Easygrants ID: 32857 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF/Legacy Grant Project ID: 1401.12.032857 LI Sound 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 Little Narragansett Bay. 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