the MS4. To account for this, the City had already included a category of catch basins on arterial highways in the work plan. The City agrees with this comment that highway turnouts and exit ramps may have different trash and debris loads from other sections of arterial highways. In response, the City has amended the work plan to include an additional category of catch basins to be sampled. This new category will sample catch basins located on arterial highway turnouts and exit ramps. Comment: Will the City select locations impacted by tourists or events (e.g.,. marathons, New Year’s Eve, sporting events, etc.) which generate trash and debris? Response: As proposed, the methodology accounts for sites that have the potential for high trash and debris by using street litter levels as a characteristic for defining categories and selecting catch basins. As a result, it will include locations that may have more trash and debris due to proximity to tourist destinations. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 443 As stated in the NYC Administrative Code and Chapter 14 of the Rules of the City of New York, sponsors and participating vendors of block parties, street fairs, and other similar events are required to arrange garbage collection and ensure appropriate separation of recyclable materials. Additionally, many special events and tourist locations are in Manhattan, outside the MS4 area. Therefore, locations impacted by special events such as marathons, parades, and sporting events, will not be selected for sampling. However, because the City plans to sample each location for at least 7 months, the data would include loads from special events if one does occur at a sampling location during that period. Comment: Will the City look at catch basins on NYCHA properties? Response: No. The intent of the study is to determine the loading rate from the MS4. The MS4 Permit does not cover NYCHA properties since NYCHA is not a Mayoral Agency. Therefore, catch basins on NYCHA property are not included in the proposed methodology. Comment: Will the City look at catch basins on streets not owned by New York City DOT? Response: The intent of the study is to determine the loading rate from the MS4. Streets not owned by NYC are not part of the MS4 and therefore not included in the proposed methodology. Comment: Will the City sample even when it does not rain? Response: Yes. The methodology proposes to sample catch basins weekly, even if it has not rained. However, the City will stop taking samples once it starts snowing. Comment: Why is the City not taking measurements at outfalls? Response: Taking measurements at MS4 outfalls presents various challenges that make sampling at the catch basin level the preferred option. First, many booms would need to be built in order to obtain a representative sample size, and construction and operation of booms are expensive. Second, the tide influences many MS4 outfalls, whereby trash and debris captured in a boom or net at the end of the outfall can move back into the sewer system during high tides, making it more difficult to get accurate field measurements. Third, the area draining to a single MS4 outfall can be large and diverse. By taking measurements at the outfall rather than at the catch basin level, we would lose the ability to make connections between the loads and other factors such as street sweeping frequency or catch basin design. Fourth, as emphasized by EPA and NOAA through the Trash Free Waters initiative, addressing marine litter issues at the source is more effective than at the end of the pipe at outfalls. Comment: In some MS4 areas, stormwater runoff reaches waterways by overland flow without entering the sewer system, for example from areas bordering waterbodies, areas where catch basins are not functioning for some reason, or areas where streets end at waterways. Many of these areas also tend to be litter hot spots. The proposed methodology would not capture trash and debris generated in MS4 areas and reaching waterways by overland flow. Response: While the areas bordering waterbodies can be sources of trash and debris, it is important to note that areas draining to waterbodies by overland flow are only considered part of the MS4 area if City-owned or operated. The pollution prevention and good housekeeping provisions of the Stormwater Management Program address trash and debris management at these City facilities and operations. Additionally, to keep catch basins in good working order, DEP regularly inspects catch basins throughout the City. If needed based on inspection, DEP cleans or repairs the catch basins. Street ends, while also having the potential to contribute trash and debris to waterbodies through runoff or wind impacts, are a relatively small portion of the areas draining to waterbodies compared to the other sources. It is also challenging to establish a practical and scientific sampling plan for estimating the contribution from street ends. The proposed methodology meets the MS4 Permit requirement to quantify the trash and debris discharging from the MS4. Comment: Will the City do a count of the types of trash and specific brands? Will the City use this information to identify prime offenders? Response: While the City proposes to report the loading rate as a volume, the City also intends to track other measures such as weight and item counts of types of trash. While tracking specific brands is not part of this study, the City is conducting multiple media campaigns to focus on public behavior and encourage proper disposal of trash. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 444 Comment: Could the City look at some catch basins with stenciling to see if there are any differences in loading rates between painted and not painted catch basins in the same category? Response: The City plans to explore the impact of catch basin stenciling through a separate, smaller sampling initiative. These catch basins will likely not be the same ones sampled as part of the loading rate study because, in order to assess effectively the impact of stenciling, all other defining characteristics of the catch basins (i.e., street litter level, street cleaning frequency, catch basin hoods) would need to be the same. Comment: Why isn’t the City using median household income as a factor in determining the loading rate? Response: New York City is fortunate to have a record of street cleanliness levels dating back to the 1970s. Because of this record, we do not need to use proxies such as land use or median household income to represent litter conditions on the street. However, the City may look at a variety of data to see if there are any additional correlations between street cleanliness and neighborhood characteristics. Comment: Has the City already selected specific sampling locations? Response: The City has not chosen sampling locations yet and will not do so until NYSDEC approves the final work plan, which will be submitted with the SWMP Plan on August 1, 2018. Since the intent of this study is to determine the loading rate of trash and debris from the MS4, the City will only select sampling locations in MS4 areas. The methodology will divide catch basins in the MS4 into categories based on the shared characteristics of catch basin attributes, street litter level, and street sweeping frequency. The City will then select a sample of catch basins from each category to monitor. Comment: Will the City also look at bacteria from the MS4? Response: This work plan seeks to determine only the loading rate of trash and debris from the MS4. However, other provisions of the Stormwater Management Program will address bacterial loads from the MS4. For example, the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program will monitor waterbodies for elevated levels for fecal coliform and seek to track down and eliminate sources. The Monitoring and Assessment Program will also test stormwater runoff in the MS4 for fecal coliform and enterococcus. Comment: The cleanliness of a street can vary over the course of a given day. It could be relatively clean on a Friday morning immediately following street cleaning and then relatively dirty later that evening after restaurants and bars close. How will the methodology capture that variation? Response: Street litter level is a key factor affecting the loading rate of trash and debris from a particular catch basin. As such, the City is proposing to use litter level as a characteristic for selecting catch basins for monitoring. The litter level of a particular street will be determined using information from the Street & Sidewalk Cleanliness Ratings program, the SCOUT program, and the DEP catch basin cleaning program. Because these programs collect information about litter levels at different times and in different ways, the City feels that the data sets give an accurate picture of the average condition of a street. Additionally, because the City will sample at the catch basin, the data will capture any trash and debris that was carried from the street to a catch basin during a rain event. Comment: Parks and greenways can also be major sources of trash and debris. During the recreational season, park users leave behind trash and debris. City staff may also contribute to the problems by mowing over this litter or by leaving behind supplies. How is the City tackling trash and debris in parks? Response: The City recognizes that the load of trash and debris coming from catch basins in parks may be different from the loads coming from other parts of the MS4. To account for this potential variation, the City intends to include park catch basins in the loading rate calculation and the sampling plan. In addition, the pollution prevention and good housekeeping provisions of the Stormwater Management Program include training City staff on pollution prevention and good housekeeping at City facilities and operations. Comment: Ships and other marine activity can also be sources of trash and debris in waterways. Will the City quantify the loading rate from these sources? Response: This methodology aims to quantify the trash and debris discharging from the MS4. As such, it does not include marine-based sources, as trash and debris from these sources do not come from the MS4. Appendix 9.1 Work Plan To Determine the Loading Rate of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris Discharged from the MS4 445 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program New York City Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Monitoring Program Revised September 30, 2020 Prepared in accordance with SPDES Permit Number NY-0287890 Part IV.J 446 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program Appendix 10.1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 1 3.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 2 3.1 Identification of Pollutants to Monitor 2 3.2 Phased Monitoring Strategy (Phases 1 and 2) 3 3.2.1 Phase 1—Land Use-Based Outfall Monitoring 3 3.2.2 Phase 2—Targeted Outfall Monitoring 3 3.3 Sampling 4 3.4 Flow Metering 4 3.5 Precipitation Monitoring 4 3.6 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring to Characterize Quality Condition 5 4.0 WATER QUALITY METHODS AND TEST PROCEDURES 5 4.1 Sampling Procedures for Laboratory Analysis 6 4.2 Sample Preservation and Transfer Procedure 6 4.3 Sample Handling and Custody 6 4.4 Test Procedures 7 4.5 Data Management 8 4.6 Adjustments 8 5.0 FLOW METERING METHODS AND TEST PROCEDURES 8 5.1 Precipitation 9 5.2 Flow Metering 9 5.3 Flow Data 10 6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ......................................................10 6.1 Quality Objectives and Criteria 10 6.2 Instruments and Equipment 11 7.0 ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING 12 8.0 SCHEDULE 13 9.0 REFERENCES 13 447 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 1.0 Introduction Pursuant to the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (No. NY-0287890), the City must develop a monitoring and assessment program designed to satisfy Part IV.J, Monitoring and Assessment of Controls. This appendix details the MS4 Monitoring Program to be conducted to achieve the Permit requirements described in Part IV.J.2, including: i. Assess compliance with the requirements of the MS4 Permit ii. Measure the effectiveness of the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) iii. Characterize and assess the quality of stormwater discharges at representative MS4 outfalls iv. Identify sources of specific pollutants v. Detect and eliminate illicit discharges, including illegal connections, to the MS4 vi. Evaluate long-term trends in quality. Appendix 10.1: MS4 Monitoring Program describes the monitoring strategy and work plan to characterize and assess the quality of stormwater discharges at representative MS4 outfalls, identify sources of specific pollutants, and evaluate long-term trends in receiving water quality after considering the impact of non-MS4 sources and planned controls for those sources. Additional strategies currently being implemented or proposed by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to detect and eliminate illicit discharges and illegal connections to the MS4 and measure the effectiveness of the SWMP are described in Chapter 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination—IDDE and Chapter 12: Recordkeeping and Reporting of the SWMP Plan. 2.0 Program Overview The MS4 Monitoring Program relies on a multi-pronged, phased approach to assess the pollutant contribution from stormwater and its influence on New York Harbor water quality, as well as existing water quality data collection programs. Two sets of stormwater outfalls will be targeted as part of the MS4 Monitoring Program: Phase 1 –Land Use-Based Outfall Monitoring, which will focus on six predominant land use types within New York City (mixed, high-density residential, low-density residential, industrial, open space, and highway). Phase 2—Targeted Outfall Monitoring, which will target specific MS4 outfalls based on discharge volume, pollutant loading, historic changes, and significance to other water quality programs such as DEP’s Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) program. Ambient water quality monitoring will be performed concurrently with the Phase 2 monitoring to aid in the assessment of the influence of these stormwater loads on water quality and the role that stormwater plays as a potential pollutant source. Flow metering of targeted outfalls will also be performed. Sampling for the two sets of outfalls will be staggered such that Phase 1 sampling will occur first, to provide more information on parameter variability. Phase 1 data will then be analyzed to aid development of Phase 2 sampling, which will be implemented after Phase 1 analysis is complete, and the Phase 2 monitoring strategy and work plan is finalized and contracts are procured. In addition to the two sets of outfalls, the receiving water sampling that is performed concurrently and complementary to the Phase 2 monitoring will aid in assessing the influence of stormwater loads in receiving waters. 448 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 3.0 Program Implementation A central strategy to the monitoring program for MS4 Permit compliance is the continued reliance on the substantial, existing DEP programs. The Harbor Survey, Sentinel Monitoring, Field Sampling Analysis Program (FSAP), and other ongoing monitoring programs will continue to provide valuable information. This appendix pertains only to the additional metering and sampling to be completed to satisfy Part IV.J.2 requirements of the MS4 Permit. The data collected under this monitoring program will supplement the ongoing programs, and will be specifically targeted to characterize the water quality, pollutant loadings, and receiving water response associated with the City’s MS4 discharges. 3.1 Identification of Pollutants to Monitor The MS4 Monitoring Program includes sampling for a variety of pollutants identified by existing data sources and reports, as well as the MS4 Permit. However, stormwater from the City’s MS4 is not the only load contributor of pollutants to the receiving waters of the New York Harbor. Other contributors include combined sewer overflows (CSOs); wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs); stormwater outfalls not subject to the City’s MS4 Permit; coastal inflows from the Long Island Sound and the New York Bight; inflows from the Hudson, Raritan, and Bronx Rivers, as well as lesser natural inflows; and industrial users. Floatables loading rates are addressed in Chapter 9: Control of Floatable and Settleable Trash and Debris of the SWMP and are not discussed in this appendix. A pollutant is selected for monitoring as part of the MS4 Monitoring Program if it meets one or more of the following criteria: � Is listed as a pollutant of concern (POC) in Appendix 2—Impaired Water Segments and Pollutants of Concern of the MS4 Permit � Is listed as a cause for impairment in receiving waterbodies on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list � Is identified as being present at representative MS4 outfalls/manholes in the DEP Supplemental Discharge Characterization Report that was prepared for the WWTP SPDES Permits � Is a POC commonly associated with land uses within an outfall’s drainage area � Has a history of association with the City’s MS4 discharges based on existing monitoring programs 3.2 Phased Monitoring Strategy (Phases 1 and 2) DEP is proposing a multi-phased approach for the MS4 Monitoring Program to assess different MS4 outfalls and drainage areas, and to adapt monitoring approaches based on ongoing data collection, assessments and reviews. Phase 1—Land Based Outfall Monitoring and Phase 2—Targeted Outfall Monitoring are described in more detail below. 3.2.1 Phase 1—Land Use-Based Outfall Monitoring Phase 1 outfalls are targeted based on upstream land uses to identify potential sources of specific pollutants, and to characterize and assess the quality of stormwater discharges at representative MS4 outfalls as required by the MS4 Permit (Part IV.J.2). The collected data will be used to determine whether there is any correlation between land use type and pollutant loadings. 449 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program Per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) stormwater sampling guidance document (https://nepis.epa. gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20012RVG.PDF?Dockey=20012RVG.PDF), consideration of land use patterns within a municipality should be a major factor in selecting outfalls to monitor. The Phase 1 monitoring strategy and work plan targets eight outfalls to be representative of six land use types within New York City: � Mixed � High-Density Residential � Low-Density Residential � Industrial � Open Space � Highway The selected outfalls are listed in Table 1 and their locations are shown on Figure 1. Note that each land use type is represented by a single location except for low-density residential and industrial land uses, which are each represented by two locations. The two locations for low-density residential and industrial land uses were selected to aid in the evaluation of similar land uses across boroughs or watersheds. Mixed land use refers to multiple land use types that individually represent less than half of the drainage area to the monitoring location but together comprise a significant portion of the drainage area. For example, multi-family residential, commercial and office buildings, and public facilities and institutions comprise 83 percent of the total drainage area to the HP-640 sampling location in Table 1. Final monitoring locations for each Phase 1 outfall were determined based on reconnaissance field visits, and monitoring (metering and sampling) will generally occur within the farthest downstream outfall pipe or manhole that is not influenced by tides, has no constant dry weather flows, and is safe and accessible to sampling field crews. Table 1—Phase 1 Outfalls to be Monitored Targeted Outfall ID Sampling Location Outfall Size Borough Receiving Waterbody Land Use RepresentedLatitude Longitude HP-627 40.8957 -73.8632 36" diameter Bronx Bronx River Open Space HP-640 40.8641 -73.8229 48” diameter Bronx Hutchinson River Mixed NCQ-632 40.7179 -73.9182 54” diameter Queens Newtown Creek Industrial OB-722 40.5010 -74.2480 Double barrel 7'3" x 3'6" Staten Island Raritan Bay Low-Density Residential OH-607 40.6735 -73.9953 12” diameter Brooklyn Gowanus Canal Industrial TI-604 40.7823 -73.8252 24” diameter Queens Flushing Creek Highway TI-633 40.7871 -73.7766 54” diameter Queens Little Neck Bay High-Density Residential TI-658 40.7714 -73.7535 40" diameter Queens Little Neck Bay Low-Density Residential OH-607 is no longer an active sampling location as a result of construction. NCQ-632 will continue to represent the industrial land use type. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20012RVG.PDF?Dockey=20012RVG.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20012RVG.PDF?Dockey=20012RVG.PDF 450 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 3.2.2 Phase 2—Targeted Outfall Monitoring Phase 2 monitoring will be implemented to satisfy stipulations in the MS4 Permit that require assessing compliance, measuring effectiveness of controls, and evaluating long-term trends. As described above, Phase 2 monitoring will be planned and implemented after evaluation of Phase 1 data so that information collected during the first phase can be used to refine the locations and water quality parameters to be selected for Phase 2. Outfall selection will also be supported by water quality analyses completed as part of DEP’s development of LTCPs. Selection of Phase 2 outfalls will generally be based on the following criteria (as well as consideration of Phase 1 results and other information): � Drain to impaired waterbodies, including potential Priority MS4 Waterbodies � Drain the largest upstream area, convey the greatest stormwater volume, and have greater impact on receiving water quality (largest pollutant load) � Discharge to sensitive areas such as recreational beaches � Drain areas where source controls such as education and outreach, green infrastructure, stormwater control measures (SCMs), and other SWMP-related programs are expected to be implemented. In addition to the two sets of outfalls (Phases 1 and 2) to be monitored, receiving or ambient water quality sampling that is performed concurrently and complementary to Phase 2 monitoring will aid in assessing the influence of stormwater loads and long-term trends in receiving waters, as described below. Figure 1—Phase 1 Outfalls to be Monitored 451 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 3.3 Sampling Phase 1 monitoring will be initiated by 2020, and sampling will be performed on a quarterly basis during qualifying rain events. After two years of sampling, the collected Phase 1 data will be evaluated to allow for a more informed determination of the benefits of continuing, modifying, or ceasing the quarterly monitoring. As part of this evaluation, land-use-based monitoring may be suspended if either the relevant findings are definitive, or it is clear that the benefits of further sampling during Phase 1 are limited due to a high degree of variability. During both Phase 1 and Phase 2 monitoring, sampling will occur quarterly based on precipitation forecasts. At the start of the scheduled quarter, weather forecasts and precipitation totals will be monitored. Once 48 hours of relatively dry weather (no rain in excess of 0.1 inch in the outfall catchment area) occurs, crews will be deployed to sample when there is an 80 percent probability of a rain event that will result in 0.2 inch of rain or greater occurring within the next day. (An average rain event for NYC is 0.4 inch; therefore, the acceptable range for an event, plus or minus 50 percent, is 0.2–0.6 inch. Any rainfall event outside the average storm volume and duration for NYC will be excluded from the evaluation.) Once samples are collected, the storm total should be obtained from the nearest or most appropriate rain gauge. 3.4 Flow Metering Flow metering will be conducted so that stormwater discharge rates may be correlated with rainfall and combined with water quality pollutant data to estimate loadings. Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 outfalls will be metered during a portion of the duration for which they will be sampled, with the deployments focusing on summer months, when water quality impacts to uses are greatest. Each meter deployment will cover six consecutive weeks at a given location, with the goal of at least one Phase 1 sampling event occurring during meter deployment. This period may be extended if insufficient precipitation occurs during that period to develop valid precipitation-response relationships. 3.5 Precipitation Monitoring Rain data will be collected from the certified National Weather Service (NWS) rain gauges routinely used by NYC for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 monitoring. Data from these gauges are highly reliable, and all stormwater outfalls are sufficiently close to at least one of these gauges. Therefore, rain data from these gauges may be considered representative of the tributary catchment. In addition, temporary rain gauges will be deployed synoptically during flow metering to supplement the assigned NWS gauge and to provide a measure of spatial variability. 3.6 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring to Characterize Water Quality Condition Ambient water quality will be monitored on a periodic basis in association with the Phase 2—Targeted Outfall Monitoring to evaluate the role that stormwater plays as a potential pollutant source, and in support of evaluations of long-term trends in receiving water quality. Ambient water quality monitoring will be performed at the nearest ongoing Harbor Survey or Sentinel Monitoring station location as practicable for historical comparisons. Slight spatial adjustments may be necessary depending on the sample results. The timing of receiving water monitoring will be connected to the outfall monitoring, tides, and precipitation in order to collect samples most reflective of the receiving water response to MS4 discharges. 452 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 4.0 Water Quality Methods and Test Procedures Table 2 lists the water quality parameters and sampling methodologies (sample type and holding time) for the monitoring program. Field or in-situ parameters will be analyzed in the field. The remaining parameters will be collected and analyzed at a laboratory certified by the New York State (NYS) Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP). The goal is to collect data during rainfall events that are average in volume and/or duration for NYC. Once samples are collected, the storm volume and duration should be obtained from the nearest or most appropriate rain gauge. Storms that are outside the target (plus or minus 50 percent) will be excluded from the evaluation. Table 2—Water Quality Parameters; and Sampling Methodologies Parameter Sample Type Holding Time Outfall Sampling Receiving Water Sampling Temperature In-Situ In-Situ Analyze Immediately Salinity In-Situ In-Situ Analyze Immediately Dissolved Oxygen In-Situ In-Situ Analyze Immediately pH In-Situ In-Situ Analyze Immediately Fecal Coliform Grab Grab 6 hours Enterococcus Grab Grab 6 hours Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Composite Grab 7 days Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Composite Grab 7 days Total Phosphorus Composite Grab 28 days Dissolved Phosphorus Composite Grab 28 days Total Nitrogen Composite Grab 28 days Total Ammonia (as N) Composite Grab 28 days Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Composite Grab 28 days Total Cadmium Composite Grab 180 days Total Chromium Composite Grab 180 days Total Copper Composite Grab 180 days Total Lead Composite Grab 180 days Total Nickel Composite Grab 180 days Total Arsenic Composite Grab 180 days Total Mercury Composite Grab 28 days Total Zinc Composite Grab 180 days Oil and Grease: Total Recoverable n-Hex ane Extractable Material (HEM) Grab Grab 28 days 453 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 4.1 Sampling Procedures for Laboratory Analysis Sampling locations will be identified using latitude/longitude coordinates with a Global Positioning System (GPS) device. When sampling is conducted from a boat, where necessary, the boat will not be anchored during sampling, but care will be taken to monitor latitude and longitude throughout the sampling process, and the boat location will be adjusted as necessary. Landside Outfall Sampling. Using a stainless steel dip bucket, aliquots of water will be collected approximately every 30 minutes during a 2-hour continuous period of a qualifying rain event (5 grabs to make a single composite for laboratory analysis). If the actual storm duration did not allow the collection of five samples within a period of two hours (0-minutes; 30-minutes; 60-minutes; 90-minutes and 120-minutes) immediately after the start of overland runoff, the samples collected would be discarded. The aliquot volume to be collected will depend on the total volume needed for laboratory analyses of all the composited parameters. For example, if the laboratory requires a total of 5 liters of sample water, each aliquot collected should be at least 1 liter. Additional volume per aliquot is recommended in case of accidental spillage. All aliquots must be of the same volume for the sample to be representative of the sampling period. The compositing container (e.g., a clean, glass carbuoy) will be kept on ice during the sampling period to keep the composited sample cool. Once the last aliquot is collected, the composite sample will be gently agitated and poured into the designated sample bottles. Sample identification, date, and time will be recorded on the field datasheet. Time of sample should be the time of the last aliquot collected. Receiving Water Sampling. Receiving water sampling will conform to the Harbor Survey’s Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan (2014) as approved by USEPA and insofar as the sampling parameters coincide. Receiving water samples will be collected using a pump sampler at the desired depth. Sample water will be directly poured from the sampler tubing into the designated sample bottles. 4.2 Sample Preservation and Transfer Procedure All samples for laboratory analysis will be preserved per laboratory methods and transferred to a contract laboratory for analysis. Analysis will be performed by a certified NYS ELAP Laboratory for analytes and laboratory parameters will be reported. All sample bottles used for laboratory analysis will be new and provided by the sampling contractor or the contracted laboratory, including equipment blanks. 4.3 Sample Handling and Custody Samples that are collected will be transferred to a contract laboratory under standard chain-of-custody (COC) protocols and within required holding times. COC documentation tracks the progress of samples from their collection in the field through laboratory analysis. The forms will be completed by field personnel and will accompany the samples to the laboratory. Each time the samples change hands, the COC form will be signed by the person relinquishing the samples, and then by the person receiving them. Collected samples will be immediately stored on wet ice in a cooler. The temperature of the first sample taken by each sampling crew will be measured upon delivery of samples to the contractor laboratory and will be recorded on COC forms. Note that the last samples taken, depending on the temperature of the sampling waters, may not have time to reach the cooling temperature of approximately 4°C or lower before delivery to the laboratory. Data will be evaluated for conformance based on holding time, sample collection temperature, and laboratory receiving temperature. 4.4 Test Procedures It is the intent of the long-term MS4 Monitoring Program to utilize the same analytical methods followed by the Harbor Survey and other existing monitoring programs. Table 3 summarizes the sample analysis methods preferred for this monitoring program. However, should it be necessary to employ an alternative method, DEP will be contacted and this appendix will be revised to document method changes and any resulting quality control (QC) changes required by DEP. 454 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program Table 3—Preferred Laboratory Analytical Methods Parameter Analysis Method* Reporting Limit** Preservation** Fecal Coliform USEPA 1978 p124 1, 2, 4, 10 CFU/100 mL 4°C Enterococcus USEPA 1600 1, 2, 4, 10 CFU/100 mL 4°C Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) USEPA 160.1 20 mg/L 4°C Total Suspended Solids (TSS) SM 2540 D 1 mg/L 6°C Total Phosphorus SM 4500-P B,E 0.05 mg/L H 2 SO 4 , pH<2, 6°C Dissolved Phosphorus USGS I-4650-03 0.02501 mg/l 4°C Total Nitrogen USGS I-4650-03 0.088 mg/l 4°C Total Ammonia (as N) USEPA 350.1 0.0408 mg/L H 2 SO 4 , pH<2, 6°C Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) USEPA 351.2 0.30 mg/L H 2 SO 4 , pH<2, 6°C Total Cadmium USEPA 200.7 0.0020 mg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Total Chromium USEPA 200.7 0.0050 mg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Total Copper USEPA 200.7 0.010 mg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Total Lead USEPA 200.7 0.0050 mg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Total Nickel USEPA 200.7 0.0050 mg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Total Arsenic USEPA 200.7 0.010 mg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Total Mercury USEPA 200.8 0.10 µg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Total Zinc USEPA 200.7 0.050 mg/L HNO 3 , pH<2, 4°C Oil and Grease: Total Recoverable n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) USEPA 1664 5 mg/L HCl, pH<2, 4°C * USEPA: US Environmental Protection Agency; USGS: US Geological Survey; SM: Standard Methods ** CFU = colony forming unit; C = Celsius; mL = milliliters; mg/L = milligrams per liter; µg/L = micrograms per liter; H 2 SO 4 = sulfuric acid; HNO 3 = nitric acid; HCl = hydrochloric acid. 4.5 Data Management Primary data will be recorded on data sheets or in laboratory notebooks, and will be retained according to the participating laboratory’s procedures. The sampling contractor will maintain copies of primary data and summary data reports for at least seven years in an organized and easily retrievable manner. Other project documentation, such as sample COC records and instrument maintenance and calibration information, will be kept on file at each laboratory within their normal documentation systems. Data records for this project will be kept using basic laboratory practices, such as writing corrections in ink, using a single line to cross out incorrect information, and labeling documents with sample identification, date, and signature of analyst. Data records will be stored in each laboratory’s normal data files using either data sheets or laboratory notebooks. Data will be compiled for analysis using Microsoft Excel. Excel functions will be applied to calculate basic mathematical values (e.g., monthly or seasonal averages, geometric means, data ranges) for each analytical parameter from each sampling site. 455 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 4.6 Adjustments The MS4 Monitoring Program strategy and work plan described above is based on a good faith effort to determine the best locations, the most appropriate parameters, and reasonable sampling volumes to meet the stated goals of the long-term MS4 Monitoring Program. However, it is likely that data collection will reveal opportunities for improvement. Therefore, an evaluation of the MS4 Monitoring Program will be performed. The data will be evaluated in the context of the goals of the SWMP and SWMP-related programs. Where data collected is ambiguous or otherwise uninformative, consideration will be given to changing sampling frequency or replacing one sampling location with another anticipated to yield more meaningful results. Data that have failed quality assurance (QA) or quality control (QC) criteria may also trigger adjustments and additional data reviews. Any adjustment to the MS4 Monitoring Program will first be proposed to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in writing for review and approval, and no change will be implemented without prior NYSDEC approval. 5.0 Flow Metering Methods and Test Procedures Precipitation monitoring and flow metering will be conducted so that stormwater overflow rates may be correlated with rainfall and combined with water quality pollutant data to estimate loadings. Stormwater outfalls are not expected to discharge continuously. Therefore, meter setup will be designed to measure flow from as close to a dry condition as possible, to capture the fullest extent of a flow event. Eight stormwater outfalls will be metered during the Phase 1 sampling period (two years), with the deployments focusing on summer months, when water quality impacts to uses are greatest. Each deployment will cover six consecutive weeks at a given location. Eight locations at six weeks each results in 48 meter-weeks of deployment. Phase 2 will follow a similar methodology; the number of locations will be established during the Phase 1 data review. 5.1 Precipitation Hourly rain data will be collected from the certified NWS rain gauges routinely used by NYC (Table 4). In addition, a temporary rain gauge will be deployed synoptically with the flow meters to supplement the assigned NWS gauge and to provide a measure of spatial variability. A minimum of one recording tipping bucket rainfall gauge will be installed at a central location within the tributary catchment area. The rain gauge will be capable of recording rainfall data in 15-minute increments. Table 4—NWS Rain Gauge Station Name (Call Sign) City Latitude Longitude Start Date of Precipitation Data Newark Liberty International Airport (KEWR) Newark, NJ 40°41’N 74°10’W 1929 John F Kennedy International Airport (KJFK) Jamaica, NY 40°38’N 73°46’W 1948 La Guardia Airport (KLGA) Flushing, NY 40°47’N 73°53’W 1935 Central Park (KNYC) New York, NY 40°47’N 73°58’W 1869 456 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program Hourly data will be aggregated into discrete events to assist in developing relationships between rainfall, runoff/overflow volume, pollutant loads, and timing. Precipitation events will be defined by a minimum inter-event time (MIT) determined with NYSDEC’s concurrence. For comparison, New York City’s LTCP program uses a 12-hour MIT for calculating wet weather capture at its WWTPs to ensure that the collection system has completely returned to a dry weather condition between storms, but a 4-hour MIT for calculating return-period statistics to be consistent with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and others. 5.2 Flow Metering Flow data will be collected at stormwater outfalls for a period of six weeks at each outfall being sampled. The monitoring will rely on a specialty company with expert knowledge in the science of flow measurements that will install, maintain, and remove the equipment. All meters will be tested for flow and/or level accuracy and stability before installation and will be calibrated on installation for velocity and/or level. Meters will be located along free-flowing portions of storm sewers using redundant level sensors (typically one pressure and one ultrasonic meter). The precise location of the sensors will be determined during an initial site reconnaissance with the flow monitoring company to ensure that logistical and practical considerations unique to each site are addressed (e.g., access, proximity to changes in flow patterns, depth of flow initially observed, sediment deposition). Each site will be visited periodically for maintenance, including a visual inspection of all meter and sensor components, a review of the previous period’s data to search for anomalies in the meter performance, physical calibration of velocity and/or level, and replacement of any questionable equipment. 5.3 Flow Data Sensors will measure depth of flow and velocity, and data from each sensor will be downloaded electronically using telemetry to a central data collection center approximately every four hours. In addition, receiving water tidal stage will be retrieved from appropriate NOAA gauges to adjust data for backwater effects on tide gates and resulting calculated discharge volumes. All data will be reviewed two or three times per week by a dedicated data analyst who will report any anomalies and dispatch a field crew for a maintenance visit. Data reduction and review will be performed on all data obtained for each flow monitoring location. In addition to the preliminary data review noted above, a final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review of the data will include checking the validity of each data point, checking flow balance, comparison of observed flow to expected flow (pipe rating curve), and similar tests. Questionable data will be flagged or discarded as appropriate to their final use. The depth and velocity measurements will be used to calculate flow in a manner suitable for the particular deployment. For example, different pipe cross-sections may rely on different metering approaches. Generally, flow area will be calculated based on depth, and volumetric flow will be calculated based on area-velocity. Other approaches may be necessary in instances such as weir overflow or orifice flow, where calculations may be based on height of flow over some critical elevation or through use of scatter graphs and other graphical techniques. In all cases, flow will be adjusted for tidal or high water influences. 457 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 6.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control To ensure adequate data quality, numerous institutional controls will be implemented throughout the sample collection, transport, and laboratory analysis process. The QA/QC program includes QA (process-oriented) procedures related to documentation, COC, decontamination procedures, as well as QC (product-oriented) procedures such as duplicate sampling and replicate laboratory analyses. Primary data records (forms, notebooks, or electronically generated data) will be checked for completeness and accuracy. All data that are electronically entered into the Excel study records will be checked by someone other than the person entering the data. An Excel file will be used to compile data into a single file. The entry of data into this single file will be checked again for correctness to eliminate the possibility of typographical errors. 6.1 Quality Objectives and Criteria Most laboratory methods are prescriptive regarding calibration procedures, numbers of duplicates and spikes, and other procedures necessary to document data quality. Reliance on NYS ELAP-certified laboratories ensures that these minimum requirements are being met. Field sampling procedures will be dictated by the requirements prescribed in the laboratory methods. The primary criteria to be used will be precision, accuracy, sensitivity, completeness, comparability, and representativeness, as discussed below. Precision Precision is a measure of how much repeated measurements deviate from one another, and assesses the variability associated with sample collection, handling, and storage in the field, as well as variability associated with the analytical processes. Precision will be evaluated by collecting and analyzing a duplicate sample, with the original and duplicate values being compared on a relative percent difference (RPD) basis. At a minimum, one sample from each sampling event and sampling group will be collected in duplicate. As an additional assessment of analytical precision, every 20th sample, or at least one sample per batch, will be split in the laboratory for duplicate analysis. Accuracy Accuracy is a measure of how close a given result is to the true value. It will be assessed by analyzing a second source QC sample of known concentration with each batch of samples for methods where applicable. Those QC samples can be in the form of laboratory-fortified blanks or matrix spikes, depending on the analytical method, and the percent recovery of the known concentration will be reported with the data associated with that spike. Sensitivity Sensitivity of the methods will be assessed using predetermined method detection limits (calculated annually as necessary) and reporting limits or levels. Detection limits and similar terms are used to describe the minimum threshold concentration that can be reliably detected for a given method. Completeness Even with rigorous QA/QC measures in place, no sample collection program is perfect. Samples are lost or damaged, holding times may be violated, or COCs may be illegible. In addition, QC samples are analyzed after the collection effort is done, and the result may render a set of analyses invalid retroactively. Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained relative to the amount of data planned, and it should be expected that at least 90 percent of data collected will be valid, usable data, meeting all quality objectives. Comparability Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one data set (or method) can be considered equivalent to another, and is assessed using performance test (PT) samples as part of annual laboratory and method certification for each laboratory participating in the analysis of program samples. Comparability is thus built into the program by using only USEPA-approved methods and relying on NYS ELAP-certified laboratories. 458 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program Representativeness Representativeness is a measure of the degree to which data represent the environmental condition at the sampling point. Representativeness is established by adhering to sampling and sample handling procedures, equipment maintenance, calibration, and use procedures, and by uniform implementation of all program-related standard operating procedures (SOPs). In addition, equipment blanks using laboratory de-ionized water will be generated each day that samples are collected and for each sampler to use during that event (includes all sampling groups within each sampling event). At least one equipment blank will be collected during each sampling event to be analyzed with each parameter of interest. 6.2 Instruments and Equipment Many of the quality objectives and criteria can be met only through the use of well-maintained, clean equipment. The rigorous care of field and laboratory equipment is a vital element of monitoring and related QA/QC programs so that accurate, precise, repeatable measurements can be made. Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Field equipment will be maintained and operated according to the specific equipment manuals. Routine preventive maintenance will be performed at the frequency recommended by equipment manuals to minimize the occurrence of field and laboratory instrument failure and other system malfunctions. All maintenance performed will be documented in the appropriate instrument operating and maintenance record books. Calibration and Frequency Laboratory equipment used in this project will be maintained, calibrated, and operated according to NYS ELAP requirements and applicable project SOPs. Calibrations for laboratory equipment and instrumentation will be performed prior to sample analysis. Field equipment, including meters, will be calibrated according to the specific equipment manuals. Calibrations for field equipment will be performed prior to each day of use for sample analysis. Instruments will be recalibrated after any maintenance activity is conducted. All calibration activities will be recorded on the field data sheets or in field calibration log books. Decontamination Field equipment will be cleaned with mild detergent, rinsed with de-ionized water, and inspected for cleanliness and usability before each use in the field. Operator Training A clear understanding of project objectives and data quality criteria is necessary for project personnel to successfully participate in this project. Field personnel are trained in routine field water sampling and in-situ testing techniques. Lab personnel are trained in quality laboratory techniques and in the analyte tests that they will perform. Each laboratory that performs testing for this project will be certified by the NYS ELAP for applicable parameters. Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables Supplies will be inspected to ensure they will meet the needs of the project. Any specialized replacement equipment will be tested prior to use. 459 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 7.0 Assessment and Reporting The Phase 1 monitoring report will be prepared two years (i.e., eight quarterly sampling cycles) after the Phase 1 monitoring has commenced. The report, which will include assessments and recommended adjustments, as appropriate, will be submitted along with comparisons to historical data where available. Values will be compared to nationwide sources and to directly applicable New York State standards. Data that fail QA/QC criteria will be documented as part of the data packet, along with an evaluation of the cause and severity of the QA/QC contravention. The Phase 2 monitoring report will be developed similar to Phase 1 assessment and reporting procedures, unless Phase 1 results suggest alternative procedures for assessing and reporting monitoring data and results during the future phase. Therefore, it is currently anticipated that the final results for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 monitoring will include the following information for each monitoring location: � An assessment of potential sources of discharge of stormwater POCs � Identification of potential additional reduction measures � Figures showing metering locations and configuration of sensors, with photos of installed flow monitors provided in the Sewer System Characterization Report � A summary of daily flow information for a selected time period, including minimum rate, peak rate, total daily flow, total rain, peak hourly rain, and peak 15-minute rainfall, if applicable � Detailed flow reports of the flow rate data in 15-minute time increments, including depth of flow, velocity of flow, incremental flow rate, cumulative flow rate, and recorded rainfall � Flow hydrographs comprised of a plot of the recorded flow rates for a selected time period along with a bar graph of associated rainfall for each flow monitoring location � QA/QC data demonstrating the validity of the results and flags on questionable data, including the preliminary and final QA/QC data checks � Calibration and maintenance procedures, available upon request � Data in an electronic format, available upon request. 8.0 Schedule Part IV.O, Program Development Compliance Schedule, of the MS4 Permit identifies the deliverables and related submittal schedule that the City must meet for Permit compliance. The Effective Date of Permit (EDP) is August 1, 2015, and the Permit remains effective through July 31, 2020. The milestones relevant to the Monitoring Program are: � Stormwater Management Program Plan Draft (Part III.A), due EDP plus three years (August 1, 2018) � Monitoring and Assessment of Controls (Part IV.J.3), certification of implementation due EDP plus five years (August 1, 2020; i.e., the beginning of the next five-year Permit cycle). The Phase 1 outfall sampling and metering will be initiated prior to August 1, 2020. Subsequent to the two-year collection period, data will be evaluated before the Phase 2 monitoring strategy and work plan is finalized and contracts are procured for implementation. 460 Appendix 10.1 MS4 Monitoring Program 9.0 References APHA/AWWA/WEF. 2017. “Method SM 2540 D: Total Suspended Solids Dried at 103-105o,” Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd Edition. APHA/AWWA/WEF. 2017. “Method SM 4500-P E: Phosphorus by Ascorbic Acid,” Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd Edition. USEPA. 1978. “Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment Water and Wastes,” p. 124. USEPA. 1993a. “Method 350.1: Determination of Ammonia Nitrogen by Semi-Automated Colorimetry,” Revision 2.0. USEPA. 1993b. “Method 351.2: Determination of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen by Semi-Automated Colorimetry,” Revision 2.0. USEPA. 1994. “Method 200.8: Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry,” Revision 5.4. USEPA. 1999.”Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): USEPA Method 160.1 (Gravimetric, Dried at 180 degrees C).” USEPA. 2001. “Method 200.7 Trace Elements in Water, Solids, and Biosolids by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry,” Revision 5.0. USEPA. 2006. “Method 1600: Enterococci in Water by Membrane Filtration Using membrane-Enterococcus Indoxyl-B-D Glucoside Agar (mEI).” USEPA. 2010. “Method 1664: n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM; Oil and Grease) and Silica Gel Treated n-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM; Non-polar Material) by Extraction and Gravimetry,” Revision B. USGS. 2003. “Method I-4650-03: Nitrogen and phosphorus, total whole water (mg/L as N or P),” Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4174. Appendix 12.1 CIT System Framework Certification 461 August 1, 2018 Selvin Trevor Southwell, P.E. Deputy Regional Water Engineer, Division of Water New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation 47-40 21st Street Long Island City, NY 11101 Dear Mr. Southwell: In accordance with Part IV.J.2 of the New York City Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (SPDES Number NY 0287890), the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has developed a consolidated information tracking system framework (CITS Framework). The CITS Framework, developed by DEP, is a data directory that will ultimately be the basis for the consolidated information tracking system (CITS) – a database that includes a portal that will be used by the City to input data required by the MS4 permit’s annual reporting requirements. The DEP Office of Information Technology is using the CITS Framework as a guide for developing the CITS. The CITS Framework is the description of the CITS requirements for system design and data collection. It is organized into two main sections: (1) technical and design requirements for the software system (e.g., user creation, system configurations, and user notifications) that includes features that allow the CITS to grow and adapt to future changing needs, and (2) substantive data tracking and reporting requirements that include the information required to be reported by the MS4 permit. The CITS Framework includes the following information required by the MS4 permit that follows the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan chapter format: • Annual reporting requirements • Framework requirements • SWMP provision requirements • Wireframe user interface screen mock ups • Import schema • Web service specifications • Summary data • Data elements This certification fulfils the permit requirement in Part IV.J.2 of the MS4 Permit. Vincent Sapienza Commissioner Angela Licata Deputy Commissioner Sustainability Pinar Balci Assistant Commissioner Environmental Planning & Analysis pbalci@dep.nyc.gov 59-17 Junction Blvd. Flushing, New York 11373 Tel. (718) 595-3168 Fax (718) 595-4479 1 1 462 Appendix 12.1 CIT System Framework Certification 2 I certify under penalty of law that this document was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief' true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information. Sincerely, Pinar Balci, Ph.D. Assistant Commissioner Bureau of Environmental Planning & Analysis cc (via email): Marcella Eckels, DEP Bureau of Legal Affairs Robert Elburn, DEC Regional Water Engineer, Region 2 463 Appendix 12.1 CIT System Framework Certification nyc.gov/dep/ms4 http://nyc.gov/dep/ms4