Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed

Section 604(b) Project Number 04-02/604

Prepared by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments

Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian A. Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Laurie Burt, Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Hass, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director

June 2008 This project has been financed partially with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) under a s.604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA or of the Department, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed

Prepared by the

Franklin Regional Council of Governments Planning Department

Peggy Sloan, Director of Planning and Development Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., Natural Resources Program Manager Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Whitty Sanford, Assistant Planner

Franklin Regional Council of Governments 425 Main Street, Greenfield, MA 01301 413-774-3167 www.frcog.org

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... ES-1

Section 1 – Project Background...... 1-1 A. General Watershed Characteristics...... 1-1 B. Project Approach...... 1-6

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution...... 2-1 A. Road Runoff...... 2-1 B. Sand and Gravel Operations ...... 2-1 C. River Bank Erosion...... 2-2 D. Silviculture...... 2-2 E. Underground and Above Ground Storage Tanks...... 2-2 F. Hazardous Materials Use and Storage ...... 2-6 G. Hazardous Waste and Brownfields...... 2-11 H. Landfills and Transfer Stations...... 2-16 I. Illegal Dump Sites and Auto Junkyards...... 2-24 J. Road Salt Storage, Application Practices and Snow Dumping Areas...... 2-24 K. Septic Systems ...... 2-26 L. Large Groundwater Discharges ...... 2-27 M. Stormwater and Surface Water Discharges ...... 2-27 N. Agriculture ...... 2-32

Section 3 – Overview of Subwatersheds...... 3-1 A. Chickley River Watershed ...... 3-1 B. South River Watershed ...... 3-31 C. North River Watershed ...... 3-88 D. Green River Watershed...... 3-136 E. Deerfield River Corridor Segments 1 and 2 ...... 3-158

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan ...... 4-1 A. Priority Nonpoint Pollution Problems ...... 4-1 B. Nonpoint Pollution Issues and Recommendations ...... 4-11 C. Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan Matrix...... 4-25

List of Tables ...... ii List of Figures...... iii List of Maps...... iv

Appendix A – Stream Team Survey Forms Appendix B – Rural Roads Assessment for the Chickley River Watershed (bound as a separate document) Appendix C – QAPP and Water Quality Monitoring Reports

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Public Water Supplies in the Project Area Towns...... 1-2 Table 1-2 MA Year 2002 Integrated List of Waters – Category 5 Waters ...... 1-5 Table 1-3 MA Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters – Category 5 Waters ...... 1-6 Table 2-1 Summary of EOPSS Database...... 2-3 Table 2-2 UST for the Deerfield River Watershed from MassGIS Database...... 2-4 Table 2-3 List of Gas Stations in the Project Study Area ...... 2-6 Table 2-4 Facility List from the Toxics Use Reduction Institute On-line Database...... 2-8 Table 2-5 Summary of Information Available from the Envirofacts Database for the Project Study Area ...... 2-13 Table 2-6 Brownfields Sites and 21E Hazardous Waste Sites in the Project Study Area...... 2-15 Table 2-7 Summary of Historic Landfills in the Project Study Area...... 2-18 Table 2-8 Transfer Stations in the Project Study Area...... 2-21 Table 2-9 Summary of Inactive and Closed Landfills in the Project Study Area...... 2-22 Table 2-10 Winter Road Maintenance Practices...... 2-25 Table 2-11 NPDES Facility Information...... 2-31 Table 2-12 Acreage of Land in Agricultural Use in the Project Study Area ...... 2-32 Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area...... 2-33 Table 3-1 Land Use Statistics for the Chickley River Subwatershed ...... 3-4 Table 3-2 Stream Team Pipe Survey Results – Chickley River...... 3-27 Table 3-3 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River ...... 3-28 Table 3-4 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River ...... 3-29 Table 3-5 Land Use Statistics for the South River Subwatershed ...... 3-33 Table 3-6 Stream Team Pipe Survey for the South River...... 3-72 Table 3-7 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the South River...... 3-76 Table 3-8 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the South River...... 3-78 Table 3-9 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the South River...... 3-85 Table 3-10 Land Use Statistics for the North River Subwatershed ...... 3-91 Table 3-11 Stream Team Pipe Survey for the North River...... 3-130 Table 3-12 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the North River...... 3-131 Table 3-13 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the North River...... 3-132

Table 3-14 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the North River...... 3-135 Table 3-15 Land Use Statistics for the Green River Subwatershed...... 3-139 Table 3-16 Land Use Statistics for the Deerfield River Corridor Segments 1 & 2...... 3-164 Table 4-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution Action Plan Matrix...... 4-25

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River ...... 3-30 Figure 3-2 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River ...... 3-30 Figure 3-3 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the South River...... 3-76 Figure 3-4 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the South River...... 3-79 Figure 3-5 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the South River, Stations 001-004D...... 3-86 Figure 3-6 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the South River, Stations 004D1–008...... 3-87 Figure 3-7 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the North River...... 3-131 Figure 3-8 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the North River...... 3-132 Figure 3-9 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the North River...... 3-135

iii

List of Maps

Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map (map pocket at the end of Section 2) For the Chickley, South and North River Subwatersheds, the following maps for each subwatershed are bound into the report in the appropriate sections or, if they are large format maps, inserted into a map pocket at the end of each subwatershed section:

Generalized Zoning Map (bound) Natural Resources Map (map pocket) 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Map (map pocket) Field Verification Map (map pocket) Stream Team Survey Maps (bound) Water Quality Sampling Locations Map (bound)

For the Green River Subwatershed and the Deerfield River Corridor Segments 1 & 2, the following maps for each subwatershed are bound into the report in the appropriate sections or, if they are large format maps, inserted into a map pocket at the end of each subwatershed section:

Generalized Zoning Map (bound) Natural Resources Map (map pocket) 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Map (map pocket) Field Verification Map (map pocket)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nonpoint source pollution, which includes a suite of contaminants from a wide variety of sources, is a complex problem to address. Unlike point sources of pollution, such as a smokestack or a wastewater outfall pipe that have a known amount of pollutants entering the air or water, nonpoint source pollution, like stormwater runoff, can carry a “toxic soup” of pollutants that have been contributed by many different land uses and activities. As a result, addressing a source or sources of nonpoint pollution is not an easy or inexpensive task and requires the cooperative effort of many stakeholders, including local, state and federal agencies.

In rural areas, like Franklin County, protecting natural resources from nonpoint source pollution is critically important not only to maintaining the high quality of the environment but also to public health and the economic viability of the region. Most of the residents in the project study area rely upon private wells for their drinking water. The public drinking water supplies for the village centers and larger towns, like Greenfield, are provided by surface water reservoirs and groundwater wells. Many activities which are an integral part of a rural region, such as agriculture, on-site septic systems, and unpaved roads, can, if not properly managed, be sources of nonpoint pollution. Other potential sources of nonpoint pollution, such as underground storage tanks, stormwater runoff from paved roads and parking lots, hazardous materials use and storage, and land clearing for new development can have serious detrimental impacts on natural resources because these activities are occurring over aquifers or within riparian buffer areas or adjacent to sensitive areas such as vernal pools, wetlands, and rare and endangered species habitat.

The goal of this project is to provide an inventory and assessment of potential sources of nonpoint pollution in the six priority subwatersheds of the Deerfield River watershed and provide recommendations for future work to prevent or mitigate nonpoint source pollution. The subwatersheds included as part of this study are: the Chickley and South Rivers, the North and Green Rivers, and two reaches of the Deerfield mainstem, known as the Deerfield River Corridor Segments 1 and 2. The Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) partnered with watershed volunteers, the Deerfield River Watershed Association, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, and the MA Department of Fish & Game’s Riverways Program to undertake and successfully complete this project.

Priority Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

A comprehensive inventory of potential sources of nonpoint pollution was compiled from the results of the extensive field work and data analyses conducted by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments’ staff and the information collected by the volunteer Stream Team members, who had been trained by Riverways staff. The full discussion of

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-1

this inventory is included in the body of this report. The most widespread and pervasive sources of nonpoint pollution in the watersheds are those listed below. The Action Plan (Section IV) developed for the project study area includes detailed recommendations for each of the potential sources of nonpoint pollution, including those discussed below. In addition, there are several priority issues that were identified in particular watersheds, which are also reviewed in the Executive Summary and discussed in detail in the body of the report and the Action Plan.

• Road Runoff and Sedimentation. Due to the topography of the project area, the majority of both the paved and unpaved roads in the six subwatersheds lie within the 200 foot riparian buffer of the major rivers and tributary streams. An undisturbed, well-vegetated riparian buffer is critical to protecting water quality. The drainage systems for these roads are basically very simple. Ditches and culverts are used to collect and convey runoff away from the road and discharge it, untreated, into the nearest waterbody. Uncontrolled and untreated stormwater runoff from paved and dirt roads located adjacent to rivers, streams and other waterbodies can have numerous impacts on these resource areas. Runoff from paved surfaces, such as roads and parking lots, is oftentimes warmer than the receiving waters and can carry sand and other sediment, petroleum products, heavy metals, road salt, and hazardous materials into resource areas. Sand, silt and gravel can be carried in runoff from dirt roads. The problems caused by uncontrolled runoff can be exacerbated at locations where roads cross over a river or stream. This study identified numerous road crossings in the project area where runoff from the roads is going directly into a waterbody. The biggest source of contamination to the receiving waters is the sand used during the winter to provide traction on the roads and the road bed material washing off of dirt roads. Excess sediment will degrade water quality by altering hydrologic flow regimes, decreasing water clarity, smothering vegetation and covering rocky streambeds that support communities of aquatic insects and fish that need oxygen rich environments. Road salt is also a likely contaminant but it was beyond the scope of this project to investigate whether public and private drinking water wells or wetlands have elevated sodium concentrations.

• Areas of Significant Streambank Erosion. Areas of significant streambank erosion were identified along the Chickley, South, North and Green Rivers. Often, these eroding banks extended for hundreds of feet. The pollutant loading from these eroding banks must be significant due to the shear size and extent of the problem.1 Infrastructure such as roads and public water supplies, as well as important agricultural lands, have been damaged or are threatened by the streambank erosion occurring in these watersheds. Significant amounts of local and state money have been spent to repair damaged infrastructure. The upgradient areas of these watersheds are sparsely developed and the percent of impervious cover is very low, which means the runoff should have more of an opportunity to infiltrate the soils. However, these rivers flow through incised

1 Sediment and other pollutants which can be bound to soil, such as pathogens, nutrients and chemical fertilizers.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-2

valleys which have steep slopes that are likely to have a relatively thin soil cover. These valleys also have narrow floodplains. What little development there is in these watersheds (farms, roads, houses, and villages) is typically concentrated in these narrow floodplain areas. The riparian buffer in the floodplain areas is often absent or very narrow, which further undermines the stability of the banks.

• Lack of an Adequate Riparian Buffer. A vegetated riparian buffer serves many important functions, including: acting as a “pollutant filter”, helping to stabilize the streambank, and maintaining cool water temperatures. The absence of a riparian buffer or a narrow or compromised buffer was observed in many locations throughout the project study area, especially along the South and North Rivers. The lack of an adequate riparian buffer makes the waterbodies vulnerable to nonpoint pollution. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the presence of many different land uses, including on-site septic systems, within the 200-foot riparian buffer zone.

• Stormwater Runoff. According to the MA DEP, stormwater runoff represents the single largest source responsible for water quality impairments in the Commonwealth’s rivers, lakes, ponds, and marine waters.2 Local Conservation Commissions and Planning Boards, composed of unpaid volunteers, shoulder the primary responsibility for regulating stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff can carry different types of pollutants into waterbodies and wetlands, depending upon the land use activity and the type of surface the water flows over. For example, nutrients from manure and fertilizers, soil, and chemicals can be in runoff from agricultural land. Runoff from land cleared for new residential and commercial development can be laden with topsoil, silt, sand and other sediment. New and existing development typically adds impervious surfaces, which if not properly managed, may alter natural drainage features, increase peak discharge rates and volumes, reduce recharge to wetlands and streams, and increase the discharge of pollutants to wetlands and water bodies. Activities that take place at industrial facilities, such as material handling and storage, are often exposed to the weather. When runoff from rain or snowmelt comes into contact with these materials, it picks up pollutants and transports them to nearby storm sewer systems, rivers, lakes, or streams. Within the project study area, the urban center of the Town of Greenfield, which is entirely within the Green River watershed, generates the largest amount of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. The Town also has the most Tier II facilities, which use and store hazardous materials. Stormwater in Greenfield is collected by a system of storm drains which direct the water to outfalls that discharge directly into Maple Brook, Cherry Rum Brook, the Green River, and other waterbodies. The stormwater receives some treatment before being discharged because all of the catch basins in the residential core area and the downtown area are equipped with sumps. The town has adopted Stormwater System Regulations to “ensure high water quality standards and address any potential water quantity problems associated with development.”

2 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/v1c1.doc

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-3

There is abundant visual evidence of streambank erosion and uncontrolled road runoff in the project study area, which is documented in this report. However, the “silent and unseen” potential sources of pollution, such as on-site septic systems and underground storage tanks, were more difficult to inventory and assess, primarily because no local or county databases exist for septic systems and available UST databases are incomplete or out-of-date.

• Underground and Above-Ground Storage Tanks. This project compiled lists of the registered underground storage tanks (USTs) and above ground storage tanks (AGTs) included in several databases, which are maintained by state agencies. Activities associated with these tanks, including their installation, use, monitoring, and removal, are regulated by the state and local Fire Departments. However, the information available in these databases is incomplete (no geo- reference data) and/or out of date (tanks have been removed). In addition, the databases do not include information on residential and agricultural tanks and heating oil tanks (less than 1,100 gallons) used by small businesses, which are not required to be registered. Most owners of unregistered tanks are not well informed about the environmental hazards and legal/financial liabilities associated with leaking tanks. In contrast, owners of registered tanks are required to monitor the age and condition of their tanks on a regular basis and are generally more aware of the potential environmental threats and liabilities posed by leaking tanks.

• Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste. The use and storage of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous waste is an integral part of the daily operation of many businesses in the project study area, particularly in Greenfield (Green River Watershed) and Colrain (North River Watershed). When properly stored and handled, these hazardous materials and hazardous wastes pose a minimal threat to the environment. The data gathered as part of this study provides a basic inventory of these facilities which can be used for planning and water supply protection purposes. However, the data is not completely up-to-date and there may be many small businesses not included in this inventory which could be using and storing hazardous materials and generating hazardous waste. Facilities that are located over sensitive aquifer areas and/or within the 200 foot riparian buffer zone should have Spill Response Plans and Stormwater Management Plans to prevent contamination of nearby resource areas.

• Septic Systems. With the exception of the urban, downtown area of the Town of Greenfield and portions of the Towns of Ashfield, Charlemont, and Monroe, which are served by wastewater treatment plants, sanitary wastewater is disposed of via on-site septic systems throughout the remaining areas of the subwatersheds. These septic systems are connected to homes, town buildings, restaurants, and other businesses. A septic system that fails, either through neglect or misuse, can be a serious public health threat because most households and businesses served by on-site septic systems also rely on private drinking water wells. Failing septic systems also can pollute lakes, streams and groundwater. Under Title 5 regulations, some failing or undersized systems are being replaced when

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-4

homeowners list their property for sale. However, there are still many properties that remain under long-term ownership and the condition of the septic systems serving these properties and the potential environmental and public health threats are currently unknown. Given that most of the project study area is not served by sewer systems, failing or underperforming septic systems are likely to be a significant source of nonpoint pollution. The magnitude of the problem is not known because no comprehensive tracking systems exist at the local, regional or state level to monitor the key indicators of septic system “health”, which include: location, age, history of routine maintenance (pumping), and documentation of problems that have resulted in repairs, upgrades and/or replacements of failing septic systems. Furthermore, a reasonable estimate of the magnitude of the problem in each subwatershed could not be prepared as part of this study due to: 1) the lack of and/or condition of recordkeeping at the local level, and 2) the level of effort (e.g., interviews with local Board of Health members and septic system installers, and local/state file reviews) that would be required to investigate the problem was beyond the scope of this project.

In addition to the potential sources of nonpoint pollution which were identified for all of the project study area, there are several priority nonpoint pollution problems in the Chickley, South, North, Green and Deerfield River Corridor Segment 2, which were identified during the field work conducted for this project. There is an urgent need to address these problems as soon as it is feasible to do so. There will likely be a need to secure funding to implement the proposed solutions, but attention should be focused on these problems right away. Stakeholders can begin by convening meetings to strategize and brainstorm possible funding sources and keep attention focused on these problems.

Chickley River Subwatershed

South River Subwatershed

The Stream Team volunteers identified two suspect pipes, one made of PVC and one made of flexible tubing, adjacent to a house in Segment SR 16, which includes the section of the South River between Main Street and the Reeds Bridge. The PVC pipe is imbedded in the river bank; the flexible pipe emerges from the bank and extends out into the river. The Conway Board of Health and Conservation Commission should contact the landowner in Segment SR16, inquire about the two pipes, and then determine what action should be taken.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-5

Volunteers also noted that a 2-foot diameter concrete pipe, with a constant flow, had an odor of sewage and a “milky” color. There was also algae and sediment below pipe. The volunteers noted their concern about potential high E.coli concentrations downstream of the Main Street bridge. The Stream Team volunteers conducted their surveys in 2005 and the area downstream of the bridge was sampled in 2006 for E.coli by the volunteer water quality monitors. No elevated results were recorded at that time. However, it is common for sources of E.coli to be intermittent and hard to track. The discharge from this pipe should be investigated further by the Conway Board of Health to determine if untreated sewage and/or greywater are being discharged into the river. This effort could be combined with the additional water quality sampling work recommended for the center of Conway and the East Branch of the North River subwatershed to maximize efficient use of MA DEP and DRWA staff and volunteer time, and funding resources.

North River Subwatershed

Although many reaches of the North River are experiencing severe streambank erosion, three areas along the East Branch of the North River should receive high priority for further assessment and stabilization due to the potential threats to important town infrastructure. The first area of concern is the reach above and below the Rte. 112 bridge, particularly the area adjacent to the Colrain Central School’s on-site septic system, which is within the 200-foot riparian buffer zone and threatened by the severely eroding streambank.

The photograph was taken looking upstream towards the Rte. 112 bridge. The school is to the left of the picture.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-6

Looking downstream. School is to the right.

Looking downstream. Note the vent pipe for the school’s septic system, the dirt parking area, and the lack of a well-vegetated riparian buffer.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-7

The potential impacts to the structural integrity of the Rte. 112 bridge from past flooding events and future high flow events should also be evaluated. Currently, there is a significant gravel and cobble bar that has formed downstream of the bridge (see photo, above). This depositional feature has altered the channel flow towards the already eroding river right bank.

The second and third priority erosion areas are near the Town of Colrain’s public water supply wells. These sites are located off Rte. 112 and near Call Road. The erosion near Call Road is also threatening road itself.

Looking upstream from the Colrain Public Water Damage from 2005 October floods Supply

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-8

Erosion near Call Road and town wells

A.4 Green River Subwatershed

An area of extreme erosion along Hindsdale Brook was observed by FRCOG staff during the field reconnaissance work. This watershed is very flashy and the erosion problem is ongoing. The Town of Shelburne has repeatedly fixed sections of the road that have washed out. A long-term solution is needed. The first step would be a geomorphic assessment of the Hindsdale Brook watershed that would include recommendations for managing high flows and stabilizing the streambanks.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-9

Extreme erosion on Hindsdale Brook – Looking upstream.

Extreme erosion on Hindsdale Brook. Looking downstream.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-10

Downstream discoloration of water (silt) from erosion on Hindsdale Brook.

Deerfield River Corridor Segment 2 Subwatershed

A major source of nonpoint pollution in the Deerfield River Corridor Segment 2 is the acid mine drainage from the former Davis Mine in Rowe, MA. This acid mine drainage flows into Davis Mine Brook and has resulted in the brook being listed in Category 5 of the Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters for pH. Flow from Davis Mine Brook empties into the Mill River, a tributary of the Deerfield River. Fish and many types of macroinvertebrates have been eradicated from Davis Mine Brook.3

With funding from the National Science Foundation, scientists from UMass-Amherst have been studying the abandoned mine site for six years and have found evidence that minerals and bacteria in the soil and water are neutralizing the water’s acid content and reducing pollutant levels through biological activity (bioremediation). The research team will be finishing their work within the next 12 – 18 months. At the conclusion of the study, several options for remediation of the acid mine drainage will be recommended for further evaluation or implementation.4

With the UMass investigation winding down, a group of stakeholders should be convened within the next six months to keep the spotlight on the acid mine drainage problem, the enormous amount of research that has been conducted at the site, and the anticipated recommendations for remediation strategies. The stakeholder group, with the assistance of the UMass scientists, could review the available data for the Davis Mine site and renew the discussion of potential funding sources for remediation strategies.

3 Deerfield River Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report (MA DEP, October 2004). 4 personal communication with Dr. Sarina Ergas, UMass-Amherst.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-11

Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program

The Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA) prepared a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for a three year (2005-2007) volunteer E.coli water quality sampling program for the Chickley and South Rivers, and the East Branch of the North River. The QAPP was approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. DRWA recruited and trained volunteers to collect the samples for this program. The samples were analyzed by DRWA staff with the Colilert® system.

2005 - Year 1: In the first year of the program, volunteers collected screening level samples during both wet and dry weather conditions. After analysis of the first year data, the DRWA determined that the results for the wet weather sampling were masking potential sources of nonpoint pollution, making bracketing the suspected sources, which was planned for year 2 of the program, impossible. DRWA petitioned the MA DEP to drop the wet weather sampling and the request was granted.

2006 - Year 2: A suspected source of E.coli in the Chickley River was identified as cows with free access to the river. In the South River, a storm drain pipe was identified as contributing elevated levels of E.coli. The sources of the elevated bacteria counts detected in locations above and below Conway Center could not be successfully bracketed, which suggested that E.coli was likely contributed from several diffuse sources, including beaver and wildlife. Agricultural activity between Reil Lane and the Colrain Elementary School (upstream of the Rte. 112 bridge) was tentatively identified as a potential source of E.coli in the East Branch of the North River; however, further sampling was needed to confirm this assumption. Potential sources of elevated bacteria counts in the lower East Branch of the North River also remained unbracketed at the end of the second sampling season.

2007 - Year 3: In the South river, sampling efforts were focused upstream of the Town of Conway, with several stations in and below the town. However, efforts were redirected early in the sampling season to try and bracket the source of elevated E.coli levels contaminating Murphy’s Hole, a locally popular swimming area. The swimming area was temporarily closed by the town to project public health. The E.coli concentrations quickly returned to safe levels, precluding the determination of a potential source(s). Elevated E.coli counts in the South River just upstream from the Poland Brook confluence suggest that one or more sources of bacteria intermittently pollute the South River. Sampling results for the South River in and below Conway Center suggest that bacteria are contributed from diffuse sources. Further water quality testing is needed to bracket E.coli sources and human marker testing should be done in residential areas with elevated E.coli counts.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-12

In the East Branch of the North River, sampling efforts were focused above, within and below the Town of Colrain. Although the 2006 results indicated agricultural activity upstream of the Rte.112 bridge was a likely source of E.coli, 2007 sampling efforts successfully bracketed the source of elevated E.coli counts to an area downstream of the Rte.112 bridge and adjacent to the Colrain Elementary School. In the Fall 2007, the MA DEP collected one water sample at this location and submitted it for human marker testing. Although the results indicated a non-human origin of the E.coli, further water quality testing should be done to confirm this result and to identify the potential source(s) of the E.coli. Anecdotal evidence suggests that heavy pigeon use of a bridge may result in elevated bacteria counts in the river below. Other animal use in and around the river and bridge, as well as failing septic system(s) could also be the source of elevated bacteria counts in this location.

The monitoring program organized and implemented by the DRWA and its volunteers was a huge success and could serve as a useful model for future volunteer monitoring programs.

Rural Roads Assessment for the Chickley River Watershed

A pilot roads project was conducted by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) for the Chickley River Watershed. The report for this project is bound as a separate document. In the Chickley watershed, where many of the roads run alongside rivers and streams, there is a strong link between the quality of the stormwater runoff flowing into these waterbodies and inadequate road drainage and poor road surface conditions.

In the towns of Hawley and Savoy, the BRPC mapped priority resource areas, such as wetlands and water bodies, and inventoried and assessed the physical features of the road network, including surface and roadside drainage conditions. A Five-Year prioritized Action Plan was prepared for the two towns in the watershed that identifies the structural and non-structural improvements that are needed to improve the condition of the road network and reduce nonpoint pollution. The Five Year Action Plan contains specific recommendations for the unpaved and paved roads in the towns, including:

• Standard Operating Practices such as ditch and culvert inspection and cleaning/repair; • Preventative Maintenance Practices for prioritized roads, such as the application of cold patch, adding gravel, regrading, etc.; • Rehabilitation Projects for certain roads, such as reshaping, regrading, or reclaiming with overlay; and • Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as stabilizing cut slopes/faces along roads with retaining walls or vegetation to prevent erosion and minor widening of ditches to accommodate channel flow and prevent erosion of the road. In addition, 3 priority water quality improvement projects were also

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-13

identified for each town and conceptual designs for the six BMP projects were included in the report prepared by BRPC.

This rural roads assessment was the first of its kind for Franklin County and will be a useful model for similar projects for other towns, including the towns in the remaining subwatersheds of the project study area, which urgently need guidance on road maintenance and improvements to protect water quality.

This study produced a comprehensive inventory of potential sources of nonpoint pollution and a detailed Action Plan, both of which can be used by watershed stakeholders and government agencies to inform future actions to reduce nonpoint pollution. There is a wealth of information available on Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling the nonpoint pollution that originates from many of the sources which are an issue for the watersheds in the study area. Although the state does regulate some of the land use activities that can generate nonpoint pollution, the primary responsibility for enforcing the relevant laws and monitoring these land uses has fallen squarely on local officials, most of which are unpaid volunteers. There is a large technology transfer gap that must be bridged before nonpoint pollution can be effectively managed at the local level. In order to successfully bridge the gap, funding is need for ongoing, regular technical assistance and continuous outreach to local officials, who have the primary responsibility for regulating land use activities that generate nonpoint source pollution. The composition of many volunteer boards frequently changes and the “institutional” and technical expertise that may be gained by training board members can just as easily be lost when new members are elected or appointed.

None of the towns in the project study area, except Greenfield, have professional planning staff to help assess the potential environmental impacts of current land use activities and to help guide and manage the town’s growth. These towns rely heavily on the services that the staff of the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) can provide. For some potential nonpoint sources of pollution, like on-site septic systems, a regional (county) approach to tracking and monitoring may be the most cost- effective and reliable solution. Building the capacity of local officials and other watershed stakeholders, like the FRCOG and the Deerfield River Watershed Association, to assess and manage nonpoint source pollution can reap enormous benefits, such as those realized by the volunteer water quality monitoring program and volunteer Stream Teams conducted as part of this study.

Executive Summary Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project ES-14

SECTION I

PROJECT BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2004, the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) was awarded an $87,700 Section 604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) to conduct a Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment of six priority subwatersheds of the Deerfield River Watershed. Unlike pollution from the pipes and smokestacks of industrial and treatment plants, nonpoint pollution comes from many diffuse and diverse sources, activities and land uses, both manmade and natural. These pollutants include:

• Excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; • Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban and road runoff; • Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, sand and gravel mines, crop and forest lands, and eroding streambanks; • Salt and sand from road runoff; and • Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems.

A. GENERAL WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

The headwaters of the Deerfield River are located in Glastonbury and Stratton, Vermont. The river flows in a south/southeasterly direction for approximately 70 miles to its confluence with the Connecticut River in Greenfield, Massachusetts. Approximately 50% of the river’s 665 square mile drainage area is located in Massachusetts. There are approximately 345 river miles of rivers, streams, and brooks and 749 acres of lakes, ponds and impoundments in the Massachusetts portion of the watershed. There are 12 major subwatersheds within the Deerfield River watershed.

The topography of the watershed is characterized by steep, rugged hills and narrow river valleys. The gradient of the river from where it enters Massachusetts to West Deerfield averages 28.4 feet/mile, making the river ideal for power generation. There are 11 hydroelectric facilities located along the mainstem that control the flow of the river. The

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-1

steep gradient of the river and cool source and tributary waters also make the river a favorite destination for trout and salmon anglers and white-water enthusiasts.

The general watershed characteristics described below are the ones relevant to this report. Section III of this report provides more detailed information on the natural resources of each subwatershed, including: rare and endangered species habitats, vernal pools, aquifers, and wetlands. For a comprehensive inventory of environmental conditions in the Deerfield River Watershed, refer to the Deerfield River Watershed Assessment Report (EOEA 2004) and the Deerfield River Water Quality Assessment Report (MA DEP 2004).

A.1 Geology

The surficial geology of the watershed is primarily till and bedrock. However, there are narrow bands of fine-grained floodplain alluvium deposits and sand and gravel deposits along the river and stream valley corridors. These deposits are much more extensive in the lowland areas of Greenfield and Deerfield, MA. The sand, gravel and alluvial materials comprise the aquifers that provide groundwater for the municipal and private drinking water supplies located throughout the watershed. The largest aquifers in the watershed are located in Colrain, Greenfield, Deerfield, Charlemont and Rowe. Table 1- 1 lists the public water supplies registered with the MA DEP that are in the project area. The locations of the wells are shown on the 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Maps for each subwatershed.

Table 1-1 Public Water Supplies in Project Area Towns

SOURCE ID SITE NAME TOWN TYPE 1013000-1S Highland Springs Res Ashfield SW 1013000-1G Bedrock Well Ashfield GW 1013000-2G Bedrock Well #2 Ashfield GW 1237001-3G Peppermint Park Camping Resort Ashfield TNC 1013001-1G Sanderson Academy Ashfield NTNC 1029000-3G Well #3 Gravel Packed Bernardston GW 1029001-1G Purple Meadow Campground Bernardston TNC 1106002-1G Tubular Wellfield Bernardston GW 1029000-2G Well #2 Gravel Developed Bernardston GW 1029000-1G Well #1 Dug Well Bernardston GW 1047000-1G Mohawk Trail Regional High School Buckland NTNC 1047002-1G Buckland Recreation Facility Buckland TNC 1053030-1G Well #1 Charlemont GW 1053004-2G DEM Mohawk Trail State Forest Charlemont TNC 1053004-1G DEM Mohawk Trail State Forest Charlemont TNC 1053012-1G The Rebels Restaurant Charlemont TNC 1053021-1G Mohawk Park Charlemont TNC 1053029-1G Warfield House Restaurant Charlemont TNC 1053027-1G Neighbors Convenience Store Charlemont TNC 1053025-1G The Charlemont Inn Charlemont TNC 1053028-1G Zoar Outdoors Charlemont TNC

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-2

Table 1-1 Public Water Supplies in Project Area Towns

SOURCE ID SITE NAME TOWN TYPE 1053026-1G Charlemont Pizza House Charlemont TNC 1053007-1G Hawlemont Regional School Charlemont NTNC 1053007-2G Hawlemont Regional School Charlemont NTNC 1053011-1G Country Aire Campground Charlemont TNC 1053019-1G Hilltop Motel Charlemont TNC 1053017-2G The Oxbow Charlemont TNC 1053015-1G Berkshire East Ski Area Charlemont TNC 1053017-1G The Oxbow Charlemont TNC 1053023-2G Crab Apple White Water Rafting Charlemont TNC 1053023-1G Crab Apple White Water Rafting Charlemont TNC 1053024-1G The Academy At Charlemont Charlemont NTNC 1053016-1G Red Rose Motel Charlemont TNC 1053008-1G Olde Willow Motor Inn & Restaurant Charlemont TNC 1066000-2G Well #2 Colrain GW 1066004-1G Colrain Central Elementary School Colrain NTNC 1066000-2S Mountain Spring Reservoir Colrain SW 1066000-1S Mountain Brook Reservoir Colrain SW 1066005-1G Pine Hill Orchard Colrain TNC 1066001-1G Well # 1 Colrain GW 1268000-3G Well#1 Replacement Colrain GW 1268000-2G Well # 2 Colrain GW 1268000-1S Fox Brook Reservoir Colrain SW 1068006-1G Conway Grammar School Conway NTNC 1068004-1G Holly's Barn Conway TNC 1068003-1G Baker's Country Store Conway TNC 1068005-1G Conway Inn Conway TNC 1068007-1G Conway School Of Landscape Design Conway TNC 1074001-1S Roaring Brook Reservoir Conway SW 1074000-3G Wells Spring (03g) Deerfield GW 1074005-1G Well # 1 Deerfield GW 1074000-2G Keats Spring (02g) Deerfield GW 1074005-3G Well #3 Deerfield GW 1074000-6G Stillwater Spring (06g) Deerfield GW 1074000-5G Stillwater Well (05g) Deerfield GW 1074000-1G Wapping Well (01g) Deerfield GW 107400004G Harris Spring (04g) Deerfield GW 107400101G Sugarloaf Wellfield Deerfield GW 1098007-1G Lilstugen Ice Cream Shop Florida TNC 1098004-01G Abbott Memorial School Florida NTNC 1098005-01G Whitcomb Summit Motel Florida TNC 1098009-01G Manice Education Center Florida TNC 1263005-03G DEM Savoy State Forest Florida TNC 1114000-03S Green River Greenfield SW 1114000-05G GP Well # 2 Greenfield GW 1114000-06G GP Well # 3 Greenfield GW 1114000-04G GP Well # 1 Greenfield GW

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-3

Table 1-1 Public Water Supplies in Project Area Towns

SOURCE ID SITE NAME TOWN TYPE 1114002-01G The Wizard Greenfield TNC 1129003-02G DEM Dubuque State Forest Hawley TNC 1130002-01G Heath Elementary School Heath NTNC 1156001-01G Pearl E Rhodes Elementary School Leyden NTNC 1114000-01S Leyden Glen Reservoir Leyden SW 1190000-01S Phelps Brook Reservoir Monroe SW 1237001-02G Peppermint Park Camping Resort Plainfield TNC 1237001-04G Peppermint Park Camping Resort Plainfield TNC 1237001-01G Peppermint Park Camping Resort Plainfield TNC 1253001-02G Yankee Atomic Electric Company Rowe NTNC 1253008-01G Yankee Atomic Visitors Center Rowe TNC 1253007-01G Rowe Elementary School Rowe NTNC 1253002-01G Rowe Town Hall Rowe TNC 1253004-01G Rowe Community & Avery Fountain Rowe TNC 1253003-01G Rowe Camp & Conference Center Rowe TNC 1253003-02G Rowe Camp & Conference Center Rowe TNC 1263005-02G DEM Savoy State Forest Savoy TNC 1263003-01G Savoy Elementary School Savoy NTNC 1263002-01G Shady Pines Campground Savoy TNC 1268010-01G Vipassana Meditation Center Shelburne TNC 1268010-02G Vipassana Meditation Center Shelburne TNC 1268007-01G Springbrook Family Camping Shelburne TNC 1268005-01G Trail Duck Pond Restaurant Inc. Shelburne TNC 1268014-01G Shelburne Falls Coffee Roasters Shelburne TNC 1268001-03G Well #3 Woodland (Main Well) Shelburne GW 1268001-01G Well #1 Hill Top Shelburne GW 1268001-02G Well #2 Fire System Shelburne GW 1268013-01G Deuce Bar & Grill Shelburne TNC 1268011-01G Well #1 Shelburne GW 1268011-03G Well #3 Shelburne GW 1268011-02G Well #2 Shelburne GW 1268002-01G Goulds Sugarhouse Shelburne TNC Notes: SW = surface water supply; GW = groundwater supply; TNC = Transient Non- Community supply; NTNC = Nontransient, non-community supply. Data source: MassGIS

According to a 1996 US Geological Survey study, a significant deposit of coarse-grained alluvium exists below the finer grained glacial lake deposits along 7.4 miles of the Deerfield River from I-91 east to the river’s confluence with the Connecticut River. The thickness of these aquifer deposits ranges from 0 to 385 feet. These materials fill a deep north-south trending valley and are a valuable source of groundwater. This study also examined the hydraulic properties and groundwater recharge characteristics of the Deerfield River valley east of Interstate 91, in the Clesson Brook valley and the Green River valley. These areas contain the largest deposits of stratified drift and groundwater capacity in the watershed. Another important finding of the study was that groundwater

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-4

levels adjacent to the Deerfield River respond instantaneously to streamflow fluctuations; however this effect diminishes further away from the river.

A.2 Water Quality

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires the states to identify waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waterbodies. A TMDL is the total amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive from all sources without exceeding water quality standards. In Massachusetts, a waterbody that is impaired due to an excess of a particular pollutant and requires a TMDL is listed in the Massachusetts Integrated List of Waters. When the proposal for this project was written, the Massachusetts Year 2002 Integrated List of Waters included several segments in the Deerfield River Watershed as Category 5 Waters, which are waters that require a TMDL calculation. The subwatersheds evaluated as part of this project all had at least one impaired segment listed in the Integrated List of Waters. In the intervening years since this project was started, four impaired segments have been dropped so that the Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters no longer includes the two Deerfield mainstem segments, the North River segment, and one of the Green River segments. One segment, Davis Mine Brook, was added.

Table 1-2 Massachusetts Year 2002 Integrated List of Waters - Category 5 Waters – Waters Requiring a TMDL

Name/Segment Project Location Cause of Impairment Subwatershed Chickley River Chickley River Headwaters Savoy Mountain State Pathogens MA 33-11 Forest, Savoy to confluence with the Deerfield River Deerfield River Deerfield Outlet of Sherman Reservoir in Metals MA33-01 Segment 1 Monroe/Rowe, to confluence with the Cold River, Charlemont Deerfield River Deerfield Confluence with the Cold River, Unknown Toxicity, MA 33-02 Segment 2 Charlemont to confluence with the Metals, and Chlorine North River, Charlemont/Shelburne Falls Green River Green River Vermont line, Colrain to former Pathogens, Metals, MA 33-09 Greenfield WWTP outfall, Cause Unknown Greenfield Green River Green River Former Greenfield WWTP outfall, Unionized Ammonia, MA 33-10 Greenfield to confluence with the Pathogens, Metals, Deerfield River, Greenfield Cause Unknown North River North River From confluence of the East and Pathogens, Taste, Odor, MA 33-06 West Branches of the North River, and Color Colrain to confluence with Deerfield River, Shelburne South River South River Emments Road Ashfield to Pathogens, Other MA 33-08 confluence with Deerfield River, Habitat Alterations, Conway Cause Unknown

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-5

Table 1-3 Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters - Category 5 Waters – Waters Requiring a TMDL1

Name/Segment Project Location Cause of Impairment Subwatershed Chickley River Chickley River Headwaters Savoy Mountain State Pathogens MA 33-11_2006 Forest, Savoy to confluence with the Deerfield River Davis Mine Brook Deerfield River Headwaters, just south of Dell pH MA33-18_2006 Corridor Road, Rowe to confluence with Segment 1 Mill Brook, Charlemont Green River Green River From Greenfield swimming pool Pathogens MA 33-30_2006 dam (northwest of Nashs Mill Road), Greenfield to confluence with the Deerfield River, Greenfield (formerly segment MA33-10 and part of segment MA33-09). South River South River Emments Road Ashfield to Pathogens, Other MA 33-08_2006 confluence with Deerfield River, Habitat Alterations Conway

B. PROJECT APPROACH

In order to inventory and assess the potential sources of nonpoint pollution in the project study area, FRCOG and its project partners used several different approaches to gather and analyze data on land use activities and water quality.

B.1 Stream Teams

Staff from the MA Department of Fish & Game’s Riverways Adopt-A-Stream Program organized three Stream Teams for the Chickley, North and South Rivers. The Stream Teams were composed of volunteers who were trained by Riverways staff before going out into the field. The volunteers walked each river in designated areas determined by the volunteers and Riverways staff. Volunteers evaluated each river segment by observing the characteristics of the river and its shorelines. Volunteers took photographs and completed forms for the reach of the river they walked, judging the quality of the water (clear, cloudy, oily, etc.), river flow, and the conditions of stream bed (sandy, rocky, cobbles, etc.). They also listed the plants, wildlife and fish they saw. FRCOG staff prepared segment survey maps for the volunteers, which they used to record the locations of pipes, trash dumps, eroding streambanks, invasive plants, and other potential sources of nonpoint pollution. The information and pictures provided by the Stream Teams were invaluable additions to this project and are discussed in detail in Section III of this report.

1 This table does not include two surface water bodies which are included in the 2006 Integrated List of Waters – Plainfield Pond and Sherman Reservoir, both of which are listed for metals.

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-6

B.2 Rural Roads Assessment for the Chickley River Subwatershed

The Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) conducted a surface and roadside drainage assessment for paved and unpaved roads in the Chickley River subwatershed. BRPC staff mapped priority resource areas, such as wetlands and water bodies, and inventoried and assessed the physical features of the road network, including surface and roadside drainage conditions. A five-year prioritized Action Plan was prepared for the two towns in the watershed. The Action Plan identifies the structural and non-structural improvements that are needed for the road network. Three priority water quality improvement projects were also identified for each town and conceptual designs for the projects were included in the report prepared by BRPC. This assessment was the first of its kind for Franklin County and will be a useful model for similar projects for other towns, such as the towns in the remaining subwatersheds of the project study area which urgently need guidance on road maintenance and improvements to protect water quality. The complete Rural Roads Assessment report has been bound as a separate document. The results of the assessment are included in this report in Section IV.

B.3 Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program

The Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA) prepared a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for a volunteer E.coli water quality sampling program for the Chickley, North and South Rivers, which was approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). DRWA recruited and trained volunteers to collect samples for the two year program. The samples were analyzed by DRWA staff with the Colilert® system. The first year of the program collected screening level samples during both wet and dry weather conditions. After analysis of the first year data, the DRWA determined that the results for the wet weather sampling were masking potential sources of nonpoint pollution, making bracketing the suspected sources, which was planned for year 2 of the program, impossible. DRWA petitioned the MA DEP to drop the wet weather sampling and the request was granted. Year 2 of the program identified several locations in the South and North Rivers that had elevated E.coli counts, although it was difficult to bracket the suspected sources, making the results somewhat inconclusive. A potential source of E.coli pollution was successfully identified in the Chickley River; cows with free access to the river.

Funding for a third year of sampling was made available when the Riverways Program was unable to accept their portion of the 604b grant funding. DRWA conducted sampling in the North and South Rivers to further bracket the suspected sources of E.coli identified during year 2 of the program. The results of the program are discussed in detail in Section III of this report. The reports prepared by the DRWA are included in the Appendix. The monitoring program organized and implemented by the DRWA and its volunteers was a huge success and could serve as a useful model for future volunteer monitoring programs.

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-7

B.4 Land Use Assessment

Franklin Regional Council of Governments’ staff used a three-tiered approach to evaluate current land use, land use changes, trends in development, and potential sources of nonpoint source pollution in the six (6) targeted subwatersheds of the Deerfield River.

B.4.1 Geographic Information System Maps and Aerial Photographs

The first step was to generate a Geographic Information System (GIS) working map for each subwatershed for desk-top analysis. The second step was to conduct a windshield survey to verify and update the information on the map.

The working map composed by FRCOG staff used GIS data layers available from MassGIS. The map contained the following information:

1999 MacConnell land use; Land use change for the period 1971-1999; Stream crossings that include a bridge (from the MassHighway database); Transmission lines; roads; and rail lines; and The 200-foot buffer around stream, lakes and ponds.

Other stream crossings were added to the map by FRCOG staff at points where the map indicated that a road intersected with a river or stream. The next step was to evaluate the type and distribution of land use within each watershed. There are several specific land uses that are potential sources of nonpoint pollution, including:

Landfills Auto junkyards Wastewater treatment plants Industrial buildings Sand and gravel operations Golf courses Agriculture (including forest cutting operations) Areas with large (> 5 acres) impervious surfaces (shopping centers, schools, hospitals, industrial areas) Significant areas of erosion Underground and aboveground storage tanks Chapter 21E sites NPDES discharge sites Road runoff

For this task, FRCOG staff used the 1999 MacConnell land use data and recent (2002- 2004) aerial photography available from MassGIS and Pictometry, Inc. First, the land use data was reviewed and then the aerial photographs were used as a way to check the current status of certain areas. The Pictometry, Inc. aerial photography is geo-referenced to the GIS land use shape files. The aerial photograph for a particular area within the

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-8

watershed can be accessed while viewing the land use base map. For example, an area that the 1999 data indicated was agricultural use could be checked by looking at the aerial photograph for that parcel(s). Areas of land use change could also be confirmed, such as forested land which had changed to residential use.

B.4.2 Windshield Surveys

The purpose of the windshield surveys of the watersheds was to help ensure the accuracy of the mapping. Any area that could not be assessed by the desk-top analysis approach was identified for field verification. In addition to any questionable areas, large areas of agricultural land were field checked to see if they were still in active use and land uses within the 200-foot buffer zone of rivers and streams where also checked against the GIS mapping. Digital photographs were taken to document current watershed conditions and GPS waypoints were recorded for potential sources of nonpoint pollution and additional stream crossings which had been identified during the desk-top analysis and/or identified in the field.

B.4.3 On-line Databases

FRCOG staff compiled and evaluated information about hazardous waste sites, hazardous waste generators, facilities that use and store hazardous materials, underground and above ground storage tanks, and permitted wastewater discharges from various state and Federal databases, which are available via the Internet. The results of this evaluation and the on-line sources of this information are discussed in detail in Section II of this report.

B.5 Natural Resources Inventory and General Watershed Characteristics

FRCOG gathered information about important wildlife species and habitats from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) at the Division of Fish and Game. The state agency, which is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species in towns across the Commonwealth, has identified viable rare plant and animal populations and exemplary natural communities and aquatic habitats in the Deerfield watershed. The agency maintains a town-specific biodiversity database and GIS mapping system that are vital to helping communities, nonprofit groups and Regional Planning Agencies in protecting local natural resources. These include Living Waters and BioCore maps and summary discussions – areas of core habitat that have rare plants and animals and many natural community types – and NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species, and/or Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife – listings of core habitats and endangered and rare species in each town.

FRCOG staff consulted MassGIS data layers for information on public drinking water supplies, aquifers, and areas of steep slopes. Available reports for the Deerfield River Watershed were also reviewed, including: the Deerfield River Watershed Assessment Report (2004), the Deerfield River Water Quality Assessment Report (2004), and the Nonpoint Source Action Strategy for the Deerfield River (2003).

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-9

B.6 Preparation of Final GIS Maps and Project Report

Once all of the data for the project study area had been analyzed and field verified, a set of final GIS maps were composed for each of the subwatersheds. The 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Map includes the 200-foot Rivers Protection Act riparian buffer, Tier II facilities (store and use hazardous materials), and 21E sites (sites contaminated by hazardous waste), and public water supplies. A Natural Resources Map for each subwatershed was composed which includes permanently protected open space, impervious surfaces, BioCore Habitat, potential aquifers, slopes > 25%, certified and potential vernal pools, Living Waters Habitat, and wetlands. Field Verification Maps were composed by FRCOG for the six subwatersheds to show the locations of the GPS waypoints collected during the windshield surveys. Water Quality Testing Maps were prepared by FRCOG staff to show the locations where water samples were collected in the Chickley, North and South Rivers for E.coli testing. FRCOG staff also prepared detailed Stream Team Segment Maps to present the data collected by the volunteers. A Potential Sources of Pollution Map for the project study area shows the locations of underground storage tanks, gas stations, animal farms, active transfer stations, inactive landfills, compost facilities, Brownfields sites, and Tier II hazardous materials sites.

The final project report describes the activities undertaken during the project, the data collected, and the analyses undertaken, conclusions, and a detailed Nonpoint Source Action Plan for the six subwatersheds.

Section 1 - Project Background Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 1-10

SECTION II

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION

In this section, land use activities that are potential sources of nonpoint pollution are described and a basic inventory of these activities is provided for the entire project study area. The locations of these potential sources of nonpoint pollution are shown on the Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map, as appropriate. While some of this information is general in nature, it is still useful in contributing to a better overall understanding of nonpoint pollution issues facing the towns in the project area. More specific information regarding potential sources of nonpoint pollution for the six priority subwatershed is provided in Section III.

A. ROAD RUNOFF

Both paved and unpaved roads that serve rural areas, like the majority of the Deerfield River watershed, often run alongside rivers and streams and within the Rivers Protection Act 200-foot riparian buffer, which is identified as critical to protecting water quality. The drainage system for these roads is often very simple; it is designed to collect the stormwater and discharge it, untreated, into the waterbody. Uncontrolled and untreated stormwater runoff from paved and dirt roads located adjacent to rivers, streams and other waterbodies can have numerous impacts on these resource areas. Runoff from dirt roads can contribute large amounts of sand and gravel to waterbodies throughout the year. During the winter months, runoff from paved roads can contribute sand and salt. At other times of the year, runoff from paved roads can increase the temperature of receiving waters and can also contain heavy metals, petroleum products, trash, and other debris. Unfortunately, the impacts from uncontrolled stormwater are not limited to sedimentation and other pollutants. Improperly managed runoff can alter riparian and aquatic habitat by increasing streambank erosion. Bank erosion not only contributes sediment to the water but also can result in a reduction of riparian vegetation, which can cause water temperatures to rise and decrease habitat for fish, birds and other animals. The problems caused by uncontrolled runoff can be exacerbated at locations where roads cross over a river or stream due to inadequately sized and seated culverts, which can present a barrier to fish and animal passage.

B. SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS

Sand and gravel mining operations are found in the unconsolidated outwash and alluvial materials deposited by glaciers. These permeable sediments can also serve as important recharge areas for groundwater and surface waters. Once the topsoil is removed from these areas, the sandy permeable soils and groundwater below have lost their “pollutant

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-1

filter” and are very vulnerable to contamination. Activities that can be potential sources of contamination include the servicing and/or refueling of the heavy machinery that is used to remove the topsoil, sand and gravel. Older sites may have on-site gasoline or diesel tanks. If the site has been abandoned and the underground tanks have not been removed, petroleum products can leak for years before a problem is discovered. Other impacts from improperly managed pits include sedimentation of nearby waterbodies. Once the topsoil and other vegetation are removed from a site, the loose sands, clays and silts can be transported to nearby waterbodies by stormwater runoff and the wind. These materials impact aquatic habitat by burying rocky streambeds and covering vegetation, which depletes the oxygen levels in the water and destroys spawning areas.

C. RIVER BANK EROSION

Rivers and streams alter their course by erosion of their banks and the deposition of sediments. This natural process can be accelerated and exacerbated by human activities that increase the velocity and volume of stormwater runoff, alter the structure of the river banks or destroy the vegetation that helps to stabilize the soil of the banks. Eroding banks deposit sediment into the water, impacting aquatic habitat, and can result in the loss of riparian vegetation. Valuable farmland and infrastructure such as bridges, houses, and water supply wells can be threatened by eroding river banks.

D. SILVICULTURE

Whether big or small, an improperly managed forest cutting operation can be a source of nonpoint pollution. The natural hydrology of the site is altered by the removal of trees and other vegetation. The pollutant filtering and groundwater recharge capacity of the soils are also compromised by the removal of the trees and vegetation. With the loss of vegetation, runoff velocities rise and erosion and sedimentation of nearby waterbodies can occur. Logging roads and skid trails that cross streams can also result in bank erosion and sedimentation of the water.

E. UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS

In Massachusetts, underground and above ground storage tanks are regulated by two state agencies: the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). All underground storage tanks (USTs) with a capacity of more than 1,100 gallons and tanks that are used to dispense fuel to the public, such as those found at gas stations, must be registered with the MA DEP and the local fire department. EOPSS, through local fire departments, oversees the installation, maintenance, and removal of underground and above ground storage tanks. Generally, above ground tanks are equipped with containment structures, can be visually inspected on a regular basis, and leaks are readily apparent. MA DEP gets involved at sites where USTs and aboveground tanks have leaked oil or hazardous materials into the environment. Leaking above ground and underground storage tanks can contaminate soils and groundwater with benzene, toluene, xylene, MTBE, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-2

According to the EOPSS Massachusetts Department of Fire Services, Office of the State Fire Marshall web site there are 72 registered USTs in the project area towns (see Table 2-1 and the Appendix)1. The materials stored in these USTs include: gasoline, kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, and waste oil. The EOPSS database includes a street address, owner/operator information, number and type of tank, monitoring system, material stored, and status of the tank. Unfortunately, this database does not include latitude/longitude data so the locations of these USTs could not be readily pinpointed on a map. MassGIS also maintains a database of USTs which is listed by location (Facility ID) but the data does not provide the number or status of the tanks at each location. The EOPSS list does not reconcile with the UST data available from MassGIS data. For example, two USTs on the EOPSS list for Colrain are not in the MassGIS database. Also, the EOPSS database lists locations where USTs have been removed, yet they still appear in the MassGIS database.

The numbers of tanks listed in both the EOPSS and MassGIS databases do not reflect the actual number of tanks that could be in the study area because USTs used for agricultural or home heating purposes are exempt from UST registration requirements.

Another source of data consulted was the Franklin Regional Council of Governments’ GIS database which provided a list of current gas stations in the project area. This information is probably duplicated to some degree in the EOPSS and/or MassGIS databases. The locations of the gas stations are shown on the Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map.

Compiling an accurate list of registered USTs for this project was challenging, given that most of the towns in the project area are served by volunteer fire departments and available state databases are either incomplete or do not include geo-reference data. It was beyond the scope of this study to meet with each town fire department and review their records.

Table 2-1 Summary of EOPSS Database Locations with Total Active Removed or Number of Subwatershed Town UST/AGT Filled in Active Location Place USTs/AGTs USTs/AGTs

Chickley River Hawley * * * Charlemont 5 4 7 Savoy 3 0 0 Plainfield * * *

1 http://db.state.ma.us/dfs/ust/ustQueryPage.asp

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-3

Locations with Total Active Removed or Number of Subwatershed Town UST/AGT Filled in Active Location Place USTs/AGTs USTs/AGTs South River Ashfield 4 2 4 Conway 4 3 3 North River Colrain 2 2 3 Heath 3 1 2 Green River Leyden 1 1 1 Greenfield 14 15 16 Bernardston 8 6 13 Shelburne 13 5 9 Deerfield River Corridor: Segment 1 Monroe 0 2 2 Rowe 4 1 3 Florida 3 2 2 Deerfield River Corridor: Segment 2 Charlemont 5 4 7 Heath 3 1 2 Notes: * = No information for these towns in the on-line EOPSS database.

Table 2-2 Underground Storage Tanks for the Deerfield River Watershed from MassGIS Database UST Facility ID Street Address Town 20056 Rte 116 & Buckland Ashfield 4522 Main St Greenfield 6065 Mill St Greenfield 6066 Wisdom Way Greenfield 6067 Wells St Greenfield 6068 Newton St Greenfield 6069 High St Greenfield 6070 Federal St Greenfield 6071 Chapman St Greenfield 6073 Powers Sq Greenfield 6074 Fairview St Greenfield 6076 Leyden Rd Greenfield 6078 Miles St Greenfield

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-4

UST Facility ID Street Address Town 6079 High St Greenfield 6080 Hope St Greenfield 6081 Shattuck St Greenfield 6082 Off Wisdom Way Greenfield 6083 Rte 2 Greenfield 6084 Main St Greenfield 6085 Laurel St Greenfield 6086 Bernardston Rd Greenfield 6087 Fairview St Greenfield 6089 Main St Greenfield 6090 Main St Greenfield 6091 Olive St Greenfield 6092 Wells St Greenfield 6093 Church St Greenfield 6094 Shelburne Rd Greenfield 6095 Federal St Greenfield 6096 Bernardston Rd Greenfield 6097 Mohawk Trail Greenfield 6098 Colrain Rd Greenfield 6099 Chapman St Greenfield 6100 Federal St Greenfield 6101 Federal St Greenfield 6103 Bernardston Rd Greenfield 6104 Deerfield St Greenfield 6106 Norwood St Greenfield 6107 Federal St Greenfield 6108 Federal St Greenfield 6109 Federal St Greenfield 6110 Federal St & Riddell St Greenfield 6111 Montague City Rd Greenfield 6112 Main St Greenfield 6113 Main St Greenfield 6114 Deerfield St Greenfield 6115 Bernardston Rd Greenfield 6116 Deerfield St Greenfield 6117 Cleveland St Greenfield 6118 Federal St Greenfield 6119 River St Greenfield 6120 Main St Greenfield 6121 Mohawk Trail Greenfield 6122 Mohawk Trail Greenfield 6124 Newton St Greenfield 6125 Federal St Greenfield 6126 Deerfield St Greenfield 6127 Chapman St Greenfield

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-5

UST Facility ID Street Address Town 6128 Bernardston Rd Greenfield 6129 Southern Ave Greenfield 11239 Oak Hill Rd Greenfield 30174 Mohawk Trail Greenfield 40446 College Dr Greenfield 6250 Bridge St Shelburne 6246 Conway St & Elm St Shelburne Falls 6248 Mechanic St Shelburne Falls 6254 Conway St Shelburne Falls 6255 Conway St Shelburne Falls 6258 Conway St Shelburne Falls 6260 State St Shelburne Falls 6261 State St Shelburne Falls 6262 State St Shelburne Falls

Table 2-3 List of Gas Stations in the Project Area Currently in Facility Name Operation Town Neighbors Yes Ashfield Neighbors Yes Buckland Neighbors Yes Charlemont Charlemont Mini Service Yes Charlemont Colrain Super Gas Yes Colrain Sunoco Yes Conway Sunoco Yes Deerfield Magic Fuels Yes Greenfield Sunoco Yes Greenfield Sunoco Yes Greenfield Gulf Yes Greenfield Hess Yes Greenfield Sunoco Yes Greenfield Exxon Yes Greenfield Shell Yes Greenfield Citgo Yes Greenfield Mobil Yes Greenfield Citgo Yes Greenfield Exxon Yes Greenfield Citgo No Greenfield Peters Store Yes Heath Mobil Yes Shelburne

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE AND STORAGE

Hazardous materials are chemical substances which, if released or misused, can pose a threat to the environment or public health. These chemicals are used in industry,

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-6

agriculture, medicine, research, and consumer goods. Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive materials. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation accidents or because of chemical accidents in plants.2 The Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) was established in Massachusetts to promote safer and cleaner production in companies that use hazardous materials. Toxics use reduction is a fundamental form of pollution prevention that focuses on the use of toxic chemicals and the generation of wastes in the manufacturing process. TURA is a "planning tool" for more efficient industrial operations that would produce less waste. Toxics use reduction involves in-plant changes that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the use of toxic chemicals or the generation of hazardous waste, emissions (to air or land), and by-products per unit of product manufactured. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute maintains an on-line database of registered companies that use hazardous materials.3 Reports that list the types and quantities of hazardous materials used in the past and through 2004 are available for companies in Greenfield and Colrain, which are the only towns in the project area in the TURA database.

Commercial businesses and industrial facilities covered by the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requirements are required to submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form to their Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), and the local fire department each year. These facilities provide either a Tier I or Tier II form.4 The Franklin Regional Council of Governments maintains a GIS database of Tier II facilities in Franklin County. The locations of these facilities are shown on the Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map. Many of these facilities are also listed in the TURA database.

Communities do have the option of adopting a local Hazardous Materials Bylaw or Board of Health regulations to provide some local control and oversight to ensure that hazardous materials are properly stored to prevent accidental spills and leaks.

2http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopssubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Homeland+Security+%26+Emergen cy+Response&L2=Emergency+Information&L3=Hazardous+Materials&sid=Eeops 3 http://turadata.turi.org/report.php 4 http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/tier2.htm

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-7

Table 2-4 Facility List from the Toxics Use Reduction Institute On-line Database5 Reporting Year Facility ID Facility Name Location City CAS Number Chemical Name 1990 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 1002 Barium Compounds 1990 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-02-0 Nickel 1990 133856 Jh Smith Co Inc Greenfield 79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 1990 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1990 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1990 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1990 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 76-13-1 Freon113 1990 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-48-4 Cobalt 1990 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver 1990 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 67-56-1 Methanol 1990 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1990 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 71-55-6 Trichloroethane 1991 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-48-4 Cobalt 1991 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver 1991 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 1002 Barium Compounds 1991 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1991 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 71-55-6 Trichloroethane 1991 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-02-0 Nickel 1991 133856 Jh Smith Co Inc Greenfield 79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 1991 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1991 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1991 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1991 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 76-13-1 Freon113 1992 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1992 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1992 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1992 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 76-13-1 Freon113 1992 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-48-4 Cobalt

5 http://turadata.turi.org/report.php

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-8

Reporting Year Facility ID Facility Name Location City CAS Number Chemical Name 1992 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver 1992 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 1002 Barium Compounds 1992 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1992 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 71-55-6 Trichloroethane 1992 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-02-0 Nickel 1992 133856 JH Smith Co Inc Greenfield 79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 1993 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 1002 Barium Compounds 1993 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-48-4 Cobalt 1993 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1993 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1993 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-02-0 Nickel 1993 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver 1993 130737 Kennametal Inc - Greenfield Tap Plant Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1993 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1994 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-02-0 Nickel 1994 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver 1994 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1994 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-48-4 Cobalt 1994 131988 Bete Fog Nozzle Greenfield 7440-47-3 Chromium 1994 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-50-8 Copper 1995 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver 1996 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver 1997 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 7440-22-4 Silver Polycyclic Aromatic 2000 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 1040 Compounds 2000 118595 Rogers Lunt & Bowlen Company Greenfield 191-24-2 Benzoperylene 2001 133041 Dumont Co LLC Greenfield 7439-92-1 Lead 2001 130738 Lunt Silversmiths Greenfield 191-24-2 Benzoperylene Polycyclic Aromatic 2001 130738 Lunt Silversmiths Greenfield 1040 Compounds 2002 133041 Dumont Co LLC Greenfield 7439-92-1 Lead

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-9

Reporting Year Facility ID Facility Name Location City CAS Number Chemical Name 2002 130738 Lunt Silversmiths Greenfield 191-24-2 Benzoperylene Polycyclic Aromatic 2002 130738 Lunt Silversmiths Greenfield 1040 Compounds Polycyclic Aromatic 2003 130738 Lunt Silversmiths Greenfield 1040 Compounds 2003 130738 Lunt Silversmiths Greenfield 191-24-2 Benzoperylene Polycyclic Aromatic 2004 130738 Lunt Silversmiths Greenfield 1040 Compounds 1990 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1990 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1991 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1991 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1991 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1992 133692 Veratec Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1992 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1992 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1992 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1992 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1993 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1993 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1993 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1993 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1993 133692 Veratec Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1994 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1994 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1994 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1994 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1994 133692 Veratec Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1995 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1995 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1995 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-10

Reporting Year Facility ID Facility Name Location City CAS Number Chemical Name 1995 133692 Veratec Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1995 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1996 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1996 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1996 133692 Veratec Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1996 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1996 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1996 133692 Veratec Colrain 7681-52-9 Sodium Hypochlorite 1997 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1997 133692 Veratec Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1997 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1997 130599 American Fiber & Fin Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1997 133692 Veratec Colrain 7681-52-9 Sodium Hypochlorite 1998 133692 Veratec Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1998 133692 Veratec Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1998 133692 Veratec Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 1999 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 1999 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 1999 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 2000 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 1040 Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2000 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 2000 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 2000 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 191-24-2 Benzoperylene 2000 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 2001 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 2001 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 2001 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 191-24-2 Benzoperylene 2001 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 2001 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 1040 Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-11

Reporting Year Facility ID Facility Name Location City CAS Number Chemical Name 2002 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 2002 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 191-24-2 Benzoperylene 2002 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 2002 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 1040 Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2002 334690 BBA Nonwovens Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 2003 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc Colrain 191-24-2 Benzoperylene 2003 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 2003 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc Colrain 1040 Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2003 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 2003 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 2004 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville Inc Colrain 191-24-2 Benzoperylene 2004 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville Inc Colrain 1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide 2004 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville Inc Colrain 7664-93-9 Sulfuricacid 2004 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville Inc Colrain 1040 Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2004 334690 BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville Inc Colrain 64-19-7 Acetic Acid

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-12

G. HAZARDOUS WASTE AND BROWNFIELDS

There are many land use activities that generate hazardous waste. The Federal Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) tracks hazardous waste from the “cradle to the grave.” The MA DEP administers RCRA and there are specific regulations and laws which govern the generation, accumulation and labeling of hazardous waste and the transportation, treatment and disposal of the hazardous waste. Any business or individual that generates, accumulates and/or ships waste oil or hazardous waste above household quantities must register as a Hazardous Waste Generator with the MA DEP. There are three classifications of generators, which reflect the amount of waste generated:

• Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG): Generates less than 27 gallons per month of either hazardous waste or waste oil. • Small Quantity Generator (SQG): Generates between 27 and 270 gallons per month of either hazardous waste or waste oil. • Large Quantity Generator (LQG): Generates more than 270 gallons per month of hazardous waste or waste oil.

Envirofacts6, an interactive webpage maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was consulted for information about land uses that generate hazardous waste or have had a release of toxic chemicals into the environment. This website allows the user to query by zip code and access the RCRA and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) databases. The Toxics Release Inventory contains information on more than 650 toxic chemicals that are being used, manufactured, treated, transported, or released into the environment. Users of these chemicals are required to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to state and local governments. The EPA compiles this data in an on-line, publicly accessible national computerized database. Using this information, citizens, businesses, and governments can work together to protect the quality of their land, air, and water. The following table is a summary of the data obtained from Envirofacts.

Table 2-5 Summary of Information Available from the Envirofacts Database for the Project Area Hazardous Waste Toxics Release Subwatershed Town Generators Inventory (Facilities) (Sites)

Chickley River Hawley 1 0 Charlemont 1 0 Savoy 0 0 Plainfield 0 0

6 http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-13

Hazardous Waste Toxics Release Subwatershed Town Generators Inventory (Facilities) (Sites) South River Ashfield 0 0 Conway 2 0 North River Colrain 6 2 Heath 0 0 Green River Leyden 8 1 Greenfield 70 5 Bernardston 0 0 Shelburne 10 0 Deerfield River Corridor: Segment 1 Monroe 0 0 Rowe 2 0 Deerfield River Corridor: Segment 2 Charlemont 1 0 Heath 0 0

Hazardous waste, if not handled, stored and disposed of properly, can contaminate the soil, groundwater, surface water and/or wetlands at a site. The MA DEP also enforces the laws related to the assessment and clean-up of hazardous waste sites. MassGIS was consulted for a listing of hazardous waste sites, which are shown on the 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Map and the Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map. The MA DEP maintains an on-line database of reportable releases of hazardous materials and the status of the cleanup of these releases.7 This database can be queried by town and there is a wealth of information available for each site. For the project area, most of the listed sites have been cleaned up and closed out. The sites that are still in the process of being assessed and remediated are included in this database as well as the MassGIS database.

Brownfields are properties often found in population centers and often have certain characteristics in common. For example, these properties are typically abandoned or for sale or lease, they have been used for commercial or industrial purposes, they may have been reported to MA DEP because contamination has been found, or they may not have been assessed due to fear of unknown contamination conditions. Both the state and Federal government are committed to the cleanup and redevelopment of Brownfields properties as a way to stimulate the economy and promote environmental protection

7 http://db.state.ma.us/dep/cleanup/sites/search.asp

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-14

goals. The Franklin Regional Council of Governments, as part of its EPA-funded Regional Brownfields Assessment Program, has compiled a database of Brownfields sites in Franklin County using information provided by local towns. The Brownfields sites identified by local communities and the hazardous waste sites under jurisdiction of the MA DEP pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 21E are listed in Table 2-6. The locations of these sites are shown on the Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map.

Table 2-6 – Brownfields Sites and 21E Hazardous Waste Sites in the Project Area

Release Tracking Name of Site Address Town Status Number 1- 0011974 AF&F Plant 237 Main Rd Colrain Tier1a Remediated Upper Mill Site Rte 112 Colrain EPA Community Former Car Garage 33 Main Street Conway Identified 1- 0000080 Berkshire Gas Ml And Mead Sts Greenfield Tier1b 1- Speedway Metal & Auto 0000378 Part 366 Deerfield St Greenfield Tier1d 1- 0000383 Greenfield Auto Salvage Rte 5 Rte 10 Greenfield TierII 1- 0001047 Golys Garage 286 Federal St Greenfield TierII 1- 451 Bernardston 0012260 Cherry Run Automotive Rd Greenfield TierII 1- Former Greenfield Tap Remediated 0010734 & Die 11-17 Meridian St Greenfield DEP 1- 0013130 Sandri Bulk Plant 191 Cleveland St Greenfield TierII 1- 0000844 Food N Fuel 270 Deerfield St Greenfield Tier1d 1- NW Corner of Federal 0014236 And Silver Street 430 Federal St Greenfield TierII 1- 0013990 Rooney Residence 272 Federal St Greenfield Tier1d 1- Greenfield Community 0014901 College 1 College Dr Greenfield TierII Community Toyota Of Greenfield 12 Olive St Greenfield Identified 30,54 + 60 Olive Community Mix N Match/Sissman St Greenfield Identified Mackin Construction 145 Gill Road Greenfield Tier1d Mohawk Gulf Station 109 Mohawk Trl Greenfield TierII Citgo Station 223 Mohwak Trl Greenfield TierII Remediated First National Bank 9 Bank Row Greenfield EPA

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-15

Release Tracking Name of Site Address Town Status Number Remediated Wells St Property 57 Wells Street Greenfield DEP 1- Cheryl And Ron 0014457 Woodard 3 Ledges Rd Heath Tier1d Community Old Forge Building Greenfield Rd Leyden Identified 1- 117-121 0014632 Post Office Readsboro Rd Monroe Tier1d Community Ramage Paper 16 Depot Road Monroe Identified 1- Yankee Rowe Atomic 0013411 Plant 49 Yankee Rd Rowe TierII Stacy Property 97 Main St Shelburne TierII

H. LANDFILLS AND TRANSFER STATIONS

Both active and closed landfills can be a source of nonpoint pollution. As rainwater and melting snow percolate through the refuse, a toxic chemical soup called leachate, is created. In older, unlined landfills, chemicals found in ordinary household cleaners, residues in pesticide, insecticide and fertilizer containers, paints, solvents, and used oil all ended up in the “dump” and eventually, the leachate. Oftentimes, commercial and industrial waste was disposed of along with the residential waste. Many older landfills have been closed, capped with an impermeable cover and some may be equipped with a leachate collection system. Monitoring wells may have been installed around the perimeter of the landfill as a pollution “early warning system”. Many communities now have transfer stations to process waste and recyclables instead of landfills. Transfer stations are often located at the site of a closed municipal landfill. Transfer stations can also be a source of nonpoint pollution if the facility is not properly maintained. For example, open dumpsters can collect precipitation and generate “leachate” and collection areas for household hazardous waste should be properly constructed to contain accidental spills.

Various databases were consulted to compile a list of inactive and closed solid waste facilities and transfer stations, including: the MA DEP8, MassGIS, and the Deerfield Watershed Assessment Plan. The Watershed Assessment Plan included the results of the 2003 Fuss and O’Neil study, which assessed the environmental risk posed by current and historic landfills in the Deerfield River watershed. First, all of the landfills were identified and then they were prioritized based on the likelihood of adverse impacts to nearby natural resources. The priority sites were further evaluated through field reconnaissance and screening level sampling, and then recommendations were provided to address identified problems. The recommendations in the Fuss and O’Neil study which are relevant for the project study area are discussed in Section IV.

8 http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/solid/allsites.pdf

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-16

Tables 2-7 and 2-9 list inactive and closed landfills that are located within the project area and Table 2-8 lists the active transfer stations. There are no active solid waste landfills located within the project area. The locations of the facilities listed in the Tables are shown on the Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map. None of the inactive landfills are equipped with a liner nor are they equipped with a leachate collection system. Less than 50% of the landfills have been capped and less than 50% are currently being monitored. As the map indicates, many of the landfills are close to surface waters and/or are located above aquifers, including:

• Florida Landfill (1,500 feet to the Deerfield River) • Rowe Brush Dump (100 feet to Pelham Brook) • Rowe Landfill (100 feet to Pelham Brook) • Savoy Landfill (1,000 feet to Tilton Brook) • Charlemont Landfill (10 feet to Tatro Brook/Mill Brook) • Colrain Brush Landfill/Former Town Dump (50 feet to the North River) • Kendall Mills Sludge Storage Site (North River) • Slowinski Brush Dump (North River)

Also, many of the closed and inactive landfills in the project study area do not currently have ongoing monitoring programs.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-17

Table 2-7 – Summary of Historic Landfills in the Project Study Area9 Subwatershed Landfill Description Chickley Savoy Landfill This site is over 25 years old and is not capped and is partially lined. It underwent MA DEP closure in the early 1990s. The site contains municipal waste and lies within 0.8 miles of a public water supply and 1,000 feet from Tilton Brook in this subwatershed. Screening level sampling was not recommended for this site as part of the Fuss and O’Neil study. Deerfield River Corridor Florida Landfill Located upgradient of the Deerfield River (0.8 miles) and Whitcomb Brook Segment 1 (0.3 miles). The landfill is not lined and is well over 25 years old. The site contains wood and municipal solid waste, construction/demolition debris, tires and asbestos. The landfill was capped in 1999 and an Initial Site Investigation conducted by MA DEP in 1998 did not recommend a Comprehensive Site Investigation. Deerfield River Corridor The Monroe This landfill is also well over 25 years old and not lined. The site was Segment 1 Bridge/Deerfield Specialty capped in 1996 and contains municipal solid waste and paper sludge. This Paper landfill is located within one-half mile of public and private water supplies and within 200 feet of the Deerfield River. Environmental monitoring has been conducted at this site since 1995 as required by MA DEP. Deerfield River Corridor Yankee Nuclear Power This landfill is over 25 years old and received construction and demolition Segment 1 Station landfill waste. The landfill, located within 500 feet of the Deerfield River, Sherman Reservoir and Wheeler Brook, has been inactive since the mid 1980’s and is now capped. Extensive environmental monitoring has been conducted at this landfill since 1997. Deerfield River Corridor Heath/Hawley/Charlemont This landfill received municipal solid waste from households, farms and Segment 2 Landfill, also known as the commercial establishments for over 25 years and is not capped or lined. Three Town Landfill. The landfill is within 0.5 miles of private water supplies and less than 500 feet from a surface waterbody. Environmental monitoring has been

9 Summary descriptions taken from the Deerfield River Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report (MA DEP, October 2004).

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-18

Table 2-7 – Summary of Historic Landfills in the Project Study Area9 Subwatershed Landfill Description conducted at the site since 1987. The three towns are currently evaluating impacts of this landfill on nearby private wells and other downstream receptors and plans are being discussed to properly cap the site. Deerfield River Corridor Charlemont Landfill and a The Charlemont landfill is over 25 years old and is not capped or lined. The Segment 2 former Town of Charlemont site received municipal waste, is close to private water supplies, and is brush dump. within 10 feet of Tatro Brook, a tributary to Mill Brook. This landfill was recommended for screening level sampling by Fuss and O’Neill (2003) due to its potential to impact sensitive environmental receptors, however, suitable sampling locations were not found so no samples were collected. The brush dump, located along Warner Hill Road, was discovered during Fuss and O’Neil’s field reconnaissance and no additional information was available from the Town on this dump. North River Colrain Brush This landfill is over 25 years old. The former town dump portion received Landfill/Former Town demolition waste, industrial waste and municipal solid waste. This portion, Dump closed in 1976, is not capped or lined. The brush dump was closed and capped in 1989. The site is within 50 feet of the North River and within one half mile of public and private water supplies and potentially productive aquifers. Fuss and O’Neill (2003) concluded that this site ranked high for the potential to impact sensitive environmental receptors and recommended it for screening level sampling. Samples collected in April 2003 from a groundwater seep on the bank of the North River downgradient of the landfill were high in iron (95,400 µg/L), manganese (8,250 µg/L), and cadmium (1.8 µg/L). No VOCs were detected. North River Kendall Mills landfill This landfill is over 25 years old and received sludge for several years from the Kendall Mills Textile Plant treatment system. The site is unlined and not capped. The site was recommended for screening level sampling by Fuss and O’Neill (2003) due to its potential to impact sensitive environmental receptors. Sampling of a downgradient spring revealed low levels (below drinking water and surface water criteria) of barium, copper,

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-19

Table 2-7 – Summary of Historic Landfills in the Project Study Area9 Subwatershed Landfill Description manganese, and iron in the water. No further action was recommended for this site. North River Colrain Landfill This landfill received municipal and industrial wastes. The site was closed and capped in the late 1990s. Environmental monitoring has been conducted at the site since 1987, including a Comprehensive Site Assessment and post-closure monitoring. North River Slowinski Brush Dump This dump received soil and stumps from a road construction project in the mid 1980s. In 1987 test pits were excavated to determine depth to groundwater and presence of an oxide layer. None were observed. The site is closed and was not recommended for screening level sampling by Fuss and O’Neill as part of their study. South River Conway Landfill The Conway Landfill began operation around 1900 and in the 1970s this dump accepted hazardous and liquid wastes and open burning was practiced. At that time, a leachate plume was observed flowing from beneath the landfill, across a meadow, and into Pumpkin Hollow Brook. In July 2002, the Town of Conway hired a consultant to collect and analyze samples of surface water and groundwater. Surface water samples were collected from Pumpkin Hollow Brook upstream of the landfill and at the town swimming hole downstream of the landfill. Groundwater samples were also collected from a private well. Laboratory results for the samples indicated that no contaminants were present in concentrations above the Massachusetts Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in the Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards. This landfill is not lined but it is capped and the town continues to monitor the groundwater. South River Conway Wood Waste This landfill received wood waste. In 1991, the site was closed and capped. Landfill The site has been monitored since 1994.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-20

Table 2-8 Transfer Stations in the Project Study Area10 Amount of Amount of Material Town DEP Number Material Handled Site Address Handled (Tons Per (Annual Tons) Day) 851 Ashfield Mtn Ashfield TR0013.003 780 3 Road Buckland TR0049.005 439 10 Hodgen Road Charlemont TR0053.006 315 10 North River Road Colrain TR0066.013 429 4 Catamount Hill Road Conway TR0068.004 872 30 Old Cricket Hill Road Florida TR0098.002 490 15 367 Mohawk Trail Heath TR0131.003 335 3 Branch Hill Road Monroe TR0190.003 49 20 Readsboro Road Rowe TR0253.003 305 15 87 Zoar Road Shelburne TR0053.007 524 - North River Road

10 http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/solid/allsites.pdf

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-21

Table 2-9 Summary of Inactive and Closed Landfills in the Project Study Area11

SITE DEP ID DATES OF SITE NAME ADDRESS TOWN CAP LINER OWNER STATUS MONITOR- Number OPERATION ING

RTE.2 WEST CHARLEMONT Unknown SL0053.002 OF MOHAWK CHARLEMONT Unknown N Unknown I DUMP cap PARK RTE CHARLEMONT Unknown - TOWN OF SL0053.001 8A/WARNER CHARLEMONT Not capped N I LANDFILL 1972 CHARLEMONT HILL ROAD COLRAIN Unknown – TOWN OF SD0066.005 BRUSH RTE 112 S COLRAIN Capped N C 1990 COLRAIN LANDFILL COLRAIN Unknown - TOWN OF SL0066.001 RTE 112 COLRAIN Capped N C DUMP 1976 COLRAIN CHARLEMONT COLRAIN TOWN OF 1987- SL0066.004 /CATAMOUNT COLRAIN Capped 1977-1995 N C LANDFILL COLRAIN present HILL RDS KENDALL MILLS COLRAIN 1970-1975 C SLUDGE STORAGE SITE SLOWINSKI Unknown – COLRAIN C BRUSH DUMP 1987 1994- CONWAY present OLD CRICKET TOWN OF DL0068.003 DEMOLITION CONWAY Capped 1977-1991 N C HILL RD CONWAY LANDFILL

11 http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/solid/allsites.pdf

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-22

SITE DEP ID DATES OF SITE NAME ADDRESS TOWN CAP LINER OWNER STATUS MONITOR- Number OPERATION ING CONWAY OLD CRICKET Unknown TOWN OF 1994- SL0068.005 CONWAY 1900-1977 N I LANDFILL HILL RD cap CONWAY present FLORIDA 367 MOHAWK Unknown – TOWN OF SD0098.001 WOOD DEMO FLORIDA Capped N C TRAIL (RTE 2) 1992 FLORIDA LANDFILL HEATH HAWLEY BURRINGTON Unknown TOWN OF I1987- SL0130.001 HEATH 1972-1988 N CHARLEMONT RD cap HEATH present LF MONROE READSBORO SIMKINS 1995- SL0190.001 BRIDGE MONROE Capped 1910-1984 N C RD INDUSTRIES present LANDFILL ROWE BRUSH TOWN OF SD0253.001 ZOAR RD ROWE Not Capped Unknown N I DUMP ROWE ROWE unknown – TOWN OF SL0253.004 ZOAR ROAD ROWE Not capped N I LANDFILL 1978 ROWE YANKEE YANKEE ROWE 49 YANKEE ATOMIC 1997- DL0253.005 ROWE Not capped 1958-1985 N I DEMOLITION ROAD ELECTRIC present LANDFILL COMPANY SAVOY Partially TOWN OF SL0263.001 CHAPEL ROAD SAVOY 1959-1993 N I LANDFILL capped SAVOY SHELBURNE LITTLE Unknown – SD0268.003 SHELBURNE Capped N JOHN BENZ C STUMP DUMP MOHAWK RD 1986 UNCONFIRME EP0268.002 COLRAIN RD SHELBURNE Unknown N I D SITE

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-23

I. ILLEGAL DUMP SITES AND AUTO JUNKYARDS

Illegal dump sites are a common problem in rural areas. Several sites were observed in the study area along less traveled roads and in woods and fields. The typical items observed were large household appliances, furniture, cars, tires, household trash and other debris. There were also several vehicle junkyards identified as part of this study which are probably not in conformance with local zoning and/or not licensed. It is not known whether any of the junkyards are still active. Illegal dump sites and abandoned auto junkyards can pose a significant threat to wetlands and other water resources, including drinking water supplies, because hazardous wastes not accepted at municipal landfills, leaking oil, gasoline and antifreeze from junk cars, and other toxic chemicals can form leachate plumes which can travel a significant distance before being detected.

J. ROAD SALT APPLICATION PRACTICES, STORAGE, AND SNOW DUMPING AREAS

During the winter months, slugs of road salt (sodium chloride) and sand laden water run off from parking lots and roads and enter nearby surface waters during periodic thaws and winter rainstorms. During the Spring thaw, the concentration of road salt and sand can increase due to the melting of roadside snow banks, which have accumulated sand and salt all winter long. Sodium chloride is soluble in and moves easily with water. Salt- laden water that recharges groundwater can contaminate drinking water supplies over time because groundwater flow velocities are generally slow and measured in units of feet per year so dilution or “flushing” of sodium concentrations takes time. Excessive salt can also degrade wetlands and surface water bodies.

Typically, a combination of plowing and the application of sand and salt are used by local Highway Departments to maintain passable roads during the winter months. The sand to salt ratio used by towns varies and some adjustments might be made depending upon the temperature and duration of a storm. In general, during colder weather (temperatures below 20 – 25 degrees), less salt is added to the sand because salt may create ice by melting the snow during the day, creating wet areas that could re-freeze if the temperature drops. A higher ratio of sand gives drivers more traction on the road but can result in sedimentation of nearby waterbodies and wetlands. Unpaved roads are typically treated with sand only, except for Colrain which sometimes uses a light application of salt along with the sand. In areas where there are no catch basins, like most of the project area, sand laden runoff enters pipes and culverts which discharge directly into surface waters and wetlands. During winter storms with temperatures just below freezing, more salt is added to the sand mixture to keep roads clear. Therefore, road runoff from storms that occur in the late Winter/early Spring can contain much higher sodium concentrations.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-24

Table 2-10 Winter Road Maintenance Practices

Town Project Sand/Salt Sand/Salt Street Frequency Catch Catch Subwater- Ratio Ratio Sweeping of Street Basin Basin shed (Colder (Warmer Sweeping Cleaning Cleaning Area Storm) Storm) (once/yr Schedule in the (once/yr Spring) in the Spring) Ashfield South 10:1 10:2 Y Y Y Y Conway South ------Colrain North/ 50:50 50:50 Y Y Y Y DRC 2 Charlemont North/ n/a n/a Y Y Y Y DRC 2 Greenfield Green 2:3 3:1 Y Y Y Y Leyden Green 2:1 3:1 Y Y n/a n/a Heath North/ n/a1 n/a Y Y Y As needed DRC 2 Hawley Chickley n/a 3:1 Y Y n/a n/a Monroe DRC 1 ------Rowe DRC 1/ 9:1 9:1 Y Y Y Y DRC 2 (once/year Fall) Notes: 1 = Heath only uses a high performance salt (Ice Be Gone) on its paved roads. n/a = not applicable; DRC 1 = Deerfield River Corridor Segment 1; DCR 2 = Deerfield River Corridor Segment 2; - = Information not available.

The sand/salt practices of the Highway Departments in the project area are highly specific to the road network in each town and the staff’s knowledge of the slope, road layout, curves, elevation and sunlight exposure of their roads. The information in Table 2-10 are estimates provided by Highway Department staff. Actual sand/salt ratios can vary depending upon weather conditions and the best professional judgment of the staff. Colrain adds magnesium chloride flakes to their sand/salt mixture during a very cold storm. Heath and Ashfield both use a product called Ice Be Gone, a magnesium chloride product. Greenfield uses Ice Ban, which is also magnesium chloride, as a liquid pre- treatment that is sprayed on the roads. Heath applies Ice Be Gone exclusively to all of the town’s paved roads. Heath no longer sands its paved roads and has cut its sand use by 4,000 tons. This means significantly less sand is entering waterbodies adjacent to paved roads. Ashfield uses liquid Ice Be Gone as a pre-wetting agent during certain storm conditions, such as when the temperature will be below 15 degrees for a long period of time.

Only one town in the project area, Greenfield, has No Salt areas. No salt is applied to Log Plain Road and Barton Road to protect the town’s public water supplies.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-25

J.1 Salt Storage Areas

All of the towns in the project study area have enclosed storage for their sand, salt, and sand/salt mixtures except Greenfield and Colrain. Greenfield stores their pure sand outside. Colrain, due to lack of space, currently stores their pure sand outside. The town is actively looking for funding to build a shed for sand storage.

J.2 Snow Storage/Disposal Areas

Large snow banks and piles are typically removed from parking lots and downtown streets several times during the winter. In the past, this snow, along with any sand and salt it contained, was dumped into the nearest waterbody. This practice is no longer common and none of the towns in the project area dump excess snow directly in waterbodies. Greenfield is the only community that has to collect and remove snow (from its downtown area). The snow is brought to Murphy Park.

It was beyond the scope of this study to investigate the areas that private contractors use for snow storage/disposal. Large private commercial areas, like shopping centers found in Greenfield, hire private contractors to plow parking lots and remove snow.

K. SEPTIC SYSTEMS

The untreated or partially treated effluent from undersized or failing septic systems can contaminate surface and ground water resources with bacteria and viruses, nitrates and other nutrients, and toxic chemicals from the disposal of household hazardous waste such as paint and solvents. A homeowner may be unaware that their system is failing or has been failing for years until there is a back-up of sewage or the area over the leaching field becomes sodden with partially treated effluent. Often, a homeowner finds out that their septic system is malfunctioning when they have it tested to comply with Title 5 requirements for the sale of their home. Although this state law has resulted in the upgrade or replacement of many failing systems, these same systems could have been malfunctioning for many years before the Title 5 tests were conducted as part of a real estate transaction. In rural areas where residential and commercial uses rely upon septic systems for the disposal of sanitary wastewater, these systems must be properly designed, used and maintained in order to protect the quality of surface and ground water resources.

Given that most of the project study area is not served by sewer systems, failing or underperforming septic systems are likely to be a significant source of nonpoint pollution. The magnitude of the problem is not known because no comprehensive tracking systems exist at the local, regional or state level to monitor the key indicators of septic system “health”, which include: location, age, history of routine maintenance (pumping), and documentation of problems that have resulted in repairs, upgrades and/or replacements of failing septic systems. The MA DEP only has paper records of responses to septic system failures that must be addressed by the installation of non- conventional septic systems. Records of local system upgrade approvals and/or variances

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-26

are not filed with the MA DEP.12 Local Boards of Health, which are comprised of volunteers and have no paid administrative staff, have a very difficult time maintaining an accurate, usable database of any kind for tracking routine maintenance, local upgrade approvals, variances and/or failing septic systems in their towns.13 Furthermore, a reasonable estimate of the magnitude of the problem in each subwatershed could not be prepared as part of this study due to: 1) the lack of and/or condition of recordkeeping at the local level, and 2) the level of effort (e.g., interviews with local Board of Health members and septic system installers, and local/state file reviews) that would be required to investigate the problem is beyond the scope of this project.

L. LARGE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGES

According to the MA DEP database14 there is only one large permitted groundwater discharge in the project study area. The Town of Ashfield’s wastewater treatment facility discharges treated effluent into the groundwater. The permit for this facility was renewed in April 2008 and the design flow for this facility is 25,000 gallons per day.

M. STORMWATER AND SURFACE WATER DISCHARGES

According to the MA DEP, stormwater runoff represents the single largest source responsible for water quality impairments in the Commonwealth’s rivers, lakes, ponds, and marine waters.15 New and existing development typically adds impervious surfaces which, if not properly managed, may alter natural drainage features, increase peak discharge rates and volumes, reduce recharge to wetlands and streams, and increase the discharge of pollutants to wetlands and water bodies. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 16 Stormwater Program, mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, is a comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's waters. The program uses the NPDES permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed by stormwater runoff into local water bodies. In Massachusetts, the NPDES permit program is administered by the US EPA and MA DEP. In addition, municipalities have the option of adopting local drainage, sewer, wetland or other ordinances that regulate stormwater. Only the Town of Greenfield has adopted Stormwater System Regulations.

The NPDES Phase II Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999, requires expanded NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges from certain regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and construction activity disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land (i.e., small construction activities). Disturbance

12 personal communication with Deirdre Cabral, MA DEP WERO. 13 personal communication with Glen Ayres, FRCOG Regional Health Agent. 14 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/wastewat.htm#facilities 15 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/v1c1.doc 16 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities that discharge treated wastewater directly into surface waters must obtain a NPDES permit.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-27

of land 5 acres in size and above was regulated under Phase I of the NPDES Storm Water program. There are no MS4s in the project study area. None of the communities in the project study area are classified as “Phase II” communities so they are not required to have a municipal stormwater permit, which would mandate certain stormwater management activities for compliance with the NPDES regulations.

Activities that take place at industrial facilities, such as material handling and storage, are often exposed to the weather. When runoff from rain or snowmelt comes into contact with these materials, it picks up pollutants and transports them to nearby storm sewer systems, rivers, lakes, or streams. In order to minimize the impact of stormwater discharges from industrial facilities, the NPDES program includes an industrial stormwater permitting component. Operators of industrial facilities included in one of the 11 categories of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity that discharge or have the potential to discharge stormwater to a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)17 or directly to waters of the United States require authorization under a NPDES industrial stormwater permit.

Construction activities (including other land-disturbing activities) that disturb one acre or more are regulated under the NPDES stormwater program. On March 10, 2003, new regulations came into effect that extended coverage to construction sites that disturb one to five acres in size, including smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Sites disturbing five acres or more were regulated previously.

The regulated entities and activities must obtain coverage under an NPDES stormwater permit and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) or stormwater management programs, with Best Management Practices (BMPs), that effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters.

In February 2008, MA DEP issued a revised the Stormwater Management Standards and Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. This comprehensive handbook addresses water quality (pollutants) and water quantity (flooding, low base flow and recharge) by establishing standards that require the implementation of a wide variety of stormwater management strategies. These strategies include: environmentally sensitive site design and Low Impact Develoment (LID) techniques to minimize impervious surface and land disturbance, source control and pollution prevention, structural BMPs, construction period erosion and sedimentation control, and the long-term operation and maintenance of stormwater management systems.18

In order to identify NPDES facilities in the project area, two on-line databases maintained by the EPA were consulted.19 Only one industrial facility, two wastewater treatment plants and three energy plants were listed as having NPDES permits. It was not clear from the information available in the databases if Barnhardt Manufacturing (also known

17 There are no MS4s in the project study area. 18 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm 19 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water and http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/compliance_report_water_icp.html

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-28

as BBA Nonwovens) in Colrain, finishers of textiles, had a SWPPP. The SIC code for this facility indicates that it should have a SWPPP. Of note is that the facility did not appear on the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database.20 Other NPDES permitted facilities for the project area that were listed on the ECHO database showed no recent history of compliance problems, except for TransCanada’s Sherman Station. No information on the formal enforcement action could be found.21

The total percentage of impervious cover in all of the subwatersheds in the project study area was significantly below 10%, with the exception being the Green River subwatershed. The development of lands within a watershed can adversely impact the hydrology, morphology, water quality and ecology of surface waters. Research by the Center for Watershed Protection indicates that the amount of impervious cover within a watershed can be used as a measure of the potential impacts of land development on aquatic systems and as an indicator of potential water quality problems in a watershed. In many regions of the country, water quality impacts were correlated to as little as 10% impervious cover in a watershed.22

The urban area of the Town of Greenfield, which contains a large amount of impervious surface area, is entirely within the Green River watershed. Stormwater in Greenfield is collected by a system of storm drains which direct the water to outfalls that discharge directly into Maple Brook, Cherry Rum Brook, the Green River, and other waterbodies. The stormwater receives some treatment before being discharged because all of the catch basins in the residential core area, which is the more densely developed section of town south of Rte. 2, east of I-91 and west of Rocky Mountain, and the downtown area are equipped with sumps. Catch basins are cleaned once every 3 years. In addition, the town sweeps its streets once per year, in the Spring, and the streets in the downtown area are swept every 2 weeks. The town has adopted Stormwater System Regulations to “ensure high water quality standards and address any potential water quantity problems associated with development.”

The Maple Brook culvert is the major source of stormwater problems for the town. This culvert was recently repaired to eliminate identified sources of raw sewage which had been entering the culvert. However, the culvert is still undersized and periodically surcharges and the town is concerned that sewage is still entering the culvert. Maple Brook culvert drains 80% of the urban, residential area of the town and the culvert can’t handle anything bigger than a 5 year storm without surcharging. The town would like to do further water quality testing work to identify any additional sources of sewage entering the Maple Brook culvert and eliminate these sources of pollution. The town recently purchased a property in the Maple Brook culvert drainage basin and removed the house, which had been periodically flooded during storm events and when the culvert surcharged. The town plans to let the vacant land flood and serve as a “retention basin”. The town would like to make improvements to the property to increase the capacity of

20 http://www.epa-echo.gov/cgi-bin/ideaotis.cgi 21 http://www.epa-echo.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=MA0034908 22 Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook – A Resource Guide for Urban Subwatershed Management, Center for Watershed Protection, October 1998.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-29

the “retention basin” and provide some treatment of the stormwater to improve its water quality.23

23 Personal communication with Larry Petrin, Engineering Department, Greenfield DPW.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-30

Table 2-11 NPDES Facility Information24

PERMIT PERMIT COUNTY SIC USGS NPDES ID FACILITY NAME ADDRESS ISSUED EXPIRED SIC DESC NAME CODE HUC DATE DATE FINISHERS OF BARNHARDT 247 MAIN ROAD MAR-26- MAY-31- TEXTILES, NOT MA0003697 MANUFACTURING (also COLRAIN, MA FRANKLIN 2269 01080203 2001 2006 ELSEWHERE known as BBA Nonwovens) 01340 CLASSIFIED 20 FACTORY CHARLEMONT ROAD FEB-01- MA0103101 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FRANKLIN SEP-30-2007 4952 SEWERAGE SYSTEMS 01080203 CHARLEMONT, 2004 PLANT MA 01339 MILL STREET JUN-22- AUG-21- MA0100188 MONROE W W T F MONROE BRIDGE, FRANKLIN 4952 SEWERAGE SYSTEMS 01080203 2005 2010 MA 01350 OFF YANKEE TRANSCANADA SHERMAN ROAD SEP-30- MA0034908 FRANKLIN OCT-31-2002 4911 ELECTRIC SERVICES 01080203 STATION (#5) MONROE BRIDGE, 1997 MA 01350 USGEN NEW ENGLAND INC OFF TUNNEL RD SEP-30- MA0034886 FRANKLIN OCT-31-2002 4911 ELECTRIC SERVICES 01080203 BEAR SWAMP STATION ROWE, MA 01367 1997 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC 49 YANKEE ROAD JUL-24- AUG-31- MA0004367 FRANKLIN 4911 ELECTRIC SERVICES 01080203 CO ROWE, MA 01367 2003 2008

24 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water and http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/compliance_report_water_icp.html

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-31

N. AGRICULTURE

There approximately 14,000 acres of land in agricultural use in the project study area. Agricultural land is the second highest land use, in terms of acres, after forested land. Farming is a vital part of Franklin County’s rural heritage and integral to the region’s sense of place. Agriculture continues to be an important sector of the local economy. The cropland, orchards, hay fields and pastures that dot the landscape of the project area support both large and small scale dairy and cattle farms, as well as “gentleman’s farms”, where horses and other livestock are kept.

Agricultural activity can be a source of nonpoint pollution, including: sediment from erosion of cropland and streambanks, bacteria from manure, nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from fertilizers, and pesticides. Many of the farms in the project area are located over the rich sediments of the narrow floodplain areas of the Deerfield River and its major tributaries. If cover crops are not planted following a harvest, cropland can experience sheet and rill erosion. With the loss of the vegetated riparian buffer, which acts as a “pollutant filter”, runoff that contains sediment from eroding fields and/or river banks, pesticides, and nutrients from manure and fertilizers can easily enter nearby waterbodies and wetlands. If the riparian vegetation is completely removed from the pastures and cropland or significantly reduced in these floodplain areas, the river banks become unstable and susceptible to erosion. This situation can be exacerbated if livestock has direct access to the water. Grazing livestock can trample and denude vegetation along streams and pollute the water with their urine and manure.

Table 2-12 Acreage of Land in Agricultural Use in the Project Area Subwatershed Cropland Pasture Woody Total Acres in Perennial Agriculture* Chickley 280 448 11 739 Green 2819 1591 652 5062 North 1845 1202 83 3130 South 1310 769 19 2098 Deerfield 277 322 49 647 Segment 1 Deerfield 1265 941 170 2376 Segment 2 *Note: Data source is MassGIS 1999 Land Use statistics.

As part of a joint project between the Franklin County Solid Waste District and the Franklin Regional Council of Governments, the locations and the numbers and types of livestock kept on large and small-scale farms, including “gentleman’s farms” were compiled and mapped for Franklin County. Table 2-13 lists the data for the project area and the locations of the farms are shown on the Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Map. Data was obtained from Chapter 61 records on file with Assessors Offices in the local towns.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-32

Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area Number Town Name Address Acreage Cow25 Horse Chicken Goat Pig Sheep 111 Ashfield Martin, M 1169 Apple Valley Rd 33 115 Ashfield Robertson 2003 Conway Road 144 121 Ashfield Clark, Ja 144 Steady Lane 23 120 Ashfield Carter, E 332 Main St 22 114 Ashfield Anderson- 1739 Hawley Rd 29 3 117 Ashfield Townsley, 435 Apple Valley Rd 35 116 Ashfield Taylor, A 335 Hill Rd 35 118 Ashfield Lussier, 535 Main St 2 40 24 122 Ashfield Fuller, M 31 Bullitt Road 1 4 119 Ashfield Booker, H 177 S. Warger Road 123 Ashfield Gray 229 Creamery Road 6 110 Ashfield Libby 1231 West Road 12 3 4 5 3 113 Ashfield Klippenst 137 Beldingville Road x 285 Ashfield Cozie N 112 Stoheker Road x 286 Ashfield Raikes Beldingville Road x 242 Bernardston Duprey, D 144 Eden Trail 100.00 197 Buckland Willis, P 253 Ashfield Rd 160 3 198 Buckland Schmidt, 104 Ashfield Rd 200 196 Buckland Purring 78 Clesson Brook Road 15 8 Charlemont 279 Legate Hill Rd 73.00 11 19 24 Charlemont 152 West Oxbow Rd 20.00 2 13 Charlemont 537 Legate Hill Rd 7.50 2 1 29 Charlemont 419 Legate Hill Rd 8.40 2 1 Charlemont Blue Hero 8 Warner Hill Rd. #1 88.17 15 14 5 Charlemont 79 Burrington Rd 58.00 23 40 32 Charlemont 42 Burrington Rd 4.47 3 Charlemont Hicks Far Hicks Road 209.00 39 15 6

25 x = indicates the type of animal is kept on the property but the number of animals was not reported.

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-33

Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area Number Town Name Address Acreage Cow25 Horse Chicken Goat Pig Sheep 4 Charlemont Goat Risi 8 Mountain Rd 20.00 11 48 49 Oakwood 6 Charlemont F 279 West Hawley Rd 104.00 3 20 Charlemont 255 Mountain Rd 12.60 2 21 Charlemont Elan Farm 256 Mountain Rd 18.89 6 35 26 Charlemont 40 Windy Hill Rd 1.00 15 7 27 Charlemont 23 Windy Hill Rd 1.00 3 14 Charlemont 749 Tea St 5.00 2 10 Charlemont 695 Tea St 40.00 7 22 Charlemont 92 Avery Brook Rd 12.00 6 12 Charlemont 279 Avery Brook Rd 15.00 7 1 35 4 2 8 34 Charlemont 253 Hawk Hill Rd 5.27 3 33 Charlemont 506 Zoar Rd 2.90 2 9 Charlemont 486 South River Rd 52.00 31 Charlemont 296 Chickley Road 72.00 1 1 15 Charlemont 89 Warfield Rd 1.80 2 16 Charlemont 14 Harmony Ave 2.20 1 5 11 Charlemont 1365 Route 2 112.00 5 19 Charlemont 130 Main St 3.40 6 28 Charlemont 24 Montain Branch Rd 7 Charlemont 225 Route 8A North 6.00 4 18 Charlemont 169 Route 8A 86.00 2 30 Charlemont 2023 Route 2 28.80 2 25 Charlemont 104 West Oxbow Rd 6.40 2 23 Charlemont Atwater F Route 2 2.16 3 2 Charlemont Valley Vi 200 Warfield Rd. 497.00 24 4 48 5 5 199 Colrain Avery, Ke Jacksonville Rd 300.00 X 200 Colrain Bringham, 58 Jacksonville Rd 200.00 2 201 Colrain Coombs, R Prolovich Rd 150.00 X 203 Colrain Cromack, New County Rd 70.00 X

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-34

Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area Number Town Name Address Acreage Cow25 Horse Chicken Goat Pig Sheep 202 Colrain Cromack, 438 Jacksonville Rd 75.00 3 4 1 10 204 Colrain 336 Jacksonville Rd 100.00 X 205 Colrain Fisher, L Ed Clark Rd 50.00 X 206 Colrain Hager Bro 84 Maxam Rd 346.00 X 210 Colrain Henderson 107 Hillman Road 201.00 211 Colrain Hillman, 305 Wilson Hill Rd 10.50 212 Colrain Lively, R 24 Heath Branch Rd 97.00 X 213 Colrain Heath Rd 109.00 X 214 Colrain Thibodeau Rd 32.00 X 217 Colrain Adams Place 198.00 X X 216 Colrain Potts, J. Jacksonville Rd 100.00 X X 215 Colrain Potts,J.B Fairbanks Road 90.00 X X 218 Colrain Purington 152 Wilson Hill Rd 107.00 X 219 Colrain Purington York Rd, Adamsville Rd 69 4 220 Colrain Hillman Rd, Wilson Hill Rd 221 Colrain Ramirez R 12 Heath Rd 8 30 222 Colrain Roberts, 2 Roberts Lane 246.00 X 222 Colrain Roberts, 2 Roberts Lane 246.00 X 223 Colrain Robinson, Prolovich Rd 47.00 60 225 Colrain 14.50 X 226 Colrain 31.00 X 227 Colrain 3.70 X 228 Colrain Shearer, Greenfieldd Rd 30.00 X 232 Colrain Slowinski Bennett and Galipo Dr 235.00 8 20 233 Colrain 7 Adamsville Rd 30.00 234 Colrain Sullivan, 18 Archambo Rd 55.00 2 235 Colrain Sylvester 268 Jacksonville Rd 20.30 1 60 1 236 Colrain Thibodeau 42 Thibodeau Dr 201.00 160 10 2 229 Colrain 270 Greenfieldd Rd 81.00 X 230 Colrain 261 Shelburne Line Rd 31.00 X

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-35

Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area Number Town Name Address Acreage Cow25 Horse Chicken Goat Pig Sheep 231 Colrain Jurek Rd 14.20 X 224 Colrain Scranton Dwight Crossroad 121.00 X 283 Colrain Hanrahan 63 Van Nuys Road x 284 Colrain Jaffur 10 Purington Road 200 125 Conway Benson 238 Bardswell Ferry Rd 1 2 9 127 Conway Baranowsk 497 Bardswell Ferry Rd 12 128 Conway Goodfield 1263 Bardswell Ferry Rd 6 130 Conway Joralemon 264 Boyden Rd 6 137 Conway Parker 161 Fields Hill Rd 8 138 Conway Rose 40 Fournier Rd 1 139 Conway Guilford 235 Hart Road 2 141 Conway Clayton-J 617 Hoosac Rd 4 143 Conway Schroder 90 Maggie Bean Dr. 1 144 Conway Borton 234 Main Poland Rd 6 146 Conway Tippett 421 Main Poland Rd. 2 147 Conway Burt 516 Main Poland Rd. 2 148 Conway Clapp 630 Main Poland Rd. 4 150 Conway Culver 1600 Main Poland Rd. 2 156 Conway Ricardi 71 North Poland Rd 157 Conway LeVitre 536 North Poland Rd 4 158 Conway Fuller 788 North Poland Rd 2 160 Conway Nelson 794 Old Cricket Hill Rd 2 162 Conway Zale 149 Pine Hill Rd 3 164 Conway Thibault 1317 Pine Hill Rd 7 3 165 Conway Gray 82 Pleasant St. 3 166 Conway Conklin - 269 Reeds Bridge Rd 4 6 177 Conway Dugas - B 527 S. Shirkshire Rd. 8 178 Conway Rainville 236 S. Shirkshire Rd. 12 180 Conway Goddard 661 S. Shirkshire Rd 4 183 Conway Fisher - 888 Shelburne Falls Rd. 3 15 21

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-36

Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area Number Town Name Address Acreage Cow25 Horse Chicken Goat Pig Sheep 184 Conway Rowell 1276 Shelburne Falls Rd. 2 185 Conway Craig 1774 Shelburne Falls Rd. 1 186 Conway Mendoza 3284 Shelburne Falls Rd. 187 Conway Kindwall 148 Truce Rd 188 Conway Parker 309 Whately Rd. 26 5 191 Conway Wholey 46 Wholey Rd. 90 2 192 Conway Bravemann 54 Wilder Hill Rd. 8 124 Conway Hart 192 Academy Hill Rd 2 126 Conway Holbrook 377 Bardswell Ferry Rd 12 136 Conway Eldred 146 Elm St 1 6 140 Conway Dunphy 603 Hoosac Rd 2 145 Conway Herrmann 396 Main Poland Rd. 8 142 Conway Chayes 84 Leukhardt Rd 2 132 Conway West 85 Dacey Rd 4 149 Conway Sola & Pf 1230 Main Poland Rd. 20 151 Conway Shaw 2433 Main Poland Rd. 6 152 Conway Dwelley 10 Manning Rd. 1 154 Conway Howe 482 Newhall Rd. 12 16 155 Conway Craven 42 North Poland Rd 9 159 Conway Morgan 104 Old Cricket Hill Rd 12 161 Conway Forcier 10 Pine Hill Rd 1 163 Conway Gokey - C 1173 Pine Hill Rd 5 167 Conway Heath 565 Reeds Bridge Rd 1 179 Conway Grossmann 585 S. Shirkshire Rd. 8 181 Conway Parent 676 S. Shirkshire Rd. 1 182 Conway Williams 697 Shelburne Falls Rd. 5 189 Conway Warner 684 Whately Rd 2 37 Deerfield Drumbool, 261 Upper Rd 50.00 2 3 43 Deerfield Yazwinski 109 Old Main (home) 158 36 45 Deerfield Pogues Hole 96.00

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-37

Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area Number Town Name Address Acreage Cow25 Horse Chicken Goat Pig Sheep 46 Deerfield Old Ferry 70.00 47 Deerfield Little Meadow Rd 106.00 51 Greenfield Baraban, 156 Green River Rd 16 52 Greenfield Barker, W 614 Colrain Rd 2 53 Greenfield Bayer, Fe 347 Leyden Road 11.00 2 54 Greenfield Bostrom, 702 Colrain Rd 14 5 56 Greenfield DiStefano 1093 Bernardston Rd 6 57 Greenfield Hume, Jam 372 Adams Rd 2 58 Greenfield Koch, Cha 75 Wayland Dr 4 60 Greenfield Martin, R 341 Green River Rd 90.00 4 3 2 61 Greenfield Meunier, 217 Leyden Rd 28.58 1 62 Greenfield Nicolai, 200 Green River Rd 2 63 Greenfield Noyes, Ro 469 Barton Rd 65.00 51 65 Greenfield Watson, J 580 Colrain Rd 2 3 66 Hawley 7 Bozrak Rd 21.50 59 67 Hawley 15 Dodge Branch Rd 128.00 35 1 26 6 10 46 69 Hawley 20 West Hill Rd 354.00 13 2 68 Hawley 51 East Hawley Rd 98.00 43 1 70 Hawley 28 West Hawley Rd 47.00 84 268 Heath Freeman 20 Town Farm Road 40 269 Leyden Facey 160 North County Road 50 270 Leyden Peterson 41 Bell Road x 237 Rowe Lively 11 Petrie Road x 5 238 Rowe Phelps 36 Petrie Road 8 239 Rowe Williams 36 Brown Road 12 262 Shelburne York 180 South Shelburne Road 14 1 40 5 50 263 Shelburne Gould 311 Cooper Lane 200 x 264 Shelburne Barberic 383 Cooper Lane x 265 Shelburne Springdal 135 Reynolds Road x 266 Shelburne Wheel- 212 Reynolds Road x x

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-38

Table 2-13 Locations, Numbers and Type of Livestock in the Project Study Area Number Town Name Address Acreage Cow25 Horse Chicken Goat Pig Sheep view Farm 267 Shelburne Foxbard 400 Bardwells Ferry Road x

Section 2 – Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 2-39

SECTION III

OVERVIEW OF SUBWATERSHEDS

In this section, information is provided about six of the ten subwatersheds within the Deerfield River watershed including their location, size, natural resources, and rare and endangered species. The six watersheds are: the Chickley and South River watersheds, the North and Green River watersheds, and Segments 1 and 2 of the Deerfield River Corridor. The chapter also discusses information gathered by volunteers of the Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA), volunteer Stream Team members, and the staff of the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) concerning existing land uses and trends, potential sources of nonpoint pollution, and water quality. A set of large format maps for each subwatershed is included in a map pocket at the end of the corresponding section of this chapter. This set of maps includes: Natural Resources, 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change, and the Field Verification Map. Smaller format maps that illustrate the subwatershed zoning, water quality sampling locations, and the Stream Team work are bound into the report.

A. CHICKLEY RIVER WATERSHED

The Chickley River watershed is located south of the Deerfield River in the Town of Hawley and parts of the Towns of Savoy, Plainfield and Charlemont. The Chickley flows east and north meeting the Deerfield River in the village center of Charlemont. The watershed is 29.3 square miles in size.

Hawley, which in land mass is two-thirds of the basin, has about 340 residents. All four towns are zoned rural residential including that part of Charlemont’s town center at the confluence of the Deerfield and Chickley Rivers.

A.1 Natural Resources

Much of the Chickley River watershed is mountainous and forested with slopes greater than 25%. Areas identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as Priority Habitats of Rare Species and/or Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife include: the lower portion of the Chickley River from just above North Brook to the confluence with Deerfield River in Charlemont, two areas east and west of the Chickley River and bordering the Deerfield River in Charlemont, the lower portion of Potash Brook corridor, the upper Mill Brook and Beaver Pond area, the upper King Brook and Plainfield Pond area, and the Borden Mountain area in Savoy.

In the Chickley River watershed, only Hawley has BioMap Core Habitats and Living Waters Core Habitat. About a fifth of the watershed (the southeastern portion) has been Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-1

designated as BioCore. These areas are located in the southeast quadrant of the watershed and upstream of the confluence of the Chickley and the Deerfield Rivers. There are 38 potential vernal pools in the watershed, a third of which are in the BioCore area of Hawley and most of which are on protected lands. The upper portions of Potash, Mill and Basin Brooks are within the BioCore area with much of the Mill and Basin Brooks in protected open space. Below, are the summary descriptions of these areas, which were taken from State’s Bio Map and Living Waters web site.1 The core habitat areas are shown on the Natural Resources map.

BioMap Core Habitat C430 contains a well-known and much-visited Level Bog. Level Bogs are dwarf shrub peatlands, generally with pronounced hummock and hollow formations. These wetland peatlands are vey acidic and nutrient-poor, because they receive little overland water input, and are not connected to the water table. Although moderate levels of disturbances from trampling are affecting the peat layer here, this bog remains a high-quality example of this natural community type in the state.

Within this Core Habitat, there are species of plants nearing the southern limit of their range in Massachusetts, such as the Leafy White Orchis and Dwarf Mistletoe. Also present is the only currently known population of the Few-Flowered Sedge in the state.

This Core Habitat includes a relatively large and unfragmented area of Northern Hardwoods Forest with a complement of Beech that is habitat for the Early Hairstreak butterfly. Within this forest are numerous streams, small rivers, and ponds that are important habitat features for other rare invertebrates such as the Beaver Pond Clubtail dragonfly, Ski-tailed Emerald dragonfly, and the Twelve-spotted Tiger Beetle. Much of this habitat is within the Dubuque Memorial State Forest. Nevertheless, conservation of remaining areas of unprotected land within this Core Habitat, especially to the northeast of the State Forest, is desirable to increase the amount of contiguous protected habitat and to help ensure the long-term viability of rare species inhabiting the area.

This Core Habitat encompasses many miles of high-gradient, coldwater brooks that provide habitat for Spring Salamanders. Mature mixed forests with vernal pools provide habitat for populations of Jefferson Salamanders.

Living Waters Core Habitat LW172 includes a section of Basin Brook which supports one of only two known population of Bridle Shiner in the Deerfield River Watershed. This fish Species of Special Concern has a small range from southern New England to South Carolina, and has been declining or been extirpated in much of the region. It feeds on small aquatic insects and other invertebrates, and is an important part of the freshwater ecosystem as prey for larger fishes. There is a diversity of underwater habitats in this brook, as the entirely native fish community consists of Brown Bullhead, Bridle Shiner, Common Shiner, and Brook Trout. Brown Bullhead and Bridle Shiner are found in quiet waters with aquatic vegetation. In contrast, the presence of the Common Shiner and

1 http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/land_protection/town_reports.htm.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-2

Brook Trout indicate that part of this Core Habitat contains flowing, colder waters with rocky substrates.

Living Waters Core Habitat LW301 is centered on the Deerfield River, and extends into the Chickley River and its tributaries. This Core Habitat supports the Longnose Sucker, a fish Species of Special Concern. This species is restricted to the western watersheds of Massachusetts, where it is found in cold, clean, oxygen-rich streams with gravel bottoms. The Longnose Sucker sometimes migrates many miles to reach its spawning grounds. The eggs are released over the gravel bottom, making them susceptible to excess sedimentation, flow alterations, and increases in water temperature. These habitat degradations can be particularly detrimental to the reproductive success of this slow- growing fish that does not reach maturity until 5 to 7 years of age. Protecting the riparian areas adjacent to this Core Habitat will help maintain the cool, clean freshwater habitat needed by the Longnose Sucker.

Three-fifths of the Chickley River corridor is designated a potential low yield aquifer and falls within the Rivers Protection Act 200 foot buffer zone so it is afforded some degree of protection through the local enforcement of the Wetlands Protection Act by the Conservation Commission. The balance of the aquifer in the watershed is not protected. There are three public wells in the watershed – one on the north end of Hallockville Pond and two in the village center of Charlemont. All are on lands which have been designated by the State as Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program areas. The Hallockville Pond well may also fall within the River Protection Act 200 foot buffer area.

Important wetlands are found in the headwaters areas of the Beaver Pond, Potash, Mill, and King Brook basins, a tributary to Tilton Brook, and the north end of Plainfield Pond. The wetlands on the Potash and Tilton Brooks and Plainfield Pond are protected in part because some of the wetland areas lie within permanently protected lands.

A.2 Land Use Characteristics and Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

The zoning for the Chickley watershed is Residential. According to the 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Map, the predominant land uses are forest, agriculture and residential with four commercial sites in the watershed. One is located in Charlemont on the Deerfield River, two are located on the Chickley River and King Brook in Hawley, and one is in Plainfield on Main Street. Approximately three-fifths of the land in the watershed is permanently protected.

There is one waste disposal site in the watershed (Savoy), four water supply sites (one each in Savoy and Hawley and two in Charlemont), one Tier II facility (hazardous materials storage) in Charlemont. There are fifteen bridges and numerous culverts. There is one recreation area at the north end of Hallockville Pond.

As indicated in Table 3-1, the predominant land use trend observed between 1971 and 1999 was the conversion of agricultural land and forested land to large lot residential development. Approximately 100 acres (99.1 acres) of land were converted to residential

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-3

use, primarily Approval Not Required (ANR) development along existing roads. The other pattern observed was the large increase in land described as Open Land, which includes abandoned agricultural land, power lines, and areas of no vegetation. Approximately 130 acres (127.90 acres) of Open Land were gained between 1971 and 1999.

Table 3-1 1999 MacConnell Land Use Statistics for the Chickley River Subwatershed2

Land Use Code Description 1971 Acres 1999 Acres Land Use Change 1971 - 1999 1 Cropland 289.74 279.97 -9.77 2 Pasture 552.88 448.24 -104.64 3 Forest 17,337.13 17,289.12 -48.01 4 Non-forested Wetlands 108.13 114.18 6.05 5 Mining 3.60 0.00 -3.60 6 Open Land 17.51 145.41 127.90 7 Participation Recreation 42.48 42.48 0.00 8 Spectator Recreation 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 Water-Based Recreation 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 Residential multi-family 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 Residential <.25 acre lot 2.62 2.62 0.00 12 Residential .25-.5 acre lot 0.51 0.51 0.00 13 Residential >.5 acre lot 201.84 301.65 99.81 15 Commercial 10.19 11.42 1.23 16 Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 17 Urban Open 8.40 22.77 14.37 18 Transportation 10.13 10.13 0.00 19 Waste Disposal 3.62 3.62 0.00 20 Water 128.82 123.58 -5.24 21 Woody Perennial 7.30 10.68 3.38

In reviewing the maps, it appears that the land use changes, particularly as they relate to residential, commercial and agricultural development, were away from the edges of the rivers in the uplands. There is considerable residential and agricultural development along the lower portions of the Chickley River and Potash Brook. Most of this development was prior to 1970.

Field Verification

On April 20, 2005 staff from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments conducted a windshield survey of the Chickley River subwatershed to field verify the land use map and collect additional data, such as pictures and GPS way points for potential sources of nonpoint pollution. FRCOG staff recorded 31 waypoints and took 54 pictures during the windshield survey. A list of the waypoints and the locations of the waypoints are shown on the Field Verification map. Several potential sources of nonpoint pollution were identified during the windshield survey.

2 Source: MassGIS Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-4

Rice Oil Facility

This site is located adjacent to the Deerfield River, within the 200-foot buffer zone (GPS Waypoint 01). There were propane tanks stored on an elevated porch, above ground storage tanks and a paved access road and parking lot. Potential contaminants include stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces and above-ground storage tanks. Although the site is located next to a main road (Rte. 8A), the site is surrounded by a chain link fence and barbed wire, which would discourage vandals and unauthorized access to the site.

River and Stream Crossings

Several stream crossings identified during the windshield survey were added to the map. As the pictures indicate, the crossings were culverts of various sizes. The crossings were on tributaries of the Chickley River and the river itself. Typically, the drainage from the roadway flowed directly into the stream. There also appear to be issues with the size and location of the culverts which may pose an impediment to fish or animal passage. The locations of the culverts identified during the windshield survey are shown on the Field

GPS Waypoint 05. GPS Waypoint 17. Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-5

Verification map. The mapping identified 44 stream crossings not associated with a bridge in the MassHighway database. The majority of the crossings identified on the map are within state forest land, which could not be accessed by vehicle during the windshield survey. Nine culverts were located during the windshield survey and their locations were pinpointed using GPS.

GPS Waypoint 13. GPS Waypoint 14.

Auto Junkyards

At two locations, junk cars were observed within the 200-foot riparian buffer. One large junkyard is located on the banks of the Deerfield River and is shown in the photo, below (GPS Waypoint 03). As indicated in the picture, there is also a small unnamed tributary to the Deerfield River that flows through the junkyard.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-6

A junk car was also observed on the banks of Mill Brook, a tributary of the Chickley River. The GPS waypoint for this location is 08. Also of note is the lack of riparian buffer on both sides of the brook and the road runoff entering the brook.

Agriculture and Livestock Grazing

Within the Chickley River subwatershed, there are many areas within the 200-foot riparian buffer where cows and horses are pastured. One area was observed where the livestock had direct access to an unnamed tributary of the Chickley River. The GPS waypoint for this location is 23.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-7

Other areas which appeared to be in agricultural use had little or no riparian buffer. The fields were mown, or possibly livestock kept the vegetation low, right down to the river. GPS waypoints for these locations were: 018 and 024. In the picture, below, note also the lack of riparian buffer adjacent to the road.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-8

Significant Areas of Erosion

Most of the vegetated riparian areas observed during the windshield survey appeared relatively stable. One notable exception was a very steep, eroding bank located on the Chickley River in West Hawley (GPS waypoint 26).

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-9

Construction Stockpiles

MassHighway was in the process of replacing the bridge at the junction of Pudding Hollow Road and Rte. 8A where these roads cross the Chickley River (see picture below). Less than one mile from the construction site was a small stretch of abandoned road adjacent to Route 8A where several large stockpiles of excavated soil and old asphalt (GPS waypoints 015 and 016) have been dumped. The stockpiles are within the 200 foot buffer of the Chickley River and one of its tributaries. These stockpiles are not contained, e.g., there is no silt fencing or hay bales to prevent sediment-laden runoff from reaching the water. See also the pictures on the following page.

Rte. 8A is to the left. Tributary runs to the left of the stockpile and under Rte. 8A. GPS Waypoint 15.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-10

Picture taken from stockpile looking back towards Route 8A. The tributary and the box culvert which crosses under Route 8A and carries the tributary to the Chickley River can be seen on the right. GPS Waypoint 16.

The box culvert that empties into the Chickley River. GPS Waypoint 17.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-11

Road Runoff

The major road that traverses the Chickley River subwatershed is state route 8A, which runs in a north/south direction. Route 8A winds through a deeply incised river valley connecting the towns of Charlemont, Hawley and Plainfield. The road runs right alongside the Chickley River from Charlemont to West Hawley, crossing the river at least 15 times over the course of approximately 7 miles. In West Hawley, the road crosses the Chickley River one last time and then follows alongside King Brook, a tributary of the Chickley River. Rte. 8A crosses King Brook several times. Other smaller roads in the watershed, such as Middle Mill Road and Pudding Hollow Road, also run alongside tributaries of the Chickley River.

Road runoff can be a significant source of nonpoint pollution in the form of sand and sediment, road salt, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Because of the steep, hilly topography of the watershed, Rte. 8A lies within the 200-foot riparian buffer of the Chickley River and King Brook. There is little to no vegetated buffer between the road and the river. Drainage from the road, especially at bridge crossings, typically flows directly into the river.

Road runoff by Plainfield Pond. GPS Waypoint 31.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-12

This bridge crosses the Chickley River right at its confluence with the Deerfield River. Runoff from traffic crossing the bridge can easily reach both rivers. Note the railroad tracks in the immediate background. GPS Waypoint 02.

Industrial Buildings

The Town of Hawley highway barns are located within the 200-foot buffer of the Chickley River. This facility has above ground storage tanks for diesel and gasoline. The highway equipment is stored in the two large garage facilities and a smaller shed.

Highway barn – three-bay garage. GPS Waypoint 19.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-13

Highway barn – large garage and small storage shed. GPS Waypoint 19.

Trash and Debris

Trash by Plainfield Pond. GPS Waypoint 31.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-14

Old railroad ties left by river’s edge. Deerfield River near confluence with the Chickley River.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-15

Sand and Gravel Operations

There is a large sand pit in Hawley in King Corners along King Brook (GPS Waypoint 12).

Development

Water is a wonderful amenity for residential development. However, homes and other buildings and septic systems need to be at least 200 feet from the river or pond and the buffer zone between the buildings and water body should be well vegetated with trees and shrubs to reduce any runoff.

Cottage on Plainfield Pond with limited buffer and within 200 feet of the lake. GPS Waypoint 31. Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-16

House on Plainfield Pond.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-17

Stream Team Field Work and Assessments

Five stream segments in the Chickley River subwatershed were evaluated by Stream Team volunteers. The following discussion is arranged by segment, beginning upstream and working downstream to the confluence of the Chickley and Deerfield Rivers, and describes the conditions observed by the volunteers, including instream and riparian conditions, wildlife and habitat, and potential sources of nonpoint pollution. The references to river right and river left banks are used for consistency among the Stream Teams and assume the observer is facing downstream.

Segment CR1 – Savoy Town Line to West Hawley Road

This segment of the river is characterized by big boulders, some cobbles, sand and gravel. The water was clear and the banks had dead trees and other overhanging branches. The volunteers noted vernal pools between the river and road. Downstream of the confluence of a tributary with the Chickley, the river widens and the flow is still rapid. The depth of the water was approximately 1 foot, with a few pools that were 2-3 feet deep. The banks in this section are wooded and trees were falling into the water due to eroding river banks. Downstream of the bridge, a fallen deciduous tree spans the entire river and many (50+) trees were falling over river, including birches.

Volunteers identified several pipes and trash dump locations, which are shown on the Stream Team segment map. A drainage pipe/culvert (P-1) crosses the road and empties into the river from the river right bank. There is a high embankment, approximately 20 feet above the stream. The left bank is gradual to steep with 10-30 feet of wooded area. Trash (T-1) was located on the right bank approximately 40 feet downstream from the culvert.

A barn was noted near the river, likely within the 200-foot riparian buffer zone, and volunteers saw several donkeys and goats. Further downstream, volunteers found a second pipe (P-2) and another trash dump site (T-2), which was a small meadow where tires, metal, wood scraps were dumped.

At L-1, volunteers saw a pile of logs, which indicated recent logging activity. Further downstream, the first patch of the invasive exotic plant, Japanese knotweed was seen (In- 1). From this location downstream to the end of the segment, small areas of knotweed were found. Knotweed was also seen on the river right bank just after the bridge and on land at the top of the river left bank before King Brook joins the Chickley River (In-2).

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-18

Segment CR2 West Hawley Road/Savoy Road to Forge Hill Road

Volunteers noted that the flow in this segment of the river is rapid and the water is clear and approximately 1+ foot deep. The river’s substrate is sandy with many rocks.

The volunteers only noted two problems with this segment. The first was some scattered trash on the sides of the road and two culverts (P-1 and P-2), which carry water from an unnamed tributary underneat h Rte. 8 and into the Chickley River. There was some debris blocking the P-1 culvert and the volunteers noted the water had foam and a questionable odor, possibly ammonia. The downstream ends of these culverts are perched, which pose a barrier to fish and wildlife migration.

Segment CR4 Trout Brook Road to Pudding Hollow Road

Volunteers described this segment as having “many twists and turns” with the river following alongside Rte. 8A for a good portion of the segment. The water flows rapidly and is clear in this segment with quite a bit of brown algae on the bottom of rocks, particularly at the edges. The only green algae noted was in no flow areas on side canals created as a result of the eroding banks. Volunteers observed trout and suckers 2-6” in length, minnows, frogs, aquatic insects, and deer.

Volunteers noted that this section of the river has experienced significant bank erosion due to heavy rains in 2005. The volunteers noted at least two washouts of Rte 8A, which is within the 200-foot riparian buffer for most of the length of this segment. Repairs to the road were made using rip-rap. Japanese Knotweed is abundant along the river banks in this segment, particularly in the recently stabilized/repaired sections along Rte. 8A.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-19

The following pictures were taken at the locations shown on the Stream Team Segment map.

Location 1 – Looking Downstream Location 2 – Culvert

Location 3 – Culvert Location 4 – Trout Brook

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-20

Location 5 – Looking Downstream Location 6 – Note Japanese Knotweed

Location 7 Location 8 – Repairs to Rte. 8A

Location 9 – Repairs to Rte. 8A Location 10

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-21

Location 11 – Logging ford Location 12 – Severe bank erosion

Location 13 – Gravel bars deposited during Location 14 – Gravel bar deposition and Japanese 2005 floods. Knotweed.

Location 15 – Side channel and green algae Location 16 – Tributary emptying in Chickley

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-22

Location 17 – Tributary emptying into the Location 18 – Fallen trees Chickley

Location 19 – Fallen trees Location 20 – Logging ford

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-23

Location 21 – Erosion Location 22 – Japanese Knotweed

Location 23 Location 24 – Bank erosion

Location 25 – Looking downstream towards Location 26 – Pudding Hollow Bridge the Pudding Hollow Bridge

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-24

Location 27 – Looking downstream from the Pudding Hollow Bridge

Segment CR5 Pudding Hollow Road to Rte. 8A Bridge

With the exception of the banks near the Pudding Hollow bridge, which are covered with riprap, nearly all of the remainder of the river banks have trees and grasses. The volunteers observed two river crossings (fords), which have been/are being used to get farm equipment from one side of the river to the other side. Portions of this segment of the river run close to Rte. 8A.

The volunteers found 4 pipes in this segment of the Chickley River, all of which were in good condition and no odors were detected from the clear water that was discharging from the pipes. There are 8 houses, including two farms (F-1 and F-2), located near the river on the river left bank. Most of the houses have out-buildings. A sugar house is located on one farm. Cows were seen in the river at the northern end of the segment, upstream of a local swimming hole near the Rte. 8A bridge (see Water Quality Monitoring Program section for further discussion).

Segment CR6 Rte. 8A Bridge – Deerfield River

This segment flows briskly through farmland, with several pools and small riffles between wide, shallower, cobble-strewn areas. Most of the bank is heavily wooded, with a pasture on the right at the upper end of the segment and a cleared steep left bank at a residence on the lower end of the segment. Volunteers observed aquatic insects, frogs, salamanders, ducks, mergansers, Canada geese, trillium, Jack-in-the-pulpit, and Columbine.

Volunteers identified five pipes in this segment. Two of the pipes, P-1 and P-5, were partially clogged with silt. It was noted that the railroad trestle at the confluence of the Deerfield River poses a threat of contaminated runoff from the yearly herbicide spraying that is done to keep vegetation off of the track bed. The buffer zone along this area is very small. It was also noted that the river right bank along at least half of the segment Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-25

was eroded and undercut. Japanese knotweed is prolific throughout segment, especially on the river right bank. At South Chickley Road, a petroleum sheen was noted in pools on the right bank of the river where it runs closest to 8A (road runoff?). Although most of the bank is heavily wooded, there is a large pasture on the river right in the upper portion of the segment and a cleared steep river left bank near a new residence just above the confluence with the Deerfield River. Three bridges provide access to the river from Route 8A, South Chickley Road and Tower Road. Several areas along the river are old farm dumping sites comprised mainly of large scrap metal. However, these sites appear to have been abandoned.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-26

Table 3.2 Stream Team Pipe Survey Results for the Chickley River Pipe Material and Pipe Size and Odor of Algae Sediment Segment ID Pipe # Time Color of Flow Comments? Condition Amount of Flow Flow Below Pipe Below Pipe Foam questionable, other side Large Boulders, Maybe large board can get through CH #2 P-1 1:23 pm 2” deep, rapid flow Clear No No Good Shape Ammonia other side Rt 8 bottom of driveway; should be checked Corrugated Metal, 18”, Constant Sand, gravel CH #4 P-1 10:30 am Clear None No Good Shape Moderate Flow at outflow Concrete, Good 48”, Constant Light Sand, gravel CH #4 P-2 10:45 am Clear None No Trout Brook entry – No Trout! Shape Flow at outflow Green CH #5 P-1 10:45 am Good Concrete Approx. 18” Clear None growth coat None Location 200’ upstream of F1 rocks Saw little Close to F1 & Farm at CH #5 P-2 10:50 am Good Concrete Approx. 54” Clear None None growth mailbox #28 Good Stone and About 24” Pipe, CH #5 P-3 11:10 am Clear None Grasses None Near mailbox #48 Concrete trace of water Never saw About 15” with 1” About 75” south of mailbox CH #5 P-4 11:10 am No stone just pipe Clear None Grasses river end of of water #76 pipe Yes, sand Steel Pipe, Good Should be cleaned. Left side CH #6 P-1 Dry, 18” No 1/3 pipe Shape of 8A past bridge silted Yes, leaves Steel Pipe, Good Constant rusty bed, Water clear CH #6 P-2 None No 1” of pipe Shape 12” but base rusty filled Steel Pipe, Good CH #6 P-3 Constant Flow, 4’ Clear None No No Shape Steel, Rusty but Yes, 1” of CH #6 P-4 Dry, 20” No sound pipe silted Steel, Rusty but Constant slow Yes, 1/3 of Should be cleaned, 8A left CH #6 P-5 Clear None No sound flow, 14” pipe silted side past sugarhouse

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-27

Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program

Between June 12 and September 15, 2005, staff from the Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA) and three volunteers sampled for E. coli bacteria during three wet and three dry-weather events at each of the six screening-level sampling locations along the Chickley River (see map). The results for the Chickley River indicated that 6 of 18 wet-weather samples and 2 of 18 dry-weather samples violated the 235 MPN standard (Table 3-3). Among all of the 18 sample sites, only Chickley River sites CHR-003 and CHR-004 had no violations during any sampling events. Both wet and dry-weather bacteria data in the Chickley River indicate that one or more bacteria sources occur upstream of CHR-002 (Table 3-3, Figure 3-1). Interestingly, neither wet nor dry sampling consistently showed elevated E. coli concentrations at these sites. Several possibilities may explain this occurrence, including varying degrees of use of the stream channel by livestock in the reach above CHR-002 and/or timing of sample collection relative to flushing of bacteria into the river during wet weather events. The Chickley River also showed elevated E. coli counts at the two most upriver sites, CHR-005 and CHR-006, during a single wet-weather sampling event.

Table 3-3 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River

2005 Sampling Date Site 6/12 7/6* 7/13 7/31* 8/13* 8/14 8/28* 9/15* CHR-001 927.8 715.4 216.0 n/s 201.4 41.0 458.1 n/s CHR-002 631.0 1588.6 110.0 n/s 178.7 77.1 564.6 n/s CHR-003 7.4 85.7 15.4 n/s 70 23.1 50.4 n/s CHR-004 15.5 172.3 9.7 n/s 42.6 16.6 25.5 n/s CHR-005 9.8 866.4 9.7 n/s 44.8 4.1 11.0 n/s CHR-006 12.2 >2419.6 13.1 n/s 72.2 24.3 71.2 n/s

Notes: Numbers reported are the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli colonies per 100 ml of sample water. Numbers in bold violate the state water quality standard of 235 E. coli per 100 ml. Site codes in bold are those that had water quality standard violations during at least one sampling event. n/s = not sampled on that date. * = Rain events

In 2006, DRWA staff and three volunteers attempted to bracket the potential source of E.coli detected in the lower reach of the Chickley River. Fifteen samples were collected from three sites – sites CHR-001 and CHR-002, occurring below the suspected source of elevated 2005 bacteria levels (cattle with free access to the river), and CHR-002A, occurring just above this suspected source. Three of the fifteen samples collected violated the single sample E. coli water quality standard of 235 MPN per 100 ml (Table 3-4, Figure 3-2). All three of these samples were collected at sites CHR-001 or CHR- 002. E. coli never exceeded 31 MPN at site 2A, resulting in effective isolation of the suspected bacteria source between CHR-002 and CHR-002A. Based on the 2006 results, a farm in Hawley was identified as the likely source of E.coli bacteria in the Chickley River, a finding confirmed by many sightings of cattle wading in the river at this location.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-28

This is a concern due to the recreational use of the river, which includes fishing and swimming at the downstream swimming hole.

Table 3-4 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River

2006 Sampling Date Site 6/17/2006 6/23/2006 7/8/2006 7/21/2006 8/6/2006 8/19/2006 9/9/2006 CHR-001 728.4 61.6 201.4 69.7 15.8 n/s n/s CHR-002 686.7 65.7 2420 136 25.9 n/s n/s CHR-002A 13.5 14 30.9 20.6 18.5 n/s n/s

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-29

Figure 3-1 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River Chickley River E. coli 2005

2500 0.6

0.5 2000

0.4 Rain Amount (inches) CHR-001

1500 CHR-002 CHR-003 0.3 CHR-004 CHR-005 1000 CHR-006 MPN (per 100 ml) 0.2 Rain A mt

500 0.1

0 0.0 6/12/2005 7/6/2005 7/13/2005 8/13/2005 8/14/2005 8/28/2005

Figure 3-2 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the Chickley River

Chickley River E. coli 2006

1000 CHR-001 900 CHR-002 800 CHR-002A 700 600 500 400

MPN (perMPN 100 ml) 300 Water quality 200 standard 100 0 6/17/2006 6/23/2006 7/7/2006 8/6/2006 8/19/2006

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-30

B. SOUTH RIVER WATERSHED

The South River watershed is located south of the Deerfield River in the Towns of Ashfield and Conway. The South River flows east meeting the Deerfield River a few miles downstream of Shelburne Falls. The watershed is 26.1 square miles in size.

In 2000, Ashfield and Conway, each of which includes about half of the watershed, had 1,800 and 1809 residents respectively. The two towns are zoned rural residential, except for a part of Conway Center, which is zoned for commercial development.

B.1 Natural Resources

Much of the South River watershed is mountainous and forested with slopes greater than 25%. Areas identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as Priority Habitats of Rare Species, and/or Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife include: the entire South River from Ashfield Lake to its confluence with the Deerfield River, Creamery Brook in Ashfield, Poland Brook and its tributary Chapel Brook in both towns, and Pumpkin Hollow, Johnny Bean and Nye Brooks in Conway. About one-fifth of the land in the watershed is permanently protected.

About a seventh of the watershed (the southeastern portion) has been designated by the NHESP as BioMap Core Habitat. Of the 23 potential vernal pools in the watershed, none are in the BioCore area of Conway and Ashfield or on protected lands. Portions of the South River and Poland, Chapel and Nye Brooks run through permanently protected lands, e.g. South River State Forest, and the upper sections of the Nye and Johnny Bean Brooks are designated as Biocore. Almost all of the Core Habitat in the South River watershed is in Conway. These areas are located in the southeast quadrant, north central section, and northeast portion of the watershed. Below, is a summary description of these areas. The State’s Bio Map and Living Waters web site gives more detailed information.3 The core habitat areas are shown on the Natural Resources map.

Biomap Core Habitat BM490 is found at the confluence of the South River with the lower Deerfield River. It encompasses many riverine communities and its riverside and upland habitats support Wood Turtles and a diversity of rare plant species, such as the unusual Green Dragon.

Core Habitat BM562 and BM593 contain a section of the South River and its adjacent uplands. This area provides key habitat for the Beaver Pond Clubtail dragonfly, and it encompasses an area of good-quality Rich, Mesic Forest that provides moist woodland habitat for springtime plants.

3 http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/land_protection/town_reports.htm

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-31

Mesic Forests are a variant of northern hardwood forests dominated by Sugar Maple with a diverse herbaceous layer and many spring ephemerals, unusual plants that appear only in spring and thrive in a moist, nutrient-rich environment. Here the mature forest is free of invasive exotic species and is of good quality. Although the woods in Core Habitat BM593 are poorly buffered and have a long history of logging, they are relatively free of invasive exotic species.

Core Habitat BM 562 includes a 2-km stretch of the South River and associated wetlands and uplands that are important habitat for the Beaver Pond Clubtail dragonfly. The surrounding landscape is forested and for the most part unfragmented, which protects the waterways from pollution. Except for a small area within the Poland Brook Wildlife Management Area, most of the Beaver Pond Clubtail's habitat here appears to be unprotected.

Living Waters Core Habitats LW024, LW061, and LW117 in the upper reaches of the South River, Creamery Brook and Poland Brook and its tributaries, and lower South River and its tributaries support the Longnose Sucker, a fish Species of Special Concern. This species is restricted to the western watersheds of Massachusetts, where it is found in cold, clean, oxygen-rich streams with gravel bottoms. The Longnose Sucker sometimes migrates many miles to reach its spawning grounds. The eggs are released over the gravel bottom, making them susceptible to excess sedimentation, flow alterations, and increases in water temperature. These habitat degradations can be particularly detrimental to the reproductive success of this slow-growing fish that does not reach maturity until 5 to 7 years of age. Protecting the riparian areas adjacent to this Core Habitat will help maintain the cool, clean freshwater habitat of the Longnose Sucker.

Most of the South River and Poland Brook corridors are designated as potential low-yield aquifer and fall within the River Protection Act 200 foot buffer zone and/or, Natural Heritage Areas, which offer them a measure of protection, or are on permanently protected lands. The aquifers in Ashfield Center and trisected by Hill Road, Steady Lane, and North Hill Road in Ashfield have no protection. Also, sections of aquifer in Conway Center and along Reeds Bridge and Graves Road are unprotected. There are eight public wells in the watershed – three in northwest Ashfield, three in the village center of Conway, and two just west of Conway Center. None are on protected lands although the three in Conway Center are within designated State Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program areas and the River Protection Act 200 foot buffer area. Two of the Ashfield public wells are within the River Protection Act buffer zone.

Important wetlands are found at the headwaters areas of the Chapel Brook and Twining Brook Pond in southern Ashfield and a tributary of Creamery Brook in western Ashfield. In Conway, there are important wetlands near Main Poland and North Poland Roads, south and west of Maple and Whately Roads, and at the end of Newhall Road. Parts of Twining Brook Pond wetlands lie within permanently protected lands. There are 23 potential vernal pools and 1 certified vernal pool in the South River watershed.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-32

B.2 Land Use Characteristics and Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

According to the 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Map, the predominant land uses are forest, agriculture and residential. Both Conway Center and Ashfield Center have commercial sites on their main streets (Route 116). Also, there is a small section of Ives Road in Conway that is commercial.

There are three Tier II facilities in the town centers – two in Ashfield and one in Conway, a 21E Hazardous Waste site in Conway Center, a sand and gravel mine in Ashfield. Also, there are thirty-four bridges and numerous culverts in the watershed.

Ashfield and Conway have four recreation areas located in their town centers – Ashfield has one near Ashfield Lake and another just north of Main Street and east of the lake; Conway has its “Pool” (a small manmade lake) and recreational fields and tennis courts between Route 116 and Academy Hill Road.

As indicated in Table 3-5, the predominant land use trend observed between 1971 and 1999 was the conversion of agricultural and forested lands to large lot residential development. Approximately 600 acres (603.7 acres) were converted to residential use, primarily Approval Not Required (ANR) development along existing roads, a number of which parallel the rivers, e.g. Route 116, Shelburne Falls Road, Whately Road.

The other pattern observed was the increase in land described as Open Land. Approximately 148 acres (148.86 acres) of Open Land were gained between 1971 and 1999. Table 3-5 Land Use Statistics for the South River Subwatershed

Land Use Code Description 1971 Acres 1999 Acres Land Use Change 1971 - 1999 1 Cropland 1,554.18 1,310.27 -243.91 2 Pasture 959.83 769.26 -190.56 3 Forest 13,042.91 12,873.68 -169.23 4 Non-forested Wetland 176.52 171.24 -5.28 5 Mining 17.94 10.77 -7.17 6 Open Land 227.02 375.89 148.86 7 Participation Rec 13.42 13.42 0.00 8 Spectator Rec 0.00 9 Water-Based Rec 5.02 5.02 0.00 10 Residential multi-fam 4.80 4.80 0.00 11 Residential <.25 acre lot 0.00 12 Residential .25-.5 acre lot 84.26 88.37 4.11 13 Residential >.5 acre lot 492.12 922.37 430.25 15 Commercial 26.89 35.93 9.05 16 Industrial 1.45 1.45 17 Urban Open 35.68 46.02 10.34 18 Transportation 0.00 19 Waste Disposal 0.00 20 Water 47.82 47.82 0.00 21 Woody Perennial 6.48 18.58 12.10

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-33

Residential, agricultural and commercial land use changes took place equally along rivers and in the uplands of Ashfield and Conway. Most of the 430 acres of farm and forest land became new homes on large lots and small subdivisions on back lot development.

Field Verification

On November 8, 2005 staff from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments conducted a windshield survey of the South River watershed to field verify the land use map and collect additional data, such as pictures and GPS way points for potential sources of nonpoint pollution. FRCOG staff recorded 37 waypoints and took 42 pictures during the windshield survey. A list of the waypoints and the locations of the waypoints are shown on the Field Verification map. Several potential sources of nonpoint pollution were identified during the windshield survey.

River and Stream Crossings

Several stream crossings identified during the windshield survey were added to the map. As the pictures indicate, the crossings included bridges and culverts of various sizes. The crossings were on tributaries of the South River and the river itself. Often, the drainage from the roadway flowed directly into the waterbody.

Bardwell’s Ferry Bridge. GPS waypoint 1.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-34

Bridge and farm on Poland Road. GPS waypoint 27.

Covered bridge - Conway Center. GPS waypoint 21.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-35

Upstream end of culvert on Whately Road. GPS waypoint 18.

Downstream end of culvert on Whately Road. GPS waypoint 18.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-36

Close-up of culvert on Maple Street. Note the sedimentation and eroded areas. GPS waypoint 12.

Culvert on Maple Street. GPS waypoint 12.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-37

Culvert - Shelburne Falls Road. GPS waypoint 6.

Pipes discharging to the South River in Conway Center at Sunoco Station. Note also the sediment deposition in the river. GPS waypoint 38.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-38

Route 116 – new culvert. GPS waypoint 25.

Auto Repair & Junkyards

Junk cars, trucks and equipment on river. The GPS waypoint 33.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-39

Road Runoff

The major road that traverses the South River subwatershed is state route 116, which runs in an east/west direction. For almost its entire length through the watershed, Rte. 116 lies within the 200 foot buffer of the South River. Most of the other smaller roads in the watershed also lie within the 200 foot buffer of the tributaries of the South River. In many locations, there is little or no vegetated buffer between the roads and the river. Drainage from the roads, especially at bridge crossings, typically flows directly into the river.

Road runoff discharging to the South River in Conway Center near Sunoco Station. GPS waypoint 38.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-40

Route 116 – construction. GPS waypoint 25.

Commercial Buildings

The Town of Conway highway barn/fire department and a gas station are located within the 200-foot buffer of the South River.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-41

Parking lot of Sunoco station in Conway Center. GPS waypoint 38.

Sunoco station in Conway Center right on riverbank. GPS waypoint 38.

Trash and Debris

Litter and trash is a source of nonpoint pollution in rivers and streams. Illegal disposal of trash often occurs in remote areas and areas where people have access to the water body for recreation or in rest areas along the road.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-42

Dump site for tires (South River State Forest). GPS waypoint 3.

Dumping (South River State Forest. GPS waypoint 4.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-43

Sand and Gravel Operations

Baptist Corner gravel operation. GPS waypoint 32.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-44

Route 116 -- Gravel pile. GPS waypoint 24.

Wastewater Disposal Sites

1 Ashfield Wastewater Treatment Plant. Treated effluent is discharged to the groundwater. GPS waypoint 31.

Development

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-45

New house - Whately Road. GPS waypoint 17.

New house road/driveway excavation Shelburne Falls Road. GPS waypoint 9.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-46

Culvert for new house driveway Shelburne Falls Road. GPS waypoint 9.

New house on Bardswell Ferry Road. GPS waypoint 10.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-47

Development - house site being developed above South River on Bardswell Ferry Road. GPS waypoint 5.

Significant Erosion

During the windshield survey FRCOG staff noted several areas of significant erosion on the South River. One area could be seen from the Shelburne Falls Road from the village center to just beyond the turn off onto Bardswell Ferry Road. Another series of erosion sites can be seen from Route 116 west of Conway Center. The third area of erosion is off West Road in Ashfield. High, steep banks on the South River with significant erosion can be seen at various spots from Route 116.

Erosion on river bank (large area) - Route 116. GPS waypoint 26.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-48

Silt built up on river bank (erosion) off Shelburne Falls Road. GPS waypoint 14.

Photo taken from the Shelburne Falls Road north of Conway Center. This section of the South River is very flashy and has significant erosion for a number of miles. GPS 7.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-49

Erosion site near river on South River State Forest Road. GPS waypoint 2.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-50

Erosion off West Road.

Agriculture & Livestock Grazing

According to the 1999 MacConnell land use data, the largely rural South River watershed contains approximately 2,000 acres of cropland and pasture land. Most of this land, which is still being actively farmed or used as pasture for horses on “gentleman’s farms”, is found in the river valleys of the watershed. As a result, large blocks of farmland are located within the 200-foot riparian buffer. Oftentimes, the riparian buffer is absent or very little of the buffer remains.

House and horses on Whately Road near stream. GPS waypoint 15.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-51

Farm on river bank (cows & equipment). GPS waypoint 9.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-52

Natural Roots CSA farm. Erosion as a consequence of major flooding. GPS waypoint 9.

Farm off Route 116 in Ashfield. GPS waypoint 29.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-53

“Gentleman's farm”- Note lack of riparian buffer and livestock access to water GPS waypoint 28.

Farm off Route 116 in Ashfield. GPS waypoint 29.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-54

Tree farm on Baptist Corner Road in Ashfield.

Horse farm on West Road. GPS waypoint 37.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-55

Stream Team Field Work and Assessments

Fourteen (14) stream segments in the South River subwatershed were evaluated by Stream Team volunteers. The following discussion is arranged by segment, beginning upstream and working downstream to the confluence of the South and Deerfield Rivers, and describes the conditions observed by the volunteers, including instream and riparian conditions, wildlife and habitat, and potential sources of nonpoint pollution. The references to river right and river left banks are used for consistency among the Stream Teams and assume the observer is facing downstream.

Segment SR1 – Ashfield Lake to Bronson Avenue

Located near the headwaters of the South River, this segment averages approximately 5- 12 feet wide and, depending on the gradient, from a few inches to a few feet deep. It is characterized by a pool/drop configuration between Bronson Avenue and Buckland Road, with bottom the substrate composed primarily of gravel and cobble in higher gradient riffles and gravel and sand in the slower pools.

The volunteer reported that overall, this section seemed to be in remarkably good condition. Approximately 70 Eastern Brook Trout were observed, most were approximately 3 inches in length (young of the year) but over a dozen were 5”-8” in length. The volunteer also saw 3 Brown Trout, 2 Rainbow Trout, and 3 – 5 spawning beds, as evidenced by paired brown trout.

The volunteer noted that almost all of the pipes in this segment seemed to be storm/drainage overflow and the water was “clean and clear.” The one exception was noted on the pipe survey. Some hubcaps, pipes, bottle and other trash were observed in the stream. There was one area that was noted as potentially problematic. Immediately upstream of the Buckland Road bridge, the river is channeled underground through a culvert that passes approximately 100 yards through the backyards of several residential structures. A recent storm destroyed the downstream end of the culvert, blowing out a large hole in the earth immediately above the bridge. Upstream of the bridge was completely blocked by rocky flood debris, which could potentially be a serious flood hazard. This area is served by town sewer and the river is mostly channelized as it flows through the center of the Town of Ashfield. Both sides of the river have extensive fill. A pumping station for the wastewater treatment facility is located in this segment, on the river left, just upstream of the Bronson Avenue bridge.

Segment SR8 – Hill Road, Ashfield to North Poland Road, Conway

Volunteers reported that this segment of the river is characterized by shallow, clear water with a substrate of gravel and cobbles with occasional silt. Except for one broad-winged hawk and one minnow, no animal life was seen but footprints of beaver, raccoons, turkeys and deer were in the silt along the banks.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-56

The volunteers noted several areas in this segment that have no riparian buffer, resulting in sections of the river which have little or no shading. While most of the banks are vegetated with overhanging trees, riprap and lawns were also observed within the 200-foot riparian buffer area. Recent storms have caused the river to alter its course, in one area washing out a pond created by beavers and in another area, eroding within 50 feet of a house on the outside of a meander (see picture above, Map Location #1). Volunteers also observed dense stands of invasive honeysuckle shrubs and multi-flora rose, which occupy the shore and steep slopes. Patches of Japanese Knotweed are seen in most sunny spots and goutweed was everywhere. For this segment, the volunteers estimated that approximately one quarter of the river’s banks are forested, one half are separated from upland pastures and lawn by narrow riparian woodland belts, and along the remaining banks, Rte. 116 runs very close to the river (Map location #2).

Segments SR9 and SR10 – North Poland Road to Rte. 116 Bridge

This is a “wild” segment of the South River which can be seen for almost its entire length from Rte 116 when the deciduous foliage is absent. The river drops 80 feet in less than one mile so most of the river’s course is riffles and rapids between and over large boulders. In several places the river’s width expands to 50-60 feet. Except for some roadside riprap, a large slide on the river right bank, and two sunny meanders of cobble, the entire segment is shaded by forest on both banks and beyond. The river right bank rises 80 feet and more so the river is shaded by forest-coated hills especially during the winter months. Although no evidence of fish, animals or birds were noticed, this is an untrammeled section of river which is occasionally invaded by the sounds and glimpses of vehicles. The water in this segment is clear, although the volunteers noted the

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-57

proximity of Rte. 116 and their concern about contaminated runoff (road salt and petroleum products). The volunteers noted that this segment has two potential recreational access points, at either end of the segment. The deep pool east of the North Poland Bridge and other areas in the segment would be nice for swimming on a warm summer day. Volunteers noted that as a result of the October 2005 floods, the river had changed its course upstream of the Rte. 116 bridge (see the series of photos, below).

Map Location 3 – View looking North. Note flood debris and sediment deposition.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-58

Map Location 4 – View looking North. Note sediment deposition, gravel bars, downed trees

Map Location 13 – New river course

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-59

Note eroding bank and slumping/sliding trees

Segment SR12 – Hickory Ridge Road to Eldridge Road

The river flows rapidly and mostly unimpeded through this section. Generally, the river seems in to be healthy, with many sand bars, gravel bottom, and a reasonable amount of shade. The volunteers noted a diverse assemblage of riparian vegetation, including: Hemlocks, Sugar Maples, Ashes, Red Maples, Red Oaks, Cherries, White Pines, Beeches, Yellow Birches, Sycamores, Grape Vines, False Solomon Seal, Cattails, Pippsisewa, Gaultheria, Whitchhazel, and Christmas Fern.

Volunteers observed that the river right bank just south of the Hickory Ridge Road bridge is heavily eroded, but the tree and shrub roots are helping to keep some of the bank soil in place. The riparian buffer along Hickory Ridge Road ranges from narrow to practically nonexistent. It was noted that the bank erosion continues downstream, with large gravel bar deposits and other evidence of the October 2005 floods. For example, at the end of this segment, the river cut a new, straighter course which cut off a meander bend. This segment also is characterized by extensive Bordering Vegetative Wetlands. The river left bank is mostly forested and the river right bank is adjacent to mostly open/mowed fields. Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-60

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-61

Volunteers indicated that there are two sites of concern. The first site is an orange, fetid stream flowing into the right bank of the river just upstream of the dam where the river passes under Rte. 116. This outflow seems to be groundwater discharge associated with an oxbow of the South River. There are no homes or old building sites within hundreds of feet of the orange discharge.

The second site is a culvert (P-3 on the map) which crosses under Rte. 116. The flow from this culvert is clean and has no odor. However, the outflow from the culvert causing significant bank erosion and causing erosion and sedimentation downstream as well as potentially threatening the stability of Rte. 116.

Invasive plants observed by volunteers included: Multiflora Rose and Lonicera maaki along right bank just downstream of Hickory Ridge Road, Oriental Bittersweet in trees along the river left bank, Smilax in various locations.

Segment SR13 – Elkridge Road to the Covered Bridge

This segment of the river substrate is comprised primarily of gravel and cobble with some sand and boulders along the edges. The gradient of the stream changes slowly and the water is clear and no odors or discoloration were observed along this entire segment. Water depth ranged from 1-3 feet and was a mix of short riffles and shallow pools. In a few areas along this segment, there were either animal and/or human trails that followed the river. Volunteers observed numerous foot prints and some scat from wildlife and pets walking the river corridor, including raccoon, deer, birds, dogs and possible moose, mink, coyote, turkey and pheasant. Birds observed along this segment have included herons and kingfishers.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-62

Volunteers observed patches of Japanese knotweed throughout this segment on both sides of the river. These areas of knotweed ranged from 10-15 feet to 50 feet and more in length along the riverbank. Rte. 116 follows the river left corridor and the distance from the road to the river ranged from 25-450 feet. At the start of the segment, old silt barriers were observed adjacent to the Rte 116 bridge. These barriers may be remnants of recent road work and repaving. A significant observation made by the volunteers is that drainage from Riley Road, which is a dirt road, is being flushed down into the river via a partially dug out ditch. Silt and sand bars were observed close to where the drainage flows into the river.

There are several homes in the river left corridor that are within 60-250 feet of from the river. In several places volunteers observed garbage bags and other items stored near the river. Some of river left bank has been armored with riprap, primarily where Rte. 116 runs close to the river. In addition, there were several areas of eroding banks. Otherwise the bank was forested with trees, shrubs and other vegetation.

The river right bank was primarily forested with at least a 250 foot buffer. At one location, the bank is significantly undercut (at least 10 feet from top of bank to surface of water) and bedrock has been exposed at the lower portion of the cut. There were flags depicting the wetland boundaries and some large rocks were moved or placed at the front section of the eroding bank to try and prevent further erosion. No structures were in close proximity to this bank; however, there was a bench and picnic table nearby. There was another eroded section approximately 350 feet downstream on the river left bank. Two large conifer trees will fall into the river if the bank is allowed to continue to erode.

Only a minimal amount of trash was observed scattered along this segment – including a large tire on the river right bank, some roofing materials in the water, some metal debris in the water, and plastic or other trash. A few pipes along the river left bank were observed. Across from the first house on Rte 116, there was a small 4-inch pipe with no flow or staining (P-1). On the river left bank there is a significantly perched culvert with riprap on the downstream end where a tributary flows into the South River. The culvert had significant flow.

The river segment ended at the covered bridge, which was recently rebuilt. There is riprap on both sides of the bank at the bridge and extending downstream along the river left bank. Across the road, there appears to be an old canal that may have gone to the factories down river at one point in time.

Segment SR14 and SR15 – Covered Bridge to Main Street

The substrate in this segment is primarily sand and cobbles with a few small-medium boulders. The river banks were very sandy and showed signs of animal activity (raccoon footprints). Just below the covered bridge there is a small dam that spans the full width of the river. The volunteers noted that the dam appeared to be constructed of wood and was intact. At the time, water was flowing freely over the top of the dam but it is likely that the dam affects flow during periods of low flow in the river.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-63

The river banks become significantly steeper around the OESCO road crossing and boulders and bedrock outcrops become more predominant. The river bottom remains sandy/rocky in the non-boulder areas. Where the river takes a 90-degree bend, there is a spectacular gorge with steep banks, a narrow river channel, and wonderful rock formations. This area includes a number of small waterfalls and deep pools (approximately 3 feet) as well as several short sections of riffles. There is a relatively intact old foundation on the river right bank, just above the crossing with Rte. 116. This is a very scenic area and would be a tempting swimming hole.

The river then makes a steady descent towards the center of Conway. The river substrate remains sandy and rocky, though there are still large boulders and bedrock outcrops along the river channel. There are a series of small rapids, riffles, and pools and the banks are sandy and have areas suitable for wildlife (undercuts, exposed tree roots, etc).

Several areas of invasive species were seen along the river left bank, in particular, including patches of Japanese knotweed, multiflora rose, Japanese barberry, and honeysuckle. The other concern in this segment was the garbage observed along the river left bank behind houses and the town garage. There is also oriental bittersweet at the boat take-out area, which is at the junction of the South River and Rte. 116 in the center of Conway. Volunteers observed 15 pipes in this segment which empty into the South River.

Segments SR 16 – Main Street to Reeds Bridge and SR17 – Reeds Bridge and Emerson Hollow Road

The volunteers did not write a narrative for these segments. However, they did take many pictures, which are keyed to the segment maps. In SR16, the predominant problem observed by the volunteers was a lack of adequate riparian buffer and severe bank erosion, which in many cases was threatening the integrity of adjacent houses. The volunteers also found two small diameter pipes in the river that may be being used to withdraw water for irrigation or be discharging from a sump pump. It is not known how the pipes are being used by the property owner and this should be further investigated.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-64

Segment SR16

Map Location 1 – Bank erosion

Map Location 2 – Bank erosion and lack of riparian buffer, looking upstream

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-65

Map Location 3 – Bank erosion and lack of riparian buffer

Map Location 4- Note eroding bank, lack of riparian buffer and pipes

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-66

Map Location 5

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-67

Map Location 6

Map Location 7 – River left bank

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-68

Segment SR17

Volunteers noted extensive areas of Japanese Knotweed, which are shown on the segment map.

Map Location 1 – note lack of riparian buffer and eroding bank on right side of photo.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-69

Segment SR18 – Emerson Hollow Road to the Dam

This segment of the river is slow flowing and has several riffles and pools in the upper portion of the segment. Volunteers saw deer, bobcat and beaver tracks. The dominant features in this segment are significant bank erosion from the October 2005 flooding, the presence of large areas of Japanese knotweed, and two areas where farm equipment crosses the river to access the agricultural fields on the river left. Refer to segment map for locations.

Segment SR19 – Dam to Bardswell Ferry Road

Like the previous segment, the dominant features in this segment are heavy bank erosion, Japanese Knotweed, and one river crossing for vehicles/equipment. In the northern part of the segment, manure was observed in the river and animals were seen in a tributary of the river. A home owner in the segment had cleared all riparian vegetation from the river bank and domestic ducks were in the river. Volunteers noted an area that had an oily sheen on the water and an odor of rotting vegetation/animals. There was also erosion in the area where a tributary enters the river. Refer to segment map for locations.

Segment SR20 – Bardswell Ferry Road to Truce Road

This segment is characterized by large patches of Japanese knotweed and areas of heavy bank erosion. Refer to segment map for locations.

Segment SR21 – Truce Road/Reeds Bridge Road to Conway Station Road

There is an active USGS gaging station just upstream of the bridge. The river has a steep gradient and the substrate is comprised primarily of boulders and cobble through this section. There are very few pools and many drops due to the quick elevation change. The water is clear and no odors or discoloration were observed along this entire segment. Water depth ranged from 1-3 feet.

This section of the river flows through a somewhat confined river valley. At several bends, there were slides along the hills adjacent to the stream. Both sides of the river had muddy/clay soils and thin or exposed root structures. There were many unique rocks along and adjacent to the river bed. This section is primarily inaccessible due to the steep topography and geology of the area. There was one area noted for swimming that is accessible via Reeds Bridge Road. Though it appears to be privately owned, there was a sign encouraging users to respect the area and to pack up whatever they brought in. Animal tracks, including those of deer, moose, raccoon and other animals, were observed throughout this section. Volunteers also noted evidence of beaver.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-70

The segment begins downstream of the intersection of Truce Rd & Reeds Bridge Rd. The bridge crossing over the South River is currently being replaced and the bridge was closed to traffic. There were silt and hay bales in place to try and contain the construction materials and sediments. However, it appears several of these retention barriers had been disrupted or removed with the recent high water and have not been properly reinspected or replaced. With the construction activities, there is a large amount of sediment on both riverbanks, though no significant intrusion of materials into the river was observed.

This section flows through a confined river valley and at several bends there were slides along the hills adjacent to the stream. Both sides of the river had muddy/clay soils and thin or exposed root structures. There were many unique rocks along and adjacent to the river bed. There was some debris that appeared to wash down from upstream, including a large metal object hung up on a rock in the middle of the river. Along Reeds Bridge Rd, there were a couple of areas that have experienced dumping in the past, including one section with two 55- gallon drums at the bottom of the embankment.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-71

Table 3-6 Stream Team Pipe Survey for the South River Pipe Size and Algae Sediment Segment Pipe Material Color of Odor of Pipe # Time Amount of Below Below Comments? ID and Condition Flow Flow Flow Pipe Pipe PVC Pipe on River Right Heavy approx. 150 green Possible source of 1 P-1 2 pm yards 4”, Not Flowing None None algae in household pollution downstream and below from Ashfield pipe Lake Report lots of trash 12:30 8 P-A Good D= 5’ Clear OK None None upstream; source pm tributary and road D= 12”; forms Under Rte 116; source 8 P-B 2:00 pm Small cracks stream 4’ wide Clear OK None Little tributary and road and 6” deep D= 2’; forms Under Rte 116; source 8 P-C 2:15 pm New stream 3’ wide Clear OK No No road – forms 3’ wide and 6” deep stream gravel & cobble Empties into soggy Under Rte 116; from 8 P-D 2:20 pm Good D=2’; No flow None None No area of road inlet floodplain D= 16”, No Under Rte 116; from 8 P-E 2:30 pm New None None None None Flow road inlet 8 P-F New Concrete D= 12” Clear None None None From Road Inlet

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-72

Table 3-6 Stream Team Pipe Survey for the South River Pipe Size and Algae Sediment Segment Pipe Material Color of Odor of Pipe # Time Amount of Below Below Comments? ID and Condition Flow Flow Flow Pipe Pipe 8 P-G OK; Concrete D= 18” Clear None None None From Road Inlet 8 P-H OK; Concrete D= 2’ Clear None None None From Road Inlet 9/10 P-I Concrete, OK D=12” Clear OK No No Road inlet 9/10 P-J Concrete, OK D=16” No Flow Road inlet Concrete headwall; pipe 9/10 P-K ? Clear OK No No Road inlet & Tributary below water – OK Growth below Some 9/10 P-L New Concrete D= 24” Clear OK Road Inlet water in brown pipe Tributary; also 4” green Old concrete 9/10 P-M 4’ X 4’ Clear OK No No pipe upstream – no flow but solid now W= 18”, H= No 36” with 10:35 Stone Culvert Some 12 P-1 constant Clear None Clean O.K. am Fair Condition moss on moderate flow rocks of 2-3” Clear D= 24” with 12:15 R.C.P. ***See 12 P-2 constant 1” None No No Bubble & Foam am Good Condition Segment flow Description 12:30 R.C.P. D= 24” Large Serious Erosion (North 12 P-3 Clear None No am Good Condition Constant Flow Riprap Bank); Rte 116, STA 245

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-73

Table 3-6 Stream Team Pipe Survey for the South River Pipe Size and Algae Sediment Segment Pipe Material Color of Odor of Pipe # Time Amount of Below Below Comments? ID and Condition Flow Flow Flow Pipe Pipe +00, 300’ from River To far from pipe to see 8”, Constant Unknow 14/15 P-1 Unknown Clear Unknown Unknown material; located on Trickle n South Bank PVC 10 feet from bank; 14/15 P-2 3”, No flow N/A N/A None None Good Condition located on North Bank Two 10” Pipes; Concrete Located on South Bank 14/15 P-3 Constant Clear UK UK UK Good Condition near Covered Bridge Trickle PVC 4”, Constant 14/15 P-4 Clear None No Leaves North Bank Good Condition Trickle PVC 4”, Constant Some- 14/15 P-5 Clear None None North Bank Good Condition Trickle Minimal Unknown, 14/15 P-6 Metal? N/A N/A No No North Bank No Flow Too far from pipe to see Corrugated 15”; Constant sediment, algae or smell 14/15 P-7 Aluminum, Clear UK UK UK Trickle odor; Located on South Good Condition Bank Corrugated 14/15 P-8 Aluminum, 5-6”, No Flow N/A N/A None None Good Condition PVC 5”, To far from pipe to see; 14/15 P-9 N/A N/A None None Good Condition No Flow Located on South Bank Corrugated 12”, Constant Could Not South of Highway 14/15 P-10 Clear UK No Aluminum, Trickle See Garage on South Bank

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-74

Table 3-6 Stream Team Pipe Survey for the South River Pipe Size and Algae Sediment Segment Pipe Material Color of Odor of Pipe # Time Amount of Below Below Comments? ID and Condition Flow Flow Flow Pipe Pipe Good Condition Corrugated 12”, Constant 14/15 P-11 Aluminum, Clear UK No No Located on South Bank Trickle Good Condition Concrete, Good 14/15 P-12 18”, No Flow N/A N/A No No Located on North Bank Condition Concrete, Good 18”, Constant 14/15 P-13 Clear UK Minimal No Located on South Bank Condition Trickle Corrugated 18”, Constant Below OESCO on North 14/15 P-14 Aluminum, Clear None None None Trickle Bank Good Condition PVC, Good 14/15 P-15 3”, No Flow N/A N/A No No Located on North Bank Condition Drains directly into river; 10:00 4” No flow 16 P-1 Plastic Drainage None None appears to come from am exposed house next to river Sediment Yes potential high e-coli 10:30 2’, constant Algae in 16 P-2 Concrete Milky Sewage below area; downstream of am flow area pipe Main St bridge Metal, Recently replaced after 18 P-1 1:20 pm Constant Flow Clear None None None Good Shape flooding D = 2’, 20 P-1 2:00 pm Metal culvert Clear None None Yes, sand No unusual sightings Constant flow

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-75

Water Quality Sampling Program

Between June 12 and September 15, 2005, staff from the Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA) and four volunteers sampled for E. coli during three wet and three dry-weather events at each of the six screening-level sampling locations in the South River subwatershed. Bacteria water quality standards were frequently exceeded in the South River, with 17 of 18 wet-weather samples violating state water quality standards (Table 3-7). Wet-weather events produced elevated bacteria concentrations across all sample sites in the South River and precluded the use of these data for identifying potential bacteria sources. Elevated bacteria counts occurred in the South River at three sites during dry-weather events, but only once at each site (Table 3-7, Figure 3-3).

Table 3-7 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the South River 2005 Sampling Date Site 6/12 7/6* 7/13 7/31* 8/13* 8/14 8/28* 9/15* SOR-001 36.4 517.2 13.1 276.1 33.7 98.8 SOR- 002** 115.3 413.3 62.7 771.0 328.2 1032 SOR-003 24.3 2419.6 35.0 583.0 39.9 613.1 SOR-004 1046.2 1229.9 69.7 637.0 101.2 899.7 SOR-005 73.5 1119.9 84.9 825.0 98.0 866.4 SOR-006 275.5 435.2 146.7 529.0 98.5 480.0 Numbers reported are the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli colonies per 100 ml of sample water. Numbers in bold violate the state water quality standard of 235 E. coli per 100 ml. Site codes in bold are those that had water quality standard violations during at least one sampling event. n/s = not sampled. * = rain events **One additional sample was collected at SOR-002 on 8/14/2005.

Figure 3-3 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the South River

South River E. coli 2005

3000 1.2

2500 1.0 Rain Amount (inches) 2000 0.8 SOR-001 SOR-002 SOR-003 1500 0.6 SOR-004 SOR-005 SOR-006 MPN (per 100 ml) 1000 0.4 Rain A mt

500 0.2

0 0.0 6/12/2005 7/6/2005 7/13/2005 7/31/2005 8/14/2005 8/28/2005

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-76

In early spring 2006, the project staff reviewed 2005 bacteria monitoring data for the South River subwatershed. The data suggested potential bacteria sources between sites SOR-005 and SOR-004 and upriver of SOR-002. Accordingly, 2006 efforts to bracket potential sources focused on areas above and below the town of Conway. The 2005 results also suggested that wet-weather sampling did not lend well to identifying potential bacteria sources within the subwatershed because counts were often equally elevated at many sites within the river. Field sample collection began on June 17 and concluded on September 9, 2006. DRWA staff and four volunteers sampled for E. coli on seven occasions in the South River.

Seventy (70) samples were collected along the South River, including two tributaries and two stormwater pipes discharging into the South River. In efforts to bracket potential sources of elevated bacteria levels, sample sites were added throughout the sampling season, resulting in 24 sites having been sampled in 2006. Bacteria concentrations from the pipe discharging ~15 meters downriver of the northwest corner of the Route 116 bridge (location SOR-002L) ranged from 168 to 633 MPN during the first three sampling sessions. Discharge volume from this pipe was apparently insufficient to have any significant effect on downstream bacteria concentrations, as indicated by the July 8 bacteria data (Table 3-8, Figure 3-4). Interestingly, bacteria levels in this pipe’s discharge decreased significantly following the July 8 sampling and remained relatively low through the remainder of the sampling season, never exceeding 73.6 MPN.

Although not in violation of state standards, June 17th bacteria levels at stations in and around Conway center were high relative to those at SOR-006. As a result, four new locations between SOR-004 and the upriver 2005 SOR-005 site were sampled during subsequent rounds. Results of these efforts failed to identify any potential sources below the uppermost sampling site at SOR-006, as bacteria levels at station SOR-006 were similar to those at downriver locations on July 8th, August 6th, and August 19th.

Elevated bacteria levels at SOR-002A (located immediately upriver of the new Truce Road bridge) on July 8th prompted collecting 14 samples from 10 additional sites, including one small tributary stream, between Emerson Hollow Road and Truce Road. Three of these samples exceeded the 235 MPN standard, yet results were generally similar among most or all of the sites in this section of river, precluding identification of any potential sources. Among all of the sites sampled between Truce Road and Emerson Hollow Road, the small tributary located only approximately 150 meters above the Truce Road crossing had the lowest E. coli levels of 22.3 MPN on August 19th , the only date it was sampled. All of these sites except SOR-002I were located below the old mill dam on the South River below which agricultural activities and evidence of beaver activity were observed.

Results of the South River sampling, both above and below Conway center, suggest that the measured bacteria levels are not resulting from one or a few significant, concentrated sources, but are resulting from dispersed non-point sources, likely including beaver and other wildlife. Beaver activity was observed both above SOR-006 and below SOR-002I. Samples were collected on August 19th both above and below a new beaver dam at SOR-

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-77

002E to assess whether activity immediately associated with the dam construction was affecting bacteria concentrations. Similarly, site SOR-006A was established at least 100 meters above the existing beaver dam at SOR-006 to determine whether this localized beaver activity was contributing to elevated bacteria counts. In each case, bacteria levels were similar above and below the dam activity, suggesting that concentrated beaver activity in those immediate areas was not significantly contributing to measured bacteria levels. This is not to say to that beaver, by way of their overall use of the river, are not measurably contributing E. coli to the river.

At the end of the 2006 sampling season, several questions remained. Although one “point source”, a storm-drain pipe in Conway, was found to contribute bacteria to the South River at times, the sampling results were not able to identify the potential nonpoint sources that are contributing to the high E.coli counts on irregular occasions. It is possible that beavers and other wildlife are the main contributing sources of bacteria to the South River. An increase in beaver activity was observed along the South River during the two-year course of this project.

Table 3-8 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the South River 2006 Sampling Date Site 6/17/2006 6/23/2006 7/8/2006 7/21/2006 8/6/2006 8/19/2006 9/9/2006 SOR-002A 117.8 76.9 344.8 259.6 517.2 124.8 117.8 SOR-002B n/s n/s n/s 231.0 n/s 167.0 n/s SOR-002B T n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 22.3 n/s SOR-002C n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 238.2 n/s SOR-002D n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 299.3 n/s SOR-002E Above n/s n/s n/s 231.9 272.3 206.4 n/s SOR-002E Below n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 166.4 n/s SOR-002F n/s n/s n/s n/s 228.2 n/s n/s SOR-002G n/s n/s n/s n/s 228.2 n/s n/s SOR-002H n/s n/s n/s n/s 167 201.4 n/s SOE-002I n/s n/s n/s n/s 162.3 n/s n/s SOR-002J 65 95.9 141.4 127.4 139.1 139.6 152.9 SOR-002K 121.1 58.1 119.8 n/s n/s n/s n/s SOR-002L 290.9 168.2 633.1 62.0 73.6 3.1 65.5 SOR-002M 6.3 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s SOR-002N 137.6 50.4 184.2 n/s n/s n/s n/s SOR-003 n/s 23.1 42 75.9 74.9 7.4 9.8 SOR-004 93.4 48.8 198.9 517.2 198.9 14.2 94.8 SOR-004A n/s n/s 165.8 n/s n/s n/s n/s SOR-004B n/s n/s 168.2 n/s 167.4 n/s n/s SOR-004C n/s n/s n/s n/s 161.6 n/s n/s SOR-004D n/s n/s n/s n/s 193.5 172.3 90.9 SOR-006 34.1 29.5 142.1 n/s 206.8 95.9 n/s SOR-006A 39.3 50.8 143.9 67.6 275.5 60.9 n/s Numbers reported are the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli colonies per 100 ml of sample water. Numbers in bold violate the state water quality standard of 235 E. coli per 100 ml. Site codes in bold are those that had water quality standard violations during at least one sampling event. n/s = not sampled

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-78

Figure 3-4 is represented by the following series of graphs for the 2006 South River E. coli sampling results. The first two graphs show multiple sampling data for stations 2A – 2I and stations 2J – 6A. Each of the remaining graphs represents a single sampling date. PH B denotes Pumpkin Hollow Brook; PIPE denotes the outfall pipe at the northwest corner of the Rte. 116 bridge in Conway center.

Figure 3-4 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the South River

South River E. coli 2006 SOR-002A Stations 2A through 2I SOR-002B

1000 SOR-002B T 900 SOR-002C

SOR-002D 800 SOR-002E 700 SOR-002E

600 SOR-002F 500 SOR-002G

SOR-002H 400 SOE-002I

MPN (per 100ml) 300 Water quality 200 standard 100 0 6/17/2006 6/22/2006 7/8/2006 7/21/2006 8/6/2006 8/19/2006 9/9/2006

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-79

South River E. coli 2006 SOR-002J Stations 2J through 6A SOR-002K SOR-002L 1000 SOR-002M

900 SOR-002N 800 SOR-003 SOR-004

700 SOR-004A 600 SOR-004B SOR-004C

500 SOR-004D 400 SOR-006 SOR-006A

MPN (per 100 ml) 100 (per MPN 300 Water quality standard 200 100 0 6/17/2006 6/22/2006 7/8/2006 7/21/2006 8/6/2006 8/19/2006 9/9/2006

Figure 3-4. Continued.

South River e. coli June 17, 2006

PIPE 1000

800

600

400

200

0 SOR-003 SOR-004 SOR-006 SOE-002I SOR-002J SOR-002E SOR-002E SOR-002F SOR-002L SOR-002B SOR-002C SOR-002D SOR-002H SOR-002K SOR-002N SOR-004B SOR-004C SOR-004D SOR-002A SOR-002G SOR-002M SOR-004A SOR-002B T

Figure 3-4. Continued.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-80

South River e. coli June 22, 2006

1000 PH B

800

600

400

200

0 SOR-006 SOR-003 SOR-004 SOE-002I SOR-002J SOR-002L SOR-002E SOR-002E SOR-002F SOR-004B SOR-004C SOR-004D SOR-002N SOR-002K SOR-002H SOR-002B SOR-002C SOR-002D SOR-006A SOR-004A SOR-002M SOR-002G SOR-002A SOR-002B T

Figure 3-4. Continued.

South River e. coli July 8, 2006

PIPE 1000

800 600 400

200 0 SOR-003 SOR-004 SOR-006 SOE-002I SOR-002J SOR-002E SOR-002E SOR-002F SOR-002L SOR-002B SOR-002C SOR-002D SOR-002H SOR-002K SOR-002N SOR-004B SOR-004C SOR-004D SOR-002A SOR-002G SOR-002M SOR-004A SOR-002B T

Figure 3-4. Continued.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-81

South River e. coli July 21, 2006 PIPE PH B 1000.0

800.0

600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0 SOR-003 SOR-004 SOR-006 SOE-002I SOR-002J SOR-002E SOR-002E SOR-002F SOR-002L SOR-002B SOR-002C SOR-002D SOR-002H SOR-002K SOR-002N SOR-004B SOR-004C SOR-004D SOR-002A SOR-002G SOR-002M SOR-004A SOR-002B T

Figure 3-4. Continued.

South River e. coli August 6, 2006 PH B 1000

800

600

400

200

0 SOR-006 SOR-003 SOR-004 SOE-002I SOR-002J SOR-002E SOR-002E SOR-002F SOR-002L SOR-004B SOR-004C SOR-004D SOR-002B SOR-002C SOR-002D SOR-002H SOR-002K SOR-002N SOR-004A SOR-002A SOR-002G SOR-002M SOR-002B T Figure 3-4. Continued.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-82

South River e. coli August 19, 2006 PH B 1000.0

800.0

600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0 SOR-003 SOR-004 SOR-006 SOE-002I SOR-002J SOR-002L SOR-002E SOR-002E SOR-002F SOR-002N SOR-004B SOR-004C SOR-004D SOR-002K SOR-002H SOR-002B SOR-002C SOR-002D SOR-002M SOR-004A SOR-002G SOR-002A SOR-002B T Figure 3-4. Continued.

South River e. coli Sept 9, 2006

1000.0 PIPE PH B

800.0

600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0 SOR-003 SOR-004 SOR-006 SOE-002I SOR-002J SOR-002L SOR-002E SOR-002E SOR-002F SOR-002N SOR-002H SOR-002K SOR-002B SOR-002C SOR-002D SOR-004B SOR-004C SOR-004D SOR-002M SOR-002G SOR-002A SOR-004A SOR-002B T Figure 3-4. Continued.

In the South River, the sources of some elevated bacteria counts remained undetected following the 2006 sampling season, especially the source(s) of the moderately high counts measured through the middle South River reaches. Accordingly, FRCOG and DRWA performed a third year of sampling in the South River subwatershed in an effort to identify the sources of these elevated bacteria counts. Sampling in the South River focused upstream of the town of Conway, but also included several stations in and below Conway.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-83

Sixty-six samples were collected from 18 locations along the South River, including Poland Brook (SOR-007), Pumpkin Hollow Brook (SOR-003), and a stormwater pipe (SOR-004D-4) adjacent to Orchard Equipment on the downriver side of the Rt 116 bridge crossing. Early-summer efforts directed at monitoring the river upriver of SOR- 006 and from Murphy’s Hole (SOR-004D) downriver through and below Conway center revealed elevated E.coli concentrations in the South River just upstream from Poland Brook (on July 15) and at Murphy’s Hole (beginning July 15 and also on July 17). Monitoring in subsequent weeks focused on identifying the source of bacteria contaminating the locally popular swimming hole. The discharge from the corrugated stormwater pipe (SOR-004D-4) adjacent to Orchard Equipment (occurring less than a 1/4 mile upriver of Murphy’s Hole) had an E. coli count of 2086.7 MPN/100 ml on July 22 (Table 3-9, Figure 3-6). However, despite these highly elevated counts, the discharge volume was low, and sampling from a series of sites between the pipe and Murphy’s Hole on this same date (SOR004D-3 through SOR004D-1) failed to show highly elevated counts in the river. Subsequent sampling in this area showed an elevated count at SOR004D-2 on Aug 8, but a low count in the upriver pipe discharge and in Murphy’s Hole, occurring immediately downriver. On August 11, the pipe discharge E. coli count was again higher (517.2 MPN/100 ml) within 12 hours after a rain event, but was substantially lower by the following day when sampling throughout the river occurred. Despite these repeated episodes of elevated counts occurring in the pipe discharge at SOR-004D-4 following rain events, bacteria counts in Murphy’s Hole returned to levels deemed safe for contact recreation by July 22 and never again exceeded the 235 MPN/100 ml single-sample standard. These results suggest that the contamination in Murphy’s Hole in mid July was likely of a highly localized source of human or animal (wild or domestic) waste that persisted for only a few days or weeks.

Because of the efforts to identify the source of contamination of Murphy’s Hole, sampling in the upper river was minimal after July 15. The South River upstream from Poland Brook was sampled three times following July 15. On Aug 25, an E. coli count of 920.8 MPN/100 ml was measured in the South River just upstream from the Poland Brook confluence. This result, combined with the July 15 result of 435.2 MPN/ 100 ml, suggests that one or more sources of bacteria intermittently pollute the South River before entering Conway upstream from lower Poland Brook to the extent that swimming would be deemed unsafe. The source of this contamination is currently unknown.

Sampling in the South River in and below Conway Center was significantly less intensive than in 2006, as only three sites were sampled between Pumpkin Hollow Brook and the confluence with the Deerfield River. Concentrations at these sites (SOR-002D, 002B, and 001) never exceeded the single-sample standard of 235 MPN/100 ml, but steadily increased through the summer months at SOR-002D and SOR-002B. As in 2006, results of the South River sampling, both above and below Conway center, suggest that the measured bacteria levels are not resulting from one or a few significant, concentrated sources, but are resulting from dispersed non-point sources, likely including beaver, other wildlife, and perhaps even dogs in areas where human activity is concentrated along the river.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-84

Efforts in the South River immediately focused on identifying the source of significant contamination of the locally popular Murphy’s Hole. The results of this monitoring led to the temporary closure of the swimming hole by the town of Conway to protect public health, but E. coli concentrations quickly returned to safe levels, precluding the source of contamination from being determined. Although the source of contamination measured in the upper river (SOR-006) in past years was not identified (largely because of reallocation of effort to the Murphy’s Hole issue), results of sampling upstream from Poland Brook suggest that contamination of the river was, at times, occurring above the confluence with Poland Brook.

Table 3-9 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the South River

2007 Sampling Date Site 6/16 6/30 7/2 7/15 7/17 7/22 7/28 8/11 8/12 8/25 8/29 SOR-008 95.1 77.1 435.2 118.7 58.3 920.8 SOR-007 30.1 47.3 35.5 SOR- 73.9 151.5 006C SOR- 178.5 006B SOR-006 185 140.8 99.6 78.8 29.2 34.5 SOR-005 148.3 143.9 143.9 36.8 48 SOR- 117.2 004D-5 SOR- 2086.7 20.9 517.2 150 5.2 004D-4 SOR- 124.4 004D-3 SOR- 104.0 290.9 123.2 124.7 004D-2 SOR- 119.1 004D-1 SOR- 52.9 104.3 25.9 2419.6 >2419.6 141.5 93.8 95.9 41.1 004D SOR- 004D 125.9 pool SOR-004 33.1 113.7 62.4 150.0 63.2 30.9 11.8 SOR-003 90.8 27.2 SOR- 53 107.1 167.0 169.8 002D SOR- 38.3 111.2 142.3 224.7 202.7 196.8 002B SOR-001 39.9 26.4 35.9

Numbers reported are the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli colonies per 100 ml of sample water. Numbers in bold violate the state water quality standard of 235 E. coli per 100 ml. Site codes in bold are those that had water quality standard violations during at least one sampling event.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-85

Figure 3-5. Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the South River, Stations 001 through 004D.

South River E. coli 2007 Stations 001 through 004D 2500 SOR-004D 2250 SOR-004D pool 2000 SOR-004 1750 SOR-003

1500 SOR-002D

1250 SOR-002B

1000 SOR-001

MPN (per 100 ml) MPN (per 100 750 500 250 Water quality standard 0 6/16 6/30 7/2 7/15 7/17 7/22 8/3 8/11 8/12 8/25

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-86

Figure 3-6 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the South River, Stations 004D-1 through 008.

South River E. coli 2007 Stations 004D-1 through 008 2500 SOR-008 2250 SOR-007

2000 SOR-006

1750 SOR-005 1500 SOR-004D-5 1250 SOR-004D-4 SOR-004D-3 1000 SOR-004D-2

MPN (per 100 ml) 750 SOR-004D-1 500

250 Water quality standard 0 6/16 6/30 7/2 7/15 7/17 7/22 8/3 8/11 8/12 8/25 9/11 9/12

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-87

C. NORTH RIVER WATERSHED

The North River watershed is located north of the Deerfield River mainly in the Towns of Colrain and Heath. A small part of the watershed is located in Shelburne where the North River empties into the Deerfield River. The East Branch of the North River flows south from Vermont, while the West Branch flows in a southeasterly direction from Heath. The watershed encompasses 48.6 square miles. The village centers for both Heath and Colrain are in the basin and the combined population of the two towns is approximately 2,600 residents.

C.1 Natural Resources

The North River watershed is mountainous with many of its slopes greater than 25% and most of its hills forested. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has designated a number of areas as Priority Habitats of Rare Species, and/or Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife. They include: all of the lower North River before it divides in its two branches; Johnson Brook, a tributary to the North River; two areas in the south west portion of the watershed near Houghton Hill and McLeod Pond; most of the East Branch of the North River and two of its tributaries – Foundry Brook and an unnamed stream – and the lower half of the West Branch of the North River and most of its four tributaries – Taylor, Tisdel and Sanders Brooks and an unnamed stream.

Important wetlands include areas near McLeod and Papoose Ponds, which are significant water bodies. McLeod Pond and its wetlands have a degree of protection because they are located in protected open space and in an area of the watershed designated as Core Habitat by the State. The wetlands near Papoose Pond and Heath Center are significant in size yet are not protected. Other wetlands are located in headwaters areas of McClellan, Meadow, Houghton, Davenport, Kinsman, Burton, Dickenson, Roberts, Burrington, Vincent, and Foundry Brooks and two unnamed streams. The wetlands around Meadow and Houghton Brooks, and McClellan Pond are protected in part because the wetland areas lie within permanently protected lands. The other wetlands, including those scattered in parts of the watershed other than headwaters areas are not protected.

BioMap Core Habitat C115 contains a large tract of mature and diverse Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest. Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forests have a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, with a closed, full canopy, and sparse shrub and herbaceous layers. They commonly occur on north facing slopes and ravines with moderately acidic soils. Here the forest occurs on very steep slopes above the North River and is relatively inaccessible.

BioMap Core Habitat C124 contains a small pocket of Rich, Mesic Forest that is well- buffered by forested land. Rich, Mesic Forests are a variant of northern hardwood forests

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-88

dominated by Sugar Maple with a diverse herbaceous layer and many spring ephemerals, unusual plants that appear only in spring and which thrive in a moist, nutrient-rich environment.

BioMap Core Habitat C191 contains large areas of suitable riparian habitat for Spring Salamanders along several miles of coldwater high gradient brooks and associated headwater seeps and springs flowing out of the Catamount Hills in Colrain. Included are sections of Johnson, Cary, Meadow, Holden, and Houghton brooks, as well as portions of several unnamed brooks. Although over half of this Core Habitat is protected within the Catamount State Forest, substantial stretches of Spring Salamander habitat in the southwestern, southeastern, and northern parts of the Core Habitat are currently unprotected.

In BioMap Core Habitat C198, there is a moderate-sized Rich, Mesic Forest on this steeply sloping hillside. Although the community here is near a small village and several paved roads, it is free of invasive exotic species and major disturbances. BioMap Core Habitat C242 contains quality high forest habitats for a variety of Massachusetts' plants and animals. Core Habitat C339 in Shelburne provides high-quality habitat for a variety of Massachusetts' plants and animals. There is a small site within the larger core habitat area for a rare plant.

Living Waters Core Habitat LW118 includes a section of the West Branch of the North River and its tributaries in Heath and Colrain which support the Longnose Sucker, a fish Species of Special Concern. This species is restricted to the western watersheds of Massachusetts, where it is found in cold, clean, oxygen-rich streams with gravel bottoms. The Longnose Sucker sometimes migrates many miles to reach its spawning grounds. The eggs are released over the gravel bottom, making them susceptible to excess sedimentation, flow alterations, and increases in water temperature. These habitat degradations can be particularly detrimental to the reproductive success of this slow- growing fish that does not reach maturity until 5 to 7 years of age. Protecting the riparian areas adjacent to this Core Habitat will help maintain the cool, clean freshwater habitat of the Longnose Sucker.

The Living Waters Core Habitat LW120 in the East Branch of the North River and its tributaries, as well as in Taylor Brook and into the West Branch of the North River, supports the rare Longnose Sucker. The West Branch of the North River at the confluence of Taylor Brook is also an excellent example of a high gradient, cold water, moderately flowing, and well-oxygenated freshwater habitat. Here the primarily native fish community consists of Blacknose Dace, Brook Trout, Longnose Dace, Slimy Sculpin, and Longnose Sucker. Protecting the riparian areas adjacent to this Core Habitat will help maintain its cool, clean freshwater habitats. Core Habitat LW126 includes a section of the North River and its tributaries into the Deerfield River. This Core Habitat also supports the Longnose Sucker.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-89

There are 66 potential vernal pools in the watershed, none of which are on protected lands. A quarter of the watershed is permanently protected lands including McLeod Pond, Catamount Hills, some isolated wetlands, and forest lands in the mountains.

All of the North River main stem and the East Branch of the North River, and half of the West Branch of the North River are potential low-yield aquifers. Most of these aquifers have some degree of protection because they are within the 200 foot buffer area of the Rivers Protection Act or are on protected lands. The remaining aquifers on the Spur Brook, Upper Taylor Brook, Upper West Branch basins, and isolated sections in the northern and western sections of the watershed are not protected.

There are nine public wells in the North River watershed – three are located in Heath, two in the Papoose Lake seasonal residential community and one on West Branch Brook. The other seven wells are in Colrain within the 200-foot buffer of the Rivers Protection Act on Fox Brook, North River, East Branch of the North River, and an unnamed tributary to the East Branch at the village center of Colrain. It is unclear if well heads in Heath have any degree of protection because they appear to be outside the 200-foot buffer of Taylor Brook, which runs through the Papoose Lake season residential community. The third well near West Branch Brook lies between a mine and urban open space and is not protected.

C.2 Land Use Characteristics and Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

The zoning for the watershed is primarily residential with an area of Recreation, Seasonal Residential around Papoose Lake and Commercial and Village Districts along Rte. 112. According to the 1999 Land Use and 1971-1999 Land Use Change Map, the predominant land uses in the North River watershed are forest, farming and residential. There are six commercial areas, three industrial sites, and six gravel and sand mines in the watershed. Two commercial areas are located in Heath with one on Taylor Brook near Papoose Lake; four are in Colrain on or very near to the North River and East Branch of the North River. The two industrial sites are on the North River in Griswoldville and the East Branch of the North River in Foundry Village. Of the five mines, only the two in Heath are located on lands that are near a river

There are four waste disposal sites in the watershed (one in Heath; three in Colrain); ten water supply sites (three in Heath and seven in Colrain); two Tier II facilities and two Hazardous Waste Sites in Colrain. There are forty-one bridges and numerous culverts. Papoose Lake is the only seasonal recreational area in the watershed.

As indicated in Table 3-10 below, the predominant land use trend observed between 1971 and 1999 was the conversion of agricultural and forested land to large lot residential development. Approximately 300 acres (303.26) of land were converted to residential use, primarily Approval Not Required (ANR) development along existing roads. The other pattern observed was the large increase in land described as Participation Recreation and Open Land, which include abandoned agricultural land, power lines, and

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-90

areas of no vegetation. Approximately 200 acres (197.03) of Participation Recreation and 70 acres (70.14) of Open Land were gained between 1971 and 1999.

Table 3-10 Land Use Statistics for the North River Subwatershed

LU Code Description 1971 Acres 1999 Acres Land Use Change 1971-1999 1 Cropland 1,937.09 1,845.05 -92.04 2 Pasture 1,466.76 1,202.04 -264.72 3 Forest 73,283.14 73,070.23 -212.91 4 Non-forested Wetland 133.60 151.72 18.12 5 Mining 16.48 23.97 7.49 6 Open Land 1,048.24 1,118.38 70.14 7 Participation Recreation 4.34 201.37 197.03 8 Spectator Recreation 0.00 9 Water-Based Recreation 0.00 10 Residential multi-family 0.00 11 Residential <.25 acre lot 13.80 13.08 -0.72 12 Residential .25-.5 acre lot 47.64 47.64 0.00 13 Residential >.5 acre lot 598.59 901.85 303.26 15 Commercial 22.15 26.79 4.64 16 Industrial 20.40 20.40 0.00 17 Urban Open 52.84 37.08 -15.76 18 Transportation 0.00 19 Waste Disposal 4.20 15.27 11.07 20 Water 174.91 167.01 -7.90 21 Woody Perennial 101.08 83.37 -17.71

In reviewing the maps, it appears that the land use changes, particularly as they relate to residential, commercial and agricultural development, were in the river valleys with some development in the uplands. There is considerable residential and agricultural development along the main stem of the North River and its East and West Branches. Also, there was a significant seasonal community created along Taylor Brook and around Papoose Lake.

Field Verification

On May 5, 2005, staff from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments conducted a windshield survey of the North River subwatershed to field verify the land use map and collect additional data, such as pictures and GPS way points for potential sources of nonpoint pollution. FRCOG staff recorded 84 waypoints and took 91 pictures during the windshield survey. A list of the waypoints and the locations of the waypoints are shown on the Field Verification map. Several potential sources of nonpoint pollution, identified during the windshield survey, are discussed in more detail, below.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-91

Junkyards

Abandoned, junk cars and trucks were observed at several locations in the watershed, oftentimes within the 200-foot riparian buffer. In some cases, the junk cars were located near houses. At other locations, junk cars, trucks and other equipment were observed along the edges of fields.

Junk cars located adjacent to a tributary of the East Branch North River. GPS Waypoint 1.

Junk cars behind trees. East Branch North River flows between the field in the foreground of the picture and the trees. GPS Waypoint 8.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-92

Abandoned trucks and equipment. The North River is between the trees and the junkyard. GPS Waypoint 70.

Note the abandoned cars and trucks to the left of the utility pole. The West Branch North River is behind the junkyard. GPS Waypoint 58.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-93

Sand and Gravel Operations

The Land Use and Land Use Change map indicated 2 sand and gravel operations that existed prior to 1971 and 3 new sand and gravel operations which had started between 1971 and 1999. FRCOG staff attempted to check the current status of all of these operations during the windshield survey; however several had to be checked using Pictometry because staff could not see the sites from the road. One new sand and gravel operation not shown on the Land Use Change map was identified during the windshield survey. This operation, Colrain Sand & Gravel, is located off Rte. 112, just south of the Massachusetts/Vermont border on land that was previously identified as pasture, according to the 1999 MacConnell land use data. According to the GIS mapping, a portion of this operation lies within the 200-foot riparian buffer along the East Branch North River and one of its unnamed tributaries. The GPS Waypoint for this site is 17.

Looking south from the Colrain Sand & Gravel site. The East Branch North River is located across Rte. 112. The drainage ditch conveys water under Rte. 112 and into the river. GPS Waypoint 17.

Looking north from the Colrain Sand & Gravel site. Drainage from the site is flowing into a culvert which runs under the access road to the site and then into the ditch shown in the picture above.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-94

A sand and gravel pit located off of Catamount Hill Road is shown in the picture below. This site was once a landfill, which has been closed, and now the site is used as a town transfer station. The GPS Waypoint for this site is 40.

There is a large sand and gravel operation located south of the transfer station site, off of North River Road. According to the 1999 MacConnell Land use data, a portion of this site appears to be within the 200-foot riparian buffer of Houghton Brook, a tributary of the North River. This site is being actively mined. The GPS Waypoint for this site is 44.

Another existing gravel pit, located off Rte. 8A in Heath, was field checked by FRCOG staff. This site is being actively mined. The 1999 MacConnell Land Use data indicates a portion of this site may lie within the 200-foot riparian buffer of the West Branch Brook,

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-95

a tributary of the West Branch North River. The Land Use Change map indicates that this site nearly doubled in size between 1971 and 1999.

Picture taken from Rte. 8A, looking south. GPS Waypoint 68.

A small area of land, off Underwood Hill Road in Heath, is classified as Mining according to the 1999 MacConnell Land Use data (GPS Waypoint 71). A portion of the site appears to be located within the 200-foot riparian buffer of West Branch Brook.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-96

The 1999 Land Use and Land Use Change Map shows a small area classified as Mining, which is located off of Jacksonville Road in Heath (GPS Waypoint 68). As the picture below indicates, this site appears to be a sand-and-gravel pit.

Sand and gravel pit located off Archambo Road in Colrain. Photo courtesy of Pictometry, Inc.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-97

Landfills and Waste Disposal Sites NPDES Discharge Sites

The 1999 MacConnell Land Use data classified four (4) areas within the North River Subwatershed as Waste Disposal (see the 1999 Land Use and Land Use Change Map). One of the areas is the BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc. wastewater treatment plant located at 247 Main Road in Griswoldville. This facility has a NPDES permit (MA0003697) for the discharge of treated process wastewater. According to information obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Envirofacts web site, the SIC Code for BBA Nonwovens is 2269 and the SIC Description is “finishers of textiles, not elsewhere classified.”4 The flow from this facility is 1.35 million gallons per day.

A search of the EPA Envirofacts web site indicated that there are no other NPDES discharge sites listed for towns in the North River subwatershed.

BBA Nonwovens Facility. Photo courtesy of Pictometry, Inc.

FRCOG staff used Pictometry to evaluate the status of the other three sites classified as Waste Disposal on the 1999 MacConnell Land Use. The map indicates that all three of the sites became Waste Disposal sites between 1971 and 1999. Of the three sites, two appear to be used as some sort of disposal area, possibly a junkyard for old cars, trucks and equipment. The other site appears to be sand and gravel pit. The pictures of these

4 http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-98

three sites are shown on the following pages. One site is located off of Number Nine Road in Heath. The other two sites are in Colrain.

Possible junkyard located off Number Nine Road in Heath. Photo courtesy of Pictometry, Inc.

Junk cars and equipment, including a school bus, located off Archambo Road in Colrain. Note also the large area of disturbance – possible sand pit. Photo courtesy of Pictometry, Inc.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-99

This site is off Adamsville Road. Note the West Branch North River to the right of the photo and the large area of bank erosion on the left bank of the river. This site appears to be a sand and gravel pit and possibly a junkyard. Photo courtesy of Pictometry, Inc.

Significant Areas of Erosion

Several areas of significant erosion were noted during the windshield survey conducted by FRCOG staff. One of them, located of Adamsville Road in Colrain, is shown in the aerial photograph above and in the picture below. This is a high, steep section of river bank with no vegetation that is exhibiting severe erosion.

This photograph of eroding river bank was taken from Adamsville Road, looking southwest. This is the area highlighted in the aerial photograph, above. The West Branch North River can be seen on the other side of the trees. GPS Waypoint 59.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-100

The second large area of eroding river bank is located along the East Branch of the North River, adjacent to the Colrain Central School. The school is located within the 200-foot riparian buffer of both the river and one of its unnamed tributaries. The septic system which serves the school is also within the 200-foot buffer.

Photograph taken looking upstream towards Rte. 112. The school is to the left of the picture. GPS Waypoint 03.

Photo taken looking downstream. Note the lack of riparian buffer and proximity of houses along the left side of the river. Note undercutting at top of bank.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-101

Close-up of undercutting at the top of the bank.

Looking downstream. Note the vent pipe for the raised septic system, the dirt parking area, and the lack of a well-vegetated riparian buffer.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-102

Another view of the raised septic system and parking area. The septic field appears to be used as a playground and playing field.

An area of significant erosion was observed under the power lines shown in the picture, below.

GPS Waypoint 82.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-103

Agriculture & Livestock Grazing

According to the 1999 MacConnell land use data, the largely rural North River watershed contains approximately 3,000 acres of cropland and pasture land. Most of this land, which is still being actively farmed, is found in the river valleys of the watershed. As a result, large blocks of farmland are located within the 200-foot riparian buffer. Oftentimes, the riparian buffer is absent or very little of the buffer remains. The following pictures were taken along the East Branch North River (GPS Waypoint 04).

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-104

Livestock access to tributary stream. GPS Waypoint 7.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-105

River and Stream Crossings

Several stream crossings identified during the windshield survey were added to the Field Verification map. As the pictures indicate, the crossings included culverts of various sizes. The crossings were on tributaries of the North River and often, the drainage from the road flowed directly into the waterbody.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-106

GPS Waypoint 18

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-107

GPS Waypoint 19

GPS Waypoint 20

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-108

GPS Waypoint 21

GPS Waypoint 24

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-109

GPS Waypoint 25

GPS Waypoint 28

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-110

Note large gravel bar which formed during a high flow event and the lack of riparian buffer adjacent to the road. In picture, below, note road runoff flows directly into the river. GPS Waypoint 48

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-111

GPS Waypoint 37.

GPS Waypoint 38.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-112

Commercial Buildings

Gas station and garage within 200-foot riparian buffer of river. GPS Waypoint 30.

Recreation Areas

Seasonal residential community on Papoose Lake. GPS Waypoint 74

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-113

Seasonal residential community on Papoose Lake. GPS Waypoint 74

Septage disposal area for RVs. Seasonal residential community on Papoose Lake. GPS Waypoint 75

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-114

Stream Team Field Work and Assessments

Seven stream segments in the East Branch North River subwatershed were evaluated by Stream Team volunteers. The following discussion is arranged by segment, beginning upstream and working downstream to the confluence of the East Branch North River with the West Branch North River and down to the Deerfield River. The discussion includes descriptions of the conditions observed by the volunteers, such as instream and riparian conditions, wildlife and habitat, and potential sources of nonpoint pollution. The references to river right and river left banks are used for consistency among the Stream Teams and assume the observer is facing downstream.

Segment EB1a and EB1b – Vermont State Line to Franklin Hill Road

Segment EB1a extends from the Vermont State Line to Thompson Road. Volunteers observed minnows, waterbugs, and evidence of raccoons, beaver, and deer. Three galvanized pipes were found in this segment. The pipes carry runoff from the unnamed tributaries to the east of the river under Jacksonville Road and into the East Branch North River. All of the pipes appeared to be in good condition. However, two of the pipes (P-1 and P-2) pose a significant barrier to fish and wildlife passage.

Pipe P-1 River substrate near P-1.

Volunteers noted bank erosion on both the river right and left banks, but the most extensive erosion was on the river left bank. This erosion was caused by the flooding of October 2005. Evidence of the flooding included downed trees, flood debris 4-5’ up into trees, and the presence of extensive areas of Japanese knotweed sprouting on the river left bank. Another problem volunteers noticed was a lack of adequate riparian buffer on the river right bank. There is only about 15 feet of forest on the bank which gradually becomes a single line of trees next to a mowed pasture.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-115

Pipe P-2 River near pipe P-2

Pipe P-3 River near pipe P-3

Although no large areas of trash and debris were seen, there is scattered debris along this segment, including: plastic water bottles, old tractor inner tubes, buckets, and plastic bags. Segment EB1b extends from Thompson Rd south to Franklin Hill Road. This segment of the river flows quickly and the substrate is cobble with the occasional boulders. Volunteers saw evidence of beavers along the river right bank. The wildflower Adder’s tongue was observed along the river right bank and the volunteers saw minnows, birds, and evidence of raccoons and turkey.

Farm on Jesse Wood Road Farm on Jesse Wood Road

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-116

River left bank below Jesse Wood Road River left bank further downstream from farm Jesse Wood Road farm

In this segment, there is abundant evidence of flooding damage to adjacent farmlands. There are several deep pools (4-8 feet in depth) in this segment where swimming or other recreation has taken place, as evidenced by the cans and bottles on the river bank. Volunteers noted that the farm at the end of Jesse Wood Road had rusting equipment, plastic bags and debris close to river. There was also trash which had been dumped by the side of Jacksonville Road.

Segment EB2 – Franklin Hill Road to Reils Road

The substrate in this segment is mostly cobble with more boulders observed in the lower end of the segment. Volunteers observed Trillum, False Hellebore, Bloodroot, and Wild Oats. In the upper part of this segment, volunteers saw a few empty barrels and junk vehicles along Franklin Hill Road on the river left bank.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-117

Location 1 - Looking upstream from the Location 1 - Looking downstream from the Franklin Hill Road bridge Franklin Hill Road bridge. Note small riparian buffer on river right bank.

The dominant feature in this segment is the dairy farm located on the river right bank at the lower end of this segment. There is little or no riparian buffer on the river right bank and the bank is eroding in several locations. Attempts have been made in the past, and recently, to protect the bank with hard structures such as riprap and large boulders.

Location 2 – Looking east across field towards Location 2 – Looking southeast. river

Location 3 – Looking west from Reils Road. Looking northwest from Reils Road. Note silt deposition from 2005 floods, eroding Note 2005 flood silt deposition and river right bank, and lack of riparian buffer lack of riparian buffer. Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-118

Location 4 – Old bridge abutments and riprap. Looking across the river from Reils Lane

The river left bank includes a farm at the northern end of Reils Lane. There is also very little riparian buffer on this section of bank. There was evidence that the 2005 October floods had inundated a large expanse of this field and left a large amount of silt behind. There was also evidence of steep bank erosion along this section. Reils Lane is a relatively flat dirt road and appeared to be in good shape with no major drainage issues noted. The neighbor did report one culvert gets clogged on occasion. Japanese Knotweed is present at the Reils Road Bridge.

Segment EB3 – Reils Road to Foundry Village Road

At the beginning of this segment, volunteers saw small patches of Japanese Knotweed on the river left bank on both sides of the Reils Road bridge. There were also several large metal bars, wood pallets and other materials strewn along the river left bank. The volunteers saw Dutchmen’s Breeches, Bloodroot, Tree Swallows, and Crayfish in this segment.

Just upstream of the bridge is the Colrain Log Yard, which has an active logging operation and farm. There are power lines that cross the river just north of the North River Cemetery. Downstream of the power lines there is significant bank erosion along the river left bank for approximately 350-500 feet. The bank currently does not have any riparian buffer. There was also a 2-foot PVC pipe with significant clear flow on the river left bank in approximately the same location, which the volunteers thought could be carrying water from a feeder stream.

The pump station for the Village of Colrain’s public drinking water supply is located on the river right. The October 2005 floods caused considerable damage in this area. The river jumped its channel and left the pumping stationed marooned on an island until the waters receded. The bank was deeply eroded, as was the access road. A large cobble bar formed as the river flowed in an “S” turn around the pumping station.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-119

Location 1 – Looking upstream from the Location 1 – Damage from 2005 Colrain Public Water Supply October floods

Location 1 – Looking upstream from access Location 1 – Public Water Supply road to Public Water Supply pump house

Location 1 – View upstream from the Public Location 2 – Looking upstream, River Water Supply. Note gravel bar deposition and Street is on the right. eroding banks.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-120

Several residences are located on River Street, along the river left bank. Volunteers saw evidence that people enjoy and interact with the river at this location. There is a bench located on the river bank overlooking the water and yard waste dumped along the bank. A section of the bank in this area was eroded and nearby, two outflow pipes were flowing – a 4-inch metal pipe and a 1-foot metal pipe. Both of the pipes had a clear flow. Japanese knotweed was also present on the river left bank upstream of the Rte. 112 Bridge.

A significant cobble bar protrudes several hundred feet downstream of the Rte. 112 Bridge. Most of the cobbles are deposited on the downstream side of the bridge with the river flow concentrated along the river right bank between the end abutment and 1st pier to the bridge. On the river right just downstream of the bridge, there was a 3-inch green PVC pipe with no flow. On river left, the terrace is eroding along the Call property and further downstream there was an old oil tank and tires back above the bank.

Location 3 – Downstream side of Rte. 112 Location 3 – Looking upstream bridge. towards Rte. 112 bridge from bank adjacent to Colrain Central School.

Further downstream, volunteers saw old farm equipment, scrap metal and debris and garbage up on the hill along the river right bank. The area is also used as a mushroom farm.

The steep river left bank behind the Town Offices and Highway Department is littered for over 650 feet with debris and trash. There was obvious evidence this was the old town dump with everything from oil and propane tanks; car parts, bumpers, frames and chassis; culverts and concrete; filing cabinets; and other various metal debris and

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-121

equipment. In addition, a portion of the bank on the inside bend is eroding and there was evidence of glass and other trash buried beneath.

Location 4 - Old Town Dump, river left bank

Old Town Dump, river left bank under Colrain Location 5 - Town of Colrain’s sand Town hall pile

Volunteers could see the Town’s sand pile from the river, even though it is perched on the top of the very steep river left bank. There was very little vegetative buffer and it appears the pile lacks a cover and silt fencing to contain the materials on site. From what can be seen from the river, there appears to be some sand drifting down the bank, though it had not yet reached the river.

Upstream of the Foundry Village Road Bridge, there are remnants of an old dam which has been breeched. There still is a 1-foot high sill stretching across the width of the river. The bridge also has two drainage pipes that discharge to the river.

Downstream of the Foundry Village Road bridge, there is a concrete 3-foot pipe on the river left bank discharging

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-122

an iron colored substance. The pipe is adjacent to the prefabricated house building business (aka “Truss Factory”) and in close proximity to an old Brownfields site.

Location 6 - Concrete pipe

Location 6 – Close-up of rust-colored discharge from pipe.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-123

Truss Factory site – Note lack of riparian buffer and eroding bank

Segment EB4 – Foundry Village Road to Adamsville Road

Volunteers noted that this segment has areas of significant erosion, most of which occurred as a result of the October 2005 floods. The following sequence of pictures begins at the upstream end of the segment and progresses downstream.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-124

Location 1 - Bank erosion behind S & S Auto, Location 2 - Erosion downstream of the likely caused by uncontrolled overland runoff. covered bridge. River left bank. Note Volunteers noted that the eroding soil is moving bank erosion near utility pole down into the river.

Location 3 - Bank erosion near Hager Farm. Gravel bar deposition from October Note utility pole in danger of being undermined. 2005 floods. River left bank, Hager Farm, downstream of covered bridge.

Gravel bar deposition from October 2005 floods. Location 4 – Riprap near cemetery. River left bank, Hager Farm, downstream of covered bridge

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-125

BBA Nonwovens Dam. Dam is equipped with a fish ladder

Segment EB5 – Adamsville Road to Colrain Road

The volunteers observed a pipe on the BBA Nonwovens property which was discharging a bright orange liquid into the river. The volunteers took several pictures to document the discharge. Coincidentally, staff from the DFG and Riverways Program had been out on the North River the same week and had seen the wastewater treatment plant outfall pipe from the Rte. 112 bridge. The discharge had a “very visible red, yellow coloring” and the staff were concerned and followed up with the MA DEP. The response from the MA DEP was that both the EPA and the DEP were aware of the reddish color of the discharge and the NPDES permit for the facility does not limit the discharge for color. During the last NPDES permit update, MA DEP staff and others had lobbied to require the color to be regulated. EPA’s response was to have BBA do some toxicity tests to see if the color was a problem (other than aesthetically).

Looking upstream from the Rte. 112 Discharge from wastewater treatment outfall bridge BBA Nonwovens facility is visible pipe. Also note eroding bank on both sides in the background. of the river and gravel bar deposition. Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-126

Based on the results of the tests, the EPA determined that the color was not affecting water quality so the permit does not have limits for color. BBA says the color is from the cotton cleaning process, which releases tannins.

Downstream of the Rte. 112 bridge is another large gravel bar and three long areas of eroding river bank. Volunteers also saw serious bank erosion near Call Road and the Town of Colrain’s public water supply wells.

Location 1 - Gravel bar downstream of the Rte. 112 bridge.

Location 2 - Erosion near Call Road and town wells

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-127

Location 2 - Erosion near Call Road and town wells

Segment EB6 – Colrain Road to the Confluence of the Deerfield River

Japanese knotweed was seen on the river right bank upstream and downstream of the Rte. 112 bridge. In addition, there was some household trash and debris on the river left bank just downstream of the bridge.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-128

View downstream from Rte. 112 bridge

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-129

Table 3-11 Stream Team Pipe Survey Results for the North River Algae Sediment Segment Pipe Material Pipe Size and Color of Odor of Pipe # Time Below Below Comments? ID and Condition Amount of Flow Flow Flow Pipe Pipe Galvanized 5’ Boulders – Brisk water flow, EB1(a) 1 3pm diameter in good Clear None None no waterfall shape sediment Algae – orange, Galvanized 3’ 400’ north of the Thompson EB1(a) 2 3pm Slow trickle tea colored None stream is good condition Rd Bridge rust colored 300’ north from Thompson EB1(a) 3 2:45 pm Galvanized Low flow None Algae No Rd Bridge Algae and River left bank downstream EB3 1 3” PVC Pipe Trickle Clear None No leaves of Riels Lane Bridge River left bank near where Significant flow EB3 2 3’ PVC Pipe Clear the power lines cross the Feeder Stream? river 4” + 10” metal River left bank along River EB3 3 & 4 Some Clear pipes St 3” Green PVC River right downstream of EB3 5 No pipe Rte 112 Bridge EB4 & Concrete, fair Rocks and See Pic #1, By Truss 1 1:00 pm 36” Reddish rust EB5 shape leaves Factory Could not get EB4 & Behind BBA Nonwovens, 2 close enough to 12”? Orange EB5 See Pic #3 & 3A see EB4 & 30-40 foot Behind S&S Auto from old 3 Tower in water EB5 long factory, See pic #4

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-130

Water Quality Sampling Program

Between June 12 and September 15, 2005, staff from the Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA) and three volunteers sampled for E. coli during three wet and three dry-weather events at each of the six screening-level sampling locations in the North River subwatershed. In the North River, 15 of 18 wet-weather samples violated state water quality standards (Table 3-12, Figure 3-7). As in the South River, these consistently elevated concentrations precluded, to some degree, the identification of potential bacteria sources in the watershed. However, bacteria concentrations were consistently higher during wet-weather events at NOR-010 than at the adjacent upstream location, NOR-004, which suggested a potential bacteria source occurs between these two locations. Only one North River site, NOR-005, exceeded the state water quality standard during dry-weather sampling, which suggested that 2006 targeted sampling should also include the reach of river between NOR-005 and NOR-006.

Table 3-12 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the North River

2005 Sampling Date Site 6/12 7/6* 7/13 7/31* 8/13* 8/14 8/28* 9/15* NOR-010 42.0 1046.2 54.4 n/s n/s 210.0 770.1 1203.3 NOR-002 71.2 214.3 50.4 n/s n/s 166.4 435.2 547.5 NOR-003 19.7 1986.3 38.4 n/s n/s 50.4 435.2 118.7 NOR-004 36.9 387.3 11.0 n/s n/s 35.0 579.4 178.5 NOR-005 137.6 >2419.6 62.0 n/s n/s 294.3 563.5 887.3 NOR-006 74.9 75.4 26.2 n/s n/s 90.4 770.1 841.4 Numbers reported are the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli colonies per 100 ml of sample water. Numbers in bold violate the state water quality standard of 235 E. coli per 100 ml. Site codes in bold are those that had water quality standard violations during at least one sampling event. n/s = not sampled. * = Rain event.

Figure 3-7 Results of 2005 Bacteria Sampling in the North River North River E. coli 2005

3000 1.2

2500 1.0 Rain Amount (inches) 2000 0.8 NOR-002 NOR-010 NOR-003 1500 0.6 NOR-004 NOR-005 NOR-006 MPN per 100 ml 1000 0.4 Rain A mt

500 0.2

0 0.0 6/12/2005 7/6/2005 7/13/2005 8/14/2005 8/28/2005 9/15/2005

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-131

In 2006, DRWA staff and three volunteers attempted to bracket the potential source(s) of elevated E.coli concentrations detected in two reaches of the East Branch North River.

Table 3-13 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the North River

2006 Sampling Date Site 6/17/2006 6/23/2006 7/8/2006 7/21/2006 8/6/2006 8/19/2006 9/9/2006 NOR-010 45.9 62 242.5 81.6 112.4 67.7 35.8 NOR-010A n/s n/s n/s 81.3 95.9 2420.0 50.0 NOR-010B n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 36.9 NOR-010C n/s n/s n/s n/s 209.8 n/s n/s NRO0-010D n/s n/s n/s 101.9 n/s n/s n/s NOR-005 44.9 79.4 410.6 135.4 186 117.8 35.9 NOR-005A n/s n/s n/s 158.7 172.2 93.3 n/s NOR-005B 47.1 76.7 92.4 37.9 138.8 29.2 n/s NOR-005C 40.9 248.9 116.9 46.4 151.5 36.9 n/s NOR-006 18.5 307.6 81.3 n/s n/s n/s n/s Numbers reported are the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli colonies per 100 ml of sample water. Numbers in bold violate the state water quality standard of 235 E. coli per 100 ml. Site codes in bold are those that had water quality standard violations during at least one sampling event. n/s = not sampled. * = Rain event.

Figure 3-8 Results of 2006 Bacteria Sampling in the North River

North River E. coli 2006

1000 NOR-010 900 NOR-010A 800 NOR-010B NOR-010C 700 NOR-010D NOR-005 600 NOR-005A 500 NOR-005B NOR-005C 400 NOR-006

MPN (per 100 ml) 300 Water quality 200 standard 100 0 6/17/2006 6/23/2006 7/8/2006 7/21/2006 8/6/2006 8/19/2006 9/9/2006

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-132

Thirty-nine samples were collected from ten sites in the North River (Table 3-13). Four of these 39 samples, each collected from a different site, exceeded the state single-sample E. coli standard of 235 MPN (Table 3-13, Figure 3-8). Results of the first three sampling sessions suggested that bacteria sources were occurring above NOR-006, NOR-005, and perhaps NOR-010. Temporal and spatial patterns in the data suggested multiple sources rather than a single upstream source. It should also be noted that the elevated counts at NOR-006 and NOR-005C on June 23 were associated with the onset of a wet weather event, resulting from the initial flush or runoff at or above NOR-006, as NOR-005C was collected under dry conditions and NOR-006 was collected during the onset of rain.

Sampling during the last four collections focused on isolating sources between NOR-010 and NOR-005C. Significant increases in E. coli counts between NOR-005B at Reil Lane and NOR- 005A at the upper end of River Road on July 21 and August 19 suggest that agricultural practices along this reach of the North River were likely contributing to elevated bacteria concentrations. Elevated bacteria levels were not measured again at NOR-010 following the July 8 result of 242.5 MPN. A single sample collected on August 19 on the downriver side (NOR-010A) of the bridge construction site on Lyonsville Road resulted in an E. coli result of >2420 MPN. As the construction activity at the site was suspected as the source, an additional sampling round performed on September 9 focused on collecting samples immediately above (NOR-010B) and below (NOR-010A) this construction site. Neither sample exceeded 50 MPN and it was concluded that the highly elevated count from August was either a one-time occurrence and perhaps related to the construction activity, or a one-time or periodic occurrence with an upriver source.

Based on the 2006 results, agricultural activity between Reil Lane and the Colrain Elementary School was identified as a potential source of bacteria in the North River. However, the sources of some elevated bacteria counts remained undetected following the 2006 sampling season, including the sporadically elevated counts in the lower East Branch of the North River.

Accordingly, the DRWA performed a third year of sampling in the North River in an effort to identify the sources of these elevated bacteria counts. North River bacteria sampling was focused on the East Branch above, within, and below the town of Colrain in an effort to bracket suspected sources of elevated counts obtained on several occasions in 2006. 2006 bacteria sampling in the North River suggested that 2007 targeted sampling should focus sampling between NOR-005 and NOR-005B. DRWA staff and three volunteers sampled for E. coli on seven occasions in the North River.

Forty-four samples were collected from thirteen sites in the North River (Table 3-14). Three of these 44 samples, each collected from NOR-005, exceeded the state single-sample E. coli standard of 235 MPN/ 100 ml (Table 3-14, Figure 3-9). E. coli concentrations at this site adjacent to the Colrain Center School were consistently higher than those from upriver sites, irrespective of proximity to NOR-005 and the Rte. 112 bridge in Colrain center. An E. coli measurement of 218.7 MPN/100 ml at NOR-005 versus a count of 50.4 MPN/100 ml at NOR- 005AB1 (downstream of suspected agricultural source(s) of E. coli, but upstream of River Road) led to sampling of interceding sites NOR-005A and NOR-005 on the left (east) side of the river channel (across from the Colrain Center School side) on July 16. Although these counts were

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-133

slightly elevated (each exceeding 100 MPN/100 ml), they were lower than those recorded again at NOR-005 (248 MPN/100 ml). Through the late summer, sampling continued to focus on attempting to bracket the source of the elevated counts at NOR-005 with sampling from stations between the farms north of town and the Rte. 112 bridge. During the last round of sampling on the North River on August 29, a sample was collected from the immediate upstream side of the Rte. 112 bridge (NOR-005 up) and on the downstream side at Colrain Center School (NOR-005) in an effort to determine whether the source was coming from above or below the bridge. The upstream sample measured 35.9 MPN/100 ml, while the downstream sample measured 816.4 MPN/100 ml. The source appeared to be originating from downstream of (or under) the Rte. 112 bridge. In a follow up investigation, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection performed human marker testing of a sample collected from NOR-005 on October 4, 2007 and determined that bacteria occurring in the river at that time did not originate from a human source.

E. coli concentration in the North River below Colrain center generally increased through the summer, but never to concentrations that exceeded state water quality standards for a single sample. NOR-010D, located at the Foundry Village Road bridge and the closest point downstream from NOR-005, showed the highest concentrations among all lower river sites sampled between July 15 and August 25, suggesting that the high counts occurring at NOR-005 may have been affecting downriver reaches as well, with the largest effect occurring at the closest site.

The 2007 sampling program objectives included identifying sources of bacteria contamination occurring in the East Branch of the North River in Colrain. These efforts focused exclusively on dry-weather sampling. Despite these efforts, these sources went largely unidentified. Efforts to identify the source of bacteria contamination occurring at NOR-005 in the North River ultimately suggested a source under or immediately downriver of the Rte. 112 bridge in Colrain center (suggesting a human source such as failing septic system), but human marker testing by DEP in early October failed to show a human source of the contamination.5 However, this one time sampling event is not conclusive evidence that the source of the bacteria is not a failing septic sytem(s).

2006 sampling results strongly suggested that the farm(s) occurring upriver of Colrain center were the likely cause of this contamination, but this year’s sampling appeared to effectively isolate that potential source from the contamination occurring at NOR-005 via low counts at several interceding sites. Although upriver agricultural activity may at times contribute to bacterial contamination of the North River, it seemed an inconsequential source during this year’s summer sampling. Further investigation of this year’s results could include a thorough visual inspection of the Rte. 112 bridge and associated river area. Anecdotal evidence suggests that even heavy pigeon use of a bridge may result in elevated bacteria counts in the river below. Other animal use in and around the river and bridge, as well as failing septic system(s) could be resulting in the elevated bacteria counts measured at NOR-005.

5 personal communication between Mike Cole, DRWA and Dan Kurpaska, MA DEP, Dec 2007.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-134

Table 3-14 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the North River

2007 Sampling Date Site 6/16 6/30 7/2 7/15 7/17 7/22 7/28 8/11 8/12 8/25 8/29 NOR-005B 43.5 63.1 n/s 78.9 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s NOR-005 98.8 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s AB-2 NOR-005 93.0 50.4 n/s 72.3 n/s n/s 69.1 n/s 35.9 62.4 n/s AB-1 NOR-005A n/s n/s n/s 137.6 n/s n/s 105.4 n/s 34.5 52.9 n/s NOR- n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 73.3 n/s n/s n/s n/s 005A/005 NOR-005 Left n/s n/s n/s 125.9 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s channel NOR-005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 35.9 up NOR-005 218.7 n/s 248.9 n/s n/s 163.9 n/s 124.2 748.6 816.4 NOR-010D 63.8 71.2 n/s 113.9 n/s n/s n/s n/s 101.7 218.7 n/s NOR-010C 46.5 69.7 n/s 107.1 n/s n/s n/s n/s 82.6 172.6 n/s NOR-010A 42.0 72.3 n/s 95.9 n/s n/s n/s n/s 69.1 111.2 n/s NOR-002A 39.3 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s NOR-002 160.7 82.7 n/s 76.7 n/s n/s n/s n/s 30.8 27.8 n/s Numbers reported are the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli colonies per 100 ml of sample water. Numbers in bold violate the state water quality standard of 235 E. coli per 100 ml. Site codes in bold are those that had water quality standard violations during at least one sampling event.

Figure 3-9 Results of 2007 Bacteria Sampling in the North River

North River E. coli 2007 NOR-005B

NOR-005 AB-2 1000.0 NOR-005 AB-1 NOR-005A

900.0 NOR-005A/005

NOR-005 Lft 800.0 channel NOR-005 up 700.0 NOR-005 NOR-010D

600.0 NOR-010C

NOR-010A 500.0 NOR-002A 400.0 NOR-002

MPN (per 100 ml) 300.0 Water quality 200.0 standard 100.0 0.0 6/16 6/30 7/2 7/15 7/17 7/22 7/28 8/11 8/12 8/25 8/29

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-135

D. GREEN RIVER WATERSHED

The Green River watershed is located north of the Deerfield River in Vermont, the Towns of Leyden and Greenfield, and parts of the Towns of Colrain, Shelburne and Bernardston in Massachusetts. It forms the border between the towns of Colrain and Leyden. The Green flows south meeting the Deerfield River in the town center of Greenfield. It is the Deerfield’s second largest tributary. The watershed is 88.9 square miles in size.

Colrain, Leyden and Greenfield, which encompass four-fifths of the basin, have a total population of 20,066 – 1,918 residents in Colrain, 858 in Leyden, and 18,290 in Greenfield.

The watershed in Colrain, Leyden, Bernardston and Shelburne is zoned rural residential with commercial zones along Route 2 in Shelburne, in Colrain off Greenfield Road near Colrain Mountain and at Stewartsville on the Green River, and in Leyden Center which is zoned village, urban residential. Greenfield has eight areas zoned as recreation, seasonal residential – two are located outside of Greenfield Center. Also in Greenfield, sections of Route 5 near Log Plain Road and through Greenfield Center, Route 2A from Route 2 to Haywood Street and from High Street to the I-91 traffic circle, and Route 2 west from the traffic circle to Shelburne Road West are zoned commercial. Also, Greenfield is zoned residential in the northern and eastern portions of Town with the southeast section of Town zoned village, urban residential.

D.1 Natural Resources

Much of the Green River watershed in Colrain, Leyden, Bernardston and Shelburne is mountainous and forested with slopes greater than 25%. In Greenfield, the topography is flatter, with gently rolling hills and the soils are excellent for farming. There are 58 potential vernal pools in the watershed – eight in Shelburne, nine in Colrain, eight in Leyden, ten in Bernardston and 23 in Greenfield. Only ten lie within protected lands.

Areas identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as Priority Habitats of Rare Species, and/or Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife include: almost all of the Green River corridor from just north of the center of Greenfield to the Vermont state line; all of the Thorne and Glen Brooks, tributaries to the Green River; most of Brandy Brook, a tributary to Glen Brook; two unidentified tributaries of the Green River in Leyden; part of Hindsdale Brook in Shelburne and Greenfield; and the confluence of the Green and Deerfield Rivers in Greenfield. Approximately one-third of the land in the watershed is permanently protected.

BioMap Core Habitat C80 encompasses a section of the Green River and its tributaries in Leyden and borders wetlands and forested uplands. These areas support rare dragonflies like the Ocellated Darner and the Beaver Pond Clubtail, and rare plants such as Slender Cottongrass. The Core Habitat contains exemplary natural communities, including High-Energy Riverbank and Riverside Rock Outcrop communities along the Green River.

The natural communities of this Core Habitat include one of the state's largest known occurrences of Northern Hardwoods Hemlock – White Pine Forest, which have a mix of Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-136

evergreen and deciduous trees, with a closed, full canopy, and sparse shrub and herbaceous layers. It also contains a small Acidic Graminoid Fen in a larger wetland complex, and there is a series of very good quality High-Energy Riverbank and Riverside Rock Outcrop communities along the river. These communities are well-buffered by the surrounding forest.

BioMap Core Habitat C161 is part of a series that contains unique Riverside Rock Outcrops, communities that consist of sparsely vegetated areas in crevices on riverside rock outcrops where soil accumulates. The communities support large assemblages of high-boreal and arctic-alpine bryophytes (mosses and their allies) that are disjunct from the bulk of these species' ranges. Despite extensive searching, no other location in New England has been identified for these species. This Core Habitat also contains a relatively small but very diverse Rich, Mesic Forest associated with rare plant species and is immediately surrounded by a large tract of Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock Forest, which is embedded in over 2000 acres of naturally forested land.

The Core Habitat of C108 and C140 include a species-rich High-Energy Riverbank with an intact natural flood and scour regime. High-Energy Riverbank communities are sparse, open graminoid communities found on cobble and sand deposits along fast-flowing rivers that experience severe flooding and ice scour. The community is on the edge of over 2500 acres of naturally forested land. Two small Core Habitats – C200 and C176 – have rare plants.

There are two Living Water Core Habitats in Leyden. In one, the Green River and its tributaries flow through an undeveloped, forested area of Core Habitat LW241. The area is home to a species of rare dragonfly, the Ocellated Darner, which is an indicator of high-quality, rocky, and fast-flowing river habitat. Just across the border in Vermont, a tributary to the Green River supports a healthy community of the more ecologically sensitive aquatic insects: mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. The presence of this invertebrate community indicates these stream habitats are relatively free of the impacts of development.

The other Core Habitat LW314 supports the state's only known population of the Endangered Northern Redbelly Dace. Historically, this fish species has been found at 3 other locations in the state. Disjunct from more northern populations and uncommon in its habitat, this population could disappear from Massachusetts without conservation attention. Protecting land in the riparian areas adjacent to the Core Habitat, and controlling the runoff from nearby agricultural lands, roads, and residences, will help maintain the quality of this habitat.

Core Habitat C252 straddles the Towns of Greenfield and Colrain, the bulk of which is in Colrain. It contains the state’s largest population of the Dwarf Scouring-Rush, a diminutive, primitive plant that does not produce flowers or seeds and grows in moist forest areas. Another rare plant, the Leafy White Orchis, grows here near the southern limit of its range.

Greenfield has four Core Habitat areas. Biomap Core Habitat C361 contains a small, yet good- quality, Rich, Mesic Forest along a long and narrow shore of the Green River. Rich, Mesic Forests are a variant of northern hardwood forests dominated by Sugar Maple with a diverse herbaceous layer and many spring ephemerals, unusual plants that appear only in spring and thrive in a moist, nutrient-rich environment.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-137

There is a fairly diverse High-Terrace Floodplain Forest, an uncommon natural community type, in Core Habitats C396 and C437. High-Terrace Floodplain Forests are deciduous hardwood forests that occur along riverbanks, above the zone of annual flooding. This site has minor levels of disturbances and has little forested land buffering it.

About two-sevenths of the Town of Greenfield and a very small section in south Bernardston is designated as aquifer – one-fifth is high-yield, the balance is low-yield. One quarter of the aquifer in Greenfield is protected. Other aquifers that occur along the Green River in Colrain and Leyden and in isolated pockets in Colrain and Shelburne are mostly unprotected.

There are sixteen public wells in the watershed – one on Greenfield Road in southern Colrain; two in Leyden at the confluence of Glen and Brandy Brooks, the other at the Greenfield Reservoir on Glen Brook; two at the Bernardston and Greenfield Town Line on Mill Brook; four in Greenfield, three in the north of town on Mill Brook, the other on Route 2 (Mohawk Trail) near Greenfield Community College; and two in northern Shelburne near the Colrain-Shelburne Road.. Only the public wells at Greenfield Reservoir (1), in Bernardston (2), and northern Greenfield (3) are on protected lands. The remaining wells in Shelburne, Colrain and Greenfield are not protected and could be threatened by development.

Important wetlands are found in Greenfield, Colrain, Leyden, and Shelburne. Wetlands in Leyden are along Glen Brook and its tributaries; in the Hubbard Brook watershed which includes a small pond; and along Harris Brook which includes two small ponds. None are on protected lands. In Colrain, sizeable wetlands can be found along Johnson Brook and on an unnamed tributary to the Green River in the southern part of the Town; neither is protected. In Shelburne, there are wetlands along Wheeler, Allen and Hinsdale Brooks. Only a portion of the Allen Brook wetlands are protected. There is also a significant wetland between Colrain-Shelburne Road and Peckville Road which is on protected lands.

Greenfield has many wetland areas in the Green River watershed. Large wetlands include the White Ash Swamp in the eastern part of Town which is sandwiched between Route 2 and Wildwood Avenue and Route 2A and Gold Street along Cherry Rum Brook. The wetland is surrounded by development. Another sizeable wetland is in the northeast corner of Greenfield. It lies between Route 5 and the railroad and has Interstate 91 running through it. Much of this wetland is on protected lands. There are numerous wetlands along Mill and McCard Brooks; some are protected. The small wetlands along Smead, Punch and Hinsdale Brooks are protected, while those on Wheeler and Allen Brooks and near Greenfield Community College on College Drive are not. Lastly, wetlands along Graues Brook between Mountain Road, Highland Avenue and Maple Street and near Petty Plain Road and Meridan Street are unprotected.

D.2 Land Use Characteristics and Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

According to the 1999 Land Use and 1971 – 1999 Land Use Change Map, the predominant land uses in the watershed are forest, agricultural and residential. There are three small commercial areas on Route 2 on Greenfield Mountain in Shelburne, five commercial areas on Route 2A north of Route 2 in Greenfield, and one industrial site (Stewartville) in the north of Colrain on

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-138

Greenfield Road and the Green River. Greenfield Center is a quarter of the land-use base in the Town of Greenfield and encompasses residential, industrial and commercial sites.

Three waste disposal sites are found in the watershed – two in Greenfield Center at the confluence of the Green and Deerfield Rivers and two in southern Leyden. There are seventeen (17) Tier II hazardous materials facilities – one (1) in Colrain, sixteen (16)in Greenfield – and sixteen (16) 21E Hazardous Waste Sites – one (1) in Leyden and fifteen (15) in Greenfield. There are numerous underground storage tanks in Greenfield. Fifty-one (51) bridges and culverts exist in the watershed – six (6) in Shelburne; four (4) over the Green River between Colrain and Leyden; six (6) more in Leyden on tributaries; one (1) in Bernardston; and thirty- four (34) in Greenfield.

As indicated in Table 3-15, the predominant land use trend observed between 1971 and 1999 was the conversion of agricultural and forested land to development – principally residences built on lots of a quarter acre or more (615 acres) and a quarter acre to a half acre (154 acres), and lands that have transitioned to woody perennial acreage (337 acres). Much of the residential and commercial development was Approval Not Required (ANR) along existing roads. Also, between 1971 and 1999 about 215 acres (213.5 acres) changed to Open Land, which includes abandoned agricultural land, power lines, and areas of no vegetation.

Table 3-15 Land Use Statistics for the Green River Subwatershed

Land Use Change LU Code Description 1971 Acres 1999 Acres 1971 - 1999 1 Cropland 3,431.85 2,818.50 -613.4 2 Pasture 2,168.11 1,590.98 -577.1 3 Forest 21,665.84 21,349.58 -316.3 4 Non-forested Wetland 115.51 114.54 -1.0 5 Mining 38.60 17.65 -20.9 6 Open Land 926.45 1,139.91 213.5 7 Participation Rec 258.74 265.55 6.8 8 Spectator Rec 37.03 5.00 -2.0 9 Water-Based Rec - - 0.0 10 Residential multi-fam 19.51 97.89 78.4 11 Residential <.25 acre lot 464.84 467.93 3.1 12 Residential .25-.5 acre lot 1,158.78 1,313.10 154.3 13 Residential >.5 acre lot 1,071.63 1,687.01 615.4 15 Commercial 262.29 335.45 73.2 16 Industrial 82.45 122.94 40.5 17 Urban Open 321.13 331.41 10.3 18 Transportation 322.90 324.86 2.0 19 Waste Disposal 11.51 15.58 4.1 20 Water 109.95 102.50 -7.5 21 Woody Perennial 315.65 652.42 336.8

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-139

Field Verification

On March 29, 2006, staff from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments conducted a windshield survey of the Green River subwatershed to field verify the land use map and collect additional data, such as pictures and GPS way points for potential sources of nonpoint pollution. FRCOG staff recorded 34 waypoints and took 56 pictures during the windshield survey. A list of the waypoints and the locations of the waypoints are shown on the Field Verification map. Several potential sources of nonpoint pollution, identified during the windshield survey, are discussed in more detail, below.

Junkyards

Junk cars behind trees. Green River in Vermont. GPS Waypoint 14.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-140

Junk yard on Thorne Brook, a tributary to the Green River. GPS Waypoint 14.

Junk cars by Thorne Brook. GPS Waypoint 22

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-141

Recreation Areas

Gun range on Thorne Brook just at the Vermont Massachusetts line. GPS Waypoint 21.

Significant Areas of Erosion

Several areas of significant erosion were noted during the windshield survey conducted by FRCOG staff.

Extreme erosion on Hindsdale Brook. GPS Waypoints 33, 34

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-142

Extreme erosion on Hindsdale Brook. GPS Waypoints 33, 34

Discoloration of water (silt) from erosion on Hindsdale Brook. GPS Waypoint 34.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-143

Road Runoff

GPS Waypoint 27.

Lack of riparian buffer and bank erosion near Hindsdale Brook. GPS Waypoint 34.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-144

Clearcutting adjacent to tributary. GPS Waypoint 1

Note lack of riparian buffer and gravel bar deposition from high flow event(s). GPS Waypoint 10.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-145

Large wetland adjacent to road. GPS Waypoint 26.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-146

Trash and Debris

Dumpsite adjacent to the Green River. GPS Waypoint 02.

Junk cars by Green River. GPS Waypoint 28.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-147

Road construction debris dumped. GPS Waypoint 33.

Junk car in woods. GPS Waypoint 22.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-148

Agriculture and Livestock Grazing

Within the Green River watershed, there are several areas within the 200-foot riparian buffer where cows and horses are pastured. One area was observed where the livestock had direct access to the water, on an unnamed tributary of the Green River.

Livestock access to tributary. GPS Waypoint 24.

Cows near Green River. GPS Waypoint 05.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-149

Corn Farm near river. GPS Waypoint 30.

Corn farm near river. GPS Waypoint 30.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-150

Horse farm. GPS Waypoint 31.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-151

Livestock with access to a tributary stream. GPS Waypoint 24.

River and Stream Crossings

Bridge crossing. GPS Waypoint 13.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-152

Old dam and culvert. GPS Waypoint 19.

Culvert. GPS Waypoint 9.

Development

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-153

House next to tributary stream. GPS Waypoint 11.

Building lots. GPS Waypoint 16. Note tree clearing and lack of erosion control measures.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-154

GPS Waypoint 12.

Building lot. GPS Waypoint 16. Note tree clearing and lack of erosion control measures.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-155

Houses near Green River. GPS Waypoint 8.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-156

New house lot. GPS Waypoint 29. Note tree clearing and lack of erosion control measures.

New house near tributary stream. GPS Waypoint 25.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-157

E. DEERFIELD RIVER CORRIDOR – SEGMENTS 1 & 2

Segment 1 of the Deerfield River watershed is located in the northwest corner of the Deerfield River watershed in the Towns of Monroe, Florida and Rowe. A small part of the watershed is located in the Towns of Savoy and Charlemont. This section of the Deerfield River flows south from Vermont, and then in Florida begins to flow in an easterly direction into Charlemont. The watershed encompasses 42.053 square miles. The basin is sparsely populated with approximately 450 residents.

Segment 2 of the Deerfield River runs in an easterly direction through the Town of Charlemont and then becomes the town line separating Charlemont from Buckland. Its watershed is located in parts of Rowe, Heath, and Colrain to the north of Charlemont and in Hawley and Buckland to the south of Charlemont. The segment ends at the town line with Shelburne. It is 45.809 square miles and has a population of about 2,580.

E.1 Natural Resources

Segments 1 and 2 of the Deerfield River watershed are mountainous with many of the slopes greater than 25%; most hills are forested. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has designated a number of areas as Priority Habitats of Rare Species, and/or Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife. They include: a large area in the northwest corner of the watershed in Florida and Monroe, including the headwaters of Granger Brook and Crum Hill; the area around Sherman Reservoir and encompassing Lord and Phelps Brooks; the length of the Deerfield River, including the mountain ridges east of the River, and the northern and eastern lands and waters of Upper Reservoir Bear Swamp and excepting the Lower Reservoir. Other areas classified by NHESP as Priority Habitats include: Pelham Brook and its tributaries – Steele, County, Rice, and parts of Shippees and Potter Brooks – and Pelham Lake; a large area that surrounds Dunbar Brook; a node incorporating the lower parts of Fife and Hunt Brooks; and a sizeable swath of land south of Upper Reservoir Bear Swamp to the Deerfield River. In Charlemont, the Priority Habitats include the length of the Deerfield River and a number of tributaries – Mill, Hartwell, Willis, Avery, Wilder and East Oxbow Brooks to the north and Bozrah, Albee and First Brooks.

Core Habitat BM191 contains large areas of suitable riparian habitat for Spring Salamanders along several miles of coldwater high gradient brooks and associated headwater seeps and springs flowing out of the Catamount Hills in Colrain. Included are sections of Johnson, Cary, Meadow, Holden, and Houghton brooks, as well as portions of several unnamed brooks. Although over half of this Core Habitat is protected within Catamount State Forest, substantial stretches of Spring Salamander habitat in the southwestern, southeastern, and northern parts of the Core Habitat are currently unprotected.

Core Habitat BM430 encompasses a diversity of habitats, including a high-quality example of a Level Bog wetland community. There is also extensive habitat for Spring Salamanders and Jefferson Salamanders, several rare plant populations, as well as habitat for rare species of butterflies, dragonflies, and beetles. This Core Habitat contains a well-known and much-visited

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-158

Level Bog. Level Bogs are dwarf shrub peatlands, generally with pronounced hummock and hollow formations. These wetland peatlands are our most acidic and nutrient-poor, because they receive little overland water input, and are not connected to the water table. Although moderate levels of disturbances from trampling are affecting the peat layer here, this bog remains a high- quality example of this natural community type across the state. Within this Core Habitat, there are species of plants nearing the southern limit of their range in Massachusetts, such as the Leafy White Orchis and Dwarf Mistletoe. Also present is the only currently known population of the Few-Flowered Sedge in the state.

Core Habitat BM430 includes a relatively large and unfragmented area of Northern Hardwoods Forest with a complement of Beech that is habitat for the Early Hairstreak butterfly. Within this forest are numerous streams, small rivers, and ponds that are important habitat features for other rare invertebrates such as the Beaver Pond Clubtail dragonfly, Ski-tailed Emerald dragonfly, and the Twelve-spotted Tiger Beetle. Much of this habitat is within the Dubuque Memorial State Forest. Nevertheless, conservation of remaining areas of unprotected land within this Core Habitat, especially to the northeast of the State Forest, is desirable to increase the amount of contiguous protected habitat and to help ensure the long-term viability of rare species inhabiting the area. This Core Habitat encompasses many miles of high-gradient, coldwater brooks that provide habitat for Spring Salamanders. Also within this Core Habitat, mature mixed forests with vernal pools provide habitat for populations of Jefferson Salamanders. Portions of this Core Habitat are protected as conservation land within State Forests, but the majority is currently unprotected.

Living Waters Core Habitat LW119 includes a section of the Deerfield River and its tributaries which support the Longnose Sucker, a fish Species of Special Concern. This species is restricted to the western watersheds of Massachusetts, where it is found in cold, clean, oxygen-rich streams with gravel bottoms. The Longnose Sucker sometimes migrates many miles to reach its spawning grounds. The eggs are released over the gravel bottom, making them susceptible to excess sedimentation, flow alterations, and increases in water temperature. These habitat degradations can be particularly detrimental to the reproductive success of this slow-growing fish that does not reach maturity until 5 to 7 years of age. Protecting the riparian areas adjacent to this Core Habitat will help maintain the cool, clean freshwater habitat of the Longnose Sucker.

BioMap Core Habitat BM84 includes a 2.5-km stretch of the Deerfield River between Monroe and Rowe that is habitat for the rare Ocellated Darner dragonfly. The surrounding landscape is forested and for the most part unfragmented, which protects the river from pollution. While the southeastern quarter of this Core Habitat is within the Monroe State Forest, much of the remaining area appears to be unprotected.

BioMap Core Habitat BM163encompasses upland forest habitat around the entrance to a bat hibernaculum (an overwintering area).

Core Habitat BM113 contains 32 acres of old-growth Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine forest. Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forests have a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, with a closed, full canopy, and sparse shrub and herbaceous layers. The forest here occupies an area along the steep north-facing slopes above Dunbar Brook. Large mossy

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-159

boulders are scattered throughout the ancient forest. At this site, scientists have recorded Hemlocks as old as 300 years, Ash trees up to 175 years old, and many canopy trees with trunk diameters greater than 1 meter.

BioMap Core Habitat BM154 contains one of the most distinct assemblages of old-growth forest in the state. The steep slopes along Fife Brook probably protected this forest from logging and pasturing. As a result, a forest with 300-year-old Sugar Maples, Beech, and Hemlock trees with diameters over 1 meter offers a glimpse of what the forests of Massachusetts may have looked like before European settlement.

Core Habitat BM184 includes a 2.5-km stretch of the Deerfield River between Monroe and Rowe that is habitat for the rare Ocellated Darner dragonfly. The surrounding landscape is forested and for the most part unfragmented, which protects the river from pollution. While the southeastern quarter of this Core Habitat is within the Monroe State Forest, much of the remaining area appears to be unprotected.

Although small, this Core Habitat BM105 of Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine community contains one of Massachusetts' few remaining old-growth stands. Within this forest, tree diameters exceed 1 meter, and Hemlocks have been aged at over 300 years. Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forests have a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, with a closed, full canopy, and sparse shrub and herbaceous layers.

Core Habitat BM143 and BM154 contain one of the most distinct assemblages of old-growth forest in the state. The steep slopes along Fife Brook probably protected this forest from logging and pasturing. As a result, a forest with 300-year-old Sugar Maples, Beech, and Hemlock trees with diameters over 1 meter offers a glimpse of what the forests of Massachusetts may have looked like before European settlement.

BioMap Core Habitat BM173 contains a large, unfragmented mixed forest of deciduous and evergreen trees. It includes much of the Cold River and its tributaries with steep-sided riverbanks, and encompasses old-growth forest. These high-quality habitats support a wide array of rare insect species, including those of moths, butterflies, tiger beetles, and dragonflies. The area is also important for several rare plant species, and includes one of the state's few Nodding Pogonia populations. The Core Habitat provides an overwintering area for bats, includes significant habitat for Spring Salamanders, as well as wetland habitats for American Bitterns.

Natural communities include a large, unfragmented Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine forest. Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forests have a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, with a closed, full canopy, and sparse shrub and herbaceous layers. They commonly occur on north facing slopes and ravines with moderately acidic soils. This natural community type is commonly found across Massachusetts, although it is too often a victim to fragmentation and development. Large tracts of this forest type are important for the protection of many of Massachusetts' more common species such as bear, deer, moose, and neo-tropical migrant birds. The Core Habitat also contains an excellent High-Energy Riverbank along the entire Cold River. High-Energy Riverbank communities are sparse, open graminoid communities found on cobble and sand deposits along fast-flowing rivers that experience severe flooding and

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-160

ice scour. Here much of the riverbank is pristine, inaccessible, and surrounded by old-growth forest.

Core Habitat BM 173 has several important rare plant populations, including one of the state's few populations of the rare and elusive Nodding Pogonia, which only blooms for one or two days each year. A very large and vigorous population of Woodland Millet, a delicate grass, is growing here as well. Along water bodies, the state's largest occurrences of Shore Sedge are found, as well as a few populations of Mountain Alder.

The undeveloped and relatively unfragmented habitat also has for a variety of rare insect species, including the Early Hairstreak butterfly, which inhabits Northern Hardwoods Forest with a complement of Beech; the Orange Sallow moth, a species of dry, open woodlands along ridgetops where its larval host False Foxgloves grows; the Twelve-spotted Tiger Beetle, which inhabits riverbanks along the Deerfield River; and rare dragonflies such as the Beaver Pond Clubtail and the Ski-tailed Emerald, which are species of slow-flowing streams, ponds, and lakes.

In Florida, the Core Habitat BM173 contains extensive, connected sections of high-gradient cold brook habitats and headwater seeps that provide significant habitat for Spring Salamanders. Wet meadow and shallow marsh habitat near Tannery Pond and south along Parker Brook provide habitat for American Bitterns and other wetland birds. This Core Habitat also includes upland forest habitat around the entrance to an underground bat hibernaculum (overwintering area). Large portions of this Core Habitat are protected as conservation land within State Forests, but important sections that link larger blocks of conservation land are, at present, unprotected.

In Monroe, Core Habitat BM71 contains a high-quality example of a mature Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest that is embedded within a large tract of unfragmented forest. Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forests have a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, with a closed, full canopy, and sparse shrub and herbaceous layers. They commonly occur on north facing slopes and ravines with moderately acidic soils.

Core Habitat BM96 contains an exemplary Spruce-Fir-Northern Hardwoods Forest. Spruce-Fir- Northern Hardwoods Forests are a northern, high elevation variant of Red Spruce-northern hardwood forest. This community type tends to be in cool, rocky soils that are nutrient poor, somewhat dry, and acidic. Here this old-growth forest includes many large canopy trees, a mature overall structure, and no history of human disturbance. Due to the land-use history of Massachusetts, old-growth forests are a rare find in the state.

Living Waters Core Habitat includes two river reaches, one on the Cold River, the other on the Deerfield River and its tributaries. LW044 Core Habitat in the Cold River and its tributaries supports the Longnose Sucker, a fish Species of Special Concern. This species is restricted to the western watersheds of Massachusetts, where it is found in cold, clean, oxygen-rich streams with gravel bottoms. The Longnose Sucker sometimes migrates many miles to reach its spawning grounds. The eggs are released over the gravel bottom, making them susceptible to excess sedimentation, flow alterations, and increases in water temperature. These habitat degradations can be particularly detrimental to the reproductive success of this slow-growing fish that does not

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-161

reach maturity until 5 to 7 years of age. Protecting the riparian areas adjacent to this Core Habitat will help maintain the cool, clean freshwater habitat of the Longnose Sucker.

Core Habitat LW301 is centered on the Deerfield River, and extends into the Chickley River and its tributaries, the lower portion of Cold River and its tributaries, and into Pelham Brook and its tributaries, all the way north to Pelham Lake. Pelham Lake is a naturally acidic lake that, along with its outlet, contains one of the state's only known populations of the Endangered Farwell's Water-Milfoil. Native freshwater plants like Farwell's Water-Milfoil are an important component of aquatic ecosystems, providing habitat and nutrition for fishes and invertebrates, and adding oxygen to the water through photosynthesis. Also, it supports the Longnose Sucker, a fish Species of Special Concern.

Important wetlands can be found on the tributaries to Dunbar Brook in Monroe, and the tributaries to Pelham Brook in Rowe. Also there are important wetlands on Davis Mine Brook in Rowe, Heath and Mill Brooks in Heath, and near Purinton and Depot Roads in Buckland. Most of the wetlands in the Pelham Brook Basin lie within lands classified as Priority Habitat by the State. Most of those in the Dunbar Brook Basin are protected because they are on protected lands. Those in Charlemont, Buckland and Heath are not protected except the wetland near Depot Road, which has some measure of protection as Priority Habitat.

There are 102 potential vernal pools and 8 certified vernal pools in the two watersheds. About 17% of the potential vernal pools and all but one of the certified vernal pools have some level of protection from development because they are located on protected open space or areas of steep slopes. The one certified vernal pool that is not protected is very near an area of impervious surfaces between the Ashfield Road and railroad tracks in the eastern most part of Charlemont. In Segment 1 about a quarter (25%), primarily in the south and central sections of the basin, has been designated BioCore; in Segment 2 about seven percent (7.4%), mostly in Hawley and Charlemont, is BioCore. These significant habitats include parts of Bozrah and Hawks Brooks in Hawley and Maxwell Brook in Rowe. They also include a mountain ridge and unnamed tributary to the Deerfield in Charlemont. Eighteen percent (18%) of Segment 1 and seven percent (7%) in Segment 2 is permanently protected lands including Pelham Lake in Rowe, Burnt Hill in Heath, and Adams and Topo Mountains on the Rowe-Charlemont town line.

In Segment 1, much of the Deerfield River corridor and five areas in the Pelham Brook Basin are potential low-yield aquifers. Most of the aquifers in Segment 1 have a degree of protection because they lile within the 200 foot River Protection Act buffer, are designated BioCore lands, and/or are on protected and Priority Habitat lands. In Segment 2, all of the Deerfield River corridor and most of the corridors of Wilder, Avery, Hartwell and Mill Brooks are potential aquifers. About half of these aquifers have a degree of protection against contamination because they are within the 200 foot buffer area of the Rivers Protection Act.

There are eleven public wells in Segment 1 and 23 public wells in Segment 2 of the Deerfield River watershed. Six are in Rowe in the northern part of Pelham Brook Basin at Camp Rowe and near Pelham Lake; two are in Rowe and one in Monroe just south of Sherman Reservoir and near Monroe Bridge; and two are in Florida near Moore’s Summit. Sixteen are interspersed along the Deerfield River where there are commercial uses and residential communities, while

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-162

two are in Heath in the north on Ledges Road and South Road; one is on Burnt Hill Road and Warwick Mountain north of Route 2, and one is near Institute Mountain south of the Route 2.

E. 2 Land Use Characteristics and Potential Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

The predominant land uses in Segments 1 and 2 of the Deerfield River watershed are forest, farming and residential. The zoning in Segment 1 is predominantly Residential, with a large area of Recreation, Seasonal Residential that stretches along the east side of the Deerfield River north of the Bear Swamp Reservoir. In Segment 2, the zoning is also predominantly Residential, with a small area of Village, Urban Residential in Heath.

There are four commercial areas, three industrial sites, and five gravel and sand mines in Segment 1 and twelve commercial areas, one industrial site, and no sand and gravels mines in Segment 2. Most of the commercial areas are located along Route 2 (also known as the Mohawk Trail) in Florida and Charlemont; one is in Rowe on the Deerfield River below the Lower Reservoir; and one is in Heath at the intersection of Dell and Ledges Roads. The five industrial sites are located on the Deerfield River – four in Rowe and one in Charlemont. There are five gravel mines, four in the southeast corner of Florida and one in the western edge of Charlemont quite near to the Deerfield River

According the MassGIS 1999 Land Use data, the two Segments contain: no waste disposal sites; two waste water treatment plants (one in Monroe and one in Charlemont); seven Tier II facilities (four in Rowe, one in Florida and two in Charlemont), and four 21E Hazardous Waste Sites (two in Rowe, one in Florida, and one in Heath). There are fifty-five bridges and numerous culverts. There are seven recreation sites in the two watershed Segments – two in Rowe in the Pelham Brook basin and five in Charlemont, most of which are near public water supplies.

As indicated in Table 3-16 below, the predominant land use trend observed between 1971 and 1999 was the conversion of forested and agricultural land to large lot residential development. Approximately 480 (481.01) acres of land were converted to residential use, primarily Approval Not Required (ANR) development along existing roads. There was considerable residential development along the Pelham River Basin in Rowe, and Mill Brook, Knott Road, and Hawk Hill Road in Charlemont and Heath. A comparable amount of forest (374.34 acres), pasture (104.69 acres), and cropland (190.94 acres) was lost (total 669.97 acres). The two subwatersheds gained additional recreational lands (47 plus acres near Mount Institute in Heath and Charlemont), about 165 acres of urban open space, and 20 acres of sand and gravel mines. In Florida, there is a new industrial site on established pasture land right next to the Deerfield River and a new commercial site on the Deerfield River below the Lower Reservoir. The recreational lands near Mount Institute were expanded considerably.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-163

Table 3-16 Land Use Statistics for the Deerfield River Corridor Segments 1 and 2 LU Code & Description 1971 1999 Land Use Change 1971 Total Segment Acres Acres - 1999 Change Number 1.1 Cropland 309.8 277.1 -32.66 1.2 1,423.44 1,265.15 -158.29 -190.94 2.1 Pasture 340.5 321.6 -18.97 2.2 1,026.24 940.52 -85.72 -104.69 3.1 Forest 24,233.2 24,137.6 -95.63 3.2 25,059.14 24,780.43 -278.71 -374.34 4.1 Non-forested Wetland 107.8 106.0 -1.83 4.2 36.73 41.51 4.78 2.96 5.1 Mining 16.5 36.6 20.14 5.2 14.96 0.0 -14.96 5.17 6.1 Open Land 641.4 641.5 0.04 6.2 230.86 397.50 166.64 166.68 7.1 Participation Rec 6.3 7.3 1.04 7.2 289.09 335.44 46.35 47.39 8.2 Spectator Rec 12.16 0.0 -12.16 -12.16 9.1 Water-Based Rec 2.0 2.0 0.00 10.1 Residential multi-fam 0.0 0.0 0.00 11.1 Residential <.25 acre lot 7.8 7.8 0.00 11.2 5.59 8.01 2.42 2.42 12.1 Residential .25-.5 acre lot 15.9 15.9 0.00 12.2 40.21 53.35 13.14 13.14 13.1 Residential >.5 acre lot 384.7 517.5 132.74 13.2 622.45 955.16 332.71 465.45 14.1 Commercial 21.7 26.8 5.10 14.2 62.52 63.62 1.09 6.19 15.1 Industrial 30.3 19.7 -10.57 15.2 2.97 2.97 0.00 -10.57 16.1 Urban Open 397.3 116.4 -280.90 16.2 39.12 36.46 -2.67 -283.57 17.1 Transportation 2.2 2.2 0.00 17.2 9.97 12.40 2.42 2.42 18.1 Waste Disposal 14.6 0.0 -14.63 18.2 3.67 0.0 -3.67 -18.30 19.1 Water 377.7 629.9 252.26 19.2 255.49 255.88 0.39 252.65 20.1 Woody Perennial 4.6 48.5 43.87 20.2 183.73 169.95 -13.77 30.10

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-164

Acid Mine Drainage

Between 1882 and 1911, approximately 100 tons of iron pyrite was extracted from Davis Mine each day the mine was worked. Iron pyrite, also known as “fool’s gold”, can be processed to yield sulfide, which can then be used to manufacture sulfuric acid, one of the most widely used industrial chemicals. Copper was also extracted from Davis Mine.

After the mine collapsed in 1911, the mine shafts flooded with groundwater, which produced a leachate plume of acid and heavy metals that contaminates the environment to this day. The acidic leachate plume dissolves minerals in the stream channel and in the subsurface soil, releasing soluble ions of iron, zinc, copper and other metals into the water. Flow from Davis Mine Brook empties into the Mill River, a tributary of the Deerfield River. By the time water from Davis Mine Brook reaches the Deerfield River, the pollution has been substantially diluted. However, fish and many types of macroinvertebrates have been eradicated from Davis Mine Brook.6

With funding from the National Science Foundation, scientists from UMass-Amherst have been studying the abandoned mine site for the past six years and have found evidence that minerals and bacteria in the soil and water are neutralizing the water’s acid content and reducing pollutant levels through biological activity (bioremediation). The research team will be finishing their work within the next 12 – 18 months. At the conclusion of the study, several options for remediation of the acid mine drainage will be recommended for further evaluation or implementation.7

Field Verification

On November 17, 2005 and September 9, 2006, staff from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments conducted a windshield survey of Segments 1 and 2 of the Deerfield River corridor to field verify the land use map and collect additional data, such as pictures and GPS way points for potential sources of nonpoint pollution. FRCOG staff recorded 58 waypoints and took 58 pictures during the windshield survey. A list of the waypoints and the locations of the waypoints are shown on the Field Verification map. Several potential sources of nonpoint pollution, identified during the windshield survey, are discussed in more detail, below.

6 Deerfield River Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report (MA DEP, October 2004). 7 personal communication with Dr. Sarina Ergas, UMass-Amherst.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-165

Sand and Gravel Operations

Large gravel pit. GPS waypoint 3.

Large gravel pit. GPS waypoint 5.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-166

Landfills and Hazardous Materials Sites

Tier II facility. GPS Waypoint 1.

Capped Landfill near Avery Brook GPS waypoint 53, 54.

Significant Areas of Erosion

One area of significant erosion and a potential area of erosion were noted during the windshield survey conducted by FRCOG staff.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-167

Erosion and stream. GPS waypoint 25.

Clearcutting. GPS waypoint 22.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-168

Clearcutting. GPS waypoint 23.

Road Runoff

Road runoff into waterbody. GPS waypoint 21.

Junkyards, Illegal Trash and Debris

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-169

Auto salvage yard on tributary of the Deerfield River. GPS Waypoint 39.

Litter and trash is a source of nonpoint pollution in rivers and streams. Illegal disposal of trash often occurs where people have access to the water body for recreation or in rest areas along the road. FRCOG staff observed several dumping areas along Mill Brook, a tributary of the Deerfield River.

Junk bus by road. Near Mill Brook, a tributary to the Deerfield River GPS Waypoint 44

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-170

Debris. GPS Waypoint 44.

Roadside junk structures and debris. GPS Waypoint 44

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-171

More junk. GPS Waypoint 44.

Junk cars. GPS Waypoint 43.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-172

Junk on river – wood pile and cars. GPS Waypoint 42.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-173

Buses, trucks and old farm equipment. GPS Waypoint 14.

Dumping near culvert and stream. GPS Waypoint 11.

Agriculture and Livestock Grazing

There are several areas within the 200-foot riparian buffer where cows and horses are pastured and/or where the livestock had direct access to water (tributaries).

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-174

Horse farm and culvert. GPS Waypoint 28.

River and Stream Crossings

Typically, the drainage from roadways flowed directly into the nearest waterbody. At new crossings, some runoff is directed over grass swales and riprap.

Bridge. GPS waypoint 8.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-175

Covered bridge. GPS waypoint 37.

Bridge. GPS Waypoint 20.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-176

Bridge over the Deerfield River. GPS waypoint 8.

Piles of dirt by roadside. GPS waypoint 27

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-177

Bridge over the Deerfield River. GPS waypoint 2.

Bridge. GPS waypoint 56.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-178

Road crossing downgradient of the capped landfill. Note road runoff flows directly into the stream. GPS Waypoint 55.

Culvert. GPS waypoint 58.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-179

Road Crossing. Heath Road crosses Avery Brook.

Culvert washout. GPS waypoint 6.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-180

Culvert. GPS waypoint 57.

Culvert. GPS waypoint 30.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-181

Culvert. GPS Waypoint 9.

Industrial Buildings and Sites

Ramage paper mill. GPS waypoint 19.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-182

Unknown commercial area (zoned for commercial use). GPS waypoint 7.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-183

Hoosic Tunnel. Railroad Crossing. GPS waypoint 12.

Development

New house near stream drainage. GPS waypoint 23.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-184

Pelham Pond. GPS waypoint 24.

Section 3 Overview of Subwatersheds Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 3-185

SECTION IV

NONPOINT SOURCE ACTION PLAN

This project inventoried and analyzed the sources of nonpoint pollution for each of the six priority subwatersheds of the Deerfield River. This section describes a variety of strategies for addressing the identified and estimated impacts that existing sources of nonpoint pollution may have on water quality in the project area. The NPS Action Plan is divided into three sections. The first section discusses priority nonpoint pollution problems that need immediate attention, within the next 6 months. The second section is a discussion of the nonpoint pollution issues identified in the project area and a description of the recommended actions that, if implemented, could maintain areas of the watershed with good water quality and improve the water quality in impacted areas of the watershed. The Action Plan Matrix presented in the third section is an initial prioritization of the recommendations discussed in the first section for each subwatershed. This prioritization is preliminary and is based on the best professional judgment of FRCOG staff, input received from the “Advisory Committees” to the project, which included the volunteers who participated in the Stream Team Surveys and Water Quality Monitoring Program, and the members of the Deerfield River Watershed Team and the Franklin Regional Planning Board. Further outreach should be done to encourage the active participation of the appropriate town boards and departments in each of the subwatersheds and other stakeholders.

The NPS Action Plan is a “working document” that should be revisited by stakeholders on an annual basis to determine the progress that has been made towards implementing the recommendations and whether the Plan needs to be revised to address other issues and concerns that have arisen.

A. PRIORITY NONPOINT POLLUTION PROBLEMS

Several priority nonpoint pollution problems were identified during the field work conducted for this project. These areas of concern are described separately from the NPS

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-1

Action Plan in order to highlight the urgent need to address the problems as soon as it is feasible to do so. There will likely be a need to secure funding to implement the proposed solutions, but attention should be focused on these problems right away. Stakeholders can begin by convening meetings to strategize and brainstorm possible funding sources and keep attention focused on these problems.

A.1 Chickley River Subwatershed

The results of the volunteer water quality monitoring program successfully bracketed the suspected source of E.coli in the Chickley River as cows with free access to the river. The livestock is in the water upstream of a local swimming hole and an area used by fishermen. The landowner should be contacted to discuss concerns about the elevated E.coli counts and funding sources and volunteer labor/materials for a fencing project and an alternative source of water for the livestock, if that is needed. The landowner and representatives from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Franklin Conservation District (FCD), the Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA), the Deerfield River Watershed Team, Trout Unlimited (TU), the Hawley Conservation Commission, and the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) should collaborate to design and fund a solution.

A.2 South River Subwatershed

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-2

Volunteers also noted that a 2-foot diameter concrete pipe, with a constant flow, had an odor of sewage and a “milky” color. There was also algae and sediment below pipe. The volunteers noted their concern about potential high E.coli concentrations downstream of the Main Street bridge. The Stream Team volunteers conducted their surveys in 2005 and the area downstream of the bridge was sampled in 2006 for E.coli by the volunteer water quality monitors. No elevated results were recorded at that time. However, it is common for sources of E.coli to be intermittent and hard to track. The discharge from this pipe should be investigated further by the Conway Board of Health to determine if untreated sewage and/or greywater are being discharged into the river. This effort could be combined with the additional water quality sampling work recommended for the center of Conway (see following discussion) and the North River subwatershed to maximize efficient use of MA DEP and DRWA staff and volunteer time, and funding resources.

The 2006 and 2007 water quality sampling results for the South River indicated that the high levels of E.coli detected in the water were likely the result of several diffuse sources. In 2006, a storm drain pipe was identified as contributing elevated levels of E.coli and increased beaver activity was also thought to be a likely source of bacteria. In 2007, efforts were made to further bracket potential sources of E.coli. However, these efforts were redirected early in the sampling season to try and bracket the source of bacteria contaminating Murphy’s Hole, a locally popular swimming area. At the conclusion of the 2007 sampling season, many questions remained. Further water quality testing is needed to bracket E.coli sources and human marker testing should be done in residential areas with elevated E.coli counts. A more detailed analysis (parcel by parcel) of land uses in and around Conway Center, and an inventory of septic systems, would also help in the identification of sources of the E.coli.

The group of stakeholders that should collaborate to address these issues, including securing appropriate funding, includes:

• Town of Conway Board of Health, DRWA and the MA DEP regarding the follow-up E.coli and human marker water quality testing; and

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-3

• Town of Conway Board of Health, FRCOG, and MA DEP regarding further land use assessment and septic system inventory of Conway Center area.

A.3 North River Subwatershed

Photograph taken looking upstream towards Rte. 112 bridge. The school is to the left of the picture.

Photo taken looking downstream.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-4

Close-up of undercutting at the top of the bank.

Looking downstream. Note the vent pipe for the raised septic system, the dirt parking area, and the lack of a well-vegetated riparian buffer.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-5

The results of the volunteer water quality testing program detected high E.coli counts in this reach of the river. In the Fall 2007, the MA DEP collected one water sample at this location and submitted it for human marker testing. Although the results indicated a non- human origin of the E.coli, further water quality testing should be done to confirm this result and to identify the potential source(s) of the E.coli. The potential impacts to the structural integrity of the Rte. 112 bridge from past flooding events and future high flow events should also be evaluated. Currently, there is a significant gravel and cobble bar that has formed downstream of the bridge. This depositional feature has altered the channel flow towards the already eroding river right bank.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-6

Looking upstream from the Colrain Public Damage from 2005 October floods Water Supply

Looking upstream from access road to Public Public Water Supply Water Supply pump house. Rte.112 to left.

Erosion near Call Road and town wells

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-7

Erosion near Call Road and town wells

The group of stakeholders that should collaborate to address these issues, including securing appropriate funding, includes:

• Town of Colrain Board of Health, DRWA and MA DEP regarding the follow-up E.coli and human marker water quality testing; • Town of Colrain Board of Health and Colrain Central School for any testing of the school’s septic system which may be necessary; and • Town of Colrain Conservation Commission, Board of Health, NRCS, FCD, FRCOG, and MA DEP regarding further geomorphic assessment of the river and necessary bank stabilization efforts.

A.4 Green River Subwatershed

An area of extreme erosion along Hindsdale Brook was observed by FRCOG staff during the field reconnaissance work. This watershed is very flashy and the erosion problem is

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-8

ongoing. The Town of Shelburne has repeatedly fixed sections of the road that have washed out. A long-term solution is needed. The first step would be a geomorphic assessment of the Hindsdale Brook watershed that would include recommendations for managing high flows and stabilizing the streambanks.

Extreme erosion on Hindsdale Brook – Looking upstream

Extreme erosion on Hindsdale Brook. Looking downstream.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-9

Downstream discoloration of water (silt) from erosion on Hindsdale Brook.

The group of stakeholders that should collaborate to address this problem, including securing appropriate funding, includes:

• Town of Shelburne Conservation Commission, FRCOG, NRCS, FCD, and MA DEP regarding geomorphic assessment of the watershed and necessary road improvement and bank stabilization efforts.

A.5 Deerfield River Corridor Segment 2 Subwatershed

A major source of nonpoint pollution in Segment 2 is the acid mine drainage from the former Davis Mine in Rowe, MA. This acid mine drainage flows into Davis Mine Brook and has resulted in the brook being listed in Category 5 of the Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters for pH. After the mine collapsed in 1911, the mine shafts flooded with groundwater, which produced a leachate plume of acid and heavy metals that contaminates the environment to this day. The acidic leachate plume dissolves minerals in the stream channel and in the subsurface soil, releasing soluble ions of iron, zinc, copper and other metals into the water. Flow from Davis Mine Brook empties into the Mill River, a tributary of the Deerfield River. By the time water from Davis Mine Brook reaches the Deerfield River, the pollution has been substantially diluted. However, fish and many types of macroinvertebrates have been eradicated from Davis Mine Brook.1

With funding from the National Science Foundation, scientists from UMass-Amherst have been studying the abandoned mine site for six years and have found evidence that

1 Deerfield River Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report (MA DEP, October 2004).

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-10

minerals and bacteria in the soil and water are neutralizing the water’s acid content and reducing pollutant levels through biological activity (bioremediation). The research team will be finishing their work within the next 12 – 18 months. At the conclusion of the study, several options for remediation of the acid mine drainage will be recommended for further evaluation or implementation.2

• Towns of Rowe and Charlemont Conservation Commissions and Boards of Health, property owner, NRCS, FRCOG, UMass, Deerfield Watershed Team, and MA DEP and DFG.

B. NONPOINT POLLUTION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

When implementing the following recommendations, stakeholders should refer to the Field Verification text and maps and the Stream Team pipe surveys and maps for specific areas to address. For example, if a stream crossing upgrade project is planned in the Chickley River subwatershed, the Field Verification Map and/or Stream Team pipe survey and maps will provide locations of culverts to consider for upgrading.

B.1 Road Runoff and Sedimentation

Due to the topography of the project area, the majority of both the paved and unpaved roads in the subwatersheds lie within the 200 foot riparian buffer of the major rivers and tributary streams, which is identified as critical to protecting water quality. The drainage systems for these roads are basically very simple. Ditches and culverts are used to collect and convey runoff away from the road and discharge it, untreated, into the nearest waterbody. Uncontrolled and untreated stormwater runoff from paved and dirt roads located adjacent to rivers, streams and other waterbodies can have numerous impacts on these resource areas. Runoff from paved surfaces, such as roads and parking lots, is oftentimes warmer than the receiving waters and can carry sand and other sediment, petroleum products, heavy metals, road salt, and hazardous materials into resource areas. Sand, silt and gravel can be carried in runoff from dirt roads.

The problems caused by uncontrolled runoff can be exacerbated at locations where roads cross over a river or stream. This study identified numerous road crossings in the project area where runoff from the roads is going directly into a waterbody. The biggest source of contamination to the receiving waters is the sand used during the winter to provide

2 personal communication with Dr. Sarina Ergas, UMass-Amherst.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-11

traction on the roads and the road bed material washing off of dirt roads. Excess sediment will degrade water quality by altering hydrologic flow regimes, decreasing water clarity, smothering vegetation and covering rocky streambeds that support communities of aquatic insects and fish that need oxygen rich environments. Road salt is also a likely contaminant but it was beyond the scope of this project to investigate whether public and private drinking water wells or wetlands have elevated sodium concentrations.

The purpose of the pilot project conducted as part of this study, Rural Roads Assessment for the Chickley River Watershed, was to evaluate the road surface and drainage conditions of the paved and unpaved roads in the towns of Savoy and Hawley and the potential impacts on water quality. This relatively inexpensive pilot project provided a Five Year Action Plan for road surface and drainage repair projects for each town as well as three Water Quality BMP projects for each town. The towns’ Highway Superintendents were consulted to help identify priority road projects but extensive outreach to the towns concerning road management/maintenance practices was beyond the scope of the pilot project.

The next step is to help the towns secure funding for implementing the Five Year Action Plans and BMP projects. Although the general recommendations provided by this pilot project can be used by other towns, there are enormous potential water quality benefits that could be realized by conducting similar assessments for the towns in the other subwatersheds and securing adequate funding to implement the Five Year Action Plans and Water Quality BMP projects.3

Objective: Work cooperatively with local Highway Departments to reduce the water quality impacts of uncontrolled stormwater runoff from paved and unpaved roads.

Recommended Actions:

1. Collaborate with the Massachusetts Tri-County Highway Superintendents Association to conduct periodic workshops for Highway Department personnel on maintaining and improving water quality in resource areas adjacent to paved and unpaved roads. Topics should include: a. The findings and recommendations of the Rural Roads Assessment Project for the Chickley River Watershed. b. Stream crossings and controlling drainage to reduce sedimentation and other water quality impacts. c. Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will improve and protect water quality. Provide copies of the Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual d. Available grant and loan programs to help fund road improvement projects.

3 The Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual also contains a wealth of useful information for reducing water quality impacts from unpaved roads.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-12

e. Alternative methods for snow and ice control, such as Ice Be Gone, which reduced the amount of sand and salt used by 2 towns in the project area. 2. Provide training and outreach to local Conservation Commissions regarding the Wetland Protection Act’s requirements for the design of new or upgraded stream crossings. 3. Prepare a Fact Sheet on the findings and recommendations of the Rural Roads Assessment Project for the Chickley River Watershed and send to all Highway Superintendents in the Deerfield Watershed towns. 4. Assist the Towns of Hawley and Savoy in securing funding for implementing the priority projects recommended in the Rural Roads Assessment Project for the Chickley River Watershed for water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). 5. Secure funding to conduct Rural Roads Assessment projects for the towns in the remaining subwatersheds of the project study area.

B.2 Sand and Gravel Operations

Within the project area, there are numerous sand and gravel operations in the unconsolidated outwash and alluvial materials deposited by glaciers. Some of these pits are quite large in size. To prevent groundwater contamination and siltation of nearby surface waters and wetlands, the operators of these pits should follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as those described in the on-line, interactive Clean Water Toolkit - Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Management Manual.4

Objective: Work cooperatively with the operators/owners of sand and gravel pits to reduce the treat of contamination and sedimentation from the operation of these pits.

Recommended Actions:

1. Organize workshops on local regulation of resource extraction operations for Conservation Commissions and Select Boards. The workshop topics should include: a. Information on the importance of regulating these operations; b. An introduction and training to use the on-line Clean Water Toolkit – Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual to learn about the appropriate BMPs that should be implemented for sand and gravel mining operations.

B.3 Areas of Significant Streambank Erosion

Areas of significant streambank erosion were identified along the Chickley, South, North and Green Rivers. Often, these eroding banks extended for hundreds of feet. Infrastructure such as roads and public water supplies, as well as important agricultural

4 http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/NPSManual.pdf Only 50% of the towns in the project study area have access to high speed internet service, making on-line use of the Clean Water Toolkit impossible. However, CD-ROM copies of the Toolkit can be distributed to these towns.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-13

lands, have been damaged or threatened by the major streambank erosion occurring in these watersheds. Significant amounts of local and state money have been spent to repair damaged infrastructure.

The upgradient areas of these watersheds are sparsely developed and the percent of impervious cover is very low, which means the runoff should have more of an opportunity to infiltrate the soils. However, these rivers flow through incised valleys which have steep slopes that are likely to have a relatively thin soil cover. These valleys also have narrow floodplains. What little development there is in these watersheds (farms, roads, houses, and villages) is typically concentrated in these narrow floodplain areas. The riparian buffer in the floodplain areas is often completely absent or very narrow, which further undermines the stability of the banks.

These rivers appear to have a “flashy” response to large rain and snow melt events (e.g., the October 2005 floods) and the erosion and associated damage to infrastructure that occurs is quite substantial. It is not known at this time what impacts to water quality have occurred from the deposition of large gravel bars during flood events and ongoing sediment loading from eroding streambanks.

Objective: Work cooperatively with landowners, towns and regulatory agencies to understand the types and causes of the erosion, stabilize the eroding banks, and prevent future erosion problems.

Recommended Actions:

1. Hire a fluvial geomorphologist to assess the types and causes of the erosion occurring along each of the rivers, and recommend appropriate bank stabilization techniques and flow management techniques. This could be a multi-watershed project or a demonstration project in one watershed. 2. Organize a series of workshops to provide information, including BMPs and sources of funding and technical assistance, to riparian landowners on the importance of maintaining or restoring vegetated riparian buffers. 3. Prepare a brief riparian buffer fact sheet that includes information on the importance of maintaining or restoring vegetated riparian buffers, including sources of information for BMPs and sources of funding and technical assistance. Send this fact sheet to landowners in the Chapter 61 program. Fact sheet could be mailed with their tax bill.

B.4 Underground and Above-Ground Storage Tanks

This project compiled lists of the registered underground storage tanks (USTs) and above ground storage tanks (AGTs) included in several databases, which are maintained by state agencies. Activities associated with these tanks, including their installation, use, monitoring, and removal, are regulated by the state and local Fire Departments. However, the information available in these databases is incomplete (no geo-reference data) and/or out of date (tanks have been removed). In addition, the databases do not

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-14

include information on residential and agricultural tanks and heating oil tanks (less than 1,100 gallons) used by small businesses, which are not required to be registered. Most owners of unregistered tanks are not well informed about the environmental hazards and legal/financial liabilities associated with leaking tanks. In contrast, owners of registered tanks are required to monitor the age and condition of their tanks on a regular basis and are generally more aware of the potential environmental threats and liabilities posed by leaking tanks.

Objective: Work cooperatively with local Fire Departments and Boards of Health to develop programs to further minimize the environmental threats posed by USTs and AGTs.

Recommended Actions:

1. Each town should inventory all USTs and AGTs which are currently not registered. This inventory should include all tanks on old or abandoned industrial sites, active and abandoned farms, small commercial properties, and residential properties. 2. Each town should reconcile the available data for registered tanks to develop a “master list” of registered tanks. The location of these tanks should be plotted on the Natural Resources map so that the proximity of these tanks to environmentally sensitive areas such as aquifers and aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and riparian buffer zones, will be known. 3. Implement a Public Awareness Program using literature available at the MA DEP website http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/homeownr.htm . Distribute information to potential owners of unregistered tanks regarding the legal and financial responsibilities of owners of leaking tanks, Best Management Practices for preventing spills and leaks, and other guidance. 4. Each town should consider regulating all tanks currently exempt from the state laws that regulate tanks (527 CMR 9.00) by adopting an Underground Storage Tank bylaw or Board of Health regulations. The enactment and enforcement of this bylaw or, if the community chooses, the Board of Health regulations, is critically important for properties that are on or near environmentally sensitive areas such as aquifers and aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and riparian buffer zones.

B. 5 Stormwater Runoff

According to the MA DEP, stormwater runoff represents the single largest source responsible for water quality impairments in the Commonwealth’s rivers, lakes, ponds, and marine waters.5 Stormwater runoff can carry different types of pollutants into waterbodies and wetlands, depending upon the land use activity and the type of surface the water flows over. For example, nutrients from manure and fertilizers, soil, and chemicals can be in runoff from agricultural land. Numerous studies have identified both

5 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/v1c1.doc

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-15

paved and unpaved roads as potential sources of nonpoint pollution (discussed in more detail in B.1, above). Runoff from land cleared for new residential and commercial development can be laden with topsoil, silt, sand and other sediment. New and existing development typically adds impervious surfaces, which if not properly managed, may alter natural drainage features, increase peak discharge rates and volumes, reduce recharge to wetlands and streams, and increase the discharge of pollutants to wetlands and water bodies. Activities that take place at industrial facilities, such as material handling and storage, are often exposed to the weather. When runoff from rain or snowmelt comes into contact with these materials, it picks up pollutants and transports them to nearby storm sewer systems, rivers, lakes, or streams.

Within the project study area, the urban center of the Town of Greenfield, which is entirely within the Green River watershed, generates the largest amount of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. The Town also has the most Tier II facilities, which use and store hazardous materials. Stormwater in Greenfield is collected by a system of storm drains which direct the water to outfalls that discharge directly into Maple Brook, Cherry Rum Brook, the Green River, and other waterbodies. The stormwater receives some treatment before being discharged because all of the catch basins in the residential core area and the downtown area are equipped with sumps. The town has adopted Stormwater System Regulations to “ensure high water quality standards and address any potential water quantity problems associated with development.”

Objective: Work cooperatively with watershed stakeholders6 to eliminate, where possible, and mitigate, in other cases, the pollution caused by stormwater runoff.

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a series of workshops for local Planning Boards, Highway Departments, Public Works Departments, and Conservation Commissions to discuss the various sources of stormwater runoff, the impacts of stormwater runoff on water quality and the resources available to local boards to help them regulate land use activities that generate stormwater runoff. Workshop topics should include: a. An introduction to the revised the Stormwater Management Standards and Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook (February 2008).7 The Stormwater Management Standards address water quality (pollutants) and water quantity (flooding, low base flow and recharge) by establishing standards that require the implementation of a wide variety of stormwater management strategies. These strategies include environmentally sensitive site design and Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to minimize impervious surface and land disturbance, source control and pollution prevention, structural Best Management Practices (BMPs),

6 The composition of the group of watershed stakeholders may vary depending upon the activity addressed. For example, convening a group of stakeholders to address contaminated runoff from paved surfaces could include local Highway Departments, commercial and industrial business owners, local Boards of Health. 7 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-16

construction period erosion and sedimentation control, and the long-term operation and maintenance of stormwater management systems. b. An introduction and training to use the on-line Clean Water Toolkit – Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual.8 The Toolkit has a wealth of information on regulatory and non-regulatory tools to address nonpoint source pollution as well as specific sections related to stormwater runoff, including: urban stormwater runoff and erosion and sediment control. The Toolkit also has information and recommended BMPs that are relevant to most of the other sources of nonpoint pollution identified in the project study area. 2. The Town of Colrain Conservation Commission should ascertain whether Barnhardt Manufacturing (also known as BBA Nonwovens), finishers of textiles, had a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SIC code for this facility indicates that it should have a SWPPP. 3. Assist the Town of Greenfield in its efforts to find a reasonable, cost-effective solution(s) for correcting the problems associated with the Maple Brook culvert by helping to secure funding for further assessment (if needed), engineering services, and construction. The culvert is the major source of stormwater problems for the town. Maple Brook culvert drains 80% of the urban, residential area of the town and the culvert can’t handle anything bigger than a 5 year storm without surcharging. The town would like to do further water quality testing work to identify any additional sources of sewage entering the Maple Brook culvert and eliminate these sources of pollution. The town recently purchased a property in the Maple Brook culvert drainage basin and removed the house, which had been periodically flooded during storm events and when the culvert surcharged. The town plans to let the vacant land flood and serve as a “retention basin”. The town would like to make improvements to the property to increase the capacity of the “retention basin” and provide some treatment of the stormwater to improve its water quality.9 Low Impact Development retrofits and other techniques might be part of the solution to managing the flows into the Maple Brook culvert. 4. Secure funding to further assess the volume and water quality of runoff from impervious surfaces in Greenfield. Inventory land uses within each “drainage area” of the storm sewer system and provide recommendations for water quality BMPs for the categories of land uses. 5. Update the inventory of Tier II facilities in Greenfield and provide facility owners with information on appropriate stormwater BMPs, such as Spill Control Plans. 6. Consider integrating Low Impact Development (LID) techniques into the Town of Greenfield’s Stormwater System Regulations, Subdivision Control Regulations, and other relevant town bylaws.

8 http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/ Only 50% of the towns in the project study area have access to high speed internet service, making on-line use of the Clean Water Toolkit impossible. However, CD- ROM copies of the Toolkit can be distributed to these towns. 9 Personal communication with Larry Petrin, Engineering Department, Greenfield DPW.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-17

7. Assist local farmers in their on-going efforts to continue sustainable and profitable farming operations, prevent loss of farmland to erosion, and avoid degradation of wetlands and surface and groundwater resources. Examples of projects that should be the focus of cooperative efforts to protect water quality and would address specific water quality concerns identified in this project are: a. Providing alternative sources of water for livestock, if necessary and erecting fencing to prevent direct access to surface water by livestock. b. Planting conservation buffers, particularly along riparian areas, to remove sediment, nutrients, pesticides and pathogens from stormwater runoff. c. Stabilizing eroding streambanks (farmland) in riparian areas using appropriate techniques such as bioengineering, planting riparian buffers, and other techniques described in the Clean Water Toolkit.10 d. Providing technical and financial assistance to farmers, as needed, for other site specific activities that may degrade water quality. For example, manure management. 8. Provide informational Fact Sheets on manure management to horse owners.11

B. 6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

The use and storage of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous waste is an integral part of the daily operation of many businesses in the project study area, particularly in Greenfield and Colrain. When properly stored and handled, these hazardous materials and hazardous wastes pose a minimal threat to the environment. The data gathered as part of this study provides a basic inventory of these facilities which can be used for planning and water supply protection purposes. However, the data is not completely up-to-date and there may be many small businesses not included in this inventory which could be using and storing hazardous materials and generating hazardous waste. Facilities that are located over sensitive aquifer areas and/or within the 200 foot riparian buffer zone should have Spill Response Plans and Stormwater Management Plans to prevent contamination of nearby resource areas.

Objective: Work cooperatively with business owners in each town to inventory and assess the storage and handling practices for hazardous materials and hazardous waste.

Recommended Actions:

1. Collaborate with local Fire Departments to compile a complete, up-to-date inventory of businesses that use and store hazardous materials and/or generate hazardous waste. This list should also include a description of any measures currently in place for preventing contamination of stormwater runoff and accidental spills and leaks.

10 http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/PDF%20Chapters/Chapter%208.pdf 11 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/animal.htm

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-18

2. Prioritize outreach to businesses near or over sensitive resource areas and encourage/assist them with the preparation and implementation of Stormwater Management Plans and Spill Response Plans, as appropriate. 3. Assist the towns with exploring the feasibility of adopting local Board of Health regulations or a Hazardous Materials bylaw to give the municipality a mechanism for more local control and oversight of businesses that use and store hazardous materials.

B.7 Septic Systems

With the exception of the urban, downtown area of the Town of Greenfield and portions of the Towns of Ashfield, Charlemont, and Monroe, which are served by wastewater treatment plants, sanitary wastewater is disposed of via on-site septic systems throughout the remaining areas of the subwatersheds. These septic systems are connected to homes, town buildings, restaurants, and other businesses. A septic system that fails, either through neglect or misuse, can be a serious public health threat because most households and businesses served by on-site septic systems also rely on private drinking water wells. Failing septic systems also can pollute lakes, streams and groundwater. Under Title 5 regulations, some failing or undersized systems are being replaced when homeowners list their property for sale. However, there are still many properties that remain under long- term ownership and the condition of the septic systems serving these properties and the potential environmental and public health threats are currently unknown.

According to Glen Ayers, the Franklin Regional Council of Governments’ Regional Health Agent, there is no program in place in Franklin County to track failing systems or to help towns monitor the performance of septic systems over time. Mr. Ayers works for only 8 of the 26 towns in Franklin County and currently reviews the septic system plans for only one, Buckland. He has also reviewed two larger system designs (over 2000 gpd) for Charlemont in the past year. The Boards of Health in the remaining towns review the plans for new septic systems and issue permits. The Town of Shutesbury is the only municipality in Franklin County that has a database of septic systems. The town uses a modified DEP program (BOH 2000) based on the MS Access database. A lack of any tracking system, regional or local, for the remaining towns makes inspection and enforcement very difficult.

Local Boards of Health have many state-mandated responsibilities in addition to permitting and inspecting septic systems. Unfortunately, volunteer Boards face ever- shrinking budgets and a lack of paid staff. Balancing the need for professional assistance with limited resources is a serious community need. The Franklin Regional Council of Governments’ Regional Health Program provides one solution to this problem through regional professional health agent support and a Board of Health Capacity-Building Workshop Series. Sharing program costs over a large number of towns and applying for grants keeps the fees for these services as low as possible.

Objective: Provide adequate technical assistance to local Boards of Health in each town to enable them to inventory and track all of the septic systems under their jurisdiction and

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-19

to provide outreach to property owners regarding septic system maintenance and replacement.

Recommended Actions:

1. Seek additional state funding to expand the Franklin Regional Council of Governments’ Regional Health Program’s Board of Health Capacity-Building Workshop Series. Workshop topics should focus on: a. Conducting effective outreach to property owners on septic system use and maintenance, and financial assistance programs for the repair, replacement, or upgrade of failed septic systems. The workshop would emphasize the use of readily available brochures and on-line resources, such as the MA DEP’s web resources http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/septicsy.htm#links. b. Methods for collecting information on the septic systems within their towns and options for compiling and maintaining a database of the systems. c. Options for financing community approaches to wastewater disposal problems (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/finance.htm). 2. Seek additional funding to enable the Franklin Regional Council of Governments’ Regional Health Agent to provide services to more local Boards of Health. The Regional Health Agent can conduct Title 5 septic plan reviews, percolation tests and inspections of septic system repairs. The Regional Health Agent can also provide any level of professional assistance to a Board of Health – from a phone consultation to routine inspections, to regular office hours at town hall. The Health Agent’s services include inspections, the writing of reports and orders to correct, court enforcement, and technical support during hearings. 3. Explore the feasibility of and funding sources for establishing a regional or multi- town Community Septic Management Program which could enable towns to implement a Community Inspection Plan or a Local Septic Management Plan (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/csmphl.htm).

B.8 Landfills

With funding from the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the Deerfield River Watershed Team hired the consulting firm of Fuss and O’Neil to conduct an assessment of the environmental risk posed by current and historic landfills in the Deerfield River watershed. As part of the assessment, all current and historic landfills in the Massachusetts portion of the Deerfield River watershed were identified and then prioritized in terms of the likelihood to adversely impact nearby natural resources. These priority sites were further evaluated through field reconnaissance and screening level sampling. Recommendations were then developed to address identified problems. The study was completed in 2003. The Stream Team volunteers for the East Branch of the North River also noted severe bank erosion and the exposure of refuse and other debris at the site of the former brush landfill/Town Dump in Colrain.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-20

Objective: Implement the relevant recommendations provided in the Fuss and O’Neil study for the landfills in the project study area.

Recommended Actions:

1. Management of the Rowe Landfill along Pelham Brook, including removal of solid waste from Pelham Brook, cleanup of refuse along the base of the landfill, and repair and stabilization of the eroded areas of the landfill side slopes. Additional field investigation may be warranted to further assess the environmental risk posed by the landfill and determine the need for corrective/remedial action. 2. Management of the Charlemont Landfill, including removal of the exposed bulky waste adjacent to Tatro Brook, and additional field investigation to further assess the environmental risk from the landfill and determine the need for corrective/remedial action. Inspection and additional field investigation of the former municipal brush dump on Warner Hill Road is also recommended. 3. Management of the Colrain Brush landfill/Former Town Dump including; performing additional field investigation to assess environmental risk, identifying and characterizing the extent of any impacts that may be present, and determining the need for corrective action. The report identified significant quantities of exposed refuse within 50 feet of the North River and groundwater seeps hydraulically connected to the North River as major issues of concern. 4. Assist local Boards of Health in ensuring Best Management Practices are implemented at transfer stations to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff.

B.9 Illegal Dumping Areas and Junkyards

Several illegal dumping areas and junkyards sites were observed in each of the subwatersheds. Generally these sites were located along less traveled roads, riparian areas, and in woods and fields. The typical items observed were large household appliances, furniture, cars, tires, household trash and other debris. There were also several vehicle junkyards identified as part of this study which are probably not in conformance with local zoning and/or not licensed. It is not known whether any of the junkyards are still active.

Objective: Prevent pollution from illegal dumping areas and junkyards.

Recommended Actions:

1. Assist local Boards of Health with completing an inventory of illegal dumping areas and junkyards in each of the project study area towns. Evaluate options for cleaning up these sites. 2. Once the inventory is complete, distribute information to landowners on the potential environmental problems and legal liabilities associated with illegal dumping and junkyards.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-21

3. Organize local “Roadside Clean-ups” each Spring to remove trash and other debris. 4. Obtain funding to purchase and install motion sensitive hidden cameras at known illegal dump sites to help with the apprehension and conviction of perpetrators. 5. Assist the local Boards of Health in implementing appropriate measures to prevent illegal disposal from occurring. Examples of methods which can foster an awareness that illegal dumping is not acceptable and prevent on-going illegal dumping:12

a. Post No Dumping signs; b. Restrict access by erecting fences, locking gates, or closing roads popular for dumping; c. Publicize initiatives to enforce local laws and prosecute violators; d. Provide information to the public about the potential environmental problems and legal liabilities associated with illegal dumping and junkyards; e. Encourage reporting of illegal dumping activities; and f. Determine the cause(s) of dumping and implement preventive measures targeting the cause(s). g. Consider establishing “Amnesty Days” when residents can bring in and dispose of large, bulky items for free.

B.10 Water Quality Monitoring

Overall, the volunteer water quality monitoring programs conducted by the Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA) and their team of volunteers for the North, South and Chickley River subwatersheds were extremely successful. One suspected source of E.coli was successfully bracketed and identified in the Chickley River watershed. In the watersheds of the North and South Rivers, several areas of concern were bracketed and several suspected sources of E.coli were tentatively identified. Additional sampling is needed to further isolate and identify the sources of E.coli in these two watersheds.

Objective: Continue to build the capacity of the Deerfield River Watershed Association’s volunteer water quality monitoring programs.

Recommended Actions:

1. Secure funding to finish and equip the water quality monitoring laboratory at the Greenfield headquarters of the Connecticut River Watershed Council (CRWC). This laboratory is a joint project of the CRWC and the DRWA. 2. Conduct additional water quality sampling in the South River and North River watersheds. Follow-up testing is needed to further bracket the suspected sources

12 http://www.deq.state.ne.us/IWM.nsf/Pages/ILLDS-PiD

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-22

of the high E.coli counts recorded in several locations. Use human marker testing to rule out failing septic system(s) as potential sources of contamination. 3. Conduct a volunteer water quality monitoring program for E.coli in the impaired segment of the Green River (MA 33-30_2006), which is listed on the 2006 Integrated List of Waters for pathogens.

B.11 Silviculture

Large logging operations are carefully regulated by the state. The Forest Cutting Practices Act establishes minimum thresholds (more than 50 cords of wood or 25 thousand board feet of timber harvested for commercial use) above which the landowner or their agent must file a Forest Cutting Plan with the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Bureau of Forestry. The Forest Cutting Plan must contain appropriate BMPs to prevent erosion and damage to wetlands, steep slopes and rare species habitat. No timber harvesting can be done until DCR issues a Forest Cutting Permit.

Only a few relatively small areas, which had been completely cleared of trees, were observed during the field work conducted by the Stream Teams and FRCOG staff. It is likely, however, that throughout the project study area there are many small logging operations and many more parcels of land being cleared for new development. These operations and land clearing activities are not regulated under the Forest Cutting Practices Act if they fall below the Act’s minimum thresholds. However, if timber harvesting will occur within 100 feet of a wetland resource area, the landowner must receive either an exemption or a permit under the Wetlands Protection Act. The state encourages the use of BMPs to stabilize a site and prevent sedimentation of resource areas when trees are removed for timber, firewood, or to prepare a site for development.

Objective: Encourage the use of appropriate BMPs for all small logging operations and land clearing for new development, including those not subject to the Wetlands Protection Act.

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct workshops for local Planning Boards and Conservation Commissions to introduce them to and train them to use the on-line Clean Water Toolkit – Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual.13 Only 50% of the towns in the project study area have access to high speed internet service, making on-line use of the Clean Water Toolkit impossible. However, CD-ROM copies of the Toolkit can be distributed to these towns. The Toolkit has specific sections related to forestry, and erosion and sediment control, which include BMPs. 2. Review local Subdivision Regulations to see if adequate erosion and sediment control requirements are included. Update the regulations, if necessary.

13 http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-23

3. Encourage landowners to use BMPs for land clearing and small logging operations not subject to the Forest Cutting Practices Act, the Wetlands Protection Act or other local regulations and bylaws. a. Send copies of the relevant Clean Water Toolkit Fact Sheets (Chapter 9: Forestry Operations and Chapter 6: Erosion and Sediment Control) to landowners in the Chapter 61 program. Fact sheet could be mailed with their tax bill.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-24

Table 4-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution Action Plan Matrix for 6 Priority Subwatersheds of the Deerfield River Watershed Nonpoint Source/ Recommended Actions Subwatershed Priority for Participants Potential Timeframe for Objective Implementation Funding Sources Implementation B.1 Road Runoff and 1. Collaborate with the Massachusetts Tri-County Highway Chickley River Immediate Massachusetts Tri-County s.319 grant Within 1 year and then Sedimentation Superintendents Association to conduct periodic workshops for North River Immediate Highway Superintendents program; FRCOG annually thereafter. Highway Department personnel on maintaining and improving Association, Local Highway Transportation water quality in resource areas adjacent to paved and unpaved South River Immediate Department staff, Franklin Planning Program Work cooperatively with roads. Topics should include: Green River Immediate Regional Council of (Federal local Highway a. The findings and recommendations of the Rural Roads Deerfield River Immediate Governments (FRCOG) staff Transportation & Departments to reduce Assessment Project for the Chickley River Watershed. Corridor Segments Mass Highway sedimentation from b. Stream crossings and controlling drainage to reduce 1&2 funds) paved and unpaved sedimentation and other water quality impacts. roads. c. Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will improve and protect water quality. Provide copies of the Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual d. Available grant and loan programs to help fund road improvement projects. e. Alternative methods for snow and ice control, such as Ice Be Gone, which reduced the amount of sand and salt used by 2 towns in the project area.

2. Provide training and outreach to local Conservation Chickley River Long term/ MA DEP, Massachusetts MA DEP Circuit Within 5 – 10 years Commissions regarding the Wetland Protection Act’s requirements future Association of Conservation Rider Program; for the design of new or upgraded stream crossings. North River Long term/ Commissions (MACC), Local UMass future Conservation Commissions, Cooperative South River Long term/ FRCOG staff Extension future Green River Long term/ future Deerfield River Long term/ Corridor Segments 1 & future 2 3. Prepare a Fact Sheet on the findings and recommendations of Chickley River Moderate Massachusetts Tri-County s.319 grant Within 2 – 5 years the Rural Roads Assessment Project for the Chickley River Highway Superintendents program; FRCOG North River Moderate Watershed and send to all Highway Superintendents in the Association, Local Highway Transportation Deerfield Watershed towns. South River Moderate Department staff, FRCOG Planning Program Green River Moderate staff (Federal Deerfield River Moderate Transportation & Corridor Segments 1 & Mass Highway 2 funds)

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-25

5. Secure funding to conduct Rural Roads Assessment projects for Chickley River N/A FRCOG staff and town 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years. Next the towns in the remaining subwatersheds of the project study area. North River Immediate Highway Departments and program funding cycle is Fall 2008 Select Boards in the South River Immediate watersheds. Green River Immediate Deerfield River Immediate Corridor Segments 1 &2

B.2 Sand and Gravel 1. Organize workshops on local regulation of resource extraction Long term/ FRCOG staff, local Uncertain – Within 1 -2 years for the Chickley River Operations operations for Conservation Commissions and SelectBoards. future Conservation Commissions possibly MACC; North River and Deerfield Topics should include: North River Immediate and Select Boards. MA DEP Circuit River Corridor Segments 1 Work cooperatively with a. Information on the importance of regulating these Rider program. & 2. Long term/ the operators/owners of operations; South River future sand and gravel pits to b. An introduction and training to use the on-line Clean Water Within 5 – 10 years for reduce the treat of Toolkit – Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Green River Moderate remaining watersheds. contamination and Management Manual to learn about the appropriate BMPs Deerfield River Immediate sedimentation from the that should be implemented for sand and gravel mining Corridor Segments operation of these pits. operations. 1& 2

B.3 Areas of 1. Hire a fluvial geomorphologist to assess the types and causes of Chickley River Immediate FRCOG staff, Natural s.319 grant Within 1 – 2 years for the Significant Streambank the erosion occurring along each of the rivers, and recommend Resources Conservation program, NRCS Chickley, North and South North River Immediate Erosion appropriate bank stabilization techniques and flow management Service (NRCS), Franklin programs. Rivers. Immediate techniques. This could be a multi-watershed project or a South River Conservation District (FCD), Work cooperatively with demonstration project in one watershed. Green River Moderate MA DEP, local Conservation Within 2 – 5 years for the landowners, towns and Deerfield River Long term/ Commissions, landowners Green River. regulatory agencies to Corridor Segments 1 & future understand the types and 2 Within 5 – 10 years for the

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-26

Table 4-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution Action Plan Matrix for 6 Priority Subwatersheds of the Deerfield River Watershed Nonpoint Source/ Recommended Actions Subwatershed Priority for Participants Potential Timeframe for Objective Implementation Funding Sources Implementation causes of the erosion, Deerfield River Corridor stabilize the eroding Segments. banks, and prevent future erosion problems. 2. Organize a series of workshops to provide information, Chickley River Moderate FRCOG staff, Natural s.319 grant Within 1 – 2 years for the including BMPs and sources of funding and technical assistance, to North River Immediate Resources Conservation program, NRCS North and South Rivers. riparian landowners on the importance of maintaining or restoring South River Immediate Service (NRCS), Franklin grant programs. vegetated riparian buffers. Conservation District (FCD), Within 2 – 5 years for the Moderate Green River MA DEP, local Conservation Green River, Chickley, and Deerfield River Moderate Commissions, landowners Deerfield River Corridor Corridor Segments 1 & Segments. 2 3. Prepare a brief riparian buffer fact sheet that includes Chickley River Moderate FRCOG staff, Natural s.319 grant Within 1 – 2 years for the information on the importance of maintaining or restoring Resources Conservation program, NRCS North and South Rivers. vegetated riparian buffers, including sources of information for North River Immediate Service (NRCS), Franklin grant programs. BMPs and sources of funding and technical assistance. Send this Conservation District (FCD), Within 2 – 5 years for the fact sheet to landowners in the Chapter 61 program. Fact sheet South River Immediate MA DEP, local Conservation Green River, Chickley, and could be mailed with their tax bill. Commissions, landowners Deerfield River Corridor Moderate Green River Segments. Deerfield River Moderate Corridor Segments 1 & 2

B.4 Underground and 1. Each town should inventory all USTs and AGTs which are Chickley River Moderate Local Fire Departments, 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years for the Above Ground Storage currently not registered. This inventory should include all tanks on Boards of Health, FRCOG funding; Green River. Moderate Tanks old or abandoned industrial sites, active and abandoned farms, North River staff and intern(s) Homeland small commercial properties, and residential properties. South River Moderate Security funding Within 2 – 5 years for the Work cooperatively with North, South, and Chickley Green River Immediate local Fire Departments Rivers, and Deerfield River and Boards of Health to Deerfield River Moderate Corridor Segments. develop programs to Corridor Segments 1 & further minimize the 2 environmental threats posed by USTs and AGTs.

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-27

3. Implement a Public Awareness Program using literature Chickley River Moderate Local Fire Departments, 604(b) grant Within 2 – 5 years available at the MA DEP website Boards of Health, FRCOG funding; other http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/homeownr.htm Distribute North River Moderate staff and intern(s) funding uncertain information to potential owners of unregistered tanks regarding the South River Moderate legal and financial responsibilities of owners of leaking tanks, Best Management Practices for preventing spills and leaks, and other Green River Moderate guidance. Deerfield River Moderate Corridor Segments 1 & 2 4. Each town should consider regulating all tanks currently exempt Chickley River Immediate Local Fire Departments, 604(b) grant Within 1 -2 years from the state laws that regulate tanks (527 CMR 9.00) by adopting Boards of Health, Planning funding; other an Underground Storage Tank bylaw or Board of Health North River Immediate Boards, and FRCOG staff funding uncertain regulations. The enactment and enforcement of this bylaw or, if the community chooses, the Board of Health regulations, is critically South River Immediate important for properties that are on or near environmentally Green River Immediate sensitive areas such as aquifers and aquifer recharge areas, Deerfield River wetlands, and riparian buffer zones. Corridor Segments 1 & 2

Immediate

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-28

B. 5 Stormwater 1. Conduct a series of workshops for local Planning Boards, Long term/ Local Planning Boards, Funding Within 1 -2 years for the Chickley River Runoff Highway Departments, Public Works Departments, and future Highway Departments, Public uncertain; MA North, South, and Green Conservation Commissions to discuss the various sources of Works Departments, and DEP; s.319 grant Rivers. North River Immediate stormwater runoff, the impacts of stormwater runoff on water Conservation Commissions; program Work cooperatively with quality and the resources available to local boards to help them South River Immediate FRCOG staff Within 2 – 5 years for the watershed stakeholders14 regulate land use activities that generate stormwater runoff. Deerfield River Corridor Green River Immediate to eliminate, where Workshop topics should include: Segments. possible, and mitigate, in a. An introduction to the revised the Stormwater Management Deerfield River Moderate other cases, the pollution Standards and Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Corridor Segments 1 & Within 5 – 10 years for the caused by stormwater (February 2008).15 2 Chickley River. runoff. b. An introduction and training to use the on-line Clean Water Toolkit – Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual. 2. The Town of Colrain Conservation Commission should Chickley River N/A Colrain Conservation No additional Within 6 months ascertain whether Barnhardt Manufacturing (also known as BBA Commission funding needed. Nonwovens), finishers of textiles, had a stormwater pollution North River Immediate prevention plan (SWPPP). The SIC code for this facility indicates N/A that it should have a SWPPP. South River Green River N/A Deerfield River N/A Corridor Segments 1 & 2 3. Assist the Town of Greenfield in its efforts to find a reasonable, Chickley River N/A Greenfield Public Works 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years. cost-effective solution(s) for correcting the problems associated Department, FRCOG staff program North River N/A with the Maple Brook culvert by helping to secure funding for further assessment (if needed), engineering services, and South River N/A construction. Low Impact Development retrofits and other Green River Immediate techniques might be part of the solution to managing the flows into Deerfield River N/A the Maple Brook culvert. Corridor Segments 1 & 2

14 The composition of the group of watershed stakeholders may vary depending upon the activity addressed. For example, convening a group of stakeholders to address contaminated runoff from paved surfaces could include local Highway Departments, commercial and industrial business owners, local Boards of Health. 15 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-29

5. Update the inventory of Tier II facilities in Greenfield and Chickley River N/A Greenfield Fire Department, 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years provide facility owners with information on appropriate stormwater North River N/A Board of Health, Planning funding; BMPs, such as Spill Control Plans. South River N/A Department; FRCOG staff. Homeland Green River Immediate Security funding; Deerfield River N/A funding uncertain Corridor Segments 1 & 2 6. Consider integrating Low Impact Development (LID) Chickley River N/A Greenfield Planning No additional Within 1 – 2 years techniques into the Town of Greenfield’s Stormwater System North River N/A Department funding needed Regulations, Subdivision Control Regulations, and other relevant South River N/A town bylaws Green River Immediate Deerfield River N/A Corridor Segments 1 & 2

7. Assist local farmers in their on-going efforts to continue Chickley River Immediate FRCOG staff, Natural s.319 grant Within 1 – 2 years for the sustainable and profitable farming operations, prevent loss of Resources Conservation program, NRCS Chickley, North and South North River Immediate farmland to erosion, and avoid degradation of wetlands and surface Service (NRCS), Franklin grant programs, Rivers. and groundwater resources. Examples of projects that should be South River Immediate Conservation District (FCD), other available the focus of cooperative efforts to protect water quality and would Green River Moderate MA DEP, local Conservation funding sources Within 2 – 5 years for the

16 The composition of the group of watershed stakeholders may vary depending upon the activity addressed. For example, convening a group of stakeholders to address contaminated runoff from paved surfaces could include local Highway Departments, commercial and industrial business owners, local Boards of Health. 17 http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/PDF%20Chapters/Chapter%208.pdf

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-30

8. Provide informational Fact Sheets on manure management to Chickley River Moderate horse owners.18 North River Moderate South River Immediate Green River Moderate Deerfield River Long term/ Corridor Segments 1 & future 2

B.6 Hazardous 1. Collaborate with local Fire Departments to compile a complete, Long term/ Local Fire Departments, 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years for the Chickley River Materials and up-to-date inventory of businesses that use and store hazardous future Boards of Health, FRCOG funding; North, South and Green materials and/or generate hazardous waste. This list should also staff Homeland Rivers. Hazardous Waste North River Immediate include a description of any measures currently in place for Security funding; Work cooperatively with preventing contamination of stormwater runoff and accidental spills South River Immediate funding uncertain Within 2 – 5 for the business owners in each and leaks. Deerfield River Corridor town to inventory and Green River Immediate Segments 1 & 2 assess the storage and Deerfield River handling practices for Corridor Segments 1 & Within 5 – 10 years for the hazardous materials and 2 Chickley River hazardous waste. Moderate

18 http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/animal.htm

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-31

Table 4-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution Action Plan Matrix for 6 Priority Subwatersheds of the Deerfield River Watershed Nonpoint Source/ Recommended Actions Subwatershed Priority for Participants Potential Timeframe for Objective Implementation Funding Sources Implementation 2. Prioritize outreach to businesses near or over sensitive resource Long term/ Local Fire Departments, 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years for the Chickley River areas and encourage/assist them with the preparation and future Boards of Health, FRCOG funding; North, South and Green implementation of Stormwater Management Plans and Spill North River Immediate staff Homeland Rivers. Response Plans, as appropriate. Security funding; South River Immediate funding uncertain Within 2 – 5 for the Green River Immediate Deerfield River Corridor Deerfield River Segments 1 & 2 Corridor Segments 1 & Moderate 2 Within 5 – 10 years for the Chickley River 3. Assist the towns with exploring the feasibility of adopting local Long term/ Local Fire Departments, 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years for the Chickley River Board of Health regulations or a Hazardous Materials bylaw to give future Boards of Health, FRCOG funding; funding North, South and Green the municipality a mechanism for more local control and oversight North River Immediate staff uncertain Rivers. of businesses that use and store hazardous materials. South River Immediate Within 2 – 5 for the Green River Immediate Deerfield River Corridor Deerfield River Segments 1 & 2

Corridor Segments 1 & Moderate 2 Within 5 – 10 years for the Chickley River

B.7 Septic Systems Seek additional state funding to expand the Franklin Regional Chickley River Immediate Local Boards of Health, MA DEP; MA Within 1 year and then Council of Governments’ Regional Health Program’s Board of FRCOG staff Department of annually, as needed Health Capacity-Building Workshop Series. Workshop topics North River Immediate Public Health; Provide adequate should focus on: South River Immediate other sources of technical assistance to a. Conducting effective outreach to property owners on septic Green River Immediate funding to be local Boards of Health in system use and maintenance, and financial assistance investigated each town to enable programs for the repair, replacement, or upgrade of failed Deerfield River Immediate them to inventory and septic systems. The workshop would emphasize the use of Corridor Segments 1 track all of the septic readily available brochures and on-line resources, such as the & 2 systems under their MA DEP’s web resources jurisdiction and to http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/septicsy.htm#links provide outreach to b. Methods for collecting information on the septic systems property owners within their towns and options for compiling and maintaining a regarding septic system database of the systems. maintenance and c. Options for financing community approaches to wastewater replacement. disposal problems http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/finance.htm).

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-32

Table 4-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution Action Plan Matrix for 6 Priority Subwatersheds of the Deerfield River Watershed Nonpoint Source/ Recommended Actions Subwatershed Priority for Participants Potential Timeframe for Objective Implementation Funding Sources Implementation 2. Seek additional funding to enable the Franklin Regional Council Local Boards of Health, MA DEP; MA Within 1 – 2 years, and of Governments’ Regional Health Agent to provide services to Chickley River Immediate FRCOG staff Department of then annually, as needed more local Boards of Health. The Regional Health Agent can Public Health; conduct Title 5 septic plan reviews, percolation tests and North River Immediate other sources of inspections of septic system repairs. The Regional Health Agent funding to be can also provide any level of professional assistance to a Board of South River Immediate investigated Health – from a phone consultation to routine inspections, to regular office hours at town hall. The Health Agent’s services Green River Immediate include inspections, the writing of reports and orders to correct, court enforcement, and technical support during hearings. Deerfield River Corridor Segments 1 Immediate & 2 3. Explore the feasibility of and funding sources for establishing a Chickley River Immediate Local Boards of Health, MA DEP; MA Within 1 – 2 years regional or multi-town Community Septic Management Program North River Immediate FRCOG staff Department of which could enable towns to implement a Community Inspection South River Immediate Public Health; Plan or a Local Septic Management Plan Green River Immediate other sources of (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/csmphl.htm). Deerfield River funding to be Corridor Segments 1 Immediate investigated & 2

B.8 Landfills 1. Management of the Rowe Landfill along Pelham Brook, Chickley River N/A Town of Rowe; MA DEP; MA DEP; s.319 Within 1 -2 years. Next including removal of solid waste from Pelham Brook, cleanup of North River N/A FRCOG staff grant program; funding cycle is Spring Implement the relevant refuse along the base of the landfill, and repair and stabilization of funding uncertain 2009 South River N/A recommendations the eroded areas of the landfill side slopes. Additional field provided in the Fuss and investigation may be warranted to further assess the environmental Green River N/A O’Neil study for the risk posed by the landfill and determine the need for Deerfield River landfills in the project corrective/remedial action. Corridor Segments 1 Immediate study area. & 2 2. Management of the Charlemont Landfill, including removal of Chickley River N/A Town of Charlemont; MA MA DEP; s.319 Within 1 -2 years. Next the exposed bulky waste adjacent to Tatro Brook, and additional North River N/A DEP; FRCOG staff grant program; funding cycle is Spring field investigation to further assess the environmental risk from the South River N/A funding uncertain 2009 landfill and determine the need for corrective/remedial action. Green River N/A Inspection and additional field investigation of the former Deerfield River municipal brush dump on Warner Hill Road is also recommended. Corridor Segments 1 Immediate & 2 3. Management of the Colrain Brush landfill/Former Town Dump Chickley River N/A Town of Colrain; MA DEP; MA DEP; s.319 Within 1 -2 years. Next . including; performing additional field investigation to assess North River Immediate FRCOG staff grant program; funding cycle is Spring environmental risk, identifying and characterizing the extent of any South River N/A funding uncertain 2009

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-33

B.9 Illegal Dumping 1. Assist local Boards of Health with completing an inventory of Chickley River Moderate Local Boards of Health; 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years for the and Junkyards illegal dumping areas and junkyards in each of the project study North River Immediate FRCOG staff program; MA North, Green and Deerfield area towns. Evaluate options for cleaning up these sites. South River Moderate DPH; funding River Corridor Segments 1 Prevent pollution from Green River Immediate uncertain & 2. illegal dumping areas Deerfield River Immediate and junkyards. Within 2 – 5 years for the Corridor Segments 1 Chickley and South Rivers & 2 2. Once the inventory is complete, distribute information to Chickley River Moderate Local Boards of Health; 604(b) grant Within 1 – 2 years for the landowners on the potential environmental problems and legal North River Immediate FRCOG staff program; MA North, Green and Deerfield liabilities associated with illegal dumping and junkyards. South River Moderate DPH; funding River Corridor Segments 1 Green River Immediate uncertain & 2. Deerfield River Immediate Corridor Segments 1 Within 2 – 5 years for the & 2 Chickley and South Rivers 3. Organize local “Roadside Clean-ups” each Spring to remove Chickley River Moderate Local Boards of Health, Additional Within 2 – 5 years trash and other debris. North River Moderate Conservation Commissions, funding not South River Moderate Deerfield River Watershed needed Green River Moderate Association, Volunteers, Trout Deerfield River Moderate Unlimited, Boy/Girl Scouts, Corridor Segments 1& schools. 2 4. Obtain funding to purchase and install motion sensitive hidden Chickley River Moderate Local Boards of Health, Town of Within 1 year for the Green cameras at known illegal dump sites to help with the apprehension North River Moderate Conservation Commissions, Greenfield (Green River and conviction of perpetrators. MA Department of Fish & River) and other Moderate South River Game, Deerfield River funding sources Within 2 – 5 years for the Green River Immediate

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-34

Table 4-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution Action Plan Matrix for 6 Priority Subwatersheds of the Deerfield River Watershed Nonpoint Source/ Recommended Actions Subwatershed Priority for Participants Potential Timeframe for Objective Implementation Funding Sources Implementation Deerfield River Moderate Watershed Association to be investigated North, Chickley and South Corridor Segments 1& (DRWA) Rivers, and Deerfield River 2 Corridor Segments 1 & 2 5. Assist the local Boards of Health in implementing appropriate Chickley River Moderate Local Boards of Health, 604(b) grant Within 2 – 5 years measures to prevent illegal disposal from occurring. Examples of Conservation Commissions, program; MA methods which can foster an awareness that illegal dumping is not North River Moderate Deerfield River Watershed DPH; funding acceptable and prevent on-going illegal dumping include:19 South River Moderate Association (DRWA) uncertain a. Post No Dumping signs; Green River Moderate b. Restrict access by erecting fences, locking gates, or closing Deerfield River Moderate roads popular for dumping; Corridor Segments 1& c. Publicize initiatives to enforce local laws and prosecute 2 violators; d. Provide information to the public about the potential environmental problems and legal liabilities associated with illegal dumping and junkyards; e. Encourage reporting of illegal dumping activities; and f. Determine the cause(s) of dumping and implement preventive measures targeting the cause(s). g. Consider establishing “Amnesty Days” when residents can bring in and dispose of large, bulky items for free.

B.10 Water Quality 1. Secure funding to finish and equip the water quality monitoring Chickley River Immediate CRWC, DRWA, FRCOG Possible funding Within 1 – 2 years Monitoring laboratory at the Greenfield headquarters of the Connecticut River sources currently Watershed Council (CRWC). This laboratory is a joint project of North River Immediate being explored. Continue to build the the CRWC and the DRWA. Fundraising is capacity of the Deerfield South River Immediate also underway. River Watershed Immediate Association’s volunteer Green River water quality monitoring Deerfield River Immediate programs. Corridor Segments 1& 2 2. Conduct additional water quality sampling in the South River Chickley River N/A DRWA, MA DEP, FRCOG 604(b) grant Within 1 -2 years and North River watersheds. Follow-up testing is needed to further North River Immediate program, MA bracket the suspected sources of the high E.coli counts recorded in DEP, funding South River Immediate

19 http://www.deq.state.ne.us/IWM.nsf/Pages/ILLDS-PiD

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-35

3. Conduct a volunteer water quality monitoring program for Chickley River N/A DRWA, MA DEP, FRCOG 604(b) grant Within 1 -2 years E.coli in the impaired segment of the Green River (MA 33- North River N/A program, MA 30_2006), which is listed on the 2006 Integrated List of Waters for South River N/A DEP, funding pathogens. Green River Immediate uncertain Deerfield River N/A Corridor Segments 1& 2

B.11 Silviculture 1. Conduct workshops for local Planning Boards and Conservation Long term/ FRCOG staff, local Planning Funding uncertain Within 1 -2 years for the Commissions to introduce them to and train them to use the on-line Chickley River future Boards, Conservation South and Green Rivers. Encourage the use of Clean Water Toolkit – Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Moderate Commissions appropriate BMPs for all Management Manual.20 The Toolkit has specific sections related to North River Within 2 – 5 years for the small logging operations forestry, and erosion and sediment control, which include BMPs. North River Immediate and land clearing for South River new development, Within 5 – 10 years for the Immediate including those not Green River Chickley and Deerfield subject to the Wetlands River Corridor Segments 1 Protection Act. Deerfield River Long term/ & 2 Corridor Segments 1& future 2 2. Review local Subdivision Regulations to see if adequate erosion Long term/ FRCOG staff, local Planning Funding Within 1 -2 years for the Chickley River and sediment control requirements are included. Update the future Boards, Greenfield Planning uncertain; North, South and Green regulations, if necessary. North River Immediate Department Greenfield may Rivers. South River Immediate not need Green River Immediate additional funding Within 5 – 10 years for the Deerfield River Long term/ Chickley and Deerfield Corridor Segments 1& future River Corridor Segments 1 2 & 2 3. Encourage landowners to use BMPs for land clearing and small Chickley River Immediate FRCOG staff, local Planning Funding uncertain Within 1 -2 years logging operations not subject to the Forest Cutting Practices Act, Boards, local Conservation North River Immediate the Wetlands Protection Act or other local regulations and bylaws. Commissions, Greenfield South River Immediate

20 http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-36

Section 4 – Nonpoint Source Action Plan Deerfield River Watershed 604b Project 4-37