Easygrants ID: 32857 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF/Legacy Grant Project ID: 1401.12.032857 LI Futures Fund 2012 - Planning and Monitoring - Submit Final Programmatic Report (Activities) Grantee Organization: Clean Up Stonington Harbors, Inc. Project Title: Water Quality Monitoring To Manage Pollution Problems (CT)

Project Period 04/01/2012 - 03/31/2013 Award Amount $24,659.90 Matching Contributions $22,675.00 Project Location Description (from Proposal) Stonington Harbor, CT Fisher’s Island Sound, from mouth of Pawcatuck River, Stonington, CT, 71º51’30.62 ºW, 41º19’07.96”N ) to mouth of Thames River, New London, CT 72º04’52.27”W, 41º18’36.77”N

Project Summary (from Proposal) Conduct volunteer water quality monitoring to identify sources of pollution and provide data to two towns, a state agency and a non- governmental organization to help them remediate problems.

Summary of Accomplishments While continuing to monitor area embayments, CUSH concentrated on identifying sources of pollution two long coves, Wequetequock and Pequotsepos. These efforts consisted of 1) locating sampling sites near or downstream of suspected pollution sources, 2) sampling on both tides when possible, 3) adding unscheduled sampling days after rainfall 2 inches, and 4) monitoring of both stream discharge and water quality in freshwater inputs to these coves. Preliminary results indicate that average summer nutrient concentrations in the harbor (measured on flood tides) were somewhat lower, and chlorophyll-a concentrations higher, than those in the cove. Shoreline septics and stormwater outfalls continue to be prime suspects for nutrient pollution in both Pequotsepos and Wequetequock Coves, along with flows constricted not only by the railroad beds but by the Mason’s Island causeway in Mystic Harbor, Mason’s Island itself, and Sandy Point with its accompanying sandbars in . Long-term monitoring of coastal sites is revealing deteriorated conditions in some areas, especially at Mason’s Island, Mystic River Park, and the mouth of Wequetequock Cove. Four CUSH members of the Water Committee took part in classroom and field training sessions and field studies led by representatives of the ECCD and The Last Green Valley watershed group. In addition to the stream training sessions, CUSH trained two new volunteers in 2012.

Lessons Learned Important lessons learned include the value in networking and collaborating with other organizations. This has always been CUSH’s goal and the value was reinforced this past year as the ability to make action plans was made possible through a respectful relationship with the Town and the CT DEEP. Also, CUSH found that the emphasis on creation of a scientifically sound program has brought CUSH respect and recognition as a serious organization to which other local organizations turn for advice and collaboration, which has expanded the reach of the program into other towns and, for the near future, into the watershed. Concerning specifics of results: We found, due to testing during ebb and flood tides, it is possible that proliferation of macroalgae in a cove reduces the concentrations of nutrients while adversely affecting the overall water quality. We will continue to explore the dynamics of this relationship. CUSH has also learned that tides and rainy/dry spells have a very measurable effect on testing parameters, so this is taken into account and included as key data during sampling and testing. These lessons have strengthened the database and sampling methodology.

Page 1 of 10 Conservation Activities Train and engage water-testing volunteers Progress Measures # of volunteers engaged in project Value at Grant Completion 30 Conservation Activities Sample collection Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (# sites monitored) Value at Grant Completion 12 sites Conservation Activities Dissemination of Information Progress Measures # of workshops, webcasts, webinars, special events, meetings associated with activity Value at Grant Completion 40-50 outeach activities Conservation Activities Data Analysis Used for Problem Solving Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (Used for decision making) Value at Grant Completion 12 plus organizations Conservation Activities Collaboration with Schools and Students Progress Measures # schools involved in activity Value at Grant Completion 5 schools and 21 students Conservation Activities Inform Open Space Acquisitions Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (# open space acquisitions related to collaboration) Value at Grant Completion Unknown but working with Groton Land Trust Conservation Activities sample collection Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (# weeks of days WQ monitoring) Value at Grant Completion 6 months bi weekly and weather dependent

Page 2 of 10

Final Programmatic Report Narrative

Instructions: Save this document on your computer and complete the narrative in the format provided. The final narrative should not exceed ten (10) pages; do not delete the text provided below. Once complete, upload this document into the on-line final programmatic report task as instructed.

1. Summary of Accomplishments In four to five sentences, provide a brief summary of the project’s key accomplishments and outcomes that were observed or measured.

The four primary project goals from this proposal were met: 1) Through water testing, CUSH identified sources of point and non-point pollution in two locations. 2) CUSH worked with local officials, commissions, residents, and other organizations to facilitate and implement solutions to control the sources of the pollution. 3) CUSH believes that there is a reduction in the pollution from changing residents’ and visitors’ habits through effective education. 4) Collaboration with an open space group in Groton (GOSA) testing in a watershed area to inform their conservation efforts was successful.

2. Project Activities & Outcomes

Activities  Describe and quantify (using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement) the primary activities conducted during this grant. Activities are the actions that you completed with the grant funding. These activities helped you achieve the overall goals of your project. For example, acres restored, # installed rainwater harvesting sites, # of communities or volunteers engaged, data collected and analyzed etc.).  Briefly explain the differences between the activities conducted during the grant and the activities agreed upon in your grant agreement and proposal.

Outcomes  Describe and quantify progress towards achieving the conservation activities described in your original proposal. (Quantify using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement or by using more relevant metrics not included in the application.) Outcomes are defined as the longer-term or “big picture” environmental result(s) that you expect will ultimately occur as a result of a particular activity or activities. For projects with continuing long-term benefits (such as riparian buffer plantings) you may want to estimate the environmental benefits after a set period of time (say, five years). For studies you should describe the usefulness of the data to applied resource management or it role in developing new tools or techniques for applied resource management.  Briefly explain differences between what actually occurred compared to what was projected to occur.  Provide any further information (such as unexpected outcomes) important for understanding project activities and outcome results.

The following is a summary of approved metrics and results. The large volume of raw data collected will be provided if requested. In some cases, results are given in relation to those of previous years which is an important part of the analysis (much of this work has been funded by NFWF/LISFF grants in the past):

1) Train and engage water-testing volunteers: CUSH engaged and/or trained veteran and new volunteers and had a successful year with twenty-four (24) consistent volunteers. Primary training is done by URIWW. In addition, four CUSH members of the Water Committee took part in classroom and field training sessions and field studies led by representatives of the ECCD and The Last Green Valley

Page 3 of 10 watershed group. Volunteers and residents have increased their skills through useful training programs that are open to the public: Watershed health assessment techniques, organic land management practices, and water quality sampling and testing procedures.

2, 3, 4) Water quality sample collect from twelve (12) sites routinely plus watershed sites (weather dependent) plus sites near five municipal projects; fourteen (14) water quality parameters routinely measured; 6 month time frame for monitoring on a weekly and monthly basis: The water monitoring program provides a long-term record of water quality in area flow-restricted embayments, with a goal to track major sources of water pollution (nutrients, bacteria, and excess algae) and to help eliminate them. We also tested sediments for metals, oil byproducts, and PCBs, and we’re currently investigating an assay to identify fecal nitrogen in sediments. In 2011, we began to sample on both ebb and flood tides in an effort to distinguish land-based pollutants from those originating in open water, and in 2012 we expanded on this idea by learning how to measure stream flows and to calculate the actual delivery (lb/day) of a pollutant to its receiving water. These efforts focused on flows and nutrients measured at various parts of Anguilla Brook as well as under the Mystic Harbor railroad bridge at mid-ebb and mid- flood tides. We also learned how to evaluate the numbers and types of benthic macroinvertebrates living in a stream bottom to construct a stream health index analogous to the aquatic health index (AHI) for coastal waters. CUSH identified sources of point and non-point pollution: In 2008, CUSH began monitoring the coastal embayments of Stonington and Mystic Harbors. It soon became clear that pollutants are largely flushed from the harbors by robust tidal currents, aided by upgrades to the sewage treatment plants in Mystic and Stonington. In contrast, flow-restricted coves bisected by the railroad exhibit the poorest water quality in the region. While continuing to monitor area embayments, CUSH has increasingly concentrated on identifying sources of pollution two long coves, Wequetequock in Stonington and Pequotsepos in Mystic. These efforts consist of 1) locating sampling sites near or downstream of suspected pollution sources, 2) sampling on both tides when possible, 3) adding unscheduled sampling days after rainfall >2 inches, and, new in 2012, monitoring of both stream discharge and water quality in freshwater inputs to these coves.

Mystic Harbor In 2011, we detected a source of human bacterial pollution and decreased oxygenation in inner Mystic Harbor. This source was not detected in 2012, and we concluded that it had been either a transient live-aboard boat at one of the local marinas or rain-stressed septic systems along Murphy’s Point. We will periodically continue to sample flood tides from the harbor side of the Shipyard. Having discovered numerous stormwater outfalls and ditches feeding Pequotsepos Cove, too many to monitor effectively and most of them dry all summer, we began to monitor the total nutrient output of the cove to the harbor and the harbor to the cove; this was done by sampling just inside the Amtrak bridge opening at the mouth of the cove on both ebb and flood tides, while simultaneously measuring the discharge within the 14-foot bridge opening. Although much of the activity in 2012 was devoted to method testing the flow measurements, preliminary results indicate that average summer nutrient concentrations in the harbor (measured on flood tides) were somewhat lower, and chlorophyll-a concentrations higher, than those in the cove (measured on ebb tides—see the section on site AHIs). However, the tidal current near mid-flood tide is twice that near mid-ebb; this suggests that the total nutrient load to the cove is greater than the total load from cove to harbor. We will continue to explore the dynamics of this relationship; it is possible, even likely, that proliferation of macroalgae in the cove reduces its measurable concentrations of nutrients while adversely affecting its overall water quality.

Pequotsepos Cove In 2011 another source of human fecal bacteria was discovered within a stormwater outfall and accompanying ditch extending along Borodell Ave. to the cove about midway along its length. This was the location of our 2011 site called Mid-Cove; this site was not monitored in 2012, because both

Page 4 of 10 pipe and ditch were dry from June to October and because the Town announced plans to replace a section of the stormwater pipe extending across Borodell Ave. The roadwork took place in late summer, so even though sampling was limited, we were able to obtain samples before (April and May) and after (October) the construction work. This ditch is notable for having the highest nitrate concentration of any CUSH site in 2012, with an average of 7199 ug/l and a range of 4230-11,205 ug/l (n = 4). Also high in nitrate was the stormwater outfall at the end of Richmond Lane, with concentrations near 2000 ug/l in July and September; in contrast, average nitrates in Pequotsepos Brook at the cove head and the railroad ditch at the cove mouth were 253 (60-520) and 97 (30-210) ug/l, respectively. E.coli levels were modest in all these ditches, probably because of the lack of surface runoff in an exceptionally dry season—according to Groton Utilities (http://www.grotonutilities.com/water.asp?l=2), total rainfall in 2012 was 29 inches below the annual average.

Shoreline septics and stormwater outfalls continue to be prime suspects for nutrient pollution in both Pequotsepos and Wequetequock Coves, along with flows constricted not only by the railroad beds but by the Mason’s Island causeway in Mystic Harbor, Mason’s Island itself, and Sandy Point with its accompanying sandbars in Little Narragansett Bay.

Long-term monitoring of coastal sites is revealing deteriorated conditions in some areas. The following is a list of all such sites together with their Aquatic Health Index (AHI) scores. Note especially the changes at Mason’s Island, Mystic River Park, and the mouth of Wequetequock Cove.

The AHI is a single number representing a water-quality score assigned to each site based on the average levels of dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, total organic nitrogen, and dissolved inorganic nitrogen. For each indicator, a concentration known to support healthy aquatic life is assigned a score of 100, and a concentration associated with severe stress is assigned a score of 0. For each site, the average summer concentrations of each indicator are located within the 0-100 range, and the average of all four scores is the site’s Aquatic Health Index. 0 = Very Poor 100 = Excellent 65 or more = Good 35 to 65 = Fair 35 or less = Poor

AHIs at Mystic Sites --RR bridge/Shipyard ebb: NOTE: salinities the same both years. 2011: 22 2012: 18 --RR bridge/Shipyard flood: Average salinity 29 in 2011, 30 in 2012 2011: 31 2012: 28 --Murphy’s G Dock 2012 ebb: 16 (Murphy’s F Dock 2011 ebb: 30) --Mason’s Island: 2009 (all ebb but 1): 81 2010 (all flood but 1): 71 2011 (all ebb): 57 2012 (all ebb): 56 --Beebe Cove 2012: 44 --Mystic River Park shallow and deep combined (no difference except in salinity 2011 only):

Page 5 of 10 2009 (all ebb but 1): 52 2010 (all flood but 2): 31 2011 (all ebb): 35 2012 (all ebb): 25

AHIs at Stonington Sites Wequetequock Cove Mouth 2008 (all flood): 68 2009 (5 ebb, 5 flood): 62 2010 (all flood) : 56 2011 (5 ebb, 3 flood): 35 2012 (all ebb): 20

Lambert’s Cove (eelgrass since 2006?) 2008 (3 ebb 4 flood): 70 2009 (all ebb): 77 2010 (3 ebb 6 flood): 68 2011 (all ebb but 1): 67 2012 (all ebb): 46 (Amtrak railroad bridge raising completed 2012)

Stonington Harbor off Town Dock 2008 (2 ebb 5 flood) 75 2009 (7 ebb 2 flood) 73 2010 (2 ebb 5 flood) 77 2011 (3 ebb 1 flood) 80 2012 (all ebb) 67

Sandy Point has averaged 81 since 2008.

3. Lessons Learned Describe the key lessons learned from this project, such as the least and most effective conservation practices or notable aspects of the project’s methods, monitoring, or results. How could other conservation organizations adapt their projects to build upon some of these key lessons about what worked best and what did not?

Key lessons learned include the value in networking and collaborating with other organizations. This has always been CUSH’s goal and the value was reinforced this past year as the ability to make action plans was made possible through a respectful relationship with the Town and the CT DEEP. Also, CUSH found that the emphasis on creation of a scientifically sound program has brought CUSH respect and recognition as a serious organization to which other local organizations turn for advice and collaboration, which has expanded the reach of the monitoring program into other towns in the watershed.

For an all-volunteer organization, updated training and continual engagement of the volunteer force is an ongoing and critical component for success of individual projects as well as for long-term achievements.

Concerning specifics of results: We found, due to testing during ebb and flood tides, it is possible that proliferation of macroalgae in a cove reduces the concentrations of nutrients while adversely affecting the overall water quality. We will continue to explore the dynamics of this relationship. CUSH has also learned that tides and rainy/dry spells have a very measurable effect on testing parameters, so this is taken into account and included as key data during sampling and testing. These lessons have strengthened the database and sampling methodology.

Page 6 of 10 As CUSH extends a focus more into the watershed, it becomes necessary to find a water-quality index for streams equivalent to the AHI for embayments and ponds. A literature search revealed that throughout the country, the most common index of stream quality is the evaluation of macroinvertebrate species from the stream bottom. The technique is known as Rapid Bioassessment by Volunteers, or RBV. RBV is accompanied by a formal stream assessment called a Stream walk, developed by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Four CUSH members of the Water Committee took part in classroom and field training sessions and field studies led by representatives of the ECCD and The Last Green Valley watershed group; in 2013 we intend to apply these techniques in SE CT streams, most of which have not been evaluated for the CT list of impaired waters.

4. Dissemination Briefly identify any dissemination of lessons learned or other project results to external audiences, such as the public, governmental agencies, educational entities, scientific, community-based and conservation organizations.

Online: CUSH has a website, http://www.cushinc.org/ that keeps current with information about program results and related activities. CUSH’s raw data are included in the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association (a coalition of thirteen organizations in the South County Environmental Advocacy Team) water-quality database. The WPWA makes these data accessible to watershed managers, scientists, and the public at http://www.wpwa.org/waterQuality.htm. Groton Open Space Association’s website is: http://gosaonline.org. These sites share information about our partnerships in the water quality program.

Public Outreach: CUSH continues to hold public meetings, lectures, volunteer-led clean up days, and has a presence at public functions (which can be followed on the website). The local newspapers have a strong and supportive interest in CUSH’s mission and goals and readily cover public meetings and on-site projects (media coverage is on the website). Information was disseminated via Yard Care Guides and Clean Boating Guides that CUSH created and inserts annually in local newspapers to educate Town of Stonington residents on harbor friendly practices. Educational forums were hosted to bring together property owners (town, NGOs, businesses, residents) to learn about proper lawn care and it’s importance for water quality of the Sound. Turf management classes organized, publicized, and funded by CUSH were held in February and March 2013 to educate both citizens and Town managers in organic methods of turf management. Conducted by Chip Osbourne, these sessions resulted in verbal assurances by town officials that ball fields in need of restoration will be treated using organic methods to reduce runoff. Since the ball fields are near Wequetequock Cove, CUSH will be in a position to monitor the success of the management change. A similar effort is underway to enlist the cooperation of a large hotel complex on a steep rise above Pequotsepos Cove, and similar monitoring will be done in that area. Results will be communicated to area stakeholders: Town and State officials and agencies, residents, and other environmental groups.

Data are generated with an increasing number of academic teams (high school and university levels) and other organizations (regional non-profits and local government), which disseminate the information CUSH’s program provides in a variety of ways.

5. Maintenance and Management

Describe specific provisions for long-term maintenance, management and protection, as appropriate, associated with project (i.e., maintenance of debris-catching devices, LWD jams, or removing blockages etc.)?

The water-testing program must be financially sustained in order to maintain the progress made in identifying sources of pollution and CUSH continues to have grant support, private contributions from

Page 7 of 10 memberships, sponsorships, and in-kind donations all of which make this possible. The data this program provides are shared with municipal agencies that fix the underlying physical problems and will continue to maintain them. The continuation of this program is the best guarantee that there will be a reliable maintenance plan for this geographic area. Ongoing public education is also a critical component to the success of the program. Program management is another key to success and having a small qualified staff is the only way to guarantee that this extremely time and labor intensive program continues to be conducted with the utmost scientific rigor.

6. Partners:

Describe the contribution of any partnering organization to the project or new partnerships that were developed as a result of the project?

CUSH holds joint meetings with other organizations and the local government to keep them informed and updated on the status and results of the water-quality testing, and attends academic and other regional meetings to share results and continue to seek collaborations. CUSH shares all data with the CT DEEP for its use. CUSH is partnering with the Groton Open Space Association located in a neighboring town with direct waterfront on the Sound and the Thames River.

Long-term monitoring of coastal sites is revealing deteriorated conditions in some areas. Stonington Public Works and Public Health Departments checked for septic failures following CUSH reports of human fecal contamination. When CUSH found very high PAHs in sediment samples the Town requested further sediment testing at two additional sites in the affected cove; this collaboration continues. The Department of Agriculture/Bureau of Aquaculture is an advisor about the human fecal contamination/public safety issue and has posted “No Shellfishing” signs in response to our report of contamination. Collaborative relationships were extended with harbormasters from Westerly to Groton, NESS, GOSA, STB, and others. CUSH has had extensive media coverage (including two press conferences and two features), produced a new brochure, and launched a new website. At the request of GOSA, nutrient and bacteria samples were collected from Beebe Cove and three intermittent streams or stormwater outfalls in the Birch Plain Creek watershed, for which GOSA is developing a Watershed Protection Plan for the Birch Plain Creek area.

Other partners:

Ella Grasso Regional Technical School, Groton, CT. Students tested water samples for dissolved oxygen.

New England Science and Sailing (NESS), Stonington, CT: Shared equipment, observations of shellfishing, macroalgae, other aquatic life in Stonington Harbor.

Dr. Jamie Vaudrey, University of Connecticut Avery Point: analysis of water samples for chlorophyll-a, shared data, consultation on shoreline ecology.

University of Rhode Island Watershed Watch: Training, consultation, data management, consultation.

Save the Bay: data sharing, monitoring strategies, coordination of site locations

Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association: Database of regional water-quality data, including CUSH data, maintained on website.

Page 8 of 10 Tristan Kading, MS, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Sediment sample collection, sample analysis, data sharing, consultation.

Groton Open Space Association: CUSH volunteer collected water samples for analysis from three sites identified by GOSA.

Long Island Sound Embayment Monitoring group member: Newly formed in 2012 to advise, coordinate, and assist regional volunteer monitoring groups. Consortium includes educational, regulatory, and citizen’s groups.

Eastern Connecticut Conservation District (ECCD): training in stream assessment, consultation on watershed (freshwater) issues.

Aquarion Water Company, Mystic, CT: Weather data for CUSH sites.

Tessa Getchis, University of Connecticut Avery Point and Julie Rose, NOAA: CUSH volunteers collected lab samples and shared site data for use in a study of area locations most suitable for shellfish restoration projects.

7. Project Documents Include in your final programmatic report, via the Uploads section of this task, the following:

 2-5 representative photos from the project. Photos need to have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi;  report publications, GIS data, brochures, videos, outreach tools, press releases, media coverage;  any other project deliverables per the terms of your grant agreement and in your original proposal.

POSTING OF FINAL REPORT: This report and attached project documents may be shared by the Foundation and any Funding Source for the Project via their respective websites. In the event that the Recipient intends to claim that its final report or project documents contains material that does not have to be posted on such websites because it is protected from disclosure by statutory or regulatory provisions, the Recipient shall clearly mark all such potentially protected materials as “PROTECTED” and provide an explanation and complete citation to the statutory or regulatory source for such protection.

Page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10