Part 1 (PDF)

Niantic River Watershed 
Protection Plan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Watershed-wide Strategies to Prevent Nonpoint Source Pollution 
 
 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
Office of Long Island Sound Programs 
 
 
 
 
 
September 2006 
 
 
 
 
in cooperation with: 
Town of East Lyme 
Town of Montville 
Town of Salem 
Town of Waterford 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Niantic River Watershed 
Protection Plan 
 
 
 
Watershed-wide Strategies to Prevent Nonpoint Source Pollution 
 
 
 
 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
Office of Long Island Sound Programs 
 
 
 
 
September 2006 
 
 
 
 
In cooperation with: 
 
Town of East Lyme 
Town of Montville 
Town of Salem 
Town of Waterford 

 
- i - 
NIANTIC RIVER WATERSHED PLAN 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1.0 
FRONT MATTER.............................................................................................................. 1 
1.1 
Acknowledgements................................................................................................. 1 
1.2 
Executive Summary................................................................................................ 2 
2.0 
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7 
2.1 
Why is this plan needed? ........................................................................................ 7 
2.2 
How was the plan developed?............................................................................... 10 
2.3 
How does this plan interact with other water quality protection and watershed 
management efforts?............................................................................................. 13 
2.4 
Who should read this plan?................................................................................... 17 
2.5 
How is this plan organized?.................................................................................. 18 
3.0 
NIANTIC RIVER AND ITS WATERSHED................................................................... 20 
3.1 
Overview............................................................................................................... 20 
3.2 
The Niantic River Estuary .................................................................................... 22 
3.2.1 Objectives ................................................................................................. 23 
3.2.2 Physical and Chemical Properties............................................................. 26 
3.2.2.1 Morphology and Bottom Sediments............................................. 26 
3.2.2.2 Tidal Exchange ............................................................................. 26 
3.2.3 Freshwater Contribution ........................................................................... 28 
3.2.3.1 Surface Water................................................................................ 28 
3.2.3.2 Groundwater ................................................................................. 28 
3.2.4 General Physicochemical Properties......................................................... 28 
3.2.4.1 Flow .............................................................................................. 28 
3.2.4.2 Temperature.................................................................................. 29 
3.2.4.3 Salinity.......................................................................................... 30 
3.3 
The Uses of the Niantic River............................................................................... 31 
3.3.1 Fishing....................................................................................................... 31 
3.3.2 Shellfishing ............................................................................................... 33 
3.3.3 Boating and Watersports........................................................................... 34 
3.3.4 Shoreline Parks/Recreational Opportunities............................................. 35 
3.4 
Land Use in the Niantic River Watershed ............................................................ 35 
3.4.1 Land Use Trends....................................................................................... 38 
3.4.1.1 Roads and Highways..................................................................... 41 
3.4.1.2 Route 11 Extension....................................................................... 41 
4.0 
WATER QUALITY OF THE NIANTIC RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES................. 44 
4.1 
Overview of Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollutants and Their Impacts (Adapted 
from USEPA, 1993).............................................................................................. 47 
4.2 
Known Water Quality Issues in the Niantic River Watershed ............................. 49 
4.2.1 Pathogenic Bacteria .................................................................................. 51 
4.2.1.1 Source Characterization – Storm Sewer Outfalls ......................... 53 
4.2.1.2 Source Characterization – Marinas/Marine Vessels..................... 55 
4.2.1.3 Source Characterization – Wildlife............................................... 57 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 
 
 
4.2.1.4 Source Characterization – Domestic Wastewater Discharges...... 58 
4.2.2 Nutrient Nitrogen Loading........................................................................ 59 
4.3 
Niantic River Ecosystem: Biological Properties And Ecological Interactions..... 63 
4.3.1 Nutrients and Primary Productivity .......................................................... 63 
4.3.1.1 The Macroalgal Community......................................................... 64 
4.3.1.2 Eelgrass (Zostera Marina)............................................................. 66 
4.3.1.3 Summary of Primary Productivity................................................ 73 
4.4 
The Fish Community and Macroinvertebrates ..................................................... 74 
4.4.1 Community Level Trends in the Niantic River......................................... 74 
4.4.2 Grubby (Myoxocephalus aenaeus) ........................................................... 77 
4.4.3 Winter Flounder (Pleuronectes americanus)............................................. 79 
4.4.4 Macroinvertebrates (Bay Scallop) ............................................................ 81 
4.4.5 Summary................................................................................................... 83 
4.5 
Watershed Land Use and their Threats to Water Quality..................................... 85 
4.5.1 Impervious Surface Build Out Analysis ................................................... 86 
4.5.2 Watershed Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................... 92 
4.5.2.1 Vulnerability Assessment Results................................................. 93 
4.5.2.2 Discussion................................................................................... 104 
4.5.3 Stormwater Management Modeling Results........................................... 105 
4.5.3.1 Model Description ...................................................................... 106 
4.5.3.2 Modeled Pollutants ..................................................................... 107 
4.5.3.3 Model Scenarios.......................................................................... 108 
4.5.3.4 Results......................................................................................... 109 
4.5.3.5 Pollutant Loadings by Receiving Waterbodies........................... 115 
4.5.3.6 Discussion................................................................................... 119 
4.6 
Summary of Water Quality Concerns and Watershed Management Challenges for 
the Niantic River Watershed............................................................................... 120 
5.0 
WHO CURRENTLY MANAGES AND PROTECTS THE NIANTIC RIVER 
WATERSHED?.............................................................................................................. 124 
5.1 
Town Summaries of Planning and Regulatory Authorities................................ 130 
5.2 
Organizational Approaches for Watershed Management................................... 138 
6.0 
RECOMMENDED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR THE 
NIANTIC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................. 141 
6.1 
Management Goals and Objectives .................................................................... 141 
6.2 
The priority actions to address Watershed Management Strategies................... 142 
6.2.1 Mitigating the Impacts of Increased/Increasing Impervious Surfaces from 
Development........................................................................................... 144 
6.2.2 Enforcing State-of-the-art Stormwater Management Practices for All 
Development (Both During and Post-construction) ............................... 145 
6.2.3 Implementing Municipal Stormwater Management Program Plans 
(SWMPPs) According to the General Permits for MS4s (CTDEP,     
2004d) ..................................................................................................... 146 
6.2.4 Steering Developers Toward and/or Regulating Low-impact Site      
Design ..................................................................................................... 146 
6.2.5 Elevating the Importance of Homeowners’ and Business’ “Housekeeping” 
Practices.................................................................................................. 147 
- ii - 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 
 
 
6.2.6 Restoring Vegetative and Riparian Buffers Where Needed ................... 147 
7.0 
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM................................................................................ 148 
7.1 
Organizational Structure..................................................................................... 148 
7.2 
Information and Education Component.............................................................. 149 
7.3 
Schedule.............................................................................................................. 154 
7.4 
Financial Strategy ............................................................................................... 158 
7.5 
Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 168 
7.5.1 Existing Monitoring................................................................................ 168 
7.5.2 Monitoring Objectives ............................................................................ 169 
7.5.3 Proposed Monitoring Approach.............................................................. 170 
8.0 
REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................... 172 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 2.2-1.  The Nine Key Elements of a Watershed Plan ......................................................... 11 
Table 2.3-1.  Current Research and Management Activities that are Important to Protection of the 
Niantic River and its Tributaries....................................................................................... 16 
Table 2.4-1.  Watershed Plan Stakeholders .................................................................................. 17 
Table 3.4-1.  Summary and Comparison of Land Cover in the Niantic River Watershed, 1985 – 
2002................................................................................................................................... 36 
Table 3.4-2.  Recent Population Change in the Four Communities of the Niantic River 
Watershed ......................................................................................................................... 40 
Table 4.0.  Surface Water Quality Classifications for the Niantic River and its Tributaries........ 47 
Table 4.1-1.  Nonpoint Source Pollutants, Characteristics and Impacts....................................... 48 
Table 4.2-1.  Niantic River Segments listed on the 2004 Connecticut Waterbodies Not Meeting 
Water Quality Standards (303(d) List) ............................................................................. 50 
Table 4.2-2.  Current Research Efforts investigating the Role, Fate, and Transport in the Niantic 
River Ecosystem ............................................................................................................... 62 
Table 4.3-1.  Suggested water quality criteria for eelgrass........................................................... 69 
Table 4.4-1.  Summary of mean grubby CPUE values in the Niantic River and the Niantic Bay 
(1976-2004)....................................................................................................................... 78 
Table 4.5-1.  Results of Impervious Surface Estimates based on Build-out Analysis of the Niantic 
River Watershed................................................................................................................ 88 
Table 4.5-2.  Priority Index Acreages........................................................................................... 95 
- iii - 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 
 
 
Table 4.5-3.  BOD Loading Quality Ranges............................................................................... 112 
Table 4.5-4 – Summary of Total Pollutant Loadings by Major Receiving Waterbody.............. 117 
Table 4.6-1.  Summary of Current and Buildout Percent Impervious by Basins ....................... 121 
Table 4.6-2.  Estimated Watershed Vulnerability Acreages by Town ....................................... 122 
Table 5.0-1.  Municipal Regulatory Framework For Water Resource Protection (Fall 2005)... 127 
Table 6.1.  Watershed Management Goals, Objectives, Indicators, and Targets ....................... 142 
Table 7.2-1.  Watershed Issues/Objectives and I/E Target Audience......................................... 152 
Table 7.2-2.  I/E Indicators of Success ....................................................................................... 154 
Table 7.3-1.  Implementation Schedule...................................................................................... 155 
Table 7.4-1.  Watershed Management Funding Organizations and Opportunities*................... 161 
Table 7.5-1.  Existing Monitoring Activities.............................................................................. 168 
Table 7.5-2.  Management Objective and Indicator Measures................................................... 171 
Table E.1-1.  Watershed Vulnerability Assessment Abbreviated Metadata Listing ...................... 3 
Table E.2-1. Input Layer Priority Rankings.................................................................................... 5 
Table E.2-2. Vertical Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Classes and Priority Rankings............... 6 
Table F.1.1-1.  Land Use and Event Mean Concentration Pollutant Loading Rates1, 2, 3, 4,5........... 3 
Table F.1.3-1.  Land Cover / HSG Curve Number (CN) Lookup Table........................................ 6 
Table F.2.1-1.  List of Developable Lands and Anderson Classification Values......................... 13 
Table F.2.2-1.  Percent of Land Uses Comprising Developable Lands........................................ 14 
Table F.2.3-1.  Land Cover HSG and Curve Number Values...................................................... 15 
Table F.2.3-2.  Developable Lands Composite Curve Number.................................................... 15 
Table F.2.4-1.  Developable Lands Composite Pollutant Loading Values................................... 16 
Table F.2.5-1.  Land Cover Types with Assumed BMP and Percent Effectiveness .................... 17 
Table F.2.5-2.  Developable Lands Composite Pollutant Loading with BMP Implementation... 18 
Table F.4-1.  List of Model Result Figures................................................................................... 20 
 
 
- iv - 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure 2.2-1.  Project Team Organization .................................................................................... 12 
Figure 3.1-1.  Niantic River Watershed and Main Tributaries ..................................................... 21 
Figure 3.2-1.  Study Sites in the Vicinity of Long Island Sound.................................................. 25 
Figure 3.2-2.  Seasonal mean water temperatures (1976-2004) calculated from mean daily water 
temperatures recorded in Niantic Bay............................................................................... 30 
Figure 3.3-1.  Niantic River Watershed Use Areas ...................................................................... 32 
Figure 3.4-1.  Land Use for the Niantic River Watershed 1985-2002.......................................... 37 
Figure 3.4-2.  Comparison of Land Cover for 1985 and 2002 ..................................................... 39 
Figure 3.4-3.  Copy of the Table ES-35 Comparison Matrix of Impacts by Alternative from the 
DEIS for the Route 11 Extension...................................................................................... 43 
Figure 4.0-1.  Surface Water Quality Classes and 303(d) Impaired Waters................................. 46 
Figure 4.2-1.  Approximated Locations of the Stormwater Outfalls along the Niantic River 
Shoreline in Waterford and the village of Niantic (East Lyme) according to the 2000 
Waterford Shoreline Survey conducted by the CTDA/BA............................................... 55 
Figure 4.3-1.  Cumulative species richness by phylum across each of the five University of 
Connecticut study sites ..................................................................................................... 64 
Figure 4.3-2.  Summary of mean macroalgal biomass (dry weight g/m2) +1SE at each of the five 
study sites.......................................................................................................................... 66 
Figure 4.3-3.  Summary of mean light attenuation (m-1) at each of the five University of 
Connecticut study sites +1SE ........................................................................................... 70 
Figure 4.3-4.  Summary of mean surface chlorophyll a concentrations (ug/L) at each of the five 
University of Connecticut study sites +1SE ..................................................................... 70 
Figure 4.3-5.  Mean surface and bottom chlorophyll a concentrations (ug/L) ±1SE over a four 
year period in the Niantic River system............................................................................ 71 
Figure 4.3-6.  Summary of mean Eelgrass biomass (dry weight g/m2) +1SE at each of the five 
study sites.......................................................................................................................... 72 
Figure 4.4-1.  Numbers of fishes caught in trawl samples............................................................ 75 
Figure 4.4-2.  Numbers of tautog collected in Niantic River trawl samples ................................ 75 
Figure 4.4-3.  Numbers of scup collected in Niantic River trawl samples ................................... 76 
- v - 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 
 
 
Figure 4.4-4.  Numbers of windowpane flounder collected in Niantic River trawl samples ....... 77 
Figure 4.4-5.  Annual mean change of grubby catch per unit effort (CPUE) within the Niantic 
River and Niantic Bay (1976-2004).................................................................................. 79 
Figure 4.4-6.  Numbers of winter flounder collected in Niantic River trawl samples.................. 80 
Figure 4.4-7.  Niantic River bay scallop abundance taken from trawl data collected from 1976 – 
2000................................................................................................................................... 83 
Figure 4.5-1.  The Relationship between Watershed Imperviousness and Stream Degradation.. 86 
Figure 4.5-2.  CTDEP Basin Delineations and Basin Numbers ................................................... 87 
Figure 4.5-3.  Estimated Current Percent Impervious Area.......................................................... 90 
Figure 4.5-4.  Estimated Percent Impervious Area Per Basin at Buildout ................................... 91 
Figure 4.5-5.  Watershed Vulnerability Assessment 80th Percentile ........................................... 94 
Figure 4.5-6.  Watershed Vulnerability Assessment – East Lyme ............................................... 97 
Figure 4.5-7.  Watershed Vulnerability Assessment – Montville................................................. 99 
Figure 4.5-8.  Watershed Vulnerability Assessment – Salem .................................................... 101 
Figure 4.5-9.  Watershed Vulnerability Assessment –Waterford............................................... 103 
Figure 4.5-10.  Major Drainage Basins Locus Map.................................................................... 118 
Figure D.1-1.  2004 Anderson Level 2 Land Cover Classifications........................................... D-5 
Figure F.1.3-1.  Stormwater Modeling Subcatchments ...............................................................F-5 
Figure F.1.3-2.  Modeled Rainfall Hyetograph............................................................................F-7 
Figure F.1.4-3.  Node Network Diagram for Niantic Watershed (SWMM5)............................F-10 
Figure F1.  Nonpoint Source Loadings BOD Load Existing....................................................F.5-1 
Figure F2.  Nonpoint Source Loadings BOD Load Developed................................................F.5-2 
Figure F3.  Nonpoint Source Loadings BOD Load w/BMPs...................................................F.5-3 
Figure F4.  Nonpoint Source Loadings BOD Percent Increase................................................F.5-4 
Figure F5.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Phosphorous Existing .......................................F.5-5 
Figure F6.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Phosphorous Developed ...................................F.5-6 
Figure F7.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Phosphorous w/BMPs.......................................F.5-7 
- vi - 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 
 
 
Figure F8.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Phosphorous Percent Increase ..........................F.5-8 
Figure F9.  Nonpoint Source Loadings TSS Load Existing .....................................................F.5-9 
Figure F10.  Nonpoint Source Loadings TSS Load Developed .............................................F.5-10 
Figure F11.  Nonpoint Source Loadings TSS Load w/BMPs.................................................F.5-11 
Figure F12.  Nonpoint Source Loadings TSS Percent Increase..............................................F.5-12 
Figure F13.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Nitrogen Existing..........................................F.5-13 
Figure F14.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Nitrogen Developed......................................F.5-14 
Figure F15.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Nitrogen Load w/BMPs................................F.5-15 
Figure F16.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Total Nitrogen Percent Increase.............................F.5-16 
Figure F17.  Nonpoint Source Loadings Percent Developable...............................................F.5-17 
 
 
LIST OF APPENDICES 
 
Appendix A 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 
Appendix B 
Terms and Definitions 
Appendix C 
Connecticut Water Quality Standards SA Criteria 
Appendix D 
Methodology: 2004 Land Cover, Build-Out, Impervious Surfaces 
Appendix D.1 2004 Land Cover Development 
Appendix D.2 Buildout Analysis 
Appendix D.3 Impervious Surface Analysis 
Appendix D.4 Buildout Report 
Appendix D.5 Methods Used to Generate IS Estimates and IS Summary 
Appendix E 
Methodology: Watershed Vulnerability Assessment 
Appendix E.1 Data Acquisition and Treatment 
Appendix E.2 Data Model Development 
Appendix F 
Methodology: Stormwater Modeling (SWMM Model) 
Appendix F.1 Methodology 
Appendix F.1.1 Pollutant Loading Approach 
Appendix F.1.2 Model Approach 
Appendix F.1.3 Hydrologic Analysis 
Appendix F.1.4 Data Assembly 
Appendix F.1.5 Pollutant Modeling 
Appendix F.2 Proposed Development Scenario 
Appendix F.2.1 Buildable Lands 
Appendix F.2.2 Future Developed Lands 
Appendix F.2.3 Developed Land Runoff Characteristics 
Appendix F.2.4 Developed Land Event Mean Concentration Characteristics 
Appendix F.2.5 Best Management Practices Implementation 
Appendix F.3 Discussion 
- vii - 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 
 
 
Appendix F.4 Presentation 
Appendix F.5 SWMM Results Figures 
Appendix G 
Toolbox of Planning and Zoning Techniques 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J:\1314\001\Docs\001-NRWPP 9-25-06.doc 
- viii - 

 
NIANTIC RIVER WATERSHED PLAN 
 
 
1.0 
FRONT MATTER 
 
1.1 
Acknowledgements 
 
This planning project was made possible by a one-time grant from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s (NOAA) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 
Management (OCRM).  The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection’s 
(CTDEP) Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) and the Bureau of Water 
Protection and Land Reuse (BWPLR), in fulfillment of its obligations to administer the 
State of Connecticut’s Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (CNP), 
developed in accordance with Section 6217 of the federal Coastal Zone Act 
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of 1990, selected the Niantic River Watershed 
as the pilot area for the project. 
 
The consulting team, led by Kleinschmidt Associates, would like to acknowledge 
the valuable contributions of the project steering committee to successfully complete this 
effort.  Each member of this committee provided input and guidance, which enhanced the 
overall process.  We would like to thank the following individuals and their organizations 
for their active participation on the 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 
 
- 1 - 

 
Eric Thomas, CTDEP Watershed Management Program 
Jamie Vaudrey, UCONN Avery Point, Marine Sciences 
Tom Wagner, Town of Waterford 
 
Other individuals offered their time, support and expertise to this project.  We 
would like to acknowledge these people and organizations for their generous and 
valuable contributions:  Jim Citak and Shannon Kelly of CT Department of Agriculture, 
Bureau of Aquaculture (CT DA/BA); CPT J. Muller and SSG D.J. Cherouny of the CT 
Army National Guard; Town of Waterford Public Schools; and University of Connecticut 
(UCONN) Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO). 
 
1.2 
Executive Summary 
 
The Niantic River does not currently meet state water quality standards because of 
high levels of indicator bacteria and observed degradation of aquatic life.  According to 
the State of Connecticut’s §303(d) List of Impaired Waters, the Niantic River is not 
supporting activities such as shellfishing and swimming; the Niantic River’s shellfish 
beds are closed after rain events of one inch or more.  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.  These ecological changes are thought to be linked to excessive nutrients, 
especially nitrogen, entering the river. 
 
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.  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 to dump 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 drainages and tributaries feeding the Niantic River.  
 
- 2 - 

 
This widespread, nonpoint source pollution is the greatest threat to the water quality and 
ecological health of the Niantic River. 
 
The Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan was put together 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.  It is the 
commitment of the advisory committee that will make this plan a success.  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, we examined the 
characteristics and land uses of the watershed 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. 
 
Examination of the watershed was facilitated by the use of aerial photography, 
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and stormwater models.  Existing land use and 
water quality reports for the watershed were also consulted.  From these sources, several 
key findings about the Niantic River Watershed and nonpoint source pollution were 
identified. 
 
Several recommendations are made throughout this report, in addition to many 
findings and results from various analyses that have been completed.  The following is a 
summary of key findings, in addition to an outline of key recommendations for 
implementing various improvement plans within the watershed. 
 
 
- 3 - 

 
Key Project Findings 
• 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. 
Data Assembly 
& Results 
• 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 are 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. 
• 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 
• 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.   
 
- 4 - 

 
Key Recommendations  
• Town zoning should allow the use of non-traditional Best Management Practices by granting variances to standard subdivision 
or building requirements.  Examples of waivers may include: 
o 
Curb requirements 
o 
Mandatory sidewalks 
o 
Pavement specifications 
o 
Density allowances 
o 
Building Low Impact Design (LID) techniques 
Zoning 
• Continue the establishment of open space preservation.  Techniques for managing open space include: 
o 
Preservation of contiguous wildlife corridors 
o 
Maintain no-disturb buffers around wetlands and waterbodies 
• The Project Steering Committee should consider the formation of a watershed partnership or coalition. This body could be an 
ad hoc entity to regularly meet and collaborate on the implementation of specific aspects of the watershed plan, as mentioned. 
Or, the entity could be formed as a subcommittee of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, which may also 
assist in coordinating the body and implementing the plan. 
• Establish a full time watershed coordinator who would coordinate activities between all the towns.  Such a position would 
supplement individual town stormwater utility districts. 
• Public monies should be used to purchase lands for preservation.  This becomes even more prevalent in the case of protecting 
lands abutting the major reservoirs that are water supplies. 
• Development of a specific stormwater management utility.  Such an entity would be responsible for implementing watershed 
water quality monitoring, post-construction inspections, street sweeping activities and stormwater retrofitting upgrades.  Costs 
of equipment, monitoring and maintenance could be shared between the towns. 
Management & 
Monitoring 
• Avoid ‘short-circuiting’ of stormdrain discharges.  Buffers may be placed along a stream, but a pipe discharging directly to the 
stream passes by the buffer without allowing for any attenuation or treatment of flows. 
• Marinas in the Niantic River should be encouraged to become Certified Connecticut Clean Marinas to develop clean 
maintenance and operation activities.  This also aids educating the boaters who use these marinas and the Niantic River. 
Educational 
• Education is a key component to maintaining water quality.  Certain educational programs are currently being implemented and 
should continue to be regularly provided for general residents, business owners, contractors, schoolchildren and town officials.  
Increased knowledge of good ‘house-keeping’ practices will only help to preserve water quality.  Official education plans 
should be outlined and presented on an annual or bi-annual basis.  Results from regular monitoring plans, development changes 
in the watershed and constantly changing technologies truly mandate a continual education program.  Further discussions about 
implementing education plans may be found in Section 7. 
 
- 5 - 

 
A suite of watershed management options to address the study’s key findings 
were developed.  Land use and regulatory options were considered and discussed with the 
planners from the four watershed towns.  Administrative and programmatic 
recommendations were included in the suite of options.  These recommendations consist 
of educational activities, financial strategies and specific stormwater management 
measures.  Where possible, management recommendations are assigned to specific areas 
of the watershed and associated with specific water quality targets.  Together these items 
make up the Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan, which with the continued support 
of the stakeholders engaging the public, the communities and local organizations can 
work to protect and enhance the countless uses enjoyed by all in the watershed. 
 
 
- 6 - 

 
2.0 
INTRODUCTION 
 
This document was written with the intention of guiding the decisions of people working 
in government and business, as well as those property owners within in the watershed whose 
activities impact the quality of the Niantic River and its tributaries.  It is meant to inform this 
general audience about known and suspected water quality issues and to recommend actions to 
address them.  The most current and available science describes what we know about these 
issues and why they are important to all of us.  Standard and innovative land use and water 
resource management practices provide techniques that equate to the best approaches for dealing 
with these issues. 
 
To better under the genesis of this planning document, several key questions are 
addressed below. 
 
2.1 
Why is this plan needed? 
 
The Niantic River does not meet State of Connecticut water quality standards. 
From the Golden Spur to the Amtrak Bridge, the use of the river for swimming, shellfish 
and other recreation is impaired because of excessive bacteria levels.  Also, the river does 
not support the diversity and abundance of aquatic life expected to be found in the river. 
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. 
 
Uses and enjoyment of the Niantic River are impacted by poor water quality and 
nonpoint source pollution.  The water quality of the Niantic River is poor enough so that 
shellfishing and swimming are limited.  Following one inch of rainfall, the State of 
Connecticut is required to close the shellfish beds of the Niantic River.  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 
 
- 7 - 

 
(depurate) so that potentially harmful bacteria are no longer a concern (until the next 1” 
rainstorm). 
 
Changes in how we use and enjoy the Niantic River are linked to the overall 
health of the Niantic River ecosystem, which is also changing and maybe not for the 
better.  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 variation (MEL, 2005).  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). 
 
Degraded water quality is thought to be an important driving force in these 
ecological changes.  In particular, excessive nitrogen loading from nonpoint sources, 
predation, increased water temperatures and disease are all implicated are causes of this 
ecological situation (Marshall, 1994; CTDEP, 2002b; MEL, 2005).  So, what can be 
driving these changes? 
 
As time progresses, we become more certain of the causes of these water quality 
impairments and their relationship to ecosystem changes.  Bacteria and nitrogen are the 
two greatest concerns for the quality of the Niantic River.  Polluted runoff, illegal marine 
discharges and sewer line accidents are the most probable sources of bacteria to the 
Niantic (CT DA/BA, 2005).  Nitrogen, polluted runoff, atmospheric deposition and 
groundwater inputs are critical water quality concerns for the Niantic River (Marshall, 
1994; Mullaney, 2006; Stacey, 2004).  For instance, we know that polluted runoff 
accounts for approximately half (50%) of the nitrogen inputs into the Niantic River.  
These inputs are the focus of this study.  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 septic systems 
through groundwater (Mullaney, 2006). 
 
- 8 - 

 
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 
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 mainstem 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 
 
- 9 - 

 
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).1  
 
As the last remaining parcels of developable land are converted to commercial, 
trial, 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 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. 
 
The plan and the lessons learned from the planning process will assist the State of 
Connecticut to manage many of its coastal watersheds.  The State of Connecticut’s 
Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, developed in accordance with 
Section 6217 of the federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, 
instigated this project with the hope that it will serve as a pilot study for other watersheds.  
The Niantic River Watershed was chosen because of its relatively manageable size; 
presence of known water quality issues; development pressure; active and participatory 
municipalities; and rich natural resources. 
 
2.2 
How was the plan developed? 
 
The Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan was developed as a result of a 
research and planning project funded by the CTDEP’s OLISP.  The CTDEP OLISP and 
the BWPLR have received a one-time grant from NOAA’s OCRM to develop a 
watershed protection plan for a small coastal watershed located within Connecticut’s 
coastal nonpoint source pollution management area.  The project was directed by a 
                                                 
 
1  According to population statistics provided by NOAA, the coastal watersheds of New London County experienced 
population growth as follows: 230,348 (1970), 238,409 (1980), 254.957 (1990), 259,080 (2000), 266,466 (2004). 
- 10 - 

 
Steering Committee composed of representatives from the Towns of East Lyme, 
Montville, Salem, and Waterford; CTDEP (several offices); U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS); UCONN; and Save the River, Save the Hills.  A consulting team, led by 
Kleinschmidt Associates of Essex, Connecticut, was responsible for completing the 
project and drafting the plan.  Figure 2.2-1 shows the project team organization. 
 
The plan follows federal guidelines for a watershed management plan.  Two 
documents, in particular, were consulted throughout the plan development process.  The 
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued in 2005 the Draft Handbook for 
Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters,2 which guides plan 
development according the nine key elements of a nonpoint source/watershed 
management plan (Table 2.2-1).   
 
Table 2.2-1.  The Nine Key Elements of a Watershed Plan 
Key Element of a Watershed Plan 
Plan Section 
Identify causes and sources of pollution that need to be controlled 
4.2 through 4.4 
Determine load reductions needed 
4.5.3 
Develop management measures to achieve goals 
6.1 
Develop implementation schedule 
7.3 
Develop interim milestones to track implementation of management measures 
6.2 
Develop criteria to measure progress toward meeting watershed goals 
6.2 
Develop monitoring component 
7.5 
Develop information/education component 
7.2 
Identify technical and financial assistance needed to implement plan 
7.1 and 7.4 
 
 
Also from USEPA, Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach 
Campaigns,3 was used as a reference to develop information and education (I/E) 
strategies for the Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan. 
 
                                                 
2 http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/pdf/handbook.pdf 
 
3 http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep.pdf 
- 11 - 

 
The project consisted of several key components that led to the development of 
the plan.  Part research project and part planning exercise, the Niantic River project relied 
on the input of scientists specializing in water quality and marine ecology, concerned 
citizens dedicated to preserving the Niantic River for future generations, and watershed 
managers tasked with managing governmental programs and policies dealing with the 
Niantic.  The key steps take to develop the Niantic River Watershed Protection Plan are 
summarized below: 
 
Figure 2.2-1.  Project Team Organization 
ASSESSMENT 
Science, Modeling, and GIS
John Quebbeman, PE
Kleinschmidt
Chistine Tomichek
Kleinschmidt
Sandy Prisloe
UCONN 
Jennifer Wardwell
Kleinschmidt 
PLANNING  
Land Use Planning and 
Public Outreach
Jeff Nield
Flow Consulting LLC
Marianne Latimer, 
AICP
FHI 
Linda Perelli Wright
FHI
John Rozum, AICP
NEMO
IMPLEMENTATION 
BMPs, Training, and 
Monitoring
Bruce Morton
Aquasolutions
Stephen W. Pietrzyk 
Aquasolutions
Connecticut 
Department of Environmental 
Protection
Project Management
Kleinschmidt Associates
Stakeholders
East Lyme
Montville
Salem
Waterford
Conservation Groups
Developers/Contractors
Resources
CTDEP
UCONN
USGS
USDA NRCS
Dominion MEL
 
 
Step 1:  Describe the watershed – This step was acco