Summary (PDF)

document center

Pages	34
File Size	1.5 MB
Folder	Departments/Planning & Development/Land Use Studies & Reports
OCR Status	Searchable (OCR processed)
Source URL	Original

Download PDF

Document Preview

Full Text (OCR Extracted)

Niantic River Watershed
Protection Plan
~~~
Guided Summary

March 2009

The Guided Summary of the Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan was prepared by
the Eastern Connecticut Conservation District and funded in part by the CT DEP
through the US EPA Nonpoint Source grant under section 319 of the Clean Water Act.

Printed on Recycled Paper

Niantic River scallops were abundant during the days of the
Nehantic Indians, for the shoreline property soil is well-sprinkled with
their shells. Again in the 1930’s the scallops flourished. This was the time
of “The Great Depression” and many of the jobless earned a scant living
scalloping. Great trucks from Boston, Providence and New York backed
up to the several town landings especially at the foot of Grand St. – to buy
directly from the individual scallopers. Those of us who enjoyed the
bounty of the scallops still remember the tender sweetness of those tiny
morsels. We remember as well the chapped hands and the hands encased
in band-aids from the horrendous task of opening those razor-sharp
shells. We all learned at an early age that pleasure usually comes with a
price!

-Olive Chenaldi, (Town Historian)

Excerpt from “Stories of East Lyme”
Reprinted with permission by the East Lyme Library

3
Did You Know?
Niantic River ~ Quick Facts

Did you know?

• The Niantic River does not currently meet state water quality standards
because of observed degradation of aquatic life and shellfish harvesting.
• Nitrogen and bacteria are the two greatest water quality concerns for the
Niantic River.
• Rain carries bacteria into the river where it is filtered by shellfish rendering
them unsafe for consumption. The shellfish beds in the River are closed after
every rainfall event of at least one inch.
• Excess nitrogen entering the river enriches the brackish Niantic River water,
like fertilizer on a lawn, increasing algal and plant growth
• Polluted runoff accounts for approximately half (50%) of the nitrogen inputs
into the Niantic River.
• Beginning in the 1980s, there was a sharp decline in eelgrass and in
subsequent years eelgrass populations have shown annual variation.
Scallops and winter flounder, which rely on eelgrass as nursery habitat, are
practically missing from the Niantic River.
• New species like green crabs and grubby, which are more tolerant of polluted
waters, appear to be on the rise in the river.
• The Niantic River Watershed covers 31.3 square miles, or approximately
20,000 acres, and includes areas from the four towns of Salem, East Lyme,
Waterford, and Montville. Watershed management boils down to land use
management and will depend on participation of all four communities.
• There is a direct relationship between increased impervious surfaces in a
watershed and degradation of water quality.
• Oswegatchie Hills is one of the last large stretches of undeveloped waterfront
land in Connecticut.

4
Table of Contents

Section

Page

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Executive Summary

Full Watershed Management Plan

Purpose of the “Guided Summary”

Description of the Niantic River Watershed

Water Quality Issues in the Watershed

Land-Use and Water Quality

What Needs to be Done?

Key Watershed Findings

Watershed Stakeholders—Where Do You Fit In?

Goals and Objectives

Key Recommendations

Where are We Now?

References

5
Acknowledgements

This document would not be possible without the dedication and contributions from
the following individuals:

Chief Executive Officers: We would like to express our appreciation to Paul Formica, East Lyme
First Selectman, Joseph Jaskiewicz, Mayor of Montville, Bob Ross, Salem First Selectman, and Dan
Steward, Waterford First Selectman for their time and contributions.

Original Consulting Team and Steering Committee: The Niantic River Watershed – Plan
Refinement Group would like to acknowledge the contributors of the full Niantic River Watershed
Protection Plan, funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). These organizations and individuals include:

Consulting Team: Kleinschmidt Associates
The Original Project Steering Committee: Marcia Balint, CTDEP OLISP, Colleen Bezanson,
Town of Montville, Allison Branco, UCONN Avery Point, Marine Sciences Mary Ann Chinatti,
Town of Salem, Maureen Fitzgerald, Town of Waterford John Gaucher, CTDEP OLISP, Fred
Grimsey, Save the River, Save the Hills Mary-Beth Hart, CTDEP OLISP, Kristal Kallenberg,
CTDEP OLISP, Dr. Jim Kremer, UCONN Avery Point, Marine Sciences, Don Landers, East
Lyme Harbor Management/Shellfish Commission, John Mullaney, USGS, Meg Parulis, Town of
East Lyme, Sally Snyder, Town of Salem, Paul Stacey, CTDEP Nonpoint Source Program
Eric Thomas, CTDEP Watershed Management Program, Jamie Vaudrey, UCONN Avery Point,
Marine Sciences and Tom Wagner, Town of Waterford

Funding and DEP Support: The Guided Summary of the Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan
was funded in part by the CT DEP through the US EPA Nonpoint Source grant under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act. The following DEP individuals have provided invaluable support: Jessica Morgan,
MaryAnn Nusom-Haverstock, Paul Stacey, Eric Thomas and Stan Zaremba

The Niantic River Watershed – Plan Refinement Group: The Guided Summary of the Niantic
River Watershed Protection Plan was only possible through the vital suggestions and recommendations of
the following individuals: Colleen Bezanson, Town of Montville, Mary Ann Chinatti, Town of Salem,
Richard Dalkowski, Town of Salem, Maureen Fitzgerald, Town of Waterford, Don Landers, East Lyme
Harbor Management/Shellfish Commission, Creig Peterson, Town of East Lyme, Joel Stocker, UCONN,
Eric Thomas, CTDEP Watershed Management Program, Pat Young, Watershed Coordinator, and George
Ziegra, Town of Salem

Review Comment Contributors:
Joe Mingo, A. V. Polhemus, Montville Planning and Zoning, Christie Hayes, Mark Nickerson, Chairman,
E. Lyme Zoning Commission, Doug Brush, Chairman, Montville Inland Wetland Commission, Salem
Inland Wetland Commission, John Mullaney, USGS, Don Landers, Chairman, EL Harbor Management,
Frank Morelii, Public Utilities Administrator, City of New London, Salem Planning and Zoning
Commission Comments, Rich Muckle, Member of the Waterford Conservation Commission, Mary E.
Becker, Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse, CT Department of Environmental Protection, Fred
Grimsey, President, Save the River-Save the Hills, Inc.

6
Introduction:

The Guided Summary of the Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan was produced for
the purpose of providing town officials, commission members, business owners,
homeowners and the general public a shortened account of the highlights of the full plan.
It has been organized in a format that describes the watershed management concerns then
outlines the goals, objectives and recommendations. Throughout the text, references to
sections in the full plan are included, so that the reader may conduct further research into
an area of interest. To a great extent most of the wording, tables and maps are taken
directly from the original plan, with editing, updates or clarifications included, as
warranted.

7
Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan
Guided Summary

The Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan was produced for the communities and
advised by a Steering Committee with the vision to improve water quality throughout
the watershed, eliminate shellfish bed closures, support fish and wildlife habitat and
provide safe and healthy recreational areas.

Executive Summary

This plan takes a watershed approach to addressing the problems of nonpoint source
pollution associated with the Niantic River, rather than a site specific approach. It
considers the hydrologic, or watershed, boundaries of the Niantic River to characterize
pollution sources and to develop strategies to address them. Through this scope, the
characteristics and land uses of the watershed were examined to better understand the
current and potential risk of nonpoint source pollution. Based on these risk assessments,
it can then be determined what measures should be taken to decrease nonpoint source
pollution to protect the Niantic River and its tributaries.

Full Watershed Management Plan

The full version of the watershed management plan, entitled Niantic River Watershed
Protection Plan, was completed in 2006. This plan was completed under a consulting
team, headed by Kleinschmidt Associates. It offers detailed information on
environmental issues specific to the Niantic River, a Vulnerability Analysis of key
parcels within the watershed and strategies aimed at addressing identified water quality
impairments. Copies of the full plan were forwarded to each watershed town’s Public
Library and Planning Department. The plan may also be viewed on-line at the following
link:

http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=379296&depNav_GID=1654

Purpose of the “Guided Summary”

The Guided Summary of the Niantic River Watershed Management Plan was produced
for the purpose of offering commission members and the general public a concise
description of the water quality impairments affecting the watershed and to provide a
focused directory of recommendations aimed at reducing those impairments. With this
condensed version as a tool, it is anticipated that stakeholders will have a better
understanding of the relevant issues, be able to determine their role in the decision-
making process and take appropriate actions.

8
Description of the Niantic River Watershed

A watershed consists of all the land that drains to a waterbody, in this case, the Niantic
River. Local water features such as Fairy Lake, Horse Pond, Barnes Reservoir, Bogue
Brook Reservoir, Lake Konomac, Darrow Pond, Latimer Brook, Oil Mill Brook, Stony
Brook as well as the Niantic River itself, are all part of what is called the Niantic River
Watershed, (Fig. I). The watershed covers 31.3 square miles, or approximately 20,000
acres and includes areas from the four towns of East Lyme, Waterford, Salem and
Montville.

The Niantic River is an estuary. Fresh water drains from a small coastal watershed to a
tidal embayment where fresh water mixes with the salt water of Long Island Sound.
Many people relate to the Niantic River as a body of saltwater that provides access to the
Sound and to a rich variety of marine resources. Others make connections to local
freshwater streams and ponds through recreational activities such as fishing and
swimming. For citizens of Waterford, including Quaker Hill, and New London, the
freshwater resources in the watershed provide drinking water to 13,000 homes and
businesses.

According to Min Huang, CT DEP Migratory Game Bird Program Leader, the Niantic
River harbors relatively large concentrations of resident mallards, Canada geese, and
feral mute swans throughout the year. The largest concentrations of resident waterfowl
are typically found in the upper reaches of the river. These birds will stay in the upper
reaches of the river until ice forces them further downstream. In the fall, winter, and
early spring the lower river holds large numbers of wintering diving ducks such as
hooded mergansers, bufflehead, and red-breasted mergansers. The bay, south of RT 156,
attracts large flocks of Atlantic brant and, to a lesser extent, common goldeneye during
the winter months.

The shallow marine estuary of the Niantic River was formed when sea level was at an
elevation high enough to flood the low lying coastal valley. The river has historically
supported healthy populations of shellfish, crustaceans, and finfishes and also provides
excellent bird habitat as ospreys, herons, kingfishers, and cormorants may be observed at
various times throughout the year. A fish ladder installed in Latimer Brook just north of
I-95, allows the passage of species such as alewives and sea-run trout to spawning areas
upstream.

In East Lyme, the area known as Oswegatchie Hills consists of over 700 acres of valuable
land that offers great recreational potential because of its interesting terrain, and diverse
wildlife. It is also one of the last large stretches of undeveloped waterfront land in
Connecticut. The Waterford shoreline along this reach consists mainly of sandy beaches
and gradual wooded slopes with moderate density residential development.

For additional information on Niantic River resources please refer to Section 3 of the
full Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan.

Figure I - Niantic River Watershed

10
The Niantic River
does not currently
meet state water
quality standards
because of
observed
degradation of
aquatic life
Water Quality Issues in the Watershed

The Niantic River does not currently meet state water quality standards because of
observed degradation of aquatic life. A map of the water quality classifications for the
watershed based on 2006 data is shown on the following map (Fig.
II). Table I describes the surface water quality classifications.

There are two active shellfish beds in the Niantic River. The upper
bed remains open year round, while the lower bed is closed during
boating season. Following one inch of rainfall, the State of
Connecticut, Department of Aquaculture, is required to close both of
the shellfish beds, regardless of the time of year. Rain carries
bacteria into the river where it is filtered by shellfish rendering them unsafe for
consumption. Normally it would take 14 to 28 days for shellfish to cleanse themselves
(depurate) so that potentially harmful bacteria are no longer a concern (until the next
1”rainstorm).

The §303(d) List of Impaired Waters states that the water quality of the Niantic River is
not supporting the aquatic life known to inhabit the estuary. Symptoms of this condition
include, algal blooms, seasonal variations in eelgrass populations, loss of scallop
populations and changes to the fish communities.
Table I Surface Water Quality Classifications for the Niantic River and its Tributaries

Populations of marine plants and animals commonly found in the Niantic River have
decreased over the past 4 decades (Millstone Environmental Laboratory (MEL), 2005).
Beginning in the 1980s, a sharp decline in eelgrass (Zostera marina) was documented
(Marshall, 1994) and in more recent years, eelgrass in the Niantic has shown annual
Class
Comment
Use 1
Use 2
Use 3
Use 4
Use 5
A
Known, or
presumed, to
meet criteria
which support
designated
uses
Potential
drinking
water supply
Fish and
wildlife
habitat
Recreational
use
Agricultural
or industrial
supply
Other
legitimate
uses including
navigation
AA
Known, or
presumed, to
meet criteria
which support
designated
uses
Existing or
proposed
drinking
water supply
Fish and
wildlife
habitat
Recreational
use (may be
restricted)
Agricultural
or industrial
supply
Other
legitimate
uses including
navigation
SA
Uniformly
excellent
Direct
consumption
of shellfish
Designated
swimming
All other
recreational
uses

SB/SA
Currently not
meeting
criteria for SA
target
Shellfish for
processing
prior to
consumption
Fish,
shellfish, and
wildlife
habitat
Recreational
use
Industrial
Other
legitimate
uses including
navigation

Figure II – Surface Water Quality Classification

12
This widespread,
nonpoint source
pollution is the
greatest threat to
the water quality
and ecological
health of the
Niantic River.
Without the continued
maintenance of existing
water quality conditions,
or attempts to reduce
nonpoint source inputs,
the health of the Niantic
River ecosystem will
deteriorate further.
variation (MEL, 2005). Continued threats to eelgrass populations in the Niantic River
include nutrient input from domestic septic systems, disease, increased turbidity,
competitive interactions with macroalgae, and herbivory. Scallops and winter flounder
rely on eelgrass as nursery habitat and are practically missing from the Niantic River
(Heck, et al., 1995; MEL, 2005). Meanwhile, new species like green crabs and grubby,
appear to be on the rise in the River (MEL, 2005).

The cause of this impairment to aquatic life is not completely understood; however, there
is a building body of scientific evidence that states that the river is overloaded with
nutrients, primarily nitrogen. Nitrogen enriches the brackish Niantic
River water, like fertilizer on a lawn, increasing algal and plant
growth. Like bacteria, nutrients flow to the river with stormwater
and are considered a problem of nonpoint source pollution.

Bacteria and nitrogen enter the Niantic River from several sources.
Historically, marine vessels, inadequately functioning septic systems
and stormwater runoff have been cited as the primary sources of
these and other pollutants to the Niantic River. Table II lists
nonpoint sources of pollutants their characteristics and impacts. Polluted runoff, illegal
marine discharges and sewer line accidents are the most probable sources of bacteria to
the Niantic (CT DA/BA, 2005).

Nitrogen associated with polluted runoff, atmospheric deposition and groundwater inputs
are critical water quality concerns for the Niantic River (Marshall, 1994; Mullaney, 2006;
Stacey and Mullaney, 2004). For instance, we know that polluted runoff accounts for
approximately half (50%) of the nitrogen inputs into the Niantic River. Atmospheric
deposition of nitrogen accounts for approximately 10% of the nitrogen making its way to
the river (Marine Biological Laboratory, 2006). The remaining nitrogen is most likely
coming from sources such as septic systems and fertilizer, through groundwater discharge
(Mullaney, 2006).

As East Lyme and Waterford continue to extend domestic wastewater sewers to homes
along the river, Salem and Montville enforce their surface water protection areas and
marine vessels are prohibited from dumping sanitary wastewater into the river,
stormwater runoff has become the primary target for protecting the Niantic River.
Stormwater runoff transports pollutants of the land into the many drainage systems and
tributaries feeding the Niantic River. This widespread, nonpoint source pollution is the
greatest threat to the water quality and ecological health of the
Niantic River.

In recent times, changes in river ecology believed to be
associated with nitrogen loading include the loss of
commercially important shellfish species, in addition to eelgrass
stands and indicate a need for further water quality protection.
Measures to protect water quality include land use and
development controls to help reduce the influx of nonpoint source pollution.
Additionally, the designation of the river and near-shore waters of Long Island Sound as

13
a No Discharge Area may help eliminate potential sewage discharges from vessels, and
eliminate another source of nutrient enrichment (CTDEP, 2005). Without the continued
maintenance of existing water quality conditions, or attempts to reduce nonpoint source
inputs, the health of the Niantic River ecosystem will deteriorate further.

Table II - Nonpoint Source Pollutants, Characteristics and Impacts
Nonpoint
Source
Pollutants

Pollution Characteristics

Impacts

Short term: increased
turbidity, reduced light
penetration, decreased
submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV), respiration impacts to
fish and wildlife, reduced
fecundity in fish.
Sediments

• Produced by natural and anthropogenic erosion of
streams.
• Generated by particulates settled on impervious
surfaces.
• Constitutes the largest mass of pollutant loadings to
surface waters.
• Provide transport for other pollutants like nutrients and
bacteria.

Long term: Smothered
benthic
habitat, siltation, channel
shoaling,
aesthetic impacts.
Nutrients

• Introduced to the watershed by the burning of fossil
fuels, use of fertilizers and detergents and the
deposit/disposal of human and animal wastes.
• Phosphorus and nitrogen are the primary nutrients of
concern.
• Eutrophication and low
dissolved oxygen in marine
ecosystems.

Oxygen-
Demanding
Substances

• Organic matter enters fresh and coastal waters and then
is decomposed, depleting dissolved oxygen.
• Organic matter is washed off impervious surfaces with
runoff.
• Depletes dissolved oxygen.
• Exacerbates the negative
impacts of eutrophication.

Pathogens

• Associated with the feces of warm-blooded animals.
• Elevated levels typically found in urban runoff.
• Leading cause of water quality impairments in the
United States.
• Beach and shellfish bed
closures.
• Contaminated drinking
water sources.
Road Salts

• Primarily in northern climates.
• Major pollutant in urban areas.
• Produces high salt/chlorine concentrations in surface
and ground water.

• Contaminated surface
waters and ground water.
• Toxic to benthic organisms.
• Ecological effects
pronounced in freshwater
systems.
Petroleum
hydrocarbons

• Derived from oil and other petroleum products.
• Introduced into the watershed from vehicles.
• Accumulates on impervious surfaces.
• Bind to sediments and often collect in the benthic
region.
• Toxic to aquatic life at high
and low levels depending on
compound.
• Accumulate and persist in
the benthic environment.
Heavy Metals

• Common in urban runoff: cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, and zinc.
• Copper, lead, and zinc are the most prevalent in
nonpoint source pollution from urban areas.
• Deposit from vehicles and the atmosphere (particulate
matter).
• Produce toxic effects on
aquatic life.
• Bioaccumulate in fish and
marine mammals.

Toxics
• Various toxic compounds (USEPA “priority
pollutants”) can be found in urban runoff.
• Acute and chronic impacts
to aquatic life.

14
It is the
cumulative
impacts of years
of development
with which we are
concerned.

Table III - Area in Acres of Land Cover Type
Description
Change in Acres
1985
2006
Developed
+653.3
1969.1
2622.4
Turf and Grass*
+274
607.0
881.0
Other Grasses
+104.6
264.5
369.1
Agricultural Fields
-109.5
758.0
648.5
Deciduous Forest
-984.3
12245.8
11261.5
Coniferous Forest
-38.5
905.8
867.3
Water
-77.6
1536.9
1459.3
Non-forested Wetland
+1.1
63.3
64.4
Forested Wetland
-63.6
938.4
874.9
Tidal Wetland
0
0.3
0.3
Barren
+248.2
338.5
586.7
Utility Corridors
-7.6
129.5
121.9
Totals

19757.3
19757.3
(*includes golf course greens)
Satellite Derived Land Cover data version 2.02, J. Stocker, UCONN, 10/03/08
For additional information on Water Quality concerns please refer to section 4.0 of the
full Niantic River Watershed Plan – Bacteria (4.2.1), Nitrogen Loading (4.2.2), Niantic
River Ecosystem (4.3), and Fish Community and Macroinvertebrates (4.4)

Land-Use and Water Quality

The Niantic River Watershed exhibits a settlement pattern similar to other coastal
watersheds in the Northeast United States. Older, denser development occurred along the
coast in association with shipping and commercial centers while forestry and agriculture
were the predominant land uses inland (Marshall, 1994 and Civco, et. al., 2002). This
land use pattern continues, by and large, with the exception that the upper portions of the
watershed have converted back to forest land now that agricultural uses have diminished
or are being developed for residential or commercial uses as a result of sprawl from the
coastal areas. In the lower portions of the watershed – East Lyme and Waterford – new
development is restricted to infill areas with the exception of
Oswegatchie Hills in East Lyme. In the upper reaches of the
watershed - Montville and Salem – there remain sizeable areas of
land that could be developed.

Figures III and IV on the following pages, illustrate the land cover
changes in the Niantic River Watershed between 1985 and 2006.
Table III below gives the acreages per land use cover for 1985 to 2006. This
characteristic of land use change is probable cause for nonpoint source pollution and
related water quality problems. Note that there has been significant increase in
developed land and a substantial decrease in forest land acres.

Generally, no one development will cause, in and of itself, the degradation of a stream. It
is the cumulative impacts of years of development with which we are concerned.
Development in the Niantic River Watershed has occurred and will occur incrementally

15
Impervious surfaces
not only increase the
total volume of runoff,
but also transmit
pollutants readily and
can even contribute to
thermal pollution.
over time. From year to year, changes in the landscape, as a result of development, are
negligible with the possible exception of relatively large developments (e.g. “big box”
retail outlets, large residential, or road projects) on large parcels of land. But, after many
years, landscape changes are obvious. The same holds true for nonpoint source pollution;
the gradual development of the watershed will cause water quality concerns over time
unless protective actions are taken.

Civco and others (2002) have described land use as, “the common denominator
underlying many of the issues that our communities face from nonpoint source water
pollution and open space preservation to sustainable economic
development and community character”. Changes in land use are
the result of community decision-making with regard to all of
these community objectives. Development converts vegetated
land to mostly impervious surfaces. When the pattern of
development emanates from urban areas to suburban and rural
areas, we call this pattern ‘urban sprawl’. Therefore, as
settlement expands into rural areas, building and road density
increases in these areas increasing the area of impervious surfaces.

The area of impervious surfaces in a watershed is essential to understanding nonpoint
source pollution potential and consequent management requirements (Schueler, 1994;
Sleavin et al., 2000). Impervious surfaces include any surface that water cannot
infiltrate, such as parking lots, paved roads, sidewalks, buildings, rooftops, and highly
compacted earth. Impervious surfaces not only increase the total volume of runoff, but
also transmit pollutants readily and can even contribute to thermal pollution. Therefore,
much of the impervious surface we recognize in our community is associated with
transportation or buildings. Schueler (1994) noted that the transportation system typically
contributes the most to total impervious area in a watershed.

Figure III – Land Use Cover - 1985

Figure IV - Land-Use Cover-2006

18
As a watershed’s
imperviousness
increases, the
quality of its
streams
decreases.

Impervious surfaces lead to four major impacts to a watershed. In no
particular order, these are altering the natural flow of water, aquatic
habitat loss, decreasing water quality, and loss of biological
diversity. As a watershed’s imperviousness increases, the quality of
its streams decreases. Early and recent work by the Center for
Watershed Protection (CWP) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
established a close relationship between a watershed’s
imperviousness and the state of water and habitat quality degradation in streams (CWP,
2003). Figure V illustrates this relationship and reflects the degree of stream degradation
as degraded, impacted, and protected.

(adapted from UCONN NEMO, 2006 and Schueler, 2002)

Figure V – Relationship between Watershed Imperviousness and Stream Degradation

Full build-out scenarios were developed for each of the sub-basins in the watershed to
predict the amount of impervious surface coverage based on current zoning. Impervious
surface percents were calculated for current conditions and were estimated under full-
buildout conditions. Basins at less than 10% impervious are shaded green, between 10
and 25% impervious are shaded yellow and above 25% impervious are shaded red. Maps
of estimated current and future percent impervious surface area for basins are shown on
Figures VI and VII.

Based on existing conditions approximately 90% of the sub-basins in the Niantic River
Watershed have less than 10% impervious surface coverage. The remaining 10% falls
between the 10-25% range. Under the projected build-out analysis approximately 69% of
the of sub-basins will have less than 10% impervious coverage, 29% would then be in the
10-25% range and 2% of the sub-basins would have impervious surface coverage over
25%. Referring to the graph above, this would mean that based on current land
development practices over 30% of the sub-basins will fall into the impacted or degraded
category.

For additional information on Land-Use in the Niantic River resources please refer to
sections 4.5 of the full Niantic River Watershed Plan.

Figure VI – Estimated Current Impervious Area per Basin

Figure VII – Estimated Current Impervious Area per Basin at Buildout

21
The nature of
nonpoint
source
pollution makes
it extremely
challenging to
manage.
…watershed
boundaries
are not
political
boundaries
Watershed
management
boils down to
land use
management.
…there is real hope
and possibility to
prevent further
degradation of the
Niantic River and to
restore it to an
improved condition
What Needs to be Done?

Significant investments have been made to control pollution to the Niantic River.
East Lyme and Waterford have sewered many of the neighborhoods along the shores of
the river to eliminate the risk of bacterial and nutrient pollution from
septic systems. The Niantic boating community is being encouraged to
observe the No Discharge Zone on the river to control sewage from
marine vessels. These efforts, combined with advances in stormwater
management, offer hope that impacts from historic activities can be
turned around. However, the impacts and management of nonpoint
source pollution (i.e. polluted runoff and stormwater) remain.

The nature of nonpoint source pollution makes it extremely challenging to manage. It is
decentralized (sources vary and are scattered), cumulative (pollution results not from one,
voluminous event; rather, it occurs over time in regular, periodic
rain/runoff events), and systematic (an entire hydrologic unit
[watershed] is both the scope and scale of the problem). In the case of
the Niantic River, pollution is transported to the main stem via several
smaller streams, each carrying pollutant loads emanating from sources
somewhere else in the watershed. Hence, effectively managing nonpoint
source pollution issues relies on an approach that is comprehensive and
watershed-based, i.e. scaled according to the natural system to be managed.

Although watershed-based management plans have been recognized as the approach to
dealing with nonpoint source pollution, they are not without their own set of challenges.
For instance, watershed boundaries are not political boundaries; therefore several
jurisdictions often have a stake in watershed management. The Niantic River Watershed
includes portions of four towns – East Lyme, Montville, Salem, and
Waterford. Therefore, watershed management relies on participation and
execution from all four communities.

Watershed management boils down to land use management. By and
large, land use planning and regulation, including the management of runoff (i.e.
stormwater), lies with the municipalities. Current nonpoint source pollution problems are
linked to historic development and stormwater management in these four communities.
Like all coastal watershed communities in Connecticut, population and development
pressure will continue to yield more full-time residents, housing and other developments,
thereby increasing the potential for nonpoint source pollution problems. (NOAA, Spatial
Trends in Coastal Socioeconomics (STICS), 2006).

As the last remaining parcels of developable land are converted to
commercial, industrial, and residential uses, the quantity and quality
of stormwater runoff can be expected to change. Therefore, it is
central to this plan that polluted runoff be considered the greatest
water quality management challenge for the Niantic River, primarily
because it is considered the most manageable of all potential sources of pollution to the

22
river. That is to say there is real hope and possibility to prevent further degradation of the
Niantic River and to restore it to an improved condition. This plan is needed to establish a
coherent and practical approach to dealing with nonpoint source pollution in the Niantic
River Watershed.

Key Watershed Findings

In completion of the full Niantic River Watershed Plan, several key project findings
emerged which spearheaded the recommendations for future management efforts in the
watershed. Table IV on the following page summarizes those findings.

Watershed Stakeholders—Where Do You Fit In?

There are four categories of watershed plan stakeholders. The categories are defined by
the role the stakeholders play in moving the plan forward. In Table V the stakeholder
roles are defined by the questions listed in the left column and the stakeholders in the
right column. Many of these stakeholders were involved in the planning process and all
play a role in plan implementation.

23
Table IV – Key Watershed Findings
Data Assembly & Results

•
Fifteen or more storm sewer outfalls discharge untreated runoff
directly into the Niantic River. These outfalls collect runoff from
several drainage areas of various sizes along the Niantic River
shoreline.
•
As a watershed’s imperviousness increases, the quality of its
streams decreases – a relationship well-established in scientific
literature. Five drainages of the Niantic River are currently
covered by over 10% impervious surfaces such as roads, parking
lots, sidewalks and roofs. At fully developed conditions
(maximum development allowed by current planning and zoning
regulations), ten drainages in the watershed will be covered by
10% or more imperviousness and one drainage will be over 30%
impervious surface cover.
•
Stormwater modeling showed increased loading to the Niantic
River from existing development, but drainages adjacent to the
lower river are fairly developed with respect to the remainder of
the watershed. Any areas that may be considered developable
pose a risk for direct discharge to the lower river by increasing
the pollutant loading through its tributaries.
•
Undeveloped areas further upstream in the watershed pose a great
risk to increasing loads to town water supply reservoirs.
Preservation of lands abutting receiving waterbodies is as much a
key component to water quality protection as is stabilizing and
treating existing development.
•
Tracked development of the watershed has steadily increased
since monitoring using aerial images was implemented in 1985.
Since that time, over a thousand acres of forest has been
converted into either developed, barren or grassed lands.
Zoning

•
Each of the towns is making great efforts to do their part in
protecting the waters of their communities. A more effective
approach may be to match wetland protection requirements for a
consistent watershed wide approach to protecting water quality.
For example, the towns of East Lyme and Waterford each have a
100-foot upland review for wetlands and watercourses, where the
towns of Montville and Salem have different buffer areas.
Environmental

•
Eelgrass populations plummeted in 1999, but experienced a
rebound in 2003 and 2004. The future of the grass is still
questionable and requires regular protection and monitoring. It is
believed that continued growth of the eelgrass populations will
also aid in restoring shellfish populations, although the increased
predation by an overall increase in fish species may limit growth
opportunities.
• Monitoring

•
Measurement of water quality throughout the watershed is not
currently a standard practice. Improvements may be made
through BMP and planning changes, but without practical
measurement techniques, it becomes difficult to measure, monitor
and adjust.
•
Monitoring and inspection programs, which are making great
progress, are underway in the Towns of Waterford and East
Lyme, but the potential for future development is the greatest in
the upper reaches of the watershed.

24
Table V – Stakeholder Roles
Who is responsible for implementing
the plan?
Property Owners and Managers (e.g. Home & Business)
Developers, contractors and realtors
Local government:
•
Local boards and commissions
•
Directors of Department of Public Works – East Lyme,
Montville, Salem, Waterford
•
Directors of Planning – East Lyme, Montville, Salem,
Waterford
•
Environmental Planner/Wetland Officer – East Lyme,
Montville, Salem, Waterford
•
Zoning Officers
•
East Lyme-Waterford Shellfish Commission
•
Niantic River Gateway Commission
•
Ledge Light Health District
State agencies:
•
CTDEP Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse –
OLISP, Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, Coastal
Management
•
CTDEP Bureau of Natural Resources – Fisheries,
Wildlife
•
Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT)
•
Connecticut Department of Health
Local environmental groups
•
Save the River, Save the Hills & Friends of
Oswegatchie Hills
Who is affected by the implementation
of the plan?
Property owners, Water supply
customers, Local businesses,
Visitors
Recreational users,
Boaters, Marinas, Anglers
Who can provide information on the
issues and concerns in the watershed?
Property owners
Anglers
Boaters
Local government:
•
Boards of Selectman, planning, zoning, wetland
commissions in East Lyme, Montville, Salem,
Waterford. East Lyme-Waterford Shellfish Commission
State agencies:
•
CT Department of Agriculture/Bureau of Aquaculture,
CTDEP Bureaus of Natural Resources & Outdoor
Recreation, Office of the Commissioner
Non-profit organizations
Who can provide technical and
financial assistance in developing and
implementing the plan?
State agencies and institutions:
•
CTDEP Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse –
OLISP, Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, Coastal
Management
•
CTDEP Bureau of Natural Resources – Fisheries,
Wildlife •ConnDOT
•
CT Department of Agriculture/Bureau of Aquaculture,
(DA/BA)
•
University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension
System
Federal agencies:
•
NOAA, USEPA, USGS, USDA NRCS, USFWS

25
Goals and Objectives

Overarching Goal

To restore and preserve the Niantic River and its tributaries so that they fully
support all uses, including shellfishing, fishing, swimming and habitat for aquatic-
life.

Main Goals and Objectives

Support Designated Uses for Shellfishing and Primary Contact
Recreation
• Reduce bacterial loads from stormwater outfalls, runoff and direct
discharges

Support Designated Uses for Aquatic Life
• Reduce nutrient loading from stormwater outfalls and runoff

Protect and Restore Natural Stream Channels
• Minimize flooding impacts by improving peak and volume controls
from impervious surfaces
• Preserve and restore critical wetland and watercourse vegetative
buffers

Raise Stakeholder Awareness and Involvement by Implementing a
Watershed Management Information and Education Campaign
• Educate stakeholders about the Niantic River and its tributaries and
watershed management.

Establish a Sustainable Coalition of Partners to Manage the Niantic River
Watershed
• Create a coalition of watershed stakeholders to take a leadership role
for the implementation of this plan

Improve Water Quality and Biological Monitoring for the Niantic River
and its Tributaries
• Establish a comprehensive long-term water quality monitoring
program for the Niantic River Watershed

26
Key Recommendations

The following recommendations were adopted from the full version of the Niantic
River Watershed Protection Plan. They have been organized to present an edited
version of the original recommendations to facilitate implementation.

Establish a Watershed Coalition
• Support establishment of a sustainable watershed board
1. The coalition, which may be formed by modifying an existing
board, would include appointed representatives from each of
the four towns. This may include town officials, town board
members, local environmental and non-profit organizations,
business owners and landowners. Liaison representation from;
environmental organizations with an interest in the watershed,
local, state, and federal government, utilities, educational
institutions and local businesses should be encouraged.
2. Responsibilities would include putting into action the
recommendations of the watershed management plan, with
periodic plan reviews and updates.

Continued Support for a Watershed Coordinator Position
• Support a Watershed Coordinator Position
1. This position would be dedicated to assisting the watershed
board in implementing the Watershed Management Plan
including conducting the inter-jurisdictional coordination
activities, grant-writing and evaluation of plan achievements.

Develop and Implement Education and Outreach Programs
• Increase stakeholder awareness about the link between shellfish
closures and sources of bacterial pollution in the Niantic River.
• Increase stakeholders’ level of knowledge about nutrient loading
and the health of the Niantic River Estuary.
• Educate land use decision makers about the value of vegetated
riparian buffers in the protection of water quality.
• Establish an outreach and tracking program for landowners about
on-site septic system maintenance.
• Partner with other local groups to develop and implement a
comprehensive education and outreach program addressing water
quality and watershed management issues
1. Identify existing programs and target audiences
2. Develop targeted outreach activities and materials- See Table
VI on following page.( and Chapter 7 of the full plan)
3. Annual evaluations on program(s) effectiveness
4. Include public updates on municipal participation, local
business efforts, development changes, monitoring results,
changing technology and open space preservation.

27
Table VI – Outreach Activities
Targeted Group
Outreach Activities
Marinas and boat owners
9 Support incentive and recognition programs for
marinas to become Certified Connecticut Clean
Marinas
9 Support and assist in boat owner education programs
9 Support pump out program conducted by Save the
River-Save the Hills and improve awareness of
availability land based pumpout facilities at Niantic
Dockominiums, Three Belles, and Port Niantic in
addition to the dump station at Niantic Bay Marina.
Homeowners and
business owners
9 Periodically complete a public outreach campaign for
shoreline neighborhoods about potential sources of
bacterial pollutants
9 Conduct ongoing outreach on topics such as lawn
care practices, pet waste management, and
impervious surface run-off. Support MS4
requirements wherever feasible.
9 Encourage and participate in programs such as storm
drain stenciling, river and beach clean-ups and
household hazardous waste disposal
9 Promote the protection of riparian buffers for the
benefit of water quality and habitat protection.
Encourage public participation in habitat restoration
and riparian revegetation projects
9 Promote good “housekeeping” practices
Contractors and
developers
9 Sponsor on-going workshops to promote topics such
as management of nitrogen loading during the
development process, best management practices
during construction
Municipal staff and
appointed and elected
officials
9 Partner with organizations such as CT-NEMO,
NRCS and CT Sea Grant to provide ongoing
education on topics including; LID practices, riparian
buffers, land conservation, stormwater regulations,
housekeeping BMPs and management of nitrogen
loading during the development process

Local Schools and youth
organizations
9 Work with local schools, education facilities and
youth groups to promote outreach opportunities on
water quality programs

28
What does it mean?
LID- design strategy using small
scale controls integrated
throughout a site to manage
stormwater run-off and replicate
pre-development hydrology
BMP-a measure used to mitigate
changes to the quality and
quantity of runoff due to
development
Cluster Subdivisions-subdivisions
that promote the preservation of
natural resources while allowing
similar densities as a
conventional subdivision.
Develop Design Standards for Local Implementation
• Mitigate the impacts of increased/increasing impervious surfaces
from development through Low Impact Development (LID) design
and Best Management Practice
(BMP) implementation. Apply to
new and redeveloped sites, both
public and private.
1. Incorporate low-impact site
preparation and development
techniques.
2. Wherever feasible, eliminate
curb requirements and
mandatory sidewalks, reduce
road widths and require
pervious surfaces.
3. Adopt new or modify existing
cluster and/or conservation
subdivision ordinances that promote density allowances with
minimum footprints and limit rezoning that will result in more
impervious surface and/or less wetlands in critical sub-drainage
basins.
4. Encourage and enforce non-structural, non-piped stormwater
handling techniques wherever possible, avoid short-circuiting
of stormwater discharges and incorporate effective vegetative
buffers in site design.
5. Carefully consider any rezoning that would allows an increase
or high percentage of impervious surface on a lot.
• Encourage and support municipal approaches to land-use
planning, development reviews and site inspections that protect
watershed resources. For uniformity within the watershed, the
following management tools should be considered in land-use
regulations and review of development proposals.
1. Conduct assessments of tributaries to establish stream
preservation and restoration priority locations and needs.
Assess value and functions of resources, (i.e. wetland and
watercourses) as part of preliminary planning and design.
2. Use an Upland Review Area from inland wetlands and
watercourses boundaries in Inland Wetland and Watercourse
Regulations. The DEP and Niantic River Watershed Protection
Plan recommended guideline is 100 feet.
3. Regulate activities in any other non-wetland or non-
watercourse area that will likely impact inland wetland or
watercourses.
4. A minimum 50 foot wide vegetated buffer beyond wetland and
watercourse boundaries, within which no alteration or
vegetative removal is permitted, to the extent feasible.

29
What does it mean?
2004 CT Stormwater
Manual-Standards adopted
by the State of CT to
address stormwater control
design and maintenance
2002 Guidelines for
Sediment & Erosion
Control-Standards adopted
by the State of CT to
address soil erosion and
site stabilization
Encourage vegetative buffer restoration where needed.
5. A riparian buffer overlay zoning district based on delineation
of perennial and associated wetlands with associated widths of
100 feet for larger streams and 50 feet for smaller, headwater
streams.
6. Protect existing wetlands, vernal pools and watercourses to
maximum extent practicable (i.e. no alteration of areas with
good existing functions and values). Mitigate for any and all
wetland/riparian impacts, with emphasis on re-establishing
vegetated buffers (water quality filtration zones) in
appropriately placed locations (even if uplands locations are
the only option)
7. Focus on stormwater treatment at beginning of site design.
Design stormwater management treatment and controls that can
and will be maintained, are suited to the site, maximize
pollutant removal and minimize flooding impacts. Consider
soils, hydrology, peak flows, stormwater volume, wetland and
watercourse values and function,
receiving waters, topography and
vegetation. Develop checklists for
stormwater design and, construction
inspection and long-term
maintenance. Table VII below lists
management objectives and targets
for bacteria, nitrogen and peak
stormwater volume controls.
8. Use resources including 2004
Connecticut Stormwater Quality
Manual, 2002 Guidelines for
Sediment and Erosion Control, and full version of the Niantic
River Watershed Protection Plan for plan and site reviews.
9. Apply development restrictions on steep slopes or adopt a steep
slope overlay zone.
10. Develop incentive based programs where appropriate to
promote resource protection.