Urban River Permits Review and Advocacy Recommendations

308 Pages·2015·55.81 MB·English

Urban River Permits
Review and Advocacy
Recommendations for
the Quinnipiac, Mill,
and West Rivers
MARY MUSHINSKY for
Mill River Watershed Association of
South Central Connecticut and
River Advocates of
South Central Connecticut
April 2014 | Revised June 2015
Publication Designer Edward W. Waters
Project #20130073
Community Foundation for Greater
New Haven—Quinnipiac Fund
1
Urban River Permits Review and
Advocacy Recommendations for
the Quinnipiac, Mill and West Rivers
Table of Contents
4 S Executive Summary
Cover Photo:
Ian Christmann
12 1 The Three Rivers of Greater New Haven
1.1 Character of Each River
13 1.2 Human Impacts
15 1.3 Water Quality and Quantity Issues
16 1.4 Heavily Developed Urban Watersheds
20 2 The Pollutants: Regulated and Unregulated
2.1 Phosphorus
22 2.2 Nitrogen
24 2.3 Suspended Solids
2.4 Bacteria
2.5 Toxins and New Pollutants
28 3 Permit Categories and Permits of
the Quinnipiac, Mill, and West Rivers
3.1 Wastewater Discharges
3.1.1 Industrial Discharge Permits
3.1.1.1 Industrial renewable permits
31 3.1.1.2 Federal Superfund Non-Renewable Permit
3.1.2 Municipal Discharge Permits
3.1.2.1 POTW’s
34 3.1.2.2 CSO’s
36 3.1.3 General Wastewater Permits (GP)
3.1.3.1 Water Treatment GP
3.1.3.2 Domestic Sewage GP
3.1.3.3 Vehicle Maintenance GP
37 3.1.4 Non-Point Source Pollution: Storm Water Permits
3.1.4.1 Reducing Pollution from Non-Point Sources
38 3.1.4.2 Best Practices
40 3.1.4.3 Regulating Pollution From Runoff
3.1.4.4 Stormwater General Permits
3.1.4.4.1 Stormwater GP, Industrial
41 3.1.4.4.2 Stormwater GP, Commercial
3.1.4.4.3 Stormwater GP, Construction
3.1.4.4.4 Stormwater GP, Municipal (MS4)
42 3.1.4.5 Cost-Effective Measures
43 3.1.4.6 Pioneering Municipalities
3.2 Water Diversion Permits
46 3.2.1 Diversions—Renewable
48 3.2.2 Registrations—Permanent
49 3.2.3 Streamflow Law and Regulations
50 3.2.4 Improving Diversion Policy
51 3.3 Land Use Permits
54 3.3.1 Survey of Municipal Land Use Practices
54 3.3.2 Low Impact Development
56 3.3.3 Improving Municipal Training and Practice
58 4 Advocacy Recommendations
4.1 Tactics
60 4.2 Timetable
66 4.3 Regulators
68 4.4 Allies
72 5 Acknowledgments:
Project Sponsors and Sources
73 A Appendix
74 A.1 Impaired River Segments
84 A.2 Proposed Human Health Based and Aquatic
Life Criteria for Chemical Constituents
102 A.3 Industrial Permit Excerpt
121 A.4 POTW Permit Excerpt
133 A.5 Waste Water Discharge Permits for South
Central Connecticut
238 A.6 Consumptive Use Diversions
247 A.7 Registered Diversions
281 A.8 Municipal Permits Survey Results
291 A.9 References and Resources
References
292 CT DEEP Guide to Vegetative Buffers
296 US EPA Soak Up The Rain
299 Pet Waste Management
302 A.10 Action Steps
S
Urban River Permits Review and
Advocacy Recommendations for the
Quinnipiac, Mill and West Rivers
Executive Summary
1 The Three Rivers 2 The Pollutants: Regulated
of Greater New Haven and Unregulated
pollutants
The Quinnipiac, Mill and West Rivers are located in Several are responsible for the continued
impaired
Greater New Haven in South Central Connecticut, one status of the Quinnipiac, West and Mill
of the densely populated, urbanized regions of the state. Rivers, in particular, bacteria and excessive nutrients
three rivers
The all empty into New Haven Harbor such as phosphorus and nitrogen. In some cases, the
differ in character
and Long Island Sound but as specific causes are unknown. Recent data as summa-
a result of how regulators designated their uses more rized in the Quinnipiac River Watershed Based Plan
than a century ago. Officials designated the Quinnip- (2013) identifies the major contributor for each pollut-
iac River as the waste receiving stream for the region, ant in the Quinnipiac River.
phosphorus
yet all three river are either partly or wholly located on Excessive causes nutrient enrich-
impaired waters list
the federal due to pollutants ment. Enrichment generates algal blooms, noxious
associated with urban landscapes. Several types of blue green algae, reduction in water clarity, depletion of
human impacts have reduced these rivers’ natural ability oxygen and fish kills. Most phosphorus in the Quin-
to maintain water quality. nipiac—75%—arrives from municipal waste water
water quality quantity
Both and are issues of treatment plants (POTW’s). Some municipalities
concern for river advocates in South Central Connecti- intentionally add phosphorus to public water systems to
cut. Poor water quality prevents contact recreation reduce pipe corrosion.
nitrogen
(swimming and wading). Low water interferes with Like phosphorus, is a plant nutrient
swimming, paddling, fishing and fish life. which provokes excessive algae growth when present in
South Central CT is heavily urbanized, so that abundance. Fully 74% of nitrogen reaches rivers from
paved surfaces
extensive have replaced forests, plants poor landscape practices. At present, Wallingford and
and soil, and reduced the natural filtration and storage North Haven POTW’s are not meeting nitrogen reduc-
of rain and snow. Much of the Quinnipiac, and down- tion goals.
Suspended solids
stream sections of the Mill and West River basins are include silt and clay particles,
heavily paved today. Stormwater washing off streets plankton, algae, fine organic debris, and other partic-
and lots is often contaminated. ulate matter. Suspended solids can serve as carriers
Once a river basin is developed more than 12%, of toxics, which cling to suspended particles. This is
water quality degrades. In South Central Connecticut, particularly a concern where pesticides are being used
the lower river basins are paved beyond 25%—a huge on irrigated crops or when petroleum-derived chem-
challenge for river advocates as they attempt to restore icals fall onto roads and parking lots. Sources of total
water quality. solids include industrial discharges, sewage, fertilizers,
road runoff, and soil erosion. The majority of suspended
solids reach rivers from poor landscape practices.
4
Bacteria 3.1 Wastewater discharges
measured as fecal coliform reaches the
rivers because of contaminated water running off the
urban landscape. Illegal and undetected discharges Wastewater discharges are regulated by the State
of raw sewage, golf course ponds and parks with large and Federal Clean Water Acts. The goal is to reduce
fishable and swimmable
populations of geese, dog waste, leaking septic tanks pollution to reach
and improperly managed agriculture contribute bacteria conditions and remove rivers and streams from the
“impaired waters”
which is a threat to public health. The areas zoned for federal list. The permits are
NPDES
single family residential land use are responsible for called —the National Pollution Discharge
75% of non-point source fecal coliform bacteria in the Elimination System. Wastewater discharge permits
industrial, municipal, general permits
urbanized parts of Connecticut. Management of these include
for wastewater, non-point source permits
sources and restoration of streamside vegetation has and ,
stormwa-
been shown to reduce high bacteria counts. including those for managing polluted
toxics ter approximately 1,212 state-issued
Other wastewater discharges, including , . There are
waste water discharge permits for the three
may cause normal stream life to be absent. Some water
watersheds
quality experts have suggested that industrial discharge of South Central Connecticut, of differ-
permits should be updated through the CT DEEP’s ent permit types (Appendix 5).
Triennial Review
process. Additional requirements
3.1.1 Industrial Discharges—Renewable
could include restrictions on other toxic chemicals,
phthalates NPDES permits
and other endocrine disruptors and
pharmaceuticals
. Connecticut could also require Over the last 100 years, industrial dis-
water-borne pesticides
municipal restrictions on . charges to the Quinnipiac have declined from
71 businesses to only six in 2014. In 2014,
3 Permit Categories
there are six industrial discharges to the Quin-
and Permits
nipiac, and no discharges to the Mill or West
Rivers. Only three have chemical discharges,
The water quality and quantity permits of the Quin- and only one is significant.
three broad
nipiac, Mill and West Rivers fall into
categories: 3.1.2 Municipal Discharges

1) Wastewater discharges
regulated by the fed- Municipal discharges include treated
eral and state Clean Water Acts; sewage, combined sewer overflows (CSO’s),
2) Water diversions
regulated by the state’s water stormwater from town garages and runoff
diversion law and modifications for streamflow law; from storm drains.
and
3) Land use permits
at the municipal level.
5
3.1.2.1 Publicly Owned Treatment Works 3.1.3.5 Domestic Sewage GP
(POTW, or wastewater treatment
This general permit applies to
plants)
discharges of domestic sewage from a
Municipalities collect, treat and community sewerage system (such as
discharge sewage and other wastewaters those at condominiums) to a POTW.
at five Publicly Owned Treatment Works
3.1.3.6 Vehicle Maintenance
(POTW’s) and one industrially-owned
Wastewater GP
treatment plant along the Quinnipiac.
West Haven and New Haven operate Another general permit applies to
POTW’s which discharge treated effluent wastewater generated by 1) floor washing
to New Haven Harbor. POTW dis- and incidental dripping from vehicles and
charges are the top source of phosphorus 2) washing of vehicles or steam cleaning
in waste-receiving streams such as the of engines.
Quinnipiac River.
3.1.7 Non-Point Source Pollution: Stormwa-
3.1.2.2 Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO’s) ter Permits
3.1.4.1 Reducing pollution from non-point
New Haven’s old storm sewer design
sources
combines street runoff and sewage, taking

both together to the treatment plant. As an urbanized region, South
During rain storms, the capacity of pipes Central Connecticut is heavily impacted
is overwhelmed and untreated wastewater by this pollution type. Pollution not from
flows to rivers. CSO separation has begun a pipe, or “non-point source” pollu-
in New Haven. CSO generated pollution tion, reaches South Central CT rivers
reaches the Quinnipiac, Mill and West and streams when rain or snow carries
Rivers and Long Island Sound approxi- contaminants from urban and subur-
mately 50 times per year. Some activists ban landscapes to the nearest waterway.
Non-point source pollution is
in New Haven are advocating green infra-
responsible for 3 out of 4 pollution
structure to reduce CSO impacts.
types that caused South Central
3.1.3 General Wastewater Permits CT’s rivers to land on the federal
General Permits “impaired waters” list.
(GP) are group-type Nearly 100%
permits issued to authorize minor activities by of bacteria, 99% of suspended solids, 74%
multiple applicants in the same class. Gen- of nitrogen and 25% of phosphorus in the
eral Permits renewal is an opportunity to Quinnipiac arrive from non-point pollu-
strengthen best practices for all permit holders tion sources. Examples of these sources are
in the same class. septic systems, agricultural waste manage-
ment systems, pet waste, lawn fertilizers
3.1.4 Water Treatment GP
and landfills.
A general permit regulates discharge of
total nitrogen from publicly owned treatment
works (POTW’s).
6
3.1.4.2 Best Practices to Clean Stormwater 3.1.4.4.2 General Stormwater: Commercial
include:
Commercial activities stormwater
permits are unique to Connecticut. They
1) Detect and repair illicit
require operators of large, paved sites (5
discharges
acres or more) such as malls, theatres and
2) Manage pet waste
supermarkets to sweep parking lots and
3) Restore vegetative buffers
clean catch basins to keep stormwater
along streams and rivers Approximately 51 commercial
clean.
4) Install green infrastructure permittees
are in South Central Con-
5) Frequently clean streets and
necticut watersheds.
storm drains
3.1.4.4.3 General Stormwater: Construction
3.1.4.3 Regulating Pollution From Runoff
Construction permits apply to
Due to regulatory challenges, CT discharges of stormwater from dewa-
DEEP is concentrating on establish- tering sediment or from development
ing best practices to reduce pollution. disturbances of one or more acres of land.
Approximately 109 construction
3.1.4.4 Stormwater General Permits permittees
are in South Central Con-
CT DEEP regulates non-point necticut watersheds.
sources of water pollution through
stormwater general permits 3.1.4.4.4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
. These
System (“MS4”) General Permit
are applied to industry, commercial
businesses, construction sites, and munic- The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
ipalities. All four of these categories of System General Permit is more commonly
stormwater permits affect the rivers of known by the shorthand “MS4”. Most
South Central CT. towns in the South Central Connecti-
About 1/3 of the state’s 3,219 cut region objected to DEEP’s efforts
stormwater state-
entries on the to strengthen MS4 permits, which are
wide permits
list of October 15, 2013 designed to reduce polluted water from
approximately 1,073
( ) are in the water- storm drains. Facing strong municipal
sheds of South Central Connecticut. opposition, permits due to expire on
January 8, 2015 were instead continued
3.1.4.4.1 General Stormwater: Industrial MS4 permit
to January 8, 2016. The
stormwater industrial affects all 14 municipalities
The general in
permits
list includes 1,431 statewide of the three watersheds of South Central
approximately 477
which about 1/3 ( ) Connecticut with separate storm sewer
are in South Central CT. While many are systems, identified by the presence of
industries, these GSI permits also cover storm drains in the street. If there is no
municipalities’ public works garages and resolution of this municipal stormwa-
transfer stations. ter permit dispute through engineering,
cost sharing or negotiated timetable for
7
compliance, water quality in rivers and joins the West River. The Quinnipiac River
Long Island Sound will continue to be tributaries Ten Mile River, Misery Brook and
impaired. Broad Brook have permanent registered with-
drawals.
3.1.4.5 Cost-Effective Measures
The permitted diversions total 32.284
The Center for Watershed Protec- million gallons per day drawn from the Quin-
detecting
tion in Maryland found that nipiac basin. Consumptive diversions represent
and repairing illicit discharges,
only part of the removal of river water. The
managing pet waste, and restor-
bulk of water removal is already grandfathered
ing vegetative buffers produced registrations
in place as .
cleaner water at the most afford-
able cost. 3.2.2 Registrations—Permanent

Under the category of permanent reg-
3.2 Water Diversion Permits
istrations, most of the water resource has
already been given away in the rivers of South
Diversion Permits and Registrations
Central Connecticut. Eleven basins already
In addition to pollution, rivers are also harmed by have permanent registrations in the region.
reduced water quantity. Urban river systems like the These include the Quinnipiac and its tributary
Quinnipiac, Mill and West Rivers are heavily tapped to streams, the Mill River, and West River and
satisfy competing demands for water. CT DEEP regu- one of its tributaries. In the rivers of South
permanent registra-
lates the amount of water that can be removed through Central Connecticut,
tions (182) vastly outnumber renewable
diversion permits. However, state law exempted water
diversion permits (21)
diversions that existed as of 1982. These pre-1982 .
diversions, mainly by water utilities, were granted The water authorized to be removed from
non-expiring status as registered diversions. Today, the Quinnipiac basin by permanent registered
these original registrations can only be modified to withdrawals at the rate of 116.7 million gallons
meet requirements of the state’s Streamflow Law of per day is nearly four times greater than the
2005, which protects rivers and streams from going water removed by renewable diversion permit.
completely dry. The largest registered withdrawals in actual use
• Consumptive water diversions
need a in the region are those of South Central CT
permit from CT DEEP and must be renewed Regional Water Authority (SCCRWA) and
• Registrations
are water removals that never the Wallingford Water Department.
expire, need no renewal, and don’t come up for
Streamflow Law and Regulations
scrutiny unless for streamflow regulations
Under current law, the Streamflow clas-
3.2.1 Water Diversion Permits—Renewable
sification process is the only way to modify
20 water diversion per-
There are permanent withdrawal registrations. The 2005
mits
on the Quinnipiac River or its tributary CT Streamflow law sets up a classification
streams as of February 2013. There is one system for rivers and streams, giving more
diversion permit on Wintergreen Brook, which protection in low-flow months to certain rivers
and streams that provide fish, wildlife and
8
public recreation. CT DEEP is now consid- municipality to use Low Impact Development. Key
ering the classification of rivers and streams of municipalities (North Haven,Wallingford and South-
South Central CT with their initial draft to be ington) control the largest percentage of land in the
released in summer 2015. Quinnipiac River watershed; how these municipalities
regulate land use will determine if water quality will
Stream Gages
improve or worsen.
Stream gages are a key tool that advocates
3.3.1 Survey of Municipal Practices
can use to measure water flows in streams.
in South Central CT
There are four United States Geological Ser-

vice (USGS) gages located in South Central We interviewed the municipalities of
Connecticut and three groundwater observa- South Central CT for this report in 2013 and
tion wells in the watersheds covered by this 2014, using a questionnaire adapted from a
report. statewide 2013 CT DEEP survey.
We found towns differ in their use of
3.2.4 Improving diversion policy
strategies to reduce water pollution and

Fully one half of the Quinnipiac’s flow in increase filtration through best practices.
late summer is treated discharge; more clean Some municipalities are aggressive in requiring
water would improve fish habitat and recre- developers to take steps to protect water qual-
ational paddling. Other states have dealt with ity and quantity. Others are limited by lack of
this problem by creating watershed-specific staff or staff and board training. Some towns
allocations that provide for seasonally import- are skeptical of certain technical recommenda-
ant environmental needs. tions that are accepted by other communities.

Water allocation planning to address
3.3.2 Low Impact Development
competing needs is the responsibility of the
State’s Water Planning Council, which must Low Impact Development (LID) is an
complete their plan by 2018. Advocates should alternative way of developing land that mini-
participate in both local stream classification mizes the negative impacts of urbanization on
and creation of the statewide plan. wildlife habitats and waterways. The design
more closely imitates the natural world by
3.3 Land Use Permits
controlling and filtering runoff close to where
the rain fell, rather than funneling it into pipes
Another way to reduce water pollution from landscape and storm sewers that drain into streams and
sources is through municipal action to grant local land rivers. Low impact development for water-
use permits. shed management includes the following best
Municipalities of South Central Connecticut have practices: green roofs, pervious (flow-through)
the power to dramatically reduce polluted runoff if they pavement, rain gardens, vegetated streamside
stop illicit discharges, promote pet waste management areas, rainwater harvesting, and grassy swales.
and require land developers to protect and restore The survey determined that most munic-
streamside vegetation to achieve quick and cost-effec- ipalities in the region were comfortable using
tive results. They can also require developers and the rain gardens, parking islands, buffers, flexible
9
site design, shared parking and porous pave- on the proposed decision. Twenty five signatures will
ment. There was some skepticism regarding trigger a public hearing. Advocates must go on record if
the long term maintenance of rain gardens. they object to the proposed decision, and push regula-
Most municipalities in the region were more tors to add stronger protections for the waterway.
willing to require LID of new commercial and General permits with uniform requirements for an
industrial development than of existing sites. entire class have replaced individual permits in recent
decades. General permits are especially difficult for
3.3.3 Improving Municipal Training and Prac-
river advocacy, as a large and powerful alliance of all the
tice
members of the class works together to object to the

We determined through the survey that permit requirements. A recent example is the unified
towns needed assistance in their efforts to opposition of most South Central Connecticut munic-
reduce harmful effects of polluted stormwa- ipalities to the MS4 (municipal stormwater) general
ter. Most municipalities selected improving permit. On the other hand, strengthening a general
training for volunteer commissioners and permit improves water quality for the entire class of
town staff, and creation of a guide and model permit holders.
ordinance. Some municipalities also expressed
Local Land Use Permits
a need for better runoff pollution control on
state roads over which they have no authority. At the local level, land use permits can be used to
protect water quality. These permits also involve an
4 Advocacy
adversarial process. In a typical public hearing, only
Recommendations
the immediate neighbors or an economic competitor
objects to a development that may generate polluted
Tactics for State Permits Advocacy
runoff. Local land use regulators must decide what
The federal Clean Water Act is the driving force behind requirements to put on the developer. Advocates can use
laws and regulations requiring further cleanup of river local permit hearings to ask for low impact technolo-
pollution. The regulatory process is an adversarial one. gies, and regulators are more likely to make them part
Applicants for state water pollution control permits of the permit.
must obtain a permit for their discharge into the waters
Organizing for Advocacy
of the state. For a diversion, applicants must obtain a
permit to remove water if the amount is more than There is a larger constituency for clean water in rivers
50,000 gallons per day. and Long Island Sound than there are pollution and
The regulatory agency, CT DEEP, determines how diversion permit holders. More than 200,000 people
much pollution load or diversion the waterway can live just in the Quinnipiac Watershed. Advocates have
withstand, and specifies best practices the polluter or the advantage in numbers if they organize, time their
diverter must follow. The regulator then publishes a actions according to the permit schedule presented in
proposed decision, with a deadline for public comments. this report and become more visible in their advocacy
public comment window
The is the interval message at both state and local levels.
during which river advocates must express their views
10