Dear Mr. Watts,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft MS4 Permit to New York City.

Add a paragraph about you and/or your organization if you wish.

We understand that this permit is long over due (more than two decades). Given the delay, we want to ensure the final permit is as strong and meaningful as it can be. To this end we have the following concerns.

Stronger requirements for water quality improvement

The draft permit is based on the premise that stormwater discharges impair water quality and must be properly managed to prevent pollutants from entering our waterways. However, the draft permit does not include any specific pollutant load reductions that would lead to improved water qualities. The permit should clearly prohibit discharges that are known to cause or contribute to existing water quality impairments.

More meaningful public participation and involvement

We find the requirement for public participation and involvement to be inadequate. All reports and notices resulting from the permit (e.g., annual reports) should be publicly noticed at both public meetings and on the City’s web site (not one or the other). Such notices should also be disseminated via the City’s social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook).

For illicit discharge plans, construction site stormwater control, post-construction stormwater control, and industrial and commercial stormwater source management, the permit should require the City to develop a public-reporting system for complaints (accessible telephonically and electronically) that not only allows the members of the public to file complaints but also allows them to track their complaints through to resolution by the City, either online or through a point of contact in the City.

We would also like the opportunity to formally share our comments on the Stormwater Management Program, to be developed by the City, with the DEC through a public comment and public hearing processes. While the permit requires that the City involve the public in the development and implementation of the SWMP, we believe it is important for the DEC, as the regulatory agency issuing the permit, to hear our comments on the SWMP, so that the DEC will be in a better position to modify the permit if necessary. Without such a stipulation, this feels a little like the fox guarding the hen house.

Coordination with other ongoing programs

We are confused by the myriad of water quality related programs underway in the City. We understand that for some waterbodies, the Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plans are in development by the City. There are also the floatables control program and the Green Infrastructure Plan. Yet in other places, there are brownfields cleanup efforts and superfund remediation. We believe it is critical that these related or overlapping programs must be coordinated well for the efficient use of public resources as well as for better understanding by the public of the City’s efforts. We know that interagency coordination is not necessarily the City’s strongest suit. It would be beneficial to explicitly require the City to create a mechanism for coordination.

Construction site size requirement

We believe most residents of New York City will attest to the fact that a great majority of construction projects in the city are small. Requiring regulation of only projects larger than one acre does not seem like a meaningful approach to managing construction site runoff in the City. We urge the DEC to evaluate data on construction projects and patterns closely to determine the best size.

Sincerely,