FINDINGS FOR THE
               CONNECTICUT COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM
                                 


FOREWORD

     This document contains the findings for the coastal nonpoint pollution control program
submitted by the State of Connecticut pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).  The findings are based on a review of the 
Connecticut Coastal Nonpoint Program Submittal, September 1995, and supplemental material
provided by Connecticut subsequent to the program submittal.  The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
reviewed this information and evaluated the extent to which it conforms with the requirements of
CZARA.

     NOAA and EPA commend Connecticut on the substantial amount of time and effort put
into developing your program and we appreciate the commitment you have shown to complete
an ambitious task with limited resources.  We will continue to work with coastal states and
territories to ensure that these findings represent an accurate assessment of current state and
territory abilities and efforts to address coastal nonpoint source pollution.  We recognize that
there may be further administrative changes to the coastal nonpoint program that will impact
these findings and we assure you that, once such changes are finalized, we will review these
findings in light of the changes and make any necessary adjustments. 


APPROVAL DECISION

     NOAA and EPA approve the coastal nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the
State of Connecticut pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, subject to certain conditions.  

     This document provides the specific findings used by NOAA and EPA as the basis for the
decision to approve Connecticut's program.  It also provides the rationale for the findings and
includes conditions that will need to be met for Connecticut to receive final approval of its
program.  The timeframes associated with conditions become effective on the date of the
approval letter for these findings.
INTRODUCTION

      This document is organized by the major nonpoint source categories and subcategories
identified in the section 6217(g) guidance and the administrative elements identified in the
program guidance (including the boundary for the 6217 management area).  Where appropriate,
NOAA and EPA have grouped categories and subcategories of management measures into a
single finding.  The structure of each finding follows a standard format.  Generally, the finding is
that the state program includes or does not include management measures in conformity with the
(g) guidance and includes or does not include enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation.  In some cases, the finding reflects that the state has identified a back-up
enforceable policy, but has not  demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure
implementation.  For further understanding of terms in this document, the reader is referred to
the following:

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters (EPA, January 1993)
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:  Program Development and Approval Guidance
(NOAA and EPA, January 1993)
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA, March 1995)

     The references in this document refer to the Connecticut Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program Submittal, September 1995 ("program submittal").  NOAA and EPA have
written this document as succinctly as possible.  We have relied upon, but do not repeat here, the
extensive information that the State has included in its program submittal.  Further information
and analysis, including material provided by Connecticut subsequent to the program submittal, is
contained in the administrative record for this approval decision and may be reviewed by
interested parties at the following locations:


EPA/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M St., SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC  20460
Contact:  Kristen Martin (202/260-7108)

NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Contact:  Dwight Reynolds (301/713-3105, x154)



U.S. EPA
Office of Ecosystem Protection
Connecticut State Unit
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA  02203
Contact: Mel Cote (617/565-3537)



I.  BOUNDARY

FINDING:  Connecticut's proposed boundary is sufficient to control the land and water uses that
have or are reasonably expected to have a significant impact on the coastal waters of
Connecticut. 

RATIONALE:  Connecticut recognizes that its existing coastal zone does not encompass the
existing and future land and water uses that are likely to have a significant impact on the State's
coastal waters.  Based on analysis and data gathered as part of the Long Island Sound National
Estuary Program, the State has proposed a 6217 management area based on three criteria: land
uses likely to contribute pollutants of concern to Long Island Sound; proximity to the Sound; and
the existing conditions of coastal waters including areas of impaired uses and areas susceptible to
future development.  Through this analysis, the State presents the case that a geographic area
smaller than that recommended by NOAA would be adequate to restore and protect coastal
waters.  The proposed area includes the municipalities comprising the first and second tier
priority basins identified by the Long Island Sound Study, and the municipalities located
immediately adjacent to the Connecticut River.  In accordance with the Guidance issued in
March 1995, NOAA and EPA defer to the State's boundary determination. 

II.  AGRICULTURE

FINDING:  Connecticut has provided sufficient justification for a categorical exclusion of
agriculture, except for exclusion of the management measures for confined animal facilities
(large and small) and for the nutrient management measure as it applies to animal waste.  

CONDITION:  Within two years, Connecticut will include in its program management
measures in conformity with the management measures for confined animal facilities (large and
small) and for nutrient management as it applies to animal waste, and enforceable polices and
mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Connecticut has demonstrated that agriculture is generally not a significant
contributor of pollutants to the State's coastal waters and is declining as a land use in
Connecticut.  Therefore, except as described below, Connecticut's exclusion of agriculture from
its coastal nonpoint program is justified.

Connecticut has not demonstrated that exclusion is warranted with respect to confined animal
facilities (large and small) and nutrient management as it applies to animal waste.  Table 1, page
2 of the Agriculture Exclusion section in the program submittal indicates that there are 78,044
cattle and calves in the State.  Using county data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture, EPA and
NOAA estimate that as many as 74 animal operations within the State's 6217 management area,
55 of which are dairies, are large enough to be subject to the 6217(g) management measures for
animal facilities.  Given their proximity to coastal waters, these operations present a significant
threat to coastal waters by discharge from the operations themselves as well as from land
application of animal waste.

Connecticut may be able to use existing enforceable polices and mechanisms to ensure
implementation of the management measures that apply to animal waste.  For example,
Connecticut's Water Pollution Control Statutes (Chapter 446k) provide the State Commissioner
of Environmental Protection the authority to order abatement of pollution, including nonpoint
pollution, when it occurs and also before it occurs if the Commissioner finds conditions that can
reasonably be expected to create a source of pollution.  Further, the statutes also provide the
Commissioner with the authority to require general permits for pollution discharges, including
nonpoint source discharges.  

III.  FORESTRY

FINDINGS:  Connecticut has provided sufficient justification to support a categorical exclusion
of forestry from its coastal nonpoint program.

RATIONALE:  Of the 1,826,000 acres of land classified as forested, 55% is within the 6217
management area.  Of the 55%, the State estimates (page 1 of the Forestry Exclusion Section of
the program submittal) that most of this acreage should actually be classified as low density
suburban land cover.  According to supplemental information provided to EPA on March 13,
1996, the State is in the process of working on a GIS project that will hopefully separate low-
density residential land from forested land.

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Division of Forestry estimates
that the average timber harvest in the State involves 25 acres, and typical harvesting operations
involve some form of partial harvest such as thinning, shelterwood, or selection cut.  Most whole
tree harvest operations and clear cutting in the State occur as a result of permanent conversion of
forest land to other uses, and the potential impact of such operations would be addressed through
management of new development.  While DEP's Division of Forestry does not maintain data on
the exact location or number of acres harvested annually, information on production of sawmills
and logging facilities indicates that of the 70 million board feet of lumber produced in the State,
approximately 5% is produced in the proposed 6217 management area.

Finally, Connecticut has an extensive ambient monitoring program covering most of the State's
estuarine and inland waters, including monthly surveys of Long Island Sound and a network of
tributary stations operated jointly by the DEP and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).  The State
has never identified, through its biennial 305(b) water quality reports, any portion of estuarine or
coastal waters or rivers, streams, or lakes as impaired by silviculture.  Similarly, the DEP's
Priority Waterbodies List under section 319 does not identify any segments with impairments by
silviculture.

Given the absence of any silvicultural-related impairments, forestry does not and is not
reasonably anticipated to present significant adverse impacts to coastal waters.

IV.  URBAN

     A.   NEW DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Connecticut's program does not include management measures in conformity with
6217(g) guidance.  The program includes backup enforceable policies and mechanisms to
implement the measure, but the State has not yet demonstrated the ability of the authorities to
ensure implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Connecticut will include in its program management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Within one year Connecticut will develop a
strategy (in accordance with section XIV, page 15) to implement the new development
management measure throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Connecticut does not include in its program management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance to reduce total suspended solid loadings or to maintain
post-development runoff rates and volumes at pre-development levels.  Under the State's Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Act (C.G.S. Sections 22a-235 through 22a-329), all municipalities
are required to include soil erosion and sediment control provisions in their zoning and
subdivision regulations.  The provisions require an erosion and sediment control plan for
development disturbing more than « acre.  The Council on Soil and Water Conservation has
developed Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control which include model regulations. 
The State has proposed revising the Guidelines to incorporate this management measure.  NOAA
and EPA encourage the State to pursue this approach.    

All Connecticut communities have developed erosion and sediment control regulations. 
However, the Soil and Erosion and Sediment Control Act does not contain provisions for State
enforcement of the requirements in instances where a community adopts regulations that are not
in full compliance with the guidelines, or fails to adequately enforce its erosion and sediment
control provisions.  According to a personal communication with the State, in these instances the
State relies on other authorities, such as the State Water Pollution Control Authority or the Water
Diversion Policy Act, to require appropriate erosion and sediment controls.

     B.   WATERSHED PROTECTION AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Connecticut's program does not include management measures in conformity with
the 6217(g) guidance for the watershed protection measure, but it does include measures in
conformity with the existing development management measure, with the exception of an
identification of pollutant reduction opportunities and a schedule for implementing appropriate 
controls.  The State's program includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation throughout the management area.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Connecticut will include in its program management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for watershed protection, and for elements 1
and 2 of the existing development management measure.

RATIONALE:  Connecticut describes a number of programs which can be used to address
portions of the management measure for watershed protection, but the program submittal does
not describe a framework through which these programs are coordinated on a watershed basis. 
The Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA)(C.G.S. Sections 22a-90 through 22a-112)
requires municipal land use commissions to modify coastal site plans to ensure that development
and coastal land and water resources policies protect tidal wetlands and related estuarine
resources.  Policies under the CCMA also protect erosion prone areas within the coastal
boundary.  Public Acts 91-170 and 91-398 require that all regulations, plans, reports, and zoning
adopted by municipalities located contiguous to Long Island Sound be designed to reduce
hypoxia, pathogens, toxic contaminants and floatable debris.  Under the Rivers Management
Program (C.G.S. Sections 25-102 through 25-102) the State is conducting an assessment of river
resources to identify river management opportunities, but there are no existing approved river
management plans and, at the time of program submittal, the streamside buffers on specially
designated streams and rivers portion of this authority had not yet been passed.  NOAA and EPA
encourage the State to continue their efforts to get this buffers authority passed. NOAA and EPA
understand that the DEP is now in the process of exploring different institutional frameworks to
facilitate watershed management throughout the State.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to
continue with this effort.

Connecticut describes a number of programs which can be used to address portions of the
existing development management measure; however, the State does not have a plan or schedule
to reduce runoff pollutant concentrations and volumes from existing development.  The Long
Island Sound Study identified pollution reduction initiatives for land uses which have the greatest
potential for adversely affecting water quality in the Sound.  This broad scale analysis is
currently being utilized by the State to target section 319 grants and other federal and state
funding sources to high priority watershed initiatives.  However, the Study did not identify
specific priority nonpoint sources and a schedule for addressing these sources.  Connecticut may
consider working through the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) and municipal
departments of public works to require these agencies to consider stormwater and other nonpoint
source controls while developing and implementing their capital improvement plans. 
Stormwater control retrofits are probably most cost-effective when installed in the course of
regularly scheduled infrastructure improvements.  Since submittal of the State's Coastal
Nonpoint Program, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Water
Management has embarked on the development of a watershed management program which the
State indicates will incorporate appropriate management measure criteria into the planning
process for individual watershed management plans.

     C.   SITE DEVELOPMENT and CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND
     SEDIMENT CONTROL 

FINDING: Connecticut's program includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance.  The program includes back-up enforceable policies and mechanisms but the
State has not yet demonstrated the primary authority's ability to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within one  year Connecticut will develop a strategy (in accordance with
Section XIV, page 15) to implement the site development and construction site erosion and
sediment control management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance throughout the
6217 management area.

RATIONALE: The site development management measure is addressed primarily through the
State Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control manual developed under the Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Act.  In addition, the State has a number of other authorities
which address the components of the site development management measure, although these
authorities may not apply throughout the 6217 management area. For example, the CCMA and
its implementing regulations (C.G.S. Sections 22a-90 through 22a-112) contain policies and
standards that protect areas susceptible to erosion and sediment loss and limit disturbances of
natural drainage features, but these apply only in the existing coastal zone.  Other State laws
and programs, such as the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (IWWA)(C.G.S. Sections
22a-36 through 22a-45a), provide an additional measure of protection for areas that provide
important water quality benefits.

Connecticut's program meets the management measures for construction site erosion and
sediment control through its State Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control manual.
Connecticut's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (C.G.S. Sections 22a-325 through 22a-
329) established a policy to implement a state-wide erosion and sediment control program
through adoption of regulations by municipalities.  All municipalities in the management area
have adopted regulations that contain erosion and sediment control provisions.  Municipal
regulations incorporate provisions and conservation standards described in the State Guidelines
for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control manual, which limit land disturbing activities, preserve
natural vegetative cover and implement perimeter control practices.  Erosion and sediment
control plans are enforced through the town's zoning enforcement and/or inland wetlands
agency.  The State proposes to revise the Guidelines to include practices which fully implement
these management measures.  However, as discussed under the new development measure
above, the State does not have authority under the Erosion and Sediment Control Act to
enforce the standards incorporated in the Guidelines. 

     D.   CONSTRUCTION SITE CHEMICAL CONTROL

FINDING:  Connecticut's program does not include management measures in conformity with
the 6217(g) guidance, or enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
                                        throughout the 6217 management area.    

CONDITION:  Within two years, Connecticut will include in its program management
measures for construction site chemical control in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, and
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the 6217
management area.



RATIONALE:  The State's program includes measures covering chemical control on roads,
highways, bridges and other areas regulated by the DOT.  These authorities include DOT
Form 814, Section 1.10, Environmental Compliance and Supplemental Specifications; DOT
Construction Advisory 29-93, Hazardous/Contaminated Waste Disposal; and the DEP/DOT
Interdepartmental Memorandum on Bridge Painting.  However, Connecticut's program does
not include management measures for construction site chemical control at all construction
sites.  Connecticut identifies the CCMA as an authority that could be used to ensure
implementation of construction site chemical control plans in the State's coastal zone. 
However, the State has not identified an enforceable policy and mechanism to ensure
implementation of the management measure throughout the 6217 management area.

     E.   NEW AND OPERATING DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (OSDS)

FINDING:  Connecticut's program includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance, except it does not include measures for: 1) establishment of adequate
protective separation distances between OSDS and ground water for new OSDS; 2) inspection
and maintenance of existing OSDS; and 3) denitrification where nitrogen-limited surface
waters may be adversely affected by nitrogen loading from OSDS.  Connecticut includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the 6217
management area.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Connecticut will include in its program management
measures for adequate separation distance between new OSDS and the seasonal high water
table, and inspection of existing OSDS.  Within three years, Connecticut will include in its
program management measures for denitrification where nitrogen-limited surface waters may
be adversely affected by nitrogen loading from OSDS, in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance.

RATIONALE:  Connecticut's Regulations and Technical Standards for Subsurface Sewage
(Connecticut Public Health Code Sections 19-13-B100 and B103) establish a permitting
program for the construction, installation, and repair of onsite disposal systems.  The
regulations and standards require site investigations prior to construction and inspection of
systems after construction and prior to operation.  The regulations and standards also require
minimum separation distances between OSDS and wells, domestic water supplies, potable
water lines flowing under pressure, groundwater intercepting drains, buildings, and property
lines.  While the regulations and standards require at least an eighteen inch separation distance
between OSDS and groundwater, this distance does not provide adequate protection of surface
waters from OSDS discharges.  Further, the regulations and standards do not include
provisions to reduce nitrogen loadings where nitrogen-limited surface waters may be adversely
affected by excess nitrogen loadings from OSDS or for inspection and maintenance of existing
OSDS.  Violators of the Subsurface Sewage regulations are subject to "an order to abate the
condition" pursuant to C.G.S. Section 19-79.




     F.   POLLUTION PREVENTION

FINDING:  Connecticut's program includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  Connecticut's efforts through both the Nonpoint Education for Municipal
Officials (NEMO) project and Public Act 91-376, which established the State's pollution
prevention policy, provide good examples of how the State is conducting activities to conform
with the pollution prevention management measure throughout the 6217 management area.

     G.   ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES  

FINDING:  Connecticut's programs includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance, with the exception of the construction site chemical control and operations
and maintenance (O&M) management measures for projects that the DOT does not supervise,
and for the runoff systems management measure for all projects whether DOT-supervised or
not.  

Connecticut's program includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the
management measures throughout the 6217 management area, except for the planning, siting
and design, construction site chemical control and O&M management measure for projects not
supervised by the DOT.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Connecticut will include in its program management
measures in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance for runoff systems, and, for non-DOT
supervised projects, the construction site chemical control and operation and maintenance
management measures.  Also within three years, Connecticut will develop enforceable policies
and mechanisms to implement the planning, siting and design, construction site chemical
control and O&M management measures for projects not supervised by the DOT.  

RATIONALE:  Connecticut's program has a number of authorities which can be used to
address the management measures for planning siting and design of roads, highways and
bridges, although these authorities may not apply throughout the 6217 management area, or
address all relevant projects.  For example, under the CCMA and its implementing regulations,
site and construction plans within the coastal area must be certified by State or municipal
agencies as consistent with State policies and provisions to avoid or minimize adverse water
quality and wetland impacts.  In addition, the Structures, Dredge and Fill Act, Tidal Wetlands
Act (C.G.S. Sections 22a-28 through 22a-35), and IWWA establish environmental review
procedures and permit programs that also provide for implementation of the planning, siting,
and design measures in areas under their jurisdictions.  However, there does not appear to be a
State enforceable mechanism to address non-DOT supervised projects within the 6217
management area that do not fall within these specific jurisdictions.

The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act provides conformity with the construction site
erosion and sediment control management measure for roads, highways, and bridges.  The 
DOT's standard specifications for construction also include provisions for chemical controls on
fuels, oils, and other chemicals in conformity with the construction site chemical control
measure.  DOT also has an O&M program in conformity with the O&M measure that
incorporates street sweeping, calibrated deicing, integrated pest management, and long-term
maintenance of runoff practices.  Although some municipalities control construction site
chemicals and have O&M programs, there is no State program to assure that chemicals are
controlled throughout the 6217 management area.

Connecticut identifies ways in which the State could include a program in conformity with the
runoff systems management measure, however, it does not identify an actual program that it is
implementing or intends to implement.

V.  MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

FINDING:  Connecticut's program includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance, except for stormwater runoff, and includes enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation.

CONDITION: Within two years, Connecticut will include in its program management
measures for stormwater runoff in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  The DEP State permit requirements for in-water construction under the
Structures, Dredging, and Fill Act and required reviews of these permits for consistency with
the CCMA meet the siting and design management measures, with the exception of the
stormwater management measure. The Tidal Wetlands Act also provides authority to require
implementation of the marinas management measures for activities occurring within tidal
wetlands.  These State permit-related activities include requirements to minimize impacts on
water quality and habitat, and consideration of the comprehensive practices in the DEP
guidance Best Management Practices for Coastal Marinas, August 1992.  The manual includes
practices that could result in the removal of 80% of total suspended solids, however the manual
does not require this level of pollutant control. 

The practices in the manual also address the operation and maintenance management measures,
and the best management practices guidelines can be incorporated into permits and coastal site
plans as enforceable conditions.   However, there is no explicit requirement that the practices
in the manual be incorporated into permits for new and expanding marinas in a manner that
will ensure implementation of the management measures.  NOAA and EPA encourage the
State to distribute this guidance widely and to clearly tie the identified marina practices in the
manual to the permit review processes under the CCMA, the Structures, Dredging and Fill
Act, and other appropriate authorities.  NOAA and EPA also encourage Connecticut to include
consideration of habitat in its program to control boater speeds, although the present speed
restriction within 100 feet of shorelines combined with a public outreach program do meet the
management measure.




VI.  HYDROMODIFICATION
 
FINDING:  Connecticut's program includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance except for chemical and pollutant control at dams, and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the management measures; except, the
State's program does not have:  1) a process to improve surface water quality and restore
instream and riparian habitat through the operation and maintenance of existing modified
channels; 2) a process to identify and develop strategies to solve existing nonpoint source
problems caused by streambank or shoreline erosion that do not come up for review under
existing permit authorities; and 3) a process to protect streambanks and shorelines against
erosions due to uses of the adjacent shorelands or the adjacent waters. 

CONDITIONS: Within 3 years Connecticut will include in its program management measures
in conformity with the (g) guidance for chemical and pollution control at dams.  Also within
three years, the State will include in its program:  1) a process to improve surface water
quality and restore instream and riparian habitat through the operation and maintenance of
existing modified channels; 2) a process to identify and develop strategies to solve existing
nonpoint source problems caused by streambank or shoreline erosion that do not come up for
review under existing permit authorities; and 3) a process to protect streambanks and
shorelines against erosions due to uses of the adjacent shorelands or the adjacent waters. 

RATIONALE:  In evaluating dam applications, DEP's Inland Water Resources Division
requires the application of the state's Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. 
However, Connecticut's program does not contain management measures or enforceable
policies and mechanisms for chemical and pollutant control at dams.  Current State efforts to
manage the potential impacts of chemicals and other pollutants at dams under the FERC
relicensing process could be used to identify BMPs that may be applicable to other non-FERC
licensed dams in the 6217 management area.  Connecticut implements management measures
for protection of surface water quality and habitat from the effects of dam operation by issuing
permits to dams and other water diversions based on a consideration of the effects on wetlands
habitat, water quality, low flows, temperature, and requirements for fish and wildlife.  Permit
conditions can also include monitoring requirements.

Under the Structures, Dredging and Fill Act, Connecticut requires permits for both new
channelization activities and modification of existing channels in coastal, tidal, or navigable
waters.  Permit applications for new projects are reviewed for impacts on water quality, water
circulation, aquatic life, and wetlands.  Complex channelization projects require substantial
modeling and detailed preconstruction water quality studies to investigate impacts on water
quality.  Under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (IWWA) the DEP, or municipalities
under DEP oversight and monitoring, regulate activities affecting wetlands and watercourses
such as channelization.  The State's programs do not, however, contain a process to identify
opportunities to improve surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat through the
operation and maintenance of existing modified channels.  The State is developing a watershed
management approach which could be used to assess existing channelization and identify
opportunities to improve conditions for the benefit of water quality and instream and riparian
habitat.

The State implements management measures for eroding shorelines and streambanks through
the CCMA, which promotes the use of nonstructural solutions to shoreline and streambank
erosion problems in the coastal municipalities.  Connecticut also requires permits for projects
involving shoreline or streambank stabilization.  However, the State's program does not have a
process to identify and develop strategies to solve existing nonpoint problems caused by
streambank or shoreline erosion that do not come up for review under existing permit
authorities. The State's developing watershed management approach, discussed above, could
also be used to assess existing streambank and shoreline erosion and to identify opportunities
to improve conditions to benefit water quality. 

Management measures to protect streambank and shoreline features with the potential to reduce
nonpoint source pollution can be implemented through the IWWA, which gives local
municipalities the authority to establish setbacks from wetlands and watercourses.  The Rivers
Management Program also proposes to promote establishment of a 100-foot minimum
vegetated buffer along all higher order streams outside of urban areas.  Shoreland use and
development within the jurisdiction of the CCMA are reviewed for their impact on coastal land
and water resources, and are regulated to minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent coastal
systems and resources.  However, the State's program does not have a generally applicable
process to protect streambanks or shorelines against erosion due to uses of the adjacent uplands
or the adjacent waters for land not under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Coastal
Management Act.  Inland of this authority, the state has used its Flood Control and Beach
Erosion authority and Flood Management authority to address existing erosion problems in
cases where public health, safety, or welfare is at risk.   
  
     VII. WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS AND VEGETATED TREATMENT SYSTEMS

FINDING:  Connecticut's program includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
of the  management measures.

RATIONALE:  The CCMA's Site Plan Review requires controls for development adjacent to
tidal wetlands throughout the 6217 management area.  Although the Site Plan Review is
implemented on the municipal level, the Commissioner of DEP has automatic party status in
any coastal Site Plan Review, thereby allowing for direct State level enforcement.  Connecticut
also requires a permit for dredging or filling activities in tidal and inland wetlands.  Permit
applications for new projects are reviewed for impacts on water quality, water circulation,
aquatic life, and wetlands.  Soil erosion and sediment controls are also required for
construction adjacent to wetlands, thereby reducing sediment impacts in wetlands from
development in adjacent upland areas.  Finally, local authorities frequently incorporate
mandatory setbacks from wetlands into zoning regulations, to provide added protection against
effects from upland areas on wetlands.

Management measures promoting restoration of wetland and riparian areas are implemented
through demonstration projects undertaken to restore tidal wetlands that are drained through
undersized tide gates.  The State has also created several permanent funding sources dedicated
to the restoration of degraded wetlands and riparian areas.

To implement management measures promoting vegetated treatment systems, the State's BMP
manual for soil erosion and sediment control promotes grassed waterways and buffer strips as
vegetated treatment systems for control of nonpoint source pollution in runoff.  Several local
governments in coastal areas have also incorporated setbacks from tidal wetlands into zoning
regulations.

VIII.     ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION 

FINDING:  Connecticut's program includes mechanisms for coordination among State
agencies and between State and local officials.

RATIONALE:  Connecticut is relying primarily on existing enforceable policies and
mechanisms to meet the management measures.  Therefore, most of the administrative
coordination mechanisms necessary to meet the program implementation requirements are
currently in place.  The administrative coordination section of the State's submittal identifies
agencies and programs responsible for program implementation and adequately describes their
mission, structure, operation, and role in implementing the State's 6217 program.  
Administrative coordination in Connecticut benefits from the fact that the DEP, the lead State
agency for implementing the 6217 program, contains both the State's water pollution control
authority and the State's coastal management program.  Both these programs also report to the
same assistant commissioner in DEP.       

IX.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

FINDING:  Connecticut's program provides opportunities for public participation in the
development and implementation of the coastal nonpoint program.

RATIONALE:  Connecticut's public participation section (submitted supplementary to NOAA
and EPA on January 24, 1996) describes activities undertaken by Connecticut to provide
adequate opportunity for public participation and input throughout the development of the
State's coastal nonpoint pollution control program.   As revealed in this section, since 1993 the
State has utilized its existing outreach, education, and technical assistance programs to explain
the coastal nonpoint program and provide for public input and feedback.   Connecticut also
provided a 30-day public comment period during which it received four written comment
letters.  The State responded to all of these comments and included the letters and its response
as part of its public participation submittal.  

X.   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

FINDING:  Connecticut has included programs that will provide technical assistance to local
governments and the public for the implementation of additional management measures. 

RATIONALE:  Connecticut identified existing technical assistance programs available to State
agencies, local governments, and the public.  The State's submittal provided listings of the key
nonpoint source-related technical assistance programs, the targeted user groups, and the
agency(ies) responsible for implementation of the program.

However, the State has identified the establishment of the technical assistance program for
municipal officials to ensure compliance with relevant management measures as a potential
need.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to pursue this need either through the
establishment of a new program or as enhancements to existing technical assistance programs.

XI.  ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

FINDING:  Connecticut's program does not include processes for the identification and
continuing revision of management measures applicable to critical coastal areas and cases
where the 6217(g) measures are fully implemented but water quality threats or impairments
persist.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Connecticut will develop a process for developing and
revising management measures to be applied in critical coastal areas and in areas where
necessary to attain and maintain water quality standards. 

RATIONALE:  The State's approach to additional management measures is to evaluate their
present approach of focusing their management activities in areas that most directly affect Long
Island Sound.  Upon evaluation of this approach through monitoring, a process for identifying
requirements for additional management measures will be instituted if deemed necessary.  In
its program submittal the State offers no specific information on what form this process would
take, but it appears that the State does have some ideas because in its 6217 public outreach
document the State commits to addressing impacts in priority watersheds through various
methods such as coastal site plan review and Section 319 demonstration projects. 

XII. CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS  

FINDING:  Connecticut has identified a process for the identification and establishment of
critical coastal areas.   

RATIONALE:  Connecticut believes that its existing authorities, combined with the
implementation of the Section (g) management measures, will adequately address any
outstanding existing and future nonpoint sources of pollution.  Therefore the State does not
believe that an additional level of protection will be required.  Connecticut states that it will be
able to provide for the establishment of additional management measures if results from
monitoring show that additional measures are warranted.  The submittal identifies and lists all
threatened and impaired waters in the State.

NOAA and EPA believe that the State has in fact utilized a process to identify critical coastal
areas through the development of the Long Island Sound National Estuary Program (NEP). 
Information gained through this NEP development was utilized by the State to follow the
second approach described in the program guidance whereby the State relied on land use,
proximity to Long Island Sound, and the existing condition of coastal waters to prioritize
watershed sub-basins based on their nonpoint source pollutant contribution to Long Island
Sound.   

XIII.  MONITORING

FINDING:  Connecticut's program does not include a plan to assess over time the success of
the management measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

CONDITION:  Within one year, Connecticut will develop a plan that enables the State to
assess over time the extent to which implementation of management measures is reducing
pollution loads and improving water quality.  

RATIONALE:  In the program submittal, Connecticut provides a brief overview of several
existing monitoring programs, but does not describe how they will be applied to the section
6217 program.  It appears that Connecticut could identify existing efforts that might be useful
to assess over time the success of the management measures in reducing pollution loads and
improving water quality at both the watershed and site-specific scales.  For example, the
weekly monitoring for bacteria at bathing beaches (page 1 of the Monitoring section), if
continued, might be useful if management measure implementation is expected to affect
bacteria levels in those areas.  Similarly, Connecticut might be able to use its intensive water
quality surveys (p.1 in the Monitoring section of the program submission) and benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring network (p.3) to provide watershed-level assessments of
management measure effectiveness.  The State, however, needs to identify which specific
aspects of the existing monitoring programs will be directed, at least in part, toward an
assessment of the success of the management measures in reducing pollution loads and
improving water quality. 

Connecticut should also include some inexpensive tracking of management measure
implementation in conjunction with water quality monitoring, as such information is needed to
assess the success of management measures in achieving water quality objectives.

XIV.  STRATEGY AND EVALUATION OF BACKUP AUTHORITIES

Within one year, Connecticut will develop a strategy to implement the management measures
for urban new development, site development and construction site erosion and chemical
control throughout the 6217 management area.  This strategy will include a description and
schedule for the specific steps Connecticut will take to ensure implementation of the
management measure; describe how existing or new authorities can be used to ensure
implementation where voluntary efforts are unsuccessful; and identify measurable results
which, if achieved, will demonstrate Connecticut's ability to achieve widespread
implementation of the management measure using the described approach.

In order to evaluate the adequacy of this strategy, Connecticut will also develop and apply
credible survey tools to demonstrate the ability of the State's approach to achieve widespread 
implementation of these management measures.  The use of credible assessment techniques is
necessary in order for NOAA and EPA to evaluate, at the end of the three year period
described in the March 16, 1995 guidance issued by NOAA and EPA entitled Flexibility for
State Coastal Nonpoint Programs, whether the State's approach has been successful or 
whether new, more specific authorities will be needed.