Upper Farmington River Management Plan

Update to the April 29, 1993 version

December, 2013

Farmington River Coordinating Committee Upper Farmington River Management Plan

Update to the April 29, 1993 version

December, 2013 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

2013 Representatives: Barkhamsted – Mario Santoro; Roger Behrens, alternate Canton – vacant; Cherie Robinson, alternate (Chair) Colebrook – Ross Delaney; Edna Travis - alternate Hartland – Dan Bowler; Nicki Hall, alternate New Hartford – Alison Murdock (Vice-Chair); Mark Lindquist, alternate Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) – Susan Peterson (Secretary); Maryann Nusom Haverstock, alternate Farmington River Anglers Association (FRAA) – Nick Masi; Scott Demoncada and Paul Pinette; alternates Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA) – David Sinish (Education & Outreach Subcommittee Chair); Eileen Fielding; alternate (Treasurer) Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) – Tim Anthony (Resource Stewardship Subcommittee Chair), Carol Youell; alternate National Park Service (NPS) – Liz Lacy; Jamie Fosburgh, alternate

The 2013 Revised Plan was coordinated by Joyce Kennedy Raymes, National Park Service, under the direction of the Farmington River Coordinating Committee (FRCC).

FRCC thanks former study and FRCC representatives and other individuals who have assisted in this revision, especially Tom Stanton of Colebrook, and Bill Roberts of Canton.

The Management Plan is available digitally at www.farmingtonriver.org.

ii Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Original Farmington River Study Committee (November 1988 – April 1993): Robert Alarie, Town of Becket, Massachusetts Joy Brown, Town of Otis, Massachusetts John Clark, Town of Tolland, Massachusetts Patricia DeMarco, representing the Governor of Connecticut (Secretary) James Fleming, State Senator, representing the Secretary of the Interior Anthony Gallicchio, Metropolitan District Commission Neil Gilpin, Town of Hartland, Connecticut Alis Huhn, Town of Canton, Connecticut (former member) David Lee, Town of Colebrook, Connecticut Paul Mikell, Metropolitan District Commission (former member) Culver Modisette, Farmington River Watershed Association Robert Moore, representing the Governor of Connecticut H. Randall Pease, Jr., Metropolitan District Commission Douglas Poland, representing the Governor of Massachusetts Robert (Bud) Rice, Town of Colebrook, Connecticut (former member) Norman (Skip) Rogers, Town of New Hartford, Connecticut (Chair) John Rossi, Metropolitan District Commission (former member) Ralph Scarpino, Town of Barkhamsted, Connecticut David Sinish, Town of Canton, CT, and Farmington River Watershed Association Robert Tarasuk, Town of Sandisfield, Massachusetts Cassie Thomas, representing the Governor of Massachusetts (former member) Roger Thrall, Town of Canton, Connecticut (former member)

technical Work Group: Nathan Frohling, Farmington River Watershed Association Richard Jacobson, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection George Sparks, Metropolitan District Commission

Contributors: Lawrence Golden, Slater, Sandler and Daniells Carolyn Hughes, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Drew Parkin, National Park Service James Sandler, Slater, Sandler and Daniells Jamie Williams, National Park Service

project Manager: Philip Huffman, National Park Service

iii Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

iv Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Table of Contents

Introduction to Upper Farmington River ...... 1 Management Plan — Revised 2013

Management Plan Introduction ...... 4

Chapter 1: Approach To Resource Management ...... 7 Goals and Management Philosophy ...... 7 Wild and Scenic River Consideration ...... 8

Chapter 2: Administrative Framework ...... 12 Overview ...... 12 Farmington River Coordinating Committee ...... 12 Management Agreements ...... 17

Chapter 3: Education And Outreach ...... 19 Overview ...... 19 Potential Activities ...... 19

Chapter 4: Resource Management ...... 21 Overview ...... 21 Part I: Land Resource Management ...... 23 Private and Public Lands ...... 23 Part II: Water Resource Management ...... 30 1 .Water Quality ...... 30 2 .Water Quantity ...... 35 3 . Channel, Bank and Wetland Protection ...... 42 Part III: Outstanding Resource Management ...... 46 1 .Recreation Resources ...... 46 2 . Fisheries and Wildlife ...... 48 3 .Historic Resources ...... 52

Chapter 5: Management Of The Massachusetts Segment ...... 54 Overview ...... 54 River Management Issues ...... 55

Chapter 6: Lower Farmington River Management ...... 56 Overview ...... 56 Management Recommendations ...... 57

APPENDICES ...... 59 A . Wild and Scenic Rivers Bill ...... 59 B . Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) ...... 60 C . Local River Protection Overlay Districts ...... 62 D . Summary of Federal and State Statutes ...... 62 E . FRCC Bylaws ...... 71 F . FRCC Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) ...... 72 G . FRCC List of Major Accomplishments ...... 76

v table of contents

FIGURES (Rear of Plan) Individual Town Figures 1 .–3 . show the Wild and Scenic Corridor: 1 . Colebrook and Hartland 2 .Barkhamsted 3 . New Hartford and Canton 4 . Major Tributaries and Watersheds 5 . Farmington River Watershed and Upper Farmington Towns 6 . Potential Upper Farmington River Wild and Scenic Boundary Extension 7 . Land Cover 8 . Land Use 9 . Land Cover Changes from 1985 to 2006 10 .Floodplains 11 . Elevation and Topography 12 . Generalized Bedrock Geology 13 . Quaternary Geology 14 . State Water Quality Classifications 15 . Local Basin Percent Impervious 16 . Aquifer Protection Areas 17 . Recreational Resources 18 . Critical Habitats and Potential Vernal Pools 19 .Ecoregions 20 . Alluvial Floodplain Critical Habitat Subtype Communities 21 . Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Species 22 . Invasive Species 23 . National Register of Historic Places

Maps available digitally on the FRCC website at www.farmingtonriver.org

vi Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Introduction to Upper Farmington River Management Plan — Revised 2013

elcome to the updated Upper communities of Barkhamsted, Canton, WFarmington River Management Colebrook, Hartland, and New Hartford. Plan (UFRMP). The original UFRMP was Ranging from funding land protection published by the Farmington River Wild efforts, such as Jones Mountain in New and Scenic Study Committee in 1993 and Hartford and Sugar Meadow Island in prior to the upper river’s 1994 Wild & Barkhamsted, to streambank stabilization Scenic designation by the U.S. Congress. assistance, to providing grants for projects At that time, producing a management like information kiosks or museum plan while the designation application was displays about the river, the FRCC works under review represented a new approach cooperatively with the five member towns, to Wild & Scenic study processes; the local organizations and governmental management plan would exist whether bodies to pursue the goals established in the or not the designation was granted. It UFRMP. See Figures 1-3: Individual Town proved to be for the upper Farmington an Figures and Figure 4: Major Tributaries and effective approach and, today, many river Watersheds. The FRCC works associations take this tack. The FRCC office, located at the historic cooperatively with the The 1993 UFRMP advised that the Squire’s tavern, in Pleasant Valley, five member towns, managing committee — the Farmington Connecticut, and established since local organizations River Coordinating Committee (FRCC) designation, has become a place people — review the plan periodically, assess know to come to with their ideas, concerns, and governmental its successes and shortcomings and, if and questions about the upper Farmington bodies to pursue the deemed necessary, revise it to reflect issues River. Please take a look at the different goals established in currently affecting, or anticipated to affect, projects and accomplishments achieved the river. In that spirit, at the conclusion of since 1994 in Appendix G, or on our the UFRMP. its latest review, the FRCC added: resilience website at www.farmingtonriver.org. to climate change, the infestation of invasive species, and working cooperatively The Revision Process to manage and preserve recreational use In endeavoring to produce this 2013 of the upper Farmington River. The set update of the Upper Farmington River of accompanying maps at the end of this Management Plan, the FRCC sought to revised UFRMP represents a wealth of both respect the larger purpose of the original existing and new information about the plan while providing some revisions that Wild and Scenic area, including land use, will, it believes, make the UFRMP more geology, water quality, local resources and timely and user-friendly. The introduction the findings of research conducted by the to, and large portions of, the first plan are FRCC between 1993 and 2013. included in this revised version, as the 1993 UFRMP remains a strong guiding Since Designation document. Additionally, the committee The plans for the creation and operation of decided that the 2013 plan will exist as both the FRCC were promulgated in the original a published and electronic document. UFRMP and since designation, in 1994, the FRCC members reviewed the 1993 FRCC has followed that guidance. Today, UFRMP and 2013 revisions many times the FRCC plays not only an important and in different ways. They decided to advising and planning role along the change verb tense, add new issues and upper river but also in the riverfront accomplishments, provide additional

1 introduction to revised plan

baseline information and maps, and remove Intent of the Plan outdated tasks. All members of the FRCC The UFRMP is not a set of regulations or had a hand in making and approving the laws. Rather, it is a stewardship guidance changes that appear in the 2013 plan. The document created, submitted, and updated UFRMP reflects this cooperative approved by Congress, in conjunction effort and incorporates as well comments with the application to designate the upper received from the general public, whose Farmington River to the National Wild opinions were sought throughout the two- and Scenic Rivers System. The FRCC year revision process. The updated report follows its guidelines and adheres to its does not reflect any changes to major Wild recommendations. and Scenic Rivers Act provisions, the role of The FRCC hopes that this document the National Park Service or provisions that will be used to not only understand the safeguard land owners. goals and objectives of the FRCC, but to learn about the river’s characteristics and outstanding resources, as well.

The UFRMP … is a stewardship guidance document created, submitted, and approved by Congress, in conjunction with the application to designate the upper Farmington River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

2 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Lenox Worthington ¬«5 Hadley ¬«9 Washington Middlefield Farmington River Watershed Northampton Massachusetts Lee Stock¬«b7 ridge Westhampton Hadley Chester Becket «¬112 ¬«66 ¬«102 Huntington ¬«10 ¬«8 Easthampton New York

Tyringham SoRhuodteh Is laHndadley W e Connecticut s t Great Barrington B r Southampton ¬« a 10 n ¬«141 c h ¨¦§91 Holyoke ¬«202 Otis ¨¦§90 Montgomery

¬«8 Big Monterey Pond Blandford ¬«20 ¬«23 ¬«141 New Jersey ¬«5 ¬«23 ¨¦§391 Russell Ch¨¦§3ic91opee ¬«5 Otis Reservoir «¬116 ¬«57 ¬«202 Sheffield Westfield West Springfield ¬«202 ¬«10 Springfield Sandisfield «¬20A New Marlborough ¬«147 Tolland ¬«187 Granville ¬«147 ¬«57

183 ¬« ¬«57 Agawam Sheffield ¬«189 Southwick ¬«75 ¬«159 ¬«187 Longmeadow

¬«183 Colebrook ¬«202 North Canaan Sa ¬« ndy 20 ¬«168 168 Doolittle Brk. River ¬« Lake Lake West ¬«187 159 Branch Hartland ¬« Colebrook Reservoir ¬«539 Suffield ¬«190 ¬«182 «¬182A ¬«189 W&S Norfolk Boundary Enfield ¬«272 ¤£44 Granby

Canaan ¬«8 ¬«181 ad R ¬«75 M iver W est S East Granby a l m ¬«63 Barkhamsted Barkhamsted on

Reservoir B

r Windsor Locks B k

Winchester . r

a

n c 318 Rainbow h ¬« Reservoir Highland 315 F Cornwall ¬« ar Lake m East Windsor ¬«8 McDonough in Lake g t ¬«191 ¬«309 o n ¬«219 West Hill r Pond e East ¤£5 iv Simsbury Burr R Branch Windsor l Pondil R t iv S Canton er ¬«305 Goshen 185 New Hartford ¬« Bloomfield Torrington W&S ¤£202 178 Boundary ¬« §¨¦91 ¬«565 ¬«218 Nepaug South Windsor

¬«30 F §¨¦291

a

Reservoir r ¬«63 m

i n g Avon to n

§¨¦384 West Hartford Hartford East Hartford ¬«72 Burlington «¬118 Harwinton R iv e ¬«10 ¬«2 r ¤£6 Litchfield Warren ¬«530 529 ¬«69 ¬« ¬«177 Farmington ¬«222 ¤£6 ¬«549 ¬«314

r

e

v 173 i 552 ¬«

R ¬«

k c Wethersfield u b a ¬« Glastonbury ¬«209 u 99 Morris eq ¬«254 P ¬«562 Newington Bristol Plainville New Britain ¬«174 Thomaston ¬«9 ¬«160 ¤£6 Plymouth ¬«61 Rocky Hill Washington ¬«532 Bethlehem

¬«572 ¬«69 §¨¦84 LEGEND ¬«229 Watertown Berlin Cromwell Upper Farmington Towns Southington «¬17A Wolcott ¬«71 Farmington River Watershed Boundary ¬«364 Portland ¬«3 132 ¬« Farm¬«ington River (main stem) 73 ¬«322 ¬«47 Upper Farmin¤£6gton Wild & Scenic River ¬«120 ¬« Woodbury 15 ¬«317 Waterbury ¬«15 Roxbury Farmington River Coordinating Committee §¨¦691 U P P E R F A R M I N G T O NM iRdd leI tVow En R 100 East River Road – Squire's Tavern ¬«801 P.O. Box 395 MeridenM A N A G E M E N T P L A N Pleasant Valley, CT 06063 ¬«155 Middlebury ¬«70 ¬«147 www.farmingtonrive¬«6r4.org ¬«150 Cheshire FARMINGTON RIVER ¬«9 Middlefield ¬«67 4 ¬«188 Prospect WATERSHED AND UPPER ¬«172 0 4 8 Data Sources & Notes: TeleAtlas (DESPP); USGS; DEEP; FRWA. Naugatuck ¬«68 Southbury 157 Prepared by J.Bolton, FRWA: 121213 Miles Wallingford FARMING¬«TON TOWNSHaddam Durham Oxford 3 Management Plan Introduction

The FRCC has included this introduction in its entirety from the original Management Plan to provide historical context.

he Upper Farmington River the nine towns along the two segments, the TManagement Plan articulates a vision Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State for future management of the uppermost of Connecticut, the Hartford Metropolitan segment of the river in Connecticut District Commission (MDC), the and its adjacent lands. It also proposes Farmington River Watershed Association complementary actions that might be taken (FRWA), and the U.S. Department of the upstream and downstream of this segment. Interior. Staff assistance and funding for the The plan was prepared as one component project have been provided by the National of the Farmington Wild and Scenic River Park Service (NPS). Study authorized by Congress in 1986 Traditionally, a river management through P.L. 99-590. See Appendix A: Wild plan is prepared following National and Scenic Bill. The study covered two Wild and Scenic River designation. This segments of the upper Farmington River plan, however, was prepared before any – an 11 mile section of the West Branch in decision was made regarding whether to Massachusetts, and a 14 mile section of the recommend designation. This approach West Branch and mainstem in Connecticut. reflects the fact that the Farmington The Connecticut segment is the focus River area encompasses a unique set of of this management plan. See Figure 5: circumstances that requires a unique Farmington River Watershed and FRCC management response. Because of these Towns. circumstances, the Study Committee The study was led by the Farmington concluded that it would be impossible to River Study Committee, an advisory group consider the issue of designation without created by Congress to represent the major first knowing how the river would be interests in the study area. The Study managed following such designation. Committee included representatives from Furthermore, the Committee felt that a

4 comprehensive management plan was level. The plan is therefore a consensus needed regardless of whether the river was document that has the confidence and ever designated. support of all who participated in its While the plan was prepared as part of preparation. the wild and scenic river study process, A summary of the draft plan was implementation of the plan’s major presented and discussed at an open actions is not dependent on designation. public meeting in Barkhamsted on Indeed, many critical actions, including January 14, 1993. Over 200 local residents local adoption of riverfront zoning attended, and support for the plan was improvements, had already taken place. overwhelming. Those elements of the plan that are dependent on designation are clearly The plan has six parts: spelled out to distinguish them from the 1. Approach to Resource Management: rest of the plan. This section describes the basic The Plan was not prepared in a vacuum. philosophy that underlies the plan It represents months of concentrated and presents the goals that guided attention on the part of the Study development of the plan. Committee and other contributors. A 2. Administrative Framework: This technical work group consisting of staff section describes the organizational from the Connecticut Department of structure that exists to oversee Environmental Protection (DEP), the implementation of this plan and long- MDC, the FRWA, and the NPS provided term protection of the river. expertise and assistance in resolving several key issues. Each component of the plan was 3. Education and Outreach: This section scrutinized to determine if it furthered the identifies a number of activities that goals set forth by the Study Committee at could be initiated to increase public the outset of the project and met the needs awareness of the value of the river and of the many interests involved. Inevitably techniques for managing it wisely. there were differences of opinion. These 4. Resource Management: This section, were resolved through open dialogue at by far the most extensive, is the main both the work group and sub-committee body of the plan. The section is divided

5 introduction

into three primary parts: land resources, river designation for this portion of the water resources, and outstanding river at any time in the future. resources. For each, the plan identifies 6. Lower Farmington River Management: actions that will be undertaken, This section presents recommended objectives, and standards to guide these actions that would help protect actions. the lower portion of the river and 5. Management of the Massachusetts complement the actions being taken Segment: This section describes how further upstream. If the lower river Wild and Scenic River designation of gains Wild and Scenic designation then the Connecticut segment affects the there will be opportunities to work river in Massachusetts, and presents cooperatively on projects that further recommendations for Massachusetts’s the goals presented in both the upper river management. It also identifies the and lower management plans. steps needed to obtain Wild and Scenic

his management plan is directed to local governments, the states of TConnecticut and Massachusetts, federal agencies, public commissions and authorities, residents of the river corridor, river users, and others who care about the future of the upper Farmington River. All of these interests must continue to work together to protect the river and achieve this plan’s goals. The management plan does not contain a prescription for every situation that could confront river managers. Instead, it provides a vision for the future of the river and a context for interpreting and acting. The plan creates a specific mechanism — the Farmington River Coordinating Committee — to address management issues.

6 — Chapter 1 — Approach to Resource Management

Goals and Management 6. Increase the Upper Farmington River’s Philosophy resilience to impacts resulting from climate change. Goals 7. Conduct a recreational use study In September 1989, the Farmington River to assess river use and make Study Committee adopted a set of goals recommendations for balancing for future management of the upper competing uses. Farmington River. These goals provided These goals make it clear that, in the the foundation for the development of this upper Farmington River Valley, resource management plan. They are as follows: protection and human activities are 1. Conserve and enhance important land- not separate issues, but always will be based natural and cultural resources, intertwined. including wildlife habitat, forests, Management Philosophy diverse landscapes, and the scenic and The Committee felt The above goals give direction as to what historical character of the Farmington the management plan seeks to accomplish. that a comprehensive Valley. Of equal concern is the issue of how these management plan 2. Encourage effective management of goals will be accomplished. Drawing upon was needed regardless river-related growth that will protect their collective experience with resource of whether the river the river’s special qualities, and that will management, and with the Farmington emphasize existing local control and the River area, the original Study Committee was ever designated. rights of private property owners. defined a management philosophy to guide 3. Balance the legitimate demands development of the plan. This philosophy on the river for water supply, waste incorporates the following basic elements: assimilation, energy production, and 1. Resource conservation should be fully commercial and industrial uses, while integrated with traditional patterns of maintaining stream flow and water use, ownership, and jurisdiction. quality necessary to sustain fisheries, 2. River management should be recreation and scenic qualities at levels accomplished through cooperation sufficient for wild and scenic river among all public and private designation. organizations with an interest in the 4. Manage river recreational use to river. minimize resource degradation 3. Long-term resource protection and impacts on private and public should rely on existing programs and landowners, while providing for authorities rather than on new layers of appropriate recreational use and public bureaucracy. access. 4. Future management should be based During the 2013 Plan update the on a cooperatively developed plan following management goals were which establishes resource protection recommended: standards and identifies key actions. 5. Protect river from further degradation This management philosophy is built due to contaminants and invasive non- on the assumption that, for the most part, native species. existing river protection mechanisms 7 chapter 1 — approach to resource management are adequate to protect river resources. for the benefit and enjoyment of present and If a resource value has been protected future generations. by existing management, and if existing Section 10(a) specifies how designated management seems adequate to address rivers should be managed: issues that can reasonably be expected to appear in the future, then the existing Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered mechanism should be left alone. If the in such manner as to protect and enhance existing mechanisms could be improved or the values which caused it to be included in made more efficient by better coordination said system without, insofar as is consistent or enforcement, then this should be therewith, limiting other uses that do not pursued. New or stricter regulations, or substantially interfere with public use other actions, should only be undertaken and enjoyment of these values. In such when needed, not used as a primary administration primary emphasis shall management tool. be given to protecting its esthetics, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific features. The Study Committee determined Management plans for any such component that this management plan must not may establish varying degrees of intensity for pre-empt existing rights or management its protection and development, based on the responsibilities. Rather, the plan should special attributes of the area. create a common vision for the future Section 7(a) describes the specific and an environment in which those protections provided to designated rivers: concerned with the river can focus their The Federal Power Commission [Federal collective energies on making this vision Energy Regulatory Commission] shall not a reality. license the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission Wild and Scenic line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act…on or directly affecting any river River Consideration which is designated…and no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, Legislative Guidance grant, license, or otherwise in the construction The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. of any water resources project that would have 90-542, as amended) provides the legal a direct and adverse effect on the values foundation and overall guidance for the for which such river was established… No National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. department or agency of the United States shall recommend authorization of any water The fundamental concepts that underlie resources project that would have a direct and this Act, and the elements of paramount adverse effect on the values for which such river importance for designation of the was established… Farmington River, are described below. Section 1(b) summarizes the intent of Relationship of the Management the Act: Plan to Designation It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Section 3 (d) of the Wild Scenic Rivers United States that certain selected rivers Act requires that a comprehensive river of the Nation which, with their immediate management plan be prepared for each environments, possess outstandingly river designated into the national system: remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, “to provide for the protection of the river fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other values.” Furthermore, as described in Sec. similar values, shall be preserved in free- 10(a) of the Act, management prescriptions flowing condition, and that they and their can – and should – be tailored to meet the immediate environments shall be protected specific needs of the river in question. This

8 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 management plan satisfies the requirement 3. The river area is not a national park and of Sec. 3(d) and, therefore, constitutes the is not subject to the federal regulations official framework for management of the that govern units of the national park river. As described in the Administrative system. Framework section, the plan is subject 4. No new federal permits are required as a to periodic review and update by the result of designation.2 Committee. Safeguards National Park Service Role The plan includes the following specific As this plan amply demonstrates, the provisions to safeguard the interests of upper Farmington’s designation is carried landowners and others. These provisions out through a nontraditional approach, are consistent with the direction provided with the federal government acting as by Congress through the Wild and Scenic a partner in river management rather designation. than as the primary manager. The upper 1. There is no acquisition of lands by Farmington River is one of the first rivers the federal government – through known as a “Partnership River.” Several condemnation or otherwise – in other rivers in the Wild and Scenic conjunction with Wild and Scenic River system have followed the partnership designation. approach to management due to common characteristics such as historical alterations, 2. There is no federal management of extensive private land ownership along the non-federal lands. Private lands along river, and well-established local control the river will continue to be managed by of river management. Partnership river their respective owners in accordance management has a proven track record with local land use regulations. Non- of effectively creating river protection federal public lands will continue to be strategies that bring communities together managed by the agencies that own those in protecting, enhancing and managing lands.1 local river resources.

1 The only existing federal lands near the segment are parcels administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers around and above the Colebrook Reservoir. 2 No new federal permits are required; however some existing permits may require different thresholds.

9 chapter 1 — approach to resource management

The National Park Service (NPS) serves Canton, Connecticut town line. With as the key federal representative in the respect to lateral boundaries, Sec. 4(d) of implementation of the management plan the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies and designation. The agency’s principal that the area included in a study should role is to represent the Secretary of the “generally comprise that area measured Interior in reviewing federal projects as within one-quarter mile from the ordinary required by Sec. 7(a) of the Act. Also, the high water mark.” However, there are NPS provides technical assistance, staff no specific requirements regarding the support, and/or funding appropriated by minimum width of the boundary following Congress for management of the river. Any designation. In the original management such NPS assistance is coordinated with the plan, the Study Committee concluded that, Farmington River Coordinating Committee on the Farmington River, where much of (management committee) described in the the corridor is in private ownership and Administrative Framework section of this where some issues – notably water quality plan. The Resource Management section – involve the entire watershed, defining of this plan provides additional details on a distinct lateral boundary would serve the NPS role under the heading of “Wild no useful purpose and, indeed, could be and Scenic River Provisions.” counter-productive. The plan focuses Although a specific lateral boundary Designated Area protection efforts on therefore is not established, the plan focuses The stretch of the Farmington River protection efforts on the river itself and the river itself and the designated Wild and Scenic is the segment the immediate riparian corridor (generally immediate riparian of the West Branch and mainstem an area one-quarter mile from the high corridor. extending from immediately below water mark on each side of the river or the Goodwin Dam and Hydroelectric tributaries of the river comprises a review Project in Hartland, Connecticut to the area for possible effects on the Wild and downstream end of the New Hartford/ Scenic segment). In keeping with the

10 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 river protection districts established by the lower Farmington River Wild and the riverfront towns, the lands within 100 Scenic Study is contiguous to the upper feet of the river receive greatest attention Farmington River Wild and Scenic area. throughout the plan. For uplands outside The proposed 1.1-mile extension of the of this area, the plan also identifies upper 14-mile Connecticut segment of the numerous actions relating to water quality upper Farmington River could be under maintenance, public and private land the jurisdiction of the FRCC due to the management, and other issues. existing Town of Canton representation as a core member of the FRCC. The federal Relationship to Lower River designation bill for the lower river would Designation revise the lower boundary of the upper If the lower Farmington River is designated Farmington River Wild and Scenic area. Wild and Scenic it is recommended Once the lower Farmington and Salmon that the Town of Canton river segment Brook Study is complete, Canton would no be administered as part of the upper longer be represented on the lower Wild Farmington Wild and Scenic River. and Scenic Advisory Committee. See Figure The 1.1-mile river segment that reaches 6: Potential Upper Farmington River Wild from the New Hartford/Canton town and Scenic Boundary Extension. line to the confluence with the Nepaug River in Canton that was included in

11 — Chapter 2 — Administrative Framework

Overview Farmington River Coordinating Committee his section describes a structure for (FRCC) Tadministration of the Connecticut segment that provides ongoing Purpose coordination and communication among the many interests involved in the upper The purpose of the Farmington River Farmington River area. Coordinating Committee (FRCC) is to An underlying principle in this promote the long-term protection of the administrative framework is that existing upper Farmington River by: (1) bringing institutions and authorities will provide the the major players in river management foundation for the long-term protection of together on a regular and ongoing the upper Farmington River. Landowners, basis, (2) stimulating cooperation and riverfront communities, the state, the coordination among those players, (3) MDC, advocacy and user groups, and providing a forum for all river interests federal agencies all have active and to discuss and resolve issues, and (4) indispensable roles in maintaining the high coordinating implementation of this quality of the river system. The section management plan. of this plan on Resource Management This type of representative body is provides a detailed description of the indispensable for long-term management specific responsibilities of each of these because of the complexities and significance players in river management. From an of the upper Farmington River system. administrative perspective, the principal Given the number of jurisdictions and need is for a mechanism to coordinate interests involved in the upper Farmington the activities of those involved in the River Valley, no one entity can assume sole management of the river and its corridor. management responsibility or provide the There are two key parts to the necessary protection by itself. Furthermore, administrative structure: management decisions by any one entity 1. The existence of a broadly representative are likely to impact a number of other interests. The forum provided by the FRCC committee – the Farmington River ensures communication among all parties Coordinating Committee (FRCC) – and the representation of all viewpoints in that links all of the players together on making and implementing management a long-term basis. This group builds decisions. upon the work and successes of the past The FRCC’s record of achievement is eighteen years and is continually seeking indicative of what can be accomplished increased cooperation among all river through a participatory and cooperative interests. effort. 2. The development of agreements among the various parties involved in Function river management. These agreements The FRCC has an advisory role only; it does reinforce the current consensus to work not have regulatory or land acquisition cooperatively in implementing this plan authority. The Committee may provide and pursuing the long-term protection advice to entities that have management or of the upper Farmington River. regulatory authority affecting the river, but it does not have the power to dictate the 12 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

actions or decisions they take. The FRCC source discharges; water withdrawals) is intended to complement and support • changes to state programs or policies the roles and activities of existing interests, (e.g., statewide water quality standards; rather than compete with them. land management practices on the state The FRCC does not have additional forests) authority for the following reasons: (1) a • applications for federal permits (e.g., major emphasis of the Partnership Wild Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Scenic Rivers management approach permits; Federal Energy Regulatory is to work within existing authorities to Commission certification for pipeline achieve effective protection of the river, crossings) (2) there is no need to create an additional • other federal projects (e.g., changes in layer of regulatory bureaucracy, and (3) flood control operations) there is no need for land acquisition authority beyond what already exists at the As specified in the Resource local and state levels. Management section of this plan, the state may be asked to notify the FRCC of Responsibilities certain state permit applications and other The FRCC has the following potential actions, and give the Committee responsibilities: the opportunity to comment. Subsequent The FRCC was to being notified by the relevant federal address river-related issues: The FRCC established following agencies, the NPS informs the Committee pursues cooperative resolution of current of any proposed projects requiring federal the Congressional issues affecting the upper Farmington permits or other assistance that would River, as well as those that may arise. The authorization of the affect the segment. Town boards are Committee does not have the authority to upper Farmington encouraged to communicate and cooperate resolve issues directly, instead, it provides with FRCC on matters related to the river River segment into the a public forum for the discussion of them, (including notifying the Committee of National Wild and helps to raise awareness about matters of specific proposals) but, ultimately, it is particular importance, and stimulates the Scenic Rivers System. the Committee’s responsibility to keep appropriate authorities to take responsive itself informed of proposals under local action. jurisdiction that it may wish to review Recreational-use management is and provide comments on. Individual an example of an issue that the FRCC Committee members, particularly the town addresses and is described more fully in the representatives, play an important role in section on Management of Outstanding keeping the group abreast of local issues. Resources. The monitoring efforts of the FRCC will Monitor activities that might affect not affect monitoring and review functions the river: The FRCC evaluates specific of its member organizations. proposals that could affect the segment Stimulate public involvement and, as it deems necessary, provides and education: The FRCC provides comments to the appropriate authorities. opportunities for the public to become An FRCC review may be initiated at the aware of, and participate in, efforts to request of the public, local, state and/ resolve matters affecting the river. This or federal officials, or at the Committee’s is accomplished through Committee discretion. Examples of proposals that the meetings, the Committee’s Web site, FRCC might review: workshops, newsletters, surveys, mailings, • zoning changes for lands along the river or in other ways. The Committee also or its tributaries supports the education and outreach • development projects near the river activities of its members. When • applications for state permits (e.g., point appropriate, it may initiate its own 13 chapter 2 — administrative framework

projects to educate the public about the that have been undertaken and completed. Farmington’s special values, the challenges The FRCC is responsible for reviewing confronting it, and sensible techniques for the plan on a regular basis, and updating conserving it. See Education and Outreach as necessary. The FRCC should avoid section for details. becoming mired in a continual review and Promote river enhancement initiatives: revision process, but focus its energies and The FRCC supports river enhancement resources on implementation instead. projects initiated by its members or When actions inconsistent with this other groups it deems worthwhile and, plan’s provisions for resource protection when appropriate, will coordinate the and management occur, the FRCC involvement of its members in these efforts. needs to evaluate potential responses The Committee may initiate its own similar and incorporate into the plan those it efforts. determines to be most appropriate. Examples of river enhancement projects Although this schedule may be altered that could merit FRCC support and as appropriate, it is recommended that the involvement include the bank stabilization FRCC thoroughly review this management and re-vegetation initiative along West plan and/or develop a set of strategic goals River Road in Barkhamsted, removal every five years. The public should be The FRCC supports of invasive species and planting of non- allowed ample opportunity to participate river enhancement invasive native species, improvement of fish in revising the plan. Changes to this plan habitat, and the frequent river cleanups, can only be made if they are approved by all projects initiated educational workshops that are sponsored voting core members of the FRCC. by its members or by several advocacy and user groups. Prepare periodic status reports: Every other groups it deems Review and update the Upper one to five years the FRCC will prepare Farmington River Management Plan: brief reports on the status of protection of worthwhile… Changes to the UFRMP, which the FRCC the segment and the implementation of is charged to review periodically, may this management plan. They will serve two become necessary owing to technological primary purposes: advances; new statutes, regulations, and 1. To inform the general public, local programs; and emerging concerns affecting officials, the Governor, the General the river; or actions identified in the Assembly, Congress, and the Secretary Resource Management section of the plan,

Students receive FRCC sponsored scholarships.

14 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

of the Interior about the conditions of its alternate. the river, and Additional members: Membership may 2. To publicize any pressing matters be expanded to include other interests requiring attention or assistance based on the following provisions: from the local, state and/or federal Massachusetts interests: If the governments. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and/or any of the towns along the Massachusetts The reports will provide the FRCC segment (Becket, Otis, Sandisfield, and regular opportunities to identify its Tolland) request membership, they will be accomplishments and chart its course for granted non-voting status automatically. the next interval. Any of those interests subsequently may Membership be granted voting status by unanimous consent of the existing members. If the Core membership: The following Massachusetts segment is designated as a entities constitute the core voting Wild and Scenic River at some point in the membership of the FRCC. Each will have future, the State and the towns along the one representative and one alternate. designated section will be granted voting • Town of Colebrook membership automatically, regardless of • Town of Hartland whether they were previously active on • Town of Barkhamsted the Committee. The possibility of future designation of the Massachusetts segment • Town of New Hartford as a Wild and Scenic River is discussed in • Town of Canton the section of this plan on Management of • U.S. Department of the Interior (National the Massachusetts Segment. Park Service) Other interests: Other interested • State of Connecticut (CT DEEP) parties (downstream or tributary towns • Metropolitan District Commission in Connecticut, river user groups, etc.) • Farmington River Watershed Association may be added to the Committee if they request membership and are approved by Non-core membership: The following unanimous consent of the existing core organization joined FRCC as a non-core members. The existing core members shall member since the time of designation. decide on a case-by-case basis whether any • Farmington River Anglers Association new member shall be granted voting or Appointments: Representatives and non-voting status. alternates will be appointed as follows: Representatives of any new member • Town representatives, by the respective institutions will be appointed by the boards of selectman governing body of that institution or, • State representatives, by Commissioner of in the case of the Commonwealth of CT DEEP Massachusetts, by the Governor. All representatives shall serve at the will • MDC representatives, by District of their respective member institution. Commissioners While the regular members and • FRWA representatives, by Board of alternates are the official representatives Directors of the respective organizations, staff from • Department of Interior representatives, any organization having expertise relevant by Regional Director, National Park to the Committee’s activities will be Service encouraged to participate on an ongoing While not a requirement, each riverfront basis. town is encouraged to appoint a riparian landowner as either its regular member or 15 chapter 2 — administrative framework

Procedures to coordinate the Committee’s activities, Establishment: The FRCC was (2) undertake specific projects, and/or (3) established following the Congressional cover costs related to general operations authorization of the upper Farmington or specific responsibilities (office space River segment into the National Wild and and equipment, printing and distribution Scenic Rivers System. information, education and outreach, etc.). Decision-making: In the original 1993 As a National Wild and Scenic River, management plan it was decided that congressional appropriations assist with all Committee decisions and actions were the operation of the FRCC. Such funds to be made by the unanimous expressed are part of the annual budget request to consent of all voting members (not only Congress by the National Park Service. those present at a given meeting). This With adequate funding, the NPS can (1) provision could be waived for any future provide staff support for the FRCC from decision only by the unanimous consent its own personnel, or (2) transfer money of all voting members. Consequently, in to the FRCC through a formal cooperative by-laws enacted on November 10, 2004, agreement (cooperative agreements are the FRCC established by unanimous discussed later in this section). In addition consent that it would operate by consensus to providing staff support and/or direct on most issues; with the exception that financial assistance to the FRCC, the NPS unanimous consent is required for votes may provide technical planning and river related to changes to the Upper Farmington conservation assistance to the Committee River Management Plan, changes to the and its members if requested and if FRCC by-laws, addition of new members, sufficient appropriations are available. expenditures of over $2,000 and election For long-term funding needs or for of officers. See Appendices E and F: By-laws specific projects – such as those identified and Memorandum of Understanding. in the Resource Management section While alternates will be encouraged to of this plan – the FRCC may wish to attend meetings and participate actively on pursue financial assistance and/or in-kind the Committee, each member organization contributions (office space, equipment, may cast only one vote on matters requiring etc.) from individuals, foundations, a formal decision by the Committee. corporations, and government (federal, Officers: The Committee has four state, and/or local). In pursuing funding officers: chair, vice-chair, secretary, and from any of these sources, the FRCC will treasurer. The responsibilities of the officers avoid situations where it could be competing are established in the Committee’s by- for funds with one or more of its member laws. The chairperson is elected by the organizations. The FRCC also will avoid Committee from among its appointed town situations where its receipt of funds or state members. or in-kind contributions could create Quorum: A majority of the members of perceptions of conflict of interest. the Committee constitutes a quorum. The NPS provides assistance to the By-laws: The Committee can develop FRCC in identifying potential sources of and enact by-laws for all other procedural federal funding that would not result in issues that may arise. an increased federal presence in the upper Farmington River Valley. For instance, Funding/Staff federal funding for specific projects may To fulfill its responsibilities identified be available through the Land and Water above, the FRCC requires direct funding Conservation Fund, the National Park and, when practicable, seeks in-kind Service’s “Challenge Cost-Share Program,” assistance. Funds are needed to (1) hire staff or other similar sources.

16 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Management Agreements options to achieve such consistency at the state level. Possible approaches include Coordinating Committee statutory action by the General Assembly, Agreement Executive Order by the Governor, and/or other less formal means. FRCC developed a written agreement The NPS takes the lead in ensuring (see Appendix F: for copy of Memorandum consistency at the federal level through its of Understanding [MOU]) that was adopted authority under the Wild and Scenic Rivers by its member institutions. This MOU Act. establishes a cooperative commitment The FRCC can help coordinate and among the members to participate in support communication amongst the long-term management of the river and to various entities. implement those parts of this management plan under their jurisdiction or to Cooperative Agreements which they have been assigned specific between the FRCC and the NPS responsibility. During the time period that the upper Inter-Agency Consistency and Farmington River has been designated, the Coordination NPS has entered into formal cooperative agreements with the fiscal agent of the The successful implementation of this FRCC pursuant to Sec. 10(e) and/or Sec. management plan depends, in part, on state 11(b)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers and federal agencies working consistently Act. The agreements include provisions for within the broad goals and specific limited financial or other assistance from provisions of the plan when taking any the federal government to facilitate the actions that could affect the segment. protection and management of the upper The CT DEEP3 takes the lead in pursuing

3 The CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) was created by Public Act 11-80. Effective July 1, 2011, CT DEEP brings together the former Departments of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Public Utility Control (DPUC) along with the energy policy group from the Office of Policy and Management (OPM).

17 chapter 2 — administrative framework

Farmington River. Relevant passages from Section 11(b)(1): the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act follow. The Secretary of the Interior…shall Section 10(e): assist, advise, and cooperate with States or The federal agency charged with the their political subdivisions, landowners, administration of any component of the private organizations, or individuals to national wild and scenic river system may plan, protect, and manage river resources. enter into written cooperative agreements Such assistance, advice and cooperation with the Governor of a State, the head may be through written agreements or of any State agency, or the appropriate otherwise… Any agreement under this official of a political subdivision of a State subsection may include provisions for for State or local government participation limited financial or other assistance. in the administration of the component.

18 — Chapter 3 — Education and Outreach

Overview Farmington River and how the Wild and Scenic designation helps to protect and Long-term protection of the upper manage them. It might include using Farmington River will depend upon a sense the Committee’s website, multi-media of shared responsibility and enlightened presentations, printed materials, or a stewardship among all who use and manage speaker’s bureau (that presents to service the river and its adjacent lands. Developing organizations, garden clubs, and similar this unified spirit, in an area with so many groups). interests, issues, and jurisdictions, will • Support volunteer monitoring programs require a commitment to education and that bring together professionals, outreach. volunteers, students, local service To this end, organizations with existing organizations, and community groups. education and outreach programs will be encouraged to continue to expand these • Support and promote opportunities for all programs. The FRCC will help to organize age groups to learn about the river and to cooperative efforts among its membership help improve it through direct experience and other organizations. The Committee’s e.g., nature hikes, canoe trips, river clean- objective will be to support and complement ups; Several organizations, including existing education and outreach activities, the Farmington River Watershed rather than to duplicate them. Association (FRWA), the Farmington Education and outreach plays a River Anglers Association (FRAA), and critical role in achieving the goals of the Trout Unlimited (TU) have been quite Management Plan. Because this is an successful in organizing such activities. advisory plan, it can be successful only with • Continue to build and promote the the voluntary support and engagement of FRCC website as the primary source for many stakeholders including landowners, information about the upper Farmington municipalities and their local land Wild and Scenic River. Post on it: 1) use commissions, state agencies and information that supports FRCC goals recreational users. related to river and resource protection Education and outreach efforts can be (e.g., events, links to town information effective when the various stakeholders and existing river protection regulations); understand why it is important to protect 2) a database of accomplishments that local resources, know what specific actions encourages sharing, use and involvement are needed and recognize the long-term and awareness; 3) a clearinghouse benefits of resource protection. of information on river protection techniques that have been used Potential Activities successfully in other areas. • Provide riparian landowners information Following are examples of education on ways to enhance the stewardship of and outreach activities that should be their riverfront land that might include, considered (several of these are discussed and as noted elsewhere in the plan, (1) in greater detail elsewhere in the plan). sources of information and expertise, (2) • Develop a communications strategy workshops, and follow-up assistance, on that provides the public with knowledge voluntary land protection techniques, about the role and value of the FRCC, (3) Best Management Practices to the special features of the upper control non-point source pollution, 19 chapter 3 — education and outreach

(4) funding opportunities to implement • Coordinate river-related activities with Best Management Practices, and (5) town boards and commissions, and other recognition and control of non-native interested organizations. invasive species. • Establish an awards program to recognize • In cooperation with the local land use outstanding conservation achievements commissions and on a town-by-town by individuals and groups in the Wild basis to ensure accurate descriptions and Scenic designated segment of the of each town’s regulations, create a upper Farmington River. brochure for riverfront landowners • In cooperation with the Town of that (1) summarizes the existing local, Barkhamsted and its Historical Society, state, and federal regulations that may continue to utilize Squire’s Tavern affect them and how those regulations in cooperation with the Town of are implemented, and (2) includes the Barkhamsted and its Historical Society, as addresses and phone numbers of the an information and interpretive center for appropriate offices or agencies at each visitors to the Wild and Scenic designated level of government. segment of the upper Farmington River. • Distribute information for landowners, • Develop ways to communicate developers, local land use boards, and experiences, share ideas and resolve issues others about the causes of non-point with other partnership Wild and Scenic source pollution, its potential impacts River committees. on water quality and other instream resources.

20 — Chapter 4 — Resource Management

Overview plan – the river’s Outstanding Resources can only be protected through sound This section of the plan describes a management of the land and water base detailed management program that upon which they rely – is reflected in this provides long-term protection for the upper structure. The provisions described in the Farmington River and its outstanding Land Resource Management and Water fisheries, recreation, wildlife, and historic Resource Management sections establishes values. The discussion is divided into three the foundation for long-term protection. parts: Land Resource Management; Water Other management considerations specific Resource Management; and, Management to each Outstanding Resource are described of Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Management of Outstanding Resources (ORVs) (called Outstanding Resources section of this Plan. in this plan). According to the Wild and For each management category, the Scenic Rivers Act, to be considered “Wild following are discussed: and Scenic” a river or river segment must • Objectives establish a vision for future have at least one Outstandingly Remarkable management. These objectives are Value for which the river is designated. intended to supplement the broad goals The ORV must be natural, cultural or that were presented in the Approach to recreational in character and have unique, Resource Management in Chapter 1. rare or exemplary qualities on a regional or national scale. The ORVs detailed in • Standards establish the basic criteria by this Plan are further subdivided into more which future management actions will be specific categories, as indicated below. measured. For a more detailed listing of the ORVs see • Action Program lays out specific Appendix B. strategies for achieving the objectives and ensuring the long-term protection of the A fundamental tenet of the management

Part I: Land Resource Management:...... 23 Private and Public Lands...... 23 Part II: Water Resource Management:...... 30 1. Water Quality...... 30 2. Water Quantity ...... 35 3. Channel, Bank and Wetland Protection...... 42 Part III: Outstanding Resources Management. . . . . 46 1. Recreation Resources...... 46 2. Fisheries and Wildlife...... 48 3. Historic Resources ...... 52

21 chapter 4 — resource management

river and its important values. The Action that are required or other entities to Program has three components: implement the designation. • Key Actions and Opportunities identify The reader should note that the most essential actions required for implementation of certain provisions managing river resources according contained in this management plan may to the defined standards, along with require statutory, executive, or other action recommendations that could enhance at the state level. These provisions primarily resource management and protection. relate to notification requirements for • Supporting Programs, Tools and future implementation of state regulatory Regulations identify other programs responsibilities affecting the segment. and regulations currently in place that The reader also should also note that the contribute to effective management. Also, local, state, and federal laws and regulations see Appendix D for a roundup of federal providing protection to the river are and state regulations that provide an described in detail in the Draft Evaluation underlying scheme for resources protection. of Existing Protection (June 1990) that • Wild and Scenic River Provisions was conducted during the Wild and include special conditions such as the Scenic Study. This document serves as an role of the National Park Service, specific important supplement to the management policies and standards that are linked to plan and can be found on the FRCC designation, and any additional actions website at www.farmingtonriver.org.

Aerial view of Pleasant Valley, circa 1900 22 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Part I: Land Resource Management

The adoption of any new land use values, existing regulations, incentive regulations or other local mechanisms related programs, and topography provide the to land resource management will continue segment with strong protection from to be at the discretion of the towns. The potential adverse effects of upland land potential benefits and costs of any new uses. To complement that protection, land action should be thoroughly evaluated, as managers should seek to minimize impacts should the level of community support. on water quality, views to and from the river, and the scenic character of the river See Land Use and Geology Figures: 7–13. valley. For example, Best Management Private and Public Lands Practices should be used to control erosion and sedimentation on projects located near Objective tributaries to the segment, and the impacts of clearcuts, if ever proposed on ridgelines Conserve the high water quality, ecological that are visible from the river, should integrity and diversity, and scenic character be evaluated prior to cutting (existing of the segment and the upper Farmington CT DEEP management policies provide River Valley through sensitive management the guidance necessary to achieve this of privately-owned and publicly-owned protection). See Appendix D: Summary of streambanks and upland areas, without Federal and State Statutes. unduly restricting other uses of those lands. 2. Public Lands Standards Shorelands: Publicly-owned shorelands 1. Private Lands should be managed in a way that maintains Shorelands: The shorelands are the lands or enhances their natural appearance and bordering the riparian areas along the function. To achieve this, management river. They are the highest priority lands should meet or exceed the protection for protection. The River Protection measures specified by the River Protection Overlay Districts adopted in Hartland, Overlay Districts that have been adopted Barkhamsted, New Hartford, and Canton in each of the riverfront towns. These constitute the standard for shorelands provisions are described in the previous protection on private lands.4 These districts section in the streambanks standard for establish a 100-foot setback for new private land management. See Appendix C: structures, new septic system, the removal Town River Protection Overlay Districts. of earth materials, and clearcutting. In addition, new infrastructure Existing structures within 100 feet of the development within 100 feet of the river river are not affected, although the districts will be limited to that necessary for public do establish limitations on the expansion of health, welfare, and safety, for emergency such structures. response, or to provide public access to the river. Any infrastructure will be Uplands: This plan does not establish constructed so as to reasonably minimize specific standards for the management both short- and long-term impacts on the of privately-owned upland areas beyond ecological functions and scenic qualities of the 100-foot shoreland buffer. Although the shorelands area. activities in upland areas can affect river Uplands: Upland areas under public 4 The River Protection Overlay Districts referenced are those approved by the respective planning and zoning commissions in the four riverfront towns on the following dates: Barkhamsted, July 25, 1991; New Hartford, November 13, 1991; Canton, January 15, 1992; Hartland, January 27, 1992. These districts create an effective greenway and provide strong protection to the river and its streambanks. The ordinances are referenced in Appendix C. 23 chapter 4 — resource management ownership within the segment’s watershed, in the effects of their land use on the river, to the extent reasonably possible, publicly by expanding their knowledge of river- owned uplands in the segment’s watershed sensitive land management practices, should be managed to ensure protection of and by incorporating those practices into water quality and quantity, scenic views to management of their lands. Landowners and from the river, wildlife habitat, forest can voluntarily enhance their stewardship health, and the natural character of the abilities by: gaining expertise in forest, upper Farmington River Valley. Existing wildlife habitat, and wetland vegetation CT DEEP and MDC management policies management; participating in the Public provide the guidance necessary to achieve Act 490 program, which offers reduced this protection. On the state forests, the CT tax assessments to forest landowners who DEEP’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) own a minimum of 25 acres of forestland “Guidelines for Water Quality While in return for keeping undeveloped lands in Harvesting Forest Products Silvicultural that condition (see Appendix D: Summary Operations on the CT DEEP Lands” and of Federal and State Statutes); and learning other applicable directives contain BMPs about conservation easements, deed associated with the harvest of forest restrictions, and other land conservation products, including specific standards for techniques. Other voluntary land wetlands and water quality protection. management techniques directly related to The document can be found at: tinyurl. reducing non-point source pollution are com/bmpharvest. The MDC utilizes the described under “Land Stewardship” in the management practices found in this guide Water Quality section of this plan. as well. The MDC establishes management Technical assistance to landowners: plans and site-specific guidelines for Establish a program to provide resource management of its lands that are at least as management expertise to interested stringent as those of the CT DEEP. landowners. In addition to these directives, the aesthetic impacts of clearcuts, if ever Stewardship of riverfront and watershed proposed on ridgelines that are visible from lands could be greatly enhanced if the river, should be minimized. See Scenic private or public landowners can obtain assessment of river corridor on p. 27. professional guidance for activities such as forest, wetland, and wildlife habitat Action Program management. Landowners may be Key Actions and Opportunities for unaware that such expertise is necessary Private and Public Lands and available or they may be unable to afford the cost of obtaining it. A good Landowner stewardship: Private lands example of an existing forest stewardship will remain private; landowners continue to program is the CT DEEP’s Service Forestry be the primary stewards of lands along the Connecticut Forest Stewardship Program segment. for Forest Landowners. This program Longstanding traditions of private land provides professional planning, education, ownership and diverse land uses in the technical on-the-ground forestry support, Farmington River Valley have shaped the and financial assistance to forest owners, character and quality of the river corridor. municipalities, conservation groups and An important objective of this management other private or public organizations free strategy is to support the traditional of charge. Visit http://www.ct.gov/deep/ role of landowners as the primary and forestry for more information. independent stewards of their property. Financial assistance may be available Landowners can fulfill their stewardship through the USDA’s Natural Resources responsibility by taking an active interest Conservation Service (NRCS) for approved

24 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 forest and wildlife habitat enhancement covenants, transfers of development rights). projects and practices. Visit http://www. Such efforts in the river corridor have nrcs.usda.gov/ for more information. established a foundation for long-term The Extension Forestry Program of the success. For the program to achieve its full University of Connecticut Cooperative potential, local land trusts should pursue Extension System provides Forest opportunities for additional training, fund- Stewardship education for natural resource raising, and collaborative projects with professionals, elected and appointed regional or national land conservation officials, volunteers and private woodland organizations. This would enable the trusts owners who care for this valued resource to strengthen their technical knowledge and landscape. Visit http://www.ctforestry. and negotiating skills, to expand their uconn.edu/ for more information. organizational capacities with respect to The FRCC shall continue to provide donations of easements and/or fee title, and to opportunities for making resource effectively manage these easements or lands. management expertise more readily FRCC has a proven track record of available by publicizing existing technical supporting and collaborating with land assistance programs and/or seeking funding trusts by providing small grants, providing to hire resource management professionals seed funding for start-up land trusts and who could then provide services to by bringing land trusts together to work The FRCC will assist landowners at reduced or no cost. toward common goals in the region. These private landowners, practices should continue. voluntary land conservation: The and support local land FRCC will assist private landowners, and town roles: Riverfront towns implement trusts, in voluntary support local land trusts, in voluntary and enforce their existing land use land conservation measures that protect regulations, including the River Protection land conservation important riverfront and watershed lands. Overlay Districts, and other programs that measures that protect Continue to support and collaborate with provide protection to the river. important riverfront local land trusts in protecting important The River Protection Overlay Districts and watershed lands. riverfront and watershed lands by provide the backbone of protection for assisting landowners with voluntary land the immediate shorelands. Protection in conservation actions. the Overlay Districts is strengthened by Voluntary land conservation programs town regulations relating to wetlands, have proven to be highly effective in septic systems, floodplains, zoning, and protecting important riverfront and subdivisions. Each riverfront town should watershed lands on rivers across the emphasize conservation of the river country. The elements common to when implementing these regulations. successful programs include: (1) identifying Complementary management of parcels of particular significance for the upland areas can be achieved through conservation of the river (for instance, active consideration of the river in the those with undeveloped streambanks, enforcement of existing regulations and steep slopes, striking visual features, or other programs beyond the 100-foot buffer. habitat for rare species); and (2) actively Use of the non-regulatory, incentive- encouraging landowners to protect those based Public Act 490 program can provide parcels by providing them with information important additional protection both to and assistance regarding the full range streambank and upland areas.5 of voluntary private land protection Local enforcement of regulations: techniques (e.g., donations of fee title or Support towns in actions that improve the conservation easements, deed restrictions,

5 A full description and analysis of the local land use regulations and other programs that contribute to protection of the river can be found in the Draft Evaluation of Existing Protection (June, 1990) located on the website at www.farmingtonriver.org. 25 chapter 4 — resource management zoning enforcement capacity of the riverfront opened to development. Such an occurrence towns. is unlikely for state forest lands because The limited amount of zoning they have been dedicated specifically for enforcement available to the riverfront conservation purposes. towns has been identified as an ongoing Should a change in ownership of any issue related to the protection of existing public lands be considered, every streambanks and upland areas. The towns’ reasonable effort should be made to keep limited enforcement capabilities are the land in public ownership and to ensure primarily a result of tight local budgets. continued management that is compatible Riverfront towns, with possible assistance with the objective and standards described from the FRCC and others, should pursue at the beginning of this section. If the land funding to enable them, either individually is to be transferred to private ownership, or collectively, to hire zoning enforcement conservation easements or other legally- staff to focus specifically on river-related binding restrictions on development should issues. be placed on areas that are most critical Local planning: Encourage each for maintaining the river’s water quality riverfront town to emphasize conservation of and quantity, ecological integrity, and the river in future updates to its “Town Plan scenic qualities. This provision applies at of Conservation and Development”. a minimum to shoreland areas within 100 feet of the river’s ordinary high water mark. Open space requirements: Encourage riverfront towns to consider revising their state land acquisitions: Encourage the subdivision regulations to require that State of Connecticut to pursue the purchase riverfront subdivisions set aside shoreline of important river-related lands from willing areas as protected open space. sellers if parcels come on the market and if Under the state statute authorizing local funding is available. regulation of subdivisions, towns can Selective public purchase of critical require that subdivisions include set-asides lands from willing sellers can be a valuable of protected open space between developed component of a diversified strategy to areas and important natural features. protect a river corridor. In Connecticut, the By specifically targeting lands along the primary mechanism for such acquisition Farmington River for such set-asides, this is through the Recreation and Natural authority could be used to provide further Heritage Trust Program, established in 1986 protection for streambanks. by C.G.S. 23-73 et seq. and administered by Other local actions: The riverfront towns the CT DEEP. should consider other local initiatives to Another important mechanism is provide further protection to the river. through the Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Grant Program Specific suggestions for each town are in authorized under C.G.S. Section 7-131d to the Draft Evaluation of Existing Protection 7-131k, that provides financial assistance (June, 1990) See footnote 5. to municipalities and nonprofit land Land transfers: Public lands are to be conservation organizations to acquire land kept in public ownership whenever possible. that will add to a community’s open space, Because public lands are vital to the many enhance recreational opportunities, protect qualities of the upper Farmington River unique geographical features or conserve 6 Valley, those attributes could be severely habitat for living creatures. jeopardized if all or part of those lands were A third mechanism that could be used to be transferred into private ownership and to protect important river-related lands

6 http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2706&q=323834 26 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 is the state’s agricultural preservation recreational access, and scenic character program authorized under C.G.S. 22-26-aa of the upper Farmington River Valley. et seq. This program is administered by the Town-owned lands along the segment also Connecticut Department of Agriculture provide limited but important public access and the Office of Policy and Management. to the river. In addition to maintaining The FRCC should assist the state in those values, the public lands support other looking for opportunities to use these uses such as timber harvesting. This plan programs. Local representatives on the supports a continuation of the diverse uses FRCC can play a particularly valuable role of these lands. See Figure 8: Land Cover. in monitoring when important parcels have scenic assessment of river corridor: been, or may be, put on the market. Consider conducting a scenic assessment of Management practices: The CT DEEP, exceptional views to identify resources in the MDC, and the towns should continue need of protection. to manage their respective lands along the Conduct a scenic assessment by segment. Each landowner should review its identifying, evaluating and mapping the current policies and practices for consistency outstanding scenic resources such as scenic with the objective and standards stated vistas, cultural landscape, and filtered river above. Public land managers should be views. Scenic assessments define scenic encouraged to work together and coordinate resources, promote awareness of resource management efforts on lands where there is protection and land protection strategies. more than one entity or group involved in For example, a scenic assessment could policy and decision-making, i.e., as a result make available an objective-ranking tool for of special agreements, etc. towns, land trusts and other landowners to The substantial amount of state forest utilize when evaluating lands for potential land and MDC land surrounding the enhancement, protection or purchase. segment plays a critical role in maintaining Conducting a scenic assessment could also the high water quality, wildlife habitat, result in greater public awareness of the

27 chapter 4 — resource management

scenic and recreational value of the river incentive-based conservation corridor. programs: Towns in the upper Farmington River watershed should encourage owners of Supporting Programs, Tools important river-related lands to participate and Regulations in incentive-based conservation programs, Federal regulations: The U.S. Army such as the Public Act 490 program. Corps of Engineers implements its permitting responsibilities under Section 404 of the As has been done in Barkhamsted, Clean Water Act. See Appendix D for a New Hartford, Canton and Colebrook, summary of relevant federal statutes. the Town of Hartland should consider adopting the “open space” provisions of State land use regulations: Encourage the Public Act 490 program in addition the state to ensure consistency with this to the “forest land” and “agricultural river management plan and the River land” provisions. This could enable many Protection Overlay Districts when fulfilling significant river-related parcels to qualify its responsibilities related to land use. See for reduced tax assessments based on Appendix D for a summary of additional continued management as open space, relevant state statutes. and thereby provide important additional State enabling legislation: The state protection to the river. The Public Act 490 has comprehensive enabling legislation program can be a particularly effective tool governing the use of land, and it grants for conserving upland areas. These lands, authority to towns to adopt regulations which have a direct bearing on the river’s that effectively implement legislation at the condition, are not subject to all of the more local level. Towns have the power to choose rigorous regulations that apply to shoreland regulatory tools to gain greater resource areas. protection and have the flexibility to do so. In addition, the towns should consider tax abatement programs for dairy farms scenic road designation: The riverfront and fruit orchards, as permitted by C.G.S. towns and the state could evaluate the 12-81M. potential to designate “scenic roads” along the segment. Watershed protection initiatives: The Farmington River Watershed Association Under C.G.S. 7-149a, towns may should give special attention to the establish ordinances to designate scenic upper Farmington River watershed in town roads and regulate future alterations implementing regional watershed land to those roads. To qualify, a local road protection. must meet certain criteria, and the town must have agreement from a majority Voluntary land conservation is an of the road’s abutters. At the state level, important component of FRWA’s overall C.G.S. 13b-31c et seq. authorizes scenic strategy for maintaining high water quality designation of state highways by the CT and habitat values in the West Branch of the DEEP in conjunction with the Departments Farmington River. As part of its mission, of Transportation and Economic FRWA engages in: Development. 1. complementing and supporting the Local or state designation of scenic roads efforts of existing local land trusts; along the segment would highlight the 2. assisting in the creation of new local aesthetic qualities of the river corridor, and land trusts in communities where they would limit future impacts to the river from do not currently exist; road-related alterations. 3. educating riverfront landowners, local officials, and other residents about voluntary land protection techniques: 28 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

4. working with interested landowners on it regulate the use of those lands, as a specific land conservation projects; and result of National Wild and Scenic River 5. developing the organizational capacity designation. In addition, there are no to hold and manage land and/or additional requirements related to the easements. management of public lands. Furthermore, there are no requirements for additional FRWA also supports the public purchase state or local land use regulations resulting of critical parcels, works with town from designation. Designation does not governments to strengthen local protection preclude use of federal funds through mechanisms, and participates in the public the Land and Water Conservation review of specific development proposals Fund (http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/) that could affect the river. or similar programs for state or local Activities by FRWA in the upper land acquisition, nor does it preclude Farmington River watershed thus acquisition by the federal government of complement the land protection actions land in the Farmington River basin for described in this management plan. purposes not related to Wild and Scenic Wild and Scenic River Provisions river designation. Additionally, designation does not preclude the use of federal funds Relating to Acquisition of Private or through the Land and Water Conservation Public lands Fund or similar programs for state The federal government does not acquisition of MDC lands if they should be acquire private lands along the segment proposed for sale. by condemnation or otherwise, nor does

29 chapter 4 — resource management

Part II: Water Resource Management

1. Water Quality Action Program Key Actions and Opportunities Objective Water quality monitoring: Maintain Maintain or enhance the segment’s a volunteer/citizen-based water quality existing high water quality. See Figure 14: monitoring program. State Water Quality Classifications. A water quality monitoring program Standards conducted by local volunteers can be Point source discharges: a cost-effective method for collecting important data on a continuing basis. This • No new discharges from sewage type of program also provides an excellent treatment plants or industrial sites opportunity to increase community into the segment or its tributaries will awareness of water quality issues, and to be allowed. Increases in volume from stimulate citizen participation in efforts existing discharges will be allowed only if to address difficult problems such as accompanied by improved treatment so non-point source pollution. Volunteer that pollutant loading to the river is not 7 8 participants can be recruited from sources increased. such as schools, community service groups • For other new activities (e.g., storm water or river user groups. Coordination for this drains) that are regulated under Sec. 402 type of program is provided by the FRCC. of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217) and The CT DEEP and FRWA are actively that would discharge directly into the involved in this effort to provide technical segment, Best Management Practices will expertise and to ensure compatibility be required. with existing water quality monitoring Non-point source pollution: The standards. FRWA currently organizes riverfront towns and the state seek to volunteer-assisted water quality monitoring avoid, reduce, or eliminate non-point in this reach of river, in partnership with source pollution impacts on the segment. the MDC and with the support of the The immediate shorelands within 100 FRCC. feet of the ordinary high water mark on To date, the FRWA and its partners the riverbank are the highest priority for and volunteers have recorded and attention. Within that area, the principal analyzed multiple years of continuous mechanisms for controlling non-point data for physical, chemical, and bacterial source pollution are the implementation of indicators of water quality, and have the local River Protection Overlay Districts, conducted annual checks of the benthic and a requirement for the use of Best macroinvertebrate community as indicators Management Practices on new projects of water quality (see Biological Monitoring that are covered by the state’s applicable below). The results have helped locate areas permitting procedures. of impairment in the upper watershed,

7 Note: Implementation of these standards may require state statutes changes in Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards, including the anti-degradation standard. 8 Minor increases in the concentration of parameters that are potentially harmful to the aquatic environment (such as heavy metals, sodium, potassium, and chlorides) that would result from increases in existing discharges will not be precluded. As an example, the exception for heavy metals is due to the fact that the concentration of heavy metals, such as copper, in a sewage effluent is not readily decreased as result of improvements to conventional treatment processes. Secondary sewage treatment facilities typically discharge similar concentrations of metals as do facilities providing advanced (or tertiary) sewage treatment. The increase in metals loading may not be ecologically significant, but any increase in discharge rate will most certainly result in an increase in mass loading.

30 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 for example in the Still and Mad River key tributaries, the Still River and Mad tributaries, and have led to projects aimed River, have impairments that affect water at addressing causes of impairment. This quality in the Wild & Scenic reach. For this work should continue and other water reason, FRCC has supported studies that quality monitoring should be considered as identify the causes of impairment in these needed in order to address new questions tributaries and has supported cost-effective that arise. For example, an issue that may actions that reduce impairment and need to be examined is the presence of engage local people in addressing pollution pharmaceuticals from wastewater treatment problems. Similarly, FRCC has supported plants. study of Morgan Brook to identify actions that can reduce impairments. Sandy Brook, Biological monitoring: Continue to a relatively untouched tributary, is the conduct studies of the segment’s aquatic biota focus of collaborative study and planning to establish long-term baseline biological by local organizations that want to ensure conditions, through a long-term biological that its value as a headwater area is better monitoring program. understood and maintained. Some of this Baseline information on existing work has also been supported by FRCC. biological “uses” provides a sound These projects and similar ones should foundation for any future application of continue to be supported. Baseline information the state’s anti-degradation policy. Several recognized methodologies are available Assist with developing plans as needed on existing biological for gathering such information, including and as required for Federal Clean “uses” provides a sound the EPA’s “Rapid Bioassessment Protocols” Water Act funding. The restoration of foundation for any future impaired surface waters can be funded via (which was used in the Instream Flow application of the state’s Study to evaluate biological conditions certain provisions in the Clean Water Act. on the Massachusetts Wild and Scenic However, this funding may be conditional anti-degradation policy. Study Segment), the “Index of Biotic on prior completion of planning documents Integrity” and the “Rapid Bioassessment in as specified by the US Environmental Wadeable Streams & Rivers by Volunteer Protection Agency and the CT DEEP. Monitors, developed by the CT DEEP.” A FRCC could support the development of long-term monitoring program provides plans that meet agency requirements; or, if important indications of change within existing plans simply need augmentation the system, such as incremental water in order to qualify, FRCC can support quality degradation from non-point measures to improve them as needed. source pollution. While CT DEEP should This could increase access to resources for play the lead role in any such efforts, it is addressing water quality impairments. See possible to incorporate long-term biological Appendix D for a summary of Federal Clean monitoring into the volunteer-based water Water Act statutes. quality monitoring program described Control of runoff: Pursue opportunities above. Rapid Bioassessment by Volunteers for reducing pollution impacts resulting from is part of the annual volunteer monitoring various forms of runoff (non-point source activity organized by FRWA. pollution). Determine protection goals for key Town and state roads. Both the towns tributaries such as Sandy Brook, Still and the state maintain roads along the River and Mad River. While they are not segment. Each should review its procedures part of the Wild and Scenic designated for road maintenance to determine reach of the Farmington River, tributaries opportunities for reducing impacts on affect the Outstanding Resources of the water quality. Maintenance activities that Farmington River’s West Branch. Two may be relevant include resurfacing, winter

31 chapter 4 — resource management

sanding and salting, and cleaning of storm stumps and root structures in place if any drains. Replacement of culverts and other vegetation is removed along the banks of road-crossing structures should follow the river or tributaries. Other voluntary the most up-to-date guidelines for stream practices that can be encouraged are the crossing design, in order to reduce the installation of swales, rain gardens, and incidence of destructive erosion, washouts, stormwater detention areas, the use of and scouring at stream crossings. Also, road various forms of pervious pavement or crews should be alerted to the significance asphalt. See Figure 15: Local Basin Percent of the waterway as a Wild and Scenic River. Imperious. This could be achieved by posting signs A key informational resource on runoff at bridge crossings or other appropriate reduction, useful for both public and locations, as is done for public water supply private landowners, is the Nonpoint watersheds in Connecticut. Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Reducing runoff from public and private program (nemo.uconn.edu). Stewardship lands. It is appropriate for the FRCC and opportunities for landowners are discussed its partners to encourage landowners, in more detail under the Land Resource both private and public, to help maintain Management Section – Key Actions. Also, the segment’s high water quality through go to the www.farmingtonriver.org website It is appropriate for sensitive management of their lands. for additional resources. the FRCC and its There are many land management achieve full benefit of existing techniques that landowners can use in partners to encourage regulations: Support riverfront towns in order to protect the water quality of the implementing and enforcing existing local landowners, both river, its tributaries, and related aquifers. land use regulations, including the River private and public, For example, landowners can maintain or Protection Overlay Districts, and other re-establish vegetative buffers along the to help maintain the programs that protect water quality. river and its tributaries, reduce or eliminate Several local land use programs provide segment’s high water the use of fertilizers and pesticides on important protection for the upper quality through sensitive fields, lawns and gardens, and leave low management of their lands.

32 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Farmington River’s high water quality. In Clean Water Act. For example, Section addition to the River Protection Overlay 319 funds were awarded to FRWA to work Districts, the most significant regulations cooperatively with FRCC and CT DEEP are those related to septic systems, and the Town of Barkhamsted to stabilize wetlands, floodplains, and subdivisions. and restore a streambank along West River The incentive-based Public Act 490 Road. Natural channel design techniques program also helps protect water quality and volunteers were used to plant natural by providing reduced tax assessments to vegetation. landowners for keeping undeveloped lands Landowners and developers should take in that condition. These regulations and advantage of funding incentives for projects programs are discussed in greater detail that would employ Best Management under Key Actions and Opportunities for Practices. Local land use boards and/ Private and Public Lands Management. or the CT DEEP should notify permit While full implementation and applicants about the existence of these grant enforcement of these mechanisms is most programs, and work with them to acquire critical in those towns that directly abut the this assistance. In addition, the FRCC and segment, water quality is also dependent other groups should continue to identify upon sensitive land use management in non-point source pollution problems and the towns upstream of the segment and implement solutions using these or other along its tributaries. The FRCC should funding mechanisms. continue to encourage these communities Supporting Programs, Tools to implement and enforce their own land and Regulations use regulations and programs in a way that protects the segment’s high water quality. Federal regulation of stream alterations: For any project that would education and outreach: Inform affect water quality through the discharge landowners, developers, and local land use of material into the segment or an adjacent boards about the causes of non-point source wetland, the Army Corps of Engineers will pollution, its impacts on water quality and implement its responsibilities under Sec. instream resources, and the methods for 404 of the Clean Water Act in a manner reducing or eliminating it. consistent with this plan’s water quality This could be achieved through a variety standards. This responsibility is also of techniques, such as disseminating described under Channel, Bank and brochures, posting online information, Wetland Protection. conducting workshops, and publishing in Water pollution control statutes: local papers. This is a good opportunity The CT DEEP has primary responsibility for a cooperative effort involving many for implementing state and federal water of the groups represented on the FRCC pollution control statutes. See Appendix D for and there are already many examples of a more detailed description of the statutes. such collaborative work by FRCC member aquifer protection: Towns in the upper groups. Also see the Education And Farmington River watershed in Connecticut Outreach chapter p. 19. should evaluate opportunities to further Demonstration and pilot projects: protect water quality in the segment and Pursue opportunities to initiate use of its tributaries through implementation of Best Management Practices in controlling the “Aquifer Protection Act.” See Figure 16: non-point source pollution. Aquifer Protection Areas and Appendix D for Federal funding for pilot projects is a more detailed summary of the state statute. available through grants from the EPA Other state regulatory responsibilities: under Sections 319, 104b, and 604b of the The state should ensure consistency with this

33 chapter 4 — resource management management plan in its implementation sewer the area adjacent to the river at any of other authorities that could have a time in the future. bearing on water quality in the segment. See Appendix D for details. Wild and Scenic Provisions Municipal water pollution control • The NPS reviews new federal permit and responsibilities: In exercising their grant applications that require approval jurisdiction, the local water pollution control under the Clean Water Act. This review is authorities in Canton, Barkhamsted and limited to projects that would discharge New Hartford should strive to meet the directly into the segment or its tributaries, objectives and standards of this management and is based upon an evaluation of the plan and look for opportunities to upgrade project relative to the management plan’s facilities to protect and enhance water objectives and standards. No project that quality. would have a direct and adverse effect on the segment’s outstanding fisheries, Under Connecticut’s Municipal Sewerage recreation, and wildlife values will be Systems Statute (C.G.S. 7-245 et seq.), allowed. NPS review is conducted in each town is empowered to establish a direct consultation with the CT DEEP local water pollution control authority. and, where appropriate, the EPA. In order This board is responsible for preparing to fulfill this responsibility, the NPS is a local water pollution control plan, and notified of relevant permit applications for managing the town’s sewage treatment by the CT DEEP and relevant grant plant if one exists. In carrying out these applications by the EPA. The NPS does responsibilities, the board can take strong not require notification of individual steps to protect riparian water quality registrations for stormwater and other through such actions as developing and general permits. There is currently no implementing a sewer avoidance program statute in place that directs the CT DEEP for certain areas and ensuring effective to notify FRCC regarding standards and management of on-site facilities – including proposed projects that may potentially requirements for periodic inspection and have an impact on the Wild and Scenic maintenance of on-site sewage disposal segment. Consequently, the two groups systems. should work cooperatively to seek Of the four towns abutting the segment, out opportunities to comment when Barkhamsted, New Hartford and Canton standards are being revised as well as to have established local water pollution stay informed about projects that could control authorities, and New Hartford affect the segment. The NPS should be has the only municipal sewage treatment notified of and given the opportunity plant that directly affects the segment. (If to review new federal permit and grant the lower Farmington River is designated applications that are within the Wild and Wild and Scenic, there will be a designated Scenic area. river segment below the Canton sewage • The CT DEEP should notify the NPS of treatment facility). As with all municipal any proposed revisions to Connecticut’s facilities, the New Hartford plant must water quality standards or any proposed comply with CT DEEP’s water quality projects requiring state certification standards, regulations, and permitting under Sec. 401 of the Clean Water Act requirements. that are applicable to the segment. In Hartland could consider establishing either case, the NPS should be given a water pollution control authority and the opportunity to comment, and will developing waste water management be granted party status in any given plans in order to ensure effective on-site proceedings if it so requests. management and to avoid the need to

34 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

• The FRCC should be notified of, and plan does not propose, nor does Wild and given the opportunity to comment on, Scenic River designation require, changes in any of the following that would directly the existing flow regime. affect the segment: 1) point source Modifications to existing flow discharge permit applications under management: The standards which follow Sec. 402 of the Clean Water Act, not will be applied only if any changes are including individual registrations for proposed to the existing flow regime. The stormwater and other general permits; specific flow conditions identified on 2) proposed projects requiring state page 37 are taken from the Instream Flow certification under Sec. 401 of the Clean Study (June 1992), which provides the best Water Act; and 3) proposed revisions to available information on the flow needs of Connecticut’s water quality standards. the different resources and the potential for • The Army Corps of Engineers should compatibility between resource protection notify the NPS of any applications for and water supply withdrawals. The study is individual permits under Sec. 404 of a critical supplement to this management the Clean Water Act that would affect plan; a detailed summary of it, which was the segment, including areas within prepared by the Farmington River Study one-quarter mile of the segment or Committee, can be found on the FRCC tributaries flowing into the Wild and website at www.farmingtonriver.org. 9 Scenic segment. The Corps and the NPS For further description, refer to “Key Actions have developed a coordination/screening – Use of the Instream Flow Study” in the next procedure for projects which are section. Important considerations used in authorized by the Corps under a general establishing the flow needs of the different permit. resources are described in the box following 2. Water Quantity these standards. Note that achieving the standards for aquatic biota and recreation Objective resources will provide sufficient flows to sustain wildlife and scenic values. Provide flows necessary to maintain the segment’s existing water quality and to aquatic biota: The quantity and quality sustain aquatic biota, wildlife, recreation of fish habitat under normal, dry, and and scenic values, while meeting legal drought conditions will be maintained release commitments, waste assimilation at a level equivalent to, or greater than, needs, and compatible water supply the conditions that existed historically. demand. To achieve this standard, the following conditions must be met: Standards Habitat maintenance: The optimum flow Existing flow management: The flow scenario (i.e., 150/130 cfs) identified in the regime that has existed since the Goodwin Instream Flow Study will be maintained and Colebrook Dams were established except during 99% exceedence (i.e., in a 100 provides sufficient flows to maintain water year drought) or drier rainfall conditions. quality and the resources that made the Under those drought conditions the near- segment eligible for Wild and Scenic River optimum scenario (i.e., 95 cfs) or the designation. That existing flow regime is intermediate scenario may be applied. dictated by several legal commitments; Flushing flows: To maintain habitat these are listed later in this section under viability and streambed quality, adequate Key Actions — Flow Management. This high seasonal flows will be provided yearly during the spring, except during 90%

9 Additional information related to the Instream Flow Study is contained in the final report from that study, entitled An Instream Flow Study of the Mainstem and West Branch of the Farmington River (June 1992). 35 chapter 4 — resource management exceedence (a 1 in 10 year drought) or drier the case historically, at least some of the rainfall years. The Instream Flow Study optimum recreation conditions will be identifies the three-day average maximum provided during the spring runoff and flow from the period between 1970-1990 as storm events, when the greatest tributary sufficient for these purposes. inflow will be available to augment reservoir releases. Recreation resources: The quantity and Distribution of flows within the quality of recreational opportunity under minimum optimum ranges: During normal, dry, and drought conditions will normal and wetter than normal years, a be maintained at a level equivalent to, or distribution of flows within the minimum greater than, the conditions that existed and optimum ranges for each activity will historically (from 1961-1990). To achieve be provided. During dry or drought years this standard, the following conditions (i.e., 90% exceedence or drier), the low end must be met: of the minimum and optimum flow ranges Frequency of opportunity: The total for each activity must be maintained, but a number of days of minimum and optimum distribution of flows within those ranges is conditions during the peak recreation not required. seasons for each of the primary recreational activities (fishing, downriver canoeing, Water quality: Sufficient flows will be kayaking and other forms of play boating, provided to comply with Connecticut’s and tubing) that existed historically water quality standards, including the under representative normal, dry, and applicable anti-degradation standard for the drought conditions will be maintained. Farmington River. The historical number of days of optimum Surplus water: After all the water conditions for each use must be provided, resource needs are met, as identified in the and may be increased in conjunction Instream Flow Study, any surplus water with a corresponding decrease in days of available will be dedicated to enhancement minimum conditions. of instream uses. Seasonal distribution: The days of minimum and optimum conditions for Emergency uses: In a declared water the primary recreation activities will be supply emergency, public health and distributed across the peak recreation welfare will be given priority over instream seasons in a pattern similar to the historical needs. That is, the above water quantity distribution from the representative standards would be suspended, if necessary, normal, dry, and drought years. As was for the duration of the declared emergency.

36 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

WATER QUANTITY STANDARDS for fisheries and recreation resources are based upon the following considerations which are to be taken directly from the 1992 Instream Flow Study. • The levels of fish habitat and recreational opportunity are calculated for the stretch of the Farmington River that is downstream of the confluence with the Still River, and therefore reflect the flows contributed both from West Branch reservoir releases and the Still River. • Fish habitat is measured in terms of the “Weighted Usable Area” (WUA) available for target species and lifestages (adult trout and juvenile Atlantic salmon). • The time frame used to establish historical levels of fish habitat and flushing flows was 1970-1990. The period of record used to establish historical levels of recreational opportunity was 1961-1990. • The peak recreation seasons for the primary activities are as follows: Fishing: March 110 – October 31 Downriver Canoeing and Play Boating: April 1 – September 30 Tubing: Weekends only from Memorial Day – July 4 Daily from July 4 – Labor Day Weekends only for two weeks after Labor Day • The representative rainfall years are as follows: Representative normal year: 1974 Representative dry year: 1988 Representative drought year: 1965 • The historical number of days of minimum and optimum recreational conditions are derived from hydrographs of representative years, as presented in the Instream Flow Study Summary, Table A, that can be found on the FRCC website at www.farmingtonriver.org. • In the flow scenarios developed in the Instream Flow Study, days with flows of 360 cfs were counted as providing optimum flow conditions for fishing, despite the fact that the optimum range for fishing identified by the consultant extended only from 150-350 cfs. Flows of 360 cfs were provided in order to reach the lower threshold for optimum downriver canoeing conditions. It was assumed that the additional 10 cfs increment would not have a noticeable impact on fishing conditions.

10 In Connecticut, the fishing season officially begins on the third Saturday in April. The March 1 date refers to the beginning of peak use of the Trout Management Area, which is open for fishing year-round.

37 chapter 4 — resource management

Action Program appears to be sufficient water to provide Key Actions and Opportunities for all resource needs and uses, including a potential water supply withdrawal of up Use of the Instream Flow Study: Utilize to 7.3 billion gallons per year. Under severe Instream Flow Study as a primary source drought conditions, there appears to be of information in water management and sufficient water to provide for all resource planning. needs and uses and withdrawals of up to 7.3 The Instream Flow Study and subsequent billion gallons per year, if a near-optimum analysis performed by the Farmington fisheries scenario is applied. River Study Committee provided critical In the event that a withdrawal is information regarding the flows needed proposed, the applicant would have to protect instream resources as well as to satisfy requirements for applicable the potential for compatibility between state and federal permits and resolve resource protection and water supply other constraints. Should the proposed 11 withdrawals. The MDC, the Army Corps withdrawal be from either or both of of Engineers, the CT DEEP, and others the West Branch reservoirs, an essential should incorporate this information into element of the withdrawal proposal would any planning, management, or regulatory be the development of a plan for reservoir activities that involve water quantity issues management, including an operational plan on the West Branch. and a detailed flow regime. The plan would Users of this information should keep identify how the reservoirs and releases in mind that the Instream Flow Study is would be managed to balance competing not an evaluation of a specific withdrawal uses and protect the river’s resources as proposal, nor does it define a specific identified in the Instream Flow Study and management regime for the West Branch this management plan. Other constraints Reservoirs. Rather, it incorporates two could include, for example, the need to hypothetical levels of withdrawal into renegotiate existing flow management an intricate resource management and agreements. water allocation exercise. As with any scientific analysis, the study is based on a Water conservation: Pursue water number of important assumptions; these conservation opportunities to reduce reliance assumptions have related limitations on the Farmington River Valley’s surface and that should be considered in any future groundwater sources for water supply. management decisions. Also, considering There are two primary areas on which the possibility of long-term changes in attention should be focused: regional precipitation and flow patterns, 1. Supporting the conservation plans an update of the Instream Flow Study outlined in the MDC’s Individual Water could be advisable to better inform future Supply Plan, and management decisions. 2. Promoting water conservation in study Given those considerations, the Instream area towns. Flow Study indicates that some use of the West Branch water for water supply Considerable energy and resources could be compatible with protection of the have been expended in both of these areas river’s instream resources and, therefore, for many years – the MDC has pursued with Wild and Scenic river designation. both supply management and demand Based upon the assumptions utilized in management throughout its system, and the Instream Flow Study, during wetter- the FRWA has emphasized educational than-normal, normal, and dry years, there programs on water conservation

11 This information is contained in the final report of the Instream Flow Study and the “Summary: Farmington River Instream Flow Study” found on the FRCC website at www.farmingtonriver.org. 38 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 throughout the Farmington River basin. cooperation with the CT DEEP and the While these programs already have been MDC. For example, occasional enhanced very successful, it may be possible to get flushing flows might help maintain the even greater returns from them through a historical diversity of plant and animal cooperative effort among MDC, the FRWA, communities. See FRCC website for and the other members of the FRCC. summary of existing flow studies. Implementation of state and federal Reservoir management: Encourage the water conservation mandates will help to MDC and the Army Corps of Engineers achieve further reductions in demand. At to evaluate opportunities to enhance the state level, there is clear policy direction downstream resources within their existing concerning the important role of water reservoir management constraints. conservation in water management through In the process of analyzing the results of Public Acts: P.A. 89-327, which establishes the Instream Flow Study in 1993, it became a water resources policy; P.A. 89-303, which apparent that there are opportunities concerns minimum efficiency standards which the MDC could pursue to enhance for plumbing fixtures; and P.A. 89-266 instream flows above historical levels establishing a residential water saving while meeting existing obligations and program to retrofit plumbing fixtures with maintaining adequate annual volumes water conserving devices. At the federal for a potential water supply withdrawal. level, the National Energy Policy Act (P.L. These findings raise the possibility that 102-486; Oct. 24, 1992) establishes national similar opportunities might be available plumbing efficiency standards. to the Corps, while maintaining the Flushing flow management: Consider maximum reservoir capacity needed for the importance of flushing flows as they flood control. These opportunities should relate to the river’s ecological integrity. be evaluated in the face of current climate Due to the existence of a regulated flow and possible changes in natural flow regime in the Farmington River there are regimes. Both agencies should explore limited methods by which to alter the flow the feasibility of implementing any such dynamic through flushing flows. However enhancement opportunities, in cooperation opportunities for managing the river’s and consultation with the FRCC and the ecological health through flow management CT DEEP. should continue to be considered in

39 chapter 4 — resource management

Supporting Programs, Tools the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manage and Regulations flows from the West Branch reservoirs in Federal regulation of stream accordance with existing commitments. alterations: The Army Corps of Engineers Any changes to those commitments that implements the permitting requirements would cause changes in flow management of Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act for any in the segment must conform to the water project affecting water quantity that would quantity standards described in Appendix D: discharge dredged or fill material into the Summary of Federal and State Statutes. segment or an adjacent wetland. Under present conditions, flow This responsibility is described under management is dictated by the Channel, Bank, and Wetland Protection – following:12 Key Actions. • 50 cfs minimum flow established under state regulation of water supply state statute; emergencies: The CT DEEP and • Riparian agreement between the MDC Department of Public Health (DPH) and the Farmington River Power maintain their authority to implement the Company; state’s water supply emergency statutes if • Agreement with the Allied Connecticut conditions arise that necessitate such action. Towns; In any future implementation of these • Army Corps of Engineers’ flood control authorities that would affect the segment, requirements; the state should make an effort to notify • Fall fisheries augmentation flow; the FRCC. Also see Summary of Federal • Flood encroachment/American shad and State Statutes in Appendix D regarding minimum flow; and state regulation of water diversions, state water quality certifications and water supply • Regulatory requirements of the Federal emergencies. Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Flow management: The MDC and for hydroelectric facilities at Colebrook and Goodwin Dams.13 12 Details on these agreements and obligations are provided in the final report of the Instream Flow Study and the Draft Evaluation of Existing Protection that can be found on the website at www.farmingtonriver.org . 13 The existing license from FERC for the Colebrook Hydroelectric Facility extends through 2034. The Goodwin Hydroelectric Facility has been granted an exemption from license by FERC; as such, there is no specific date for reconsideration of the exemption provisions.

40 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

If any changes to these commitments Supply Coordination,” authorized under are proposed, certain issues would need to C.G.S. 25-33 et seq. The statute divided be addressed to ensure conformance with the state into seven planning regions, and the water quantity standards. For instance, established a “Water Utility Coordinating procedures would need to be established for Committee” (WUCC) for each region. determining whether a given year is “wet,” Each water utility is required to prepare a “normal,” “dry,” or “drought” year, and 50-year water supply plan (under C.G.S. for linking reservoir releases accordingly. 25-32d); the WUCC for each region is then These procedures may have to conform to responsible for overseeing the preparation definitions or requirements introduced by of a “Coordinated Water System Plan,” the state streamflow regulations as adopted which integrates the individual utility in 2011 (see below), or as modified since plans into a comprehensive regional plan. then. The FRCC will take an active role Both the individual utility plans and each in efforts to resolve these and other flow- Coordinated Water System Plan must related issues. receive approval from the Department of It is important to note that if changes are Public Health (DPH), with concurrence proposed to certain of the commitments from the CT DEEP. Recognizing that water (particularly the riparian agreement supply planning is a dynamic process, the with the Farmington River Power statute requires regular review and revision NPS reviews any Company, the agreement with the Allied of both the individual utility plans (on a 3-5 proposed channel, Connecticut Towns, and the fisheries year basis) and each regional plan (on a 10 pools), resultant changes to several of the year basis). bank, or wetland other commitments could be necessitated With respect to the upper Farmington alteration that requires in order to achieve the water quantity River, the relevant documents are: (1) the a federal permit, license, standards. (The 50 cfs minimum flow, regional plan for the “Upper Connecticut certification, or funding the Corps’ flood control requirements, River Water Supply Management Area” and the regulatory requirements for the (March 31, 1989); and (2) the MDC’s and that would directly hydroelectric facilities likely would not Individual Water Supply Plan (MDC affect the designated need to be adjusted). If such a situation 2008 Water Supply plan amended/ segment. arises, all of the parties involved in the approved 4/2012), which was originally various commitments should pursue a approved by the state in September 1991. cooperative resolution and renegotiation The MDC’s plan states that “…no use of the obligations involved. However, this of the Colebrook/West Branch system recommendation is not a requirement; each will occur before: (1) the safe yield of party would retain its right to determine the augmented East Branch system…is whether renegotiation would be in its exceeded; (2) the range of economically best interest. Again, new negotiations feasible groundwater options is fully may have to accommodate requirements evaluated; and (3) conservation potential now imposed by the state’s streamflow is thoroughly assessed from a cost- regulations. effectiveness standpoint and in terms of expected long-range results.” Future Water supply planning: Potential needs revisions to these documents should for water supply withdrawals from the West reflect both the knowledge gained from Branch will be determined through the state’s the Instream Flow Study and any more water supply planning process and associated recent flow studies, and the agreements documents developed by the applicant. incorporated into this management plan. In 1985, the Connecticut General State Stream Flow Standards: In Assembly established a long-range, 2005 the Connecticut General Assembly statewide water supply planning process: passed Public Act 05-142 (CGS Section the “Connecticut Plan for Public Water 26-141a and b) which required the CT 41 chapter 4 — resource management

DEEP to work with the Department of will be granted party status in any given Public Health and stakeholders to update proceedings if it so requests. standards for maintaining minimum flows • The Army Corps of Engineers notifies the in rivers and streams. The act requires these NPS of any applications for individual standards to balance the various uses of permits under Sec. 404 of the Clean water by providing for river and stream Water Act that would affect the segment. ecology, wildlife and recreation while The Corps and the NPS have developed providing for the needs and requirements a coordination/screening procedure for of public health, flood control, industry, projects which are authorized under a public utilities, water supply, public safety, general permit. agriculture and other lawful uses of • Wild and Scenic River designation does 14 water. Extensive effort by CT DEEP and not preclude Federal Energy Regulatory numerous stakeholders and work groups Commission approvals required for the culminated on December 12, 2011, when continued operation of the Goodwin and the Stream Flow Standards and Regulations Colebrook Hydroelectric Projects, nor were filed with the Secretary of State’s does it supersede the existing authority Office. They comprise Section 21-141b-1 of the Army Corps of Engineers for to 26-141b-8, inclusive, of the Regulations flood prevention through management of CT State Agencies. A summary is of the Colebrook Dam and Reservoir. available at http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/ Designation also does not preclude the view.asp?a=2719&q=434018&deepNav_ temporary lowering of surface elevations GID=1654. in the West Branch Reservoirs below normal management levels for dam Wild and Scenic River Provisions repairs. • NPS reviews any proposed project 3. Channel, Bank and involving flow alteration and requiring Wetland Protection federal assistance through permits, licenses, funding, or other action and Objective that would be on or directly affecting Maintain or enhance the natural the segment. This would apply to condition of the river system, including projects upstream or on tributaries, as its free-flowing character, the integrity of well as those on the segment itself. NPS the stream channel and banks, and the review is based upon an evaluation of ecological functions of adjacent wetlands. the project relative to Wild and Scenic River Act. No project that would have a Standards direct and adverse effect on the segment’s Dams: In order to maintain the segment’s outstanding fisheries, recreation, and free-flowing condition, no new dams will wildlife resources will be allowed. be allowed. • The CT DEEP should make every effort Other alterations: No other new man- to notify the NPS and the FRCC of any made alterations to the river’s channel, relevant diversion permit applications, as banks, and adjacent wetlands that would well as other proposals that would affect degrade their natural appearance and the segment’s water quantity and require function that are federally funded or state certification under Sec. 401 of the permitted will be allowed if they have direct Clean Water Act. The NPS and the FRCC and adverse effects. Actions will be taken are given the opportunity to comment to avoid impacts including the use of Best on any such proposals, and the NPS Management Practices during construction

14 http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=434018&deepNav_GID=1654%20 42 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 to control non-point source pollution. known over time and is the subject of To prevent resource degradation, any ongoing study by fluvial geomorphologists. new bridge abutments and other physical Past development, conducted with a less structures (such as may be necessary for complete knowledge of river dynamics, an approved diversion) should be designed has produced some situations where to minimize impacts and/or be located as streambank stabilization and flood control far from the river banks as possible. Any measures such as armoring banks or necessary bank stabilization should be channelizing riverbeds has produced designed in a way that will maintain the other problems (for example, exacerbated natural character of the shoreline and, downstream erosion) that cause ongoing wherever possible, should be achieved expense. In developing long-term plans using natural vegetation. Improvements of conservation and development, it is for recreational access will not be important to incorporate the principles precluded. However, the need for any such and best practices recommended for improvements should be clearly established, accommodating the behavior of rivers and and design and construction should be streams in a way that incorporates safety, done in a way that will minimize impacts ecological function, sustainability, and to the integrity and function of the river’s long-term (as opposed to short-term) cost- channel, banks, and adjacent wetlands. effectiveness for the whole community. In developing long-term Consideration of river dynamics plans of conservation Action Program is especially important as we face the and development, it is Key Actions and Opportunities challenges of climate change. Increases Plan for a changing, dynamic river: in precipitation and flood flows in important to incorporate The landscape of the Farmington Valley Connecticut rivers over the past century the principles and best is sculpted by the dynamic behavior have been documented; these inevitably practices recommended affect the size, shape, and other physical of rivers and streams. The natural for accommodating the meandering, erosion, and deposition that characters of stream channels. River is characteristic of rivers has become better corridor planning should include measures behavior of rivers and streams in a way that incorporates safety, ecological function, sustainability, and long- term (as opposed to short- term) cost-effectiveness for the whole community.

43 chapter 4 — resource management

for adapting to the changes that can in its implementation of other authorities reasonably be expected for increased flow and programs that relate to the protection volumes, channel size and shape, substrate of the river’s channel, banks, and adjacent movements, wider fluctuations between wetlands. Under Sec. 401 of the Clean Water high and low water, and other predictions Act, any project affecting the segment’s emerging from the study of climate change channel, banks, or adjacent wetlands that in southern New England. requires a Clean Water Act discharge permit. Monitor progress of proposed Also see Appendix D for the Summary of redevelopment of the Upper and Lower Federal and State Statutes regarding the state Collinsville Dams: The Town of Canton water quality certification. is pursuing development of a municipal Local land use regulation: The riverfront hydropower project at the Upper and towns will implement and enforce existing Lower Collinsville Dams and intends to land use regulations that protect the river’s proceed with hydropower development channel, banks, and adjacent wetlands. if the project is found to be economically The natural appearance and function feasible. The Collinsville Dams are owned of the river’s channel, banks, and adjacent by the CT DEEP, which is cooperating with wetlands receive strong protection through the Town of Canton in its explorations. several local land use regulations. The most FRCC should monitor the progress of important include the River Protection this possible project and encourage the Overlay Districts, floodplain regulations, town to certify the project through the Low and wetlands regulations. These are Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI). discussed in greater detail under Land Resource Management. Supporting Programs, Tools The FRCC should pursue opportunities and Regulations to comment on any action under these Federal regulation of stream programs that could affect the river’s alterations: The Army Corps of Engineers channels, banks or wetlands, other than implements Sec. 404 of the Clean Water those of an emergency nature. Act, which requires federal approval for any project that would discharge dredged or fill Wild and Scenic River Provisions material into a river or wetland. • NPS reviews any proposed channel, Regulations governing the Army Corps bank, or wetland alteration that requires of Engineers’ Nationwide Permit Program a federal permit, license, certification, or (Federal Register, November 22, 1991) funding and that would directly affect requires individual rather than nationwide the designated segment. NPS review permits for all proposed projects covered by will be based upon an evaluation of the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act that are project relative to Section 7 of the Wild “in a component of the National Wild and and Scenic Rivers Act. No project that Scenic Rivers System.” In accordance with would have a direct and adverse effect on these regulations and the Wild and Scenic the segment’s free-flowing condition or Rivers Act, the Corps will, in its review of its outstanding fisheries, recreation, and individual permit applications proposed wildlife values will be allowed. No new on the segment, integrate comments from dams will be allowed on the segment, the NPS regarding consistency of proposed and no new FERC licensed hydroelectric projects with the standards set forth in this projects that would be on or directly plan. affecting the segment will be allowed. Other state regulatory responsibilities: • The CT DEEP should make every effort The state should ensure consistency with to notify the NPS and the FRCC of, and the provisions of this management plan give each the opportunity to comment

44 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

on, any proposed project requiring state general permit. certification under Sec. 401 of the Clean • Wild and Scenic designation does Water Act. The NPS will be granted party not preclude the re-licensing of the status in any given proceedings if it so Colebrook Hydroelectric Project, nor the requests. continued exemption of the Goodwin • The Army Corps of Engineers notifies the Hydroelectric Project. NPS of any applications for individual • The potential licensing of hydroelectric permits under Sec. 404 of the Clean facilities on new or existing dams Water Act that would affect the segment. downstream of the segment, which could The Corps and the NPS have developed have an effect on the segment’s Atlantic a coordination/screening procedure for salmon resources, is discussed under the projects which are authorized under a Fisheries and Wildlife section.

45 chapter 4 — resource management

Part III: Outstanding Resource Management

1. Recreation Resources and protection of the natural resources by leading a study that would improve the The Farmington River supports understanding of recreational use of the river tremendous recreational use with highly and recreational resources related to the river. popular trout fishing, boating, and tubing. It is widely recognized as one of New Design and conduct a recreational England’s premier trout streams, and draws use and management study to learn anglers from throughout the Northeast more about current and projected future and beyond. The mixture of flatwater, recreational use of the river, and to riffles and class I-III rapids draws a large determine how recreational use levels and number of paddlers. The most heavily used river access impact the natural resources. segment of the river for boating and tubing This type of study is typically one that is where the river drops through Satan’s assesses recreational use, and provides Kingdom Gorge. The setting within the recommendations for protecting and Gorge is spectacular, with a stretch of class enhancing the Outstandingly Remarkable III white water framed by steep cliffs on Values (ORVs) while supporting a both banks. In addition, the land along the high quality recreational experience. river supplies a wide range of recreational Important factors to take into account opportunities. might include analyzing current river use See Figure 17: Recreational Resources. Also, patterns, conflicts, permitting, and existing see the website www.farmingtonriver.org for regulations. information about The Upper Farmington Since the Upper Branch of the Wild and Scenic Water Trail Map, and the Farmington is a Partnership River that FRCC Wild and Scenic Interactive Map. flows through land that is privately owned, FRCC has no specific regulatory authority Objective to control recreational usage. Rather, FRCC Protect and enhance the upper could coordinate a study by partnering with Farmington River’s outstanding recreational the state, towns, and organizations that resources. could play a significant role in designing a study and implementing the resulting Standards recommendations to support the goal Recreation opportunities: Existing of balancing resource protection and recreation opportunities will be maintained recreational use. and enhanced. The study should utilize existing Impacts on land and water resources: river studies, including the Use and Recreational activities and facilities will Economic Importance of the West Branch be managed in a way that will prevent of the Farmington River Study, 2002, by degradation of land or water resources. Moore and Sideralis and to the extent Access: Public lands will be relied upon possible follow NPS user capacity to provide access for all users to the river. recommendations. Any access through private lands will be at Recreational use of the river has spawned the discretion of the landowner. a number of issues that could be examined by a “recreational use study,” such as: Action Program • riparian landowner concerns (e.g., Key Actions and Opportunities trespass, noise, vandalism, and lack of Conduct a Recreational Use and respect for their privacy) Management Study: Support public • conflicts posed by competing recreational enjoyment of the recreational resources users 46 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

• adequate and appropriate access to the years. Their continued involvement will be river vital for effective recreation management in • commercial recreational activity the future. They should focus attention on management three primary activities: • parking and traffic issues 1. educate users about the river and • litter on both private and public lands potential environmental and social • health, safety, and welfare of river users effects of various recreational activities, • potential intensification of these and 2. help to resolve recreational conflicts and other issues if recreational use increases balance competing uses, in the future 3. assist in cooperatively developed Led by FRCC, a working group of projects, identifying new access sites and partners could work to address potential coordinating river cleanups. areas of conflict, establish guidelines additional public access: Encourage acceptable to all parties. This group could the CT DEEP and the MDC to evaluate also advocate for and help to implement opportunities to provide additional public any study’s possible recommendations e.g., access to the river on their lands, if such change existing practices or regulations, additional access is needed and is consistent support the enforcement of regulatory with the purposes for which those lands were The Farmington River controls. dedicated. supports tremendous private organization initiatives: Work In assessing needs and opportunities recreational use with with river advocacy and recreation user for additional access, the CT DEEP and groups that play an important role in the MDC should consult with the FRCC highly popular trout recreation management. and organizations that represent river fishing, boating, and The Farmington River Valley’s principal users. The needs of seniors and people tubing. river advocacy and recreation user groups with disabilities should be specifically (including the FRWA, the Farmington addressed in any proposal for new or River Anglers Association, the Connecticut improved access. Cooperative projects Chapter of the Appalachian Mountain (such as the handicapped fishing access Club, and Trout Unlimited) have dealt with site at the Church Pool in Pleasant Valley recreational issues on the river for many that was developed jointly by the MDC,

47 chapter 4 — resource management the CT DEEP, and the Farmington River issues that may arise, such as potential Anglers Association) should be pursued access needs for commercial canoe liveries. when feasible. Local land use regulations affecting Supporting Programs, Tools and recreation: The riverfront towns play a role Regulations in managing recreation by implementing and enforcing existing land use regulations, Recreation management on public including the River Protection Overlay lands: The CT DEEP, the MDC, and the Districts that affect recreational use of the riverfront towns should continue to manage river corridor. recreation on their respective lands along the segment. Land managers should review In general, the River Protection Overlay current policies and practices relating to Districts allow for non-intensive and non- recreation management for consistency with commercial recreational uses that do not the objective and standards stated above, and require new structures within the 100-foot revise them if necessary. buffer area. These districts and other local regulations are discussed in further detail Current management policies provide under Land Resource Management — for extensive access and a variety of Key Actions. recreational uses on public lands along the segment, making the upper Farmington Wild and Scenic River Provisions River one of the region’s most important No additional requirements related to the recreational resources. State forests, which management of recreation resources result contain the greatest amount of public from Wild and Scenic River designation. acreage and frontage along the segment, The National Park Service will not regulate support the broadest range of recreational recreational use or require permits for activities and, in consequence, receive the commercial recreation activities. most intense recreational pressure of any lands along the segment. Other public lands 2. Fisheries and Wildlife – particularly the state’s Satan’s Kingdom High water quality supports diverse Recreation Area, the MDC’s Greenwoods aquatic habitats and aquatic life. The area, and New Hartford’s town property – outstanding quality of water in the also provide important access opportunities Farmington River corridor supports a and receive significant use. large quantity and diversity of wildlife and Any major revision to existing recreation vegetation. The variety of habitats, large management policies and practices tracts of undeveloped land and year-round for public lands should be made in availability of water all contribute to the consultation with the FRCC. area’s suitability for both indigenous and Regulation of commercial recreation: migrant wildlife. The CT DEEP and the towns regulate Objective commercial recreation in accordance with their existing authorities. Protect and enhance the upper Farmington River’s outstanding plant The CT DEEP regulates existing and communities, fisheries and wildlife. potential commercial recreation on state lands to ensure public health, safety, Standards and welfare, and resource protection. Habitat: The historical quality, quantity, (Currently, commercial recreation on state and diversity of fish, wildlife and plant lands is limited to the tubing concession at habitat will be maintained, restored or Satan’s Kingdom.) The CT DEEP has a role enhanced as needed. See Figures 18-20. in resolving other commercial recreation Sensitive Species: Populations of

48 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 sensitive species, including Atlantic management efforts on areas where native salmon, mussels, bald eagles, and osprey, plant restoration is feasible. will be maintained, restored or enhanced For example, FRCC has begun to as needed. See Figure 21: Endangered, implement report recommendations as Threatened, or Special Concern Species. follows: sport Fisheries: The upper Farmington • Educate and work cooperatively with River’s high quality sport fishery will be private landowners and with the CT maintained and enhanced. DEEP and MDC. Action Program • Remove non-native invasive plants on lands identified as critical habitat. Key Actions and Opportunities • Provide guidance on new control Initiatives for habitat protection and techniques, such as the use of goats for enhancement: The FRCC should promote species control. projects that support the restoration, • Identify new populations of non-native protection and/or enhancement of fish, invasive species through early detection wildlife and plant habitat. and provide a system for rapid removal. An example project is the streambank New infestations, such as the algae planting project of a stabilized area “rock snot” (Didymosphenia geminata along West River Road in Barkhamsted. or “didymo”) or other aquatic invasive This was a cooperative effort designed species, should also be identified and to reduce erosion, improve wildlife managed as well in cooperation and habitat, and enhance the aesthetics of coordination with CT DEEP. To support the site. The project was initiated by the this ongoing effort there is a need to Farmington River Anglers Association, educate private landowners, river users, with participation from the Town of and the communities along the river, and to Barkhamsted, the Natural Resources develop a cadre of volunteers that actively Conservation Service (NRCS), and a local manage invasives and provide long-term nursery that donated plant materials. continuity to the program. Community Conduct non-native invasive plant support is vital in the effort to lessen this management and native plant restoration threat to the natural habitat and diversity of projects: The FRCC should continue to the river and associated lands. take the lead in promoting the removal of invasive species and in establishing native Continue to operate as a CISMA: plant populations in coordination with the FRCC functions as a Cooperative Invasive state, towns, partners, landowners, and other Species Management Area (CISMA) to stakeholder organizations. See Figure 22: coordinate non-native invasive plant Invasive Species. species management in the Wild and Scenic Non-native invasive plants threaten the corridor. The CISMA is a federal, state and ecology of the river corridor and present local partnership that manages invasive a real threat to the biological diversity species within a defined area. of the Upper Branch of the Farmington. inventory of sensitive species: Continue Based on the results of annual surveys to conduct sensitive plant and animal species (see Figure 22: Invasive Species and website inventories that are associated with the at www.farmingtonriver.org for more Farmington River. information about the FRCC Invasives Effective management requires Project) that document the existence and good information about the biological extent of non-native, invasive plants in the communities in and along the river. river corridor, FRCC should continue to Where possible, data about endangered, address this emerging threat by focusing threatened, or special-concern species,

49 chapter 4 — resource management

indicator species, or significant community www.ct.gov/dep/fishing). types should be obtained or updated. This Any major changes to existing effort could be pursued cooperatively management practices that are specific to through the CT DEEP’s Natural Diversity the Farmington River should be made in Data Base in conjunction with the U.S. consultation with the FRCC. Fish and Wildlife Service, educational anadromous fish passage restoration: institutions, and other appropriate The FRCC will actively support plans and organizations such as FRWA. The Natural programs to restore anadromous fish in the Resource Inventories and vernal pool Farmington River basin. surveys that the FRCC has supported over the last decade are examples of the type of The Farmington River is one of the work that should be continued. principal tributaries in the Connecticut River watershed and therefore the activities Supporting Programs, Tools and on the Farmington River are part of that Regulations larger effort to restore diadromous fish. Fish and wildlife management: The The Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon CT DEEP will retain responsibility for Commission (CRASC) provides the management of fish and wildlife. leadership and decision-making for the Long-term success of the restoration program and the CT DEEP is The CT DEEP’s major fish and wildlife actively engaged in a program to restore restoration efforts in the management activities include: (1) native migratory fishes to the Farmington Farmington River basin habitat management and protection, River. The support and participation of will require protection (2) fish and wildlife stocking programs, private groups, such as the FRWA and the and (3) regulation and enforcement of of critical habitat in FRCC, are critical to the success of the fishing and hunting activities. The latter program. the upper segment includes licensing requirements and the Long-term success of the restoration and maintenance of establishment of special management areas efforts in the Farmington River basin will (for instance, the “Trout Management adequate water quality require protection of critical habitat in Area” of the West Branch/upper the upper segment and maintenance of and quantity in the Farmington River for which details can adequate water quality and quantity in river. be located on the CT DEEP website at the river. The standards for water quality,

50 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 water quantity, and channel, bank, and been fledged from nests on MDC lands. wetland protection established in the Water Nesting has occurred near the Nepaug and Resource Management section of this plan Colebrook Reservoirs, in addition to the are intended, in part, to achieve those ends. Barkhamsted Reservoir. The MDC works As a Wild and Scenic River there are closely with a group of volunteers known special management provisions to protect as the Bald Eagle Study Group who play anadromous fish that apply to both the an instrumental role in monitoring nesting designated segment and downstream activities on MDC and other lands. areas. Specifically, the NPS will review any While much of the birds’ activity has proposed water resource project requiring been centered in the protected watershed of federal licensing, permitting, or funding to the Barkhamsted Reservoir, they regularly ensure consistency with this plan. The NPS use the upper segment of the Farmington will consult closely with the CT DEEP and River for feeding, particularly in winter the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this when the reservoir is frozen. Eagle use of regard. the segment is directly dependent upon protection of its abundant fisheries, as well Bald eagle restoration: The MDC, the CT as maintenance of the high environmental DEEP, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service quality and largely natural character of the should continue their efforts to re-establish river corridor. The standards and actions and monitor breeding pairs of bald eagles in for land and water management in this plan the upper Farmington River watershed. will ensure that the segment retains those These three agencies have been working values. cooperatively to support, protect, and monitor eagle activity in the upper part Wild and Scenic River Provisions of the watershed in recent years. Re- establishment efforts came to fruition There are no additional requirements in May 1992, when a pair of eagles that related to the management of fisheries and had been nesting near the Barkhamsted wildlife resources, and there is no National Reservoir successfully hatched two chicks – Park Service role in such management, the first born in Connecticut in more than as a result of the Wild and Scenic River 40 years. As of 2011, over 55 chicks have designation.

51 chapter 4 — resource management

3. Historic Resources river corridor and establish protections Noteworthy remnants of the Farmington for them (as allowed under existing laws). Valley’s long history of human activity can • Provide educational materials in various be found throughout the area. Evidence of formats interpreting historic and early native inhabitants includes important archaeological resources. documented archaeological sites. Also • Promote heritage tourism. prevalent are historic structures associated • Consider historic and archaeological with the early European settlement. resources in open space acquisition. • Objective Promote regulations that favor adaptive reuse of historic structures and Protect and enhance outstanding historic consideration of archaeological resources. resources associated with the upper Farmington River. Supporting Programs, Tools and Regulations Standards Historic preservation laws: The Historic sites: The integrity of sites Connecticut Historical Commission, the associated with the segment and listed on National Park Service, and the Advisory the National Register of Historic Places Council on Historic Preservation will or Connecticut’s State Register of Historic continue to exercise their respective Places will be maintained. See Figure 23: authorities to protect historic sites under National Register of Historic Places. C.G.S. 10-321a et seq. and the National Archaeological sites: The integrity of Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665). sites that are important in understanding Section 106 of the National Historic and interpreting the activities of prehistoric Preservation Act requires that a review cultures in the upper Farmington River be conducted before any federal action Valley will be maintained. is taken that might affect a site listed on Action Program the National Register. Federal actions that trigger this review include construction, Key Actions and Opportunities licensing and permitting, government • Inventory archaeological and historic loans, and similar activities. The purpose of resources and scenic roads within the the review is to determine if the site would

52 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 be adversely affected and, if so, to identify Peoples State Forest, has been listed as a ways to avoid or mitigate the adverse effect. National Historic Site in recognition of its The act does not grant authority to stop a extensive remnants of pre-colonial Native project in order to preserve a site; rather, it American settlements. mandates that historic resources be “taken Further investigations of archaeological into account.” The state typically takes the sites on public lands should be encouraged, lead in evaluating the potential impacts of but should be coordinated in advance with proposed projects on listed sites. The NPS the managing agency to avoid conflicts with provides technical assistance as needed, and other resource management activities. All retains the option of conducting its own archaeological activities should be overseen review, as does the Advisory Council on by recognized professional archaeologists Historic Preservation. using accepted field techniques. Several sites in the area have been interpretation of historic resources: The recognized for their historic significance. local historical societies will continue to be Three structures are listed on the National both the primary source of information for Register – the 19th century Chapin House the public on the region’s historic resources, in Pine Meadow, the depression era CCC and the primary advocate for the protection museum in the Peoples State Forest, and the of those resources. early 19th century gothic revival style stone Several sites in the area Local historical societies should evaluate Union Church in Riverton. An additional have been recognized thirteen structures are listed on the opportunities for further research into the Connecticut State Register, and the clusters historical relationship between the adjacent for their historic of 19th century buildings in New Hartford communities and the river. This connection significance. and Pine Meadow have been designated as would also be an appropriate theme for state and local historic districts. the societies to emphasize in their public Existing authorities will be sufficient education efforts. to protect these outstanding historic resources. Agencies responsible for Wild and Scenic River Provisions oversight of these resources should There are no additional requirements be informed of the existence of the related to the management of historic management plan and encouraged to take resources as a result of Wild and Scenic it into account as they exercise their review River designation. National Park Service and consultation responsibilities. authority will be limited to that already protection and investigation of established under the Historic archaeological sites on public lands: The Preservation Act. CT DEEP and the MDC should review their existing management plans for the state forests and watershed lands for compatibility with the protection of important archaeological sites that are linked to the river, and should take additional actions if necessary to ensure the protection of those sites. Investigations conducted by the Farmington River Archaeology Project in selected areas of Peoples State Forest and Nepaug State Forest have uncovered a number of prehistoric sites. One site, which includes portions of Beaver Meadow in

53 — Chapter 5 — Management of the Massachusetts Segment

Overview Reconsideration of Wild and Scenic Designation The Upper Farmington River Management Plan focuses on the Should shoreland Massachusetts Connecticut portion of the upper towns choose to seek Wild and Scenic Farmington River. This section, however, designation, it may be sought without describes how implementing the plan additional study. The May 1995 Farmington for Wild and Scenic designation in Wild and Scenic River Study explains that Connecticut, could affect the Massachusetts the Massachusetts segment was eligible section of the river. Its recommendations for designation based on its free-flowing for managing this segment of the condition and its outstanding resource Farmington River recognize the segment’s values, including recreation and wildlife, inherent resource worth, as well as however, the segment was found not the positive effect such management suitable due to lack of local support for could have, downstream, on the river in designation and inadequate existing Connecticut. See Figure 5: Farmington River resource protection. Since that time the Watershed and Upper Farmington Towns. Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act (see next page) was enacted that provides a Effect of Designation in structure for riverfront protection. As a Connecticut result, demonstration of local support and The National Park Service (NPS) will interest in the National Wild and Scenic review any proposed water resource designation framework is likely all that project on the Massachusetts segment or would be required to pursue designation. its tributaries that requires federal permits, The NPS would be available to review and licenses, or funding. Any project that would confirm these assumptions should any or have an adverse effect on the Connecticut all of the towns decide to seek designation. segment will, in accordance with the Wild While designating the entire and Scenic Rivers Act, be prohibited. Massachusetts segment Wild and Scenic Any project that would reduce either the might be preferred, a portion, for example, quality or quantity of water flowing into in Tolland and Sandisfield, could seek the designated segment downstream would designation independently. be of particular concern. Federal agencies Designation could be obtained through that typically have a role in the funding or Congressional action, or through a request approval of such projects, notably the EPA, from the Governor for administrative the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the designation by the Secretary of the Interior Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (as authorized under Sec. 2(a)(ii) of the will be apprised of the special status of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act). Upon receipt Connecticut segment and informed of the of designation, the UFRMP shall be revised requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers to include provisions for management of Act. The NPS does not have regulatory the Massachusetts segment, provisions authority over land use activities that are comparable but not necessarily identical not water-related and do not require federal to those identified in the plan for the permits or other federal assistance. Connecticut segment.

54 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

River Management Issues downstream Wild and Scenic designation should be noted by the Massachusetts Management DEP, as it regards water quality, and by Regardless of whether designation is the Department of Conservation and sought and awarded, it is recommended that Recreation (DCR), relative to river basin Massachusetts shoreland landowners, local planning. governments, private organizations, and Also, the Commonwealth has a major role state agencies manage the Massachusetts in protecting the river’s streambanks and segment so as to protect its inherent values watershed lands. The DCR manages two and to prevent negative impact on the state forests that abut the segment as well as river downstream; several key actions and other forest lands that, while not adjacent support activities outlined in this plan could to the river, provide critical protection to be easily adapted for use in Massachusetts. the watershed. The department should At the state level, there are several continue to manage these areas in ways that ways to help conserve the river. The will both protect and enhance the river, its 1996 Massachusetts Rivers Protection wildlife, recreation and scenic resources. Act provides a framework of riverfront The DCR should also continue to pursue protection that satisfies a requirement opportunities to provide appropriate of eligibility, no longer requiring towns public access to the river for non-intensive Any project that would to adopt local riverfront regulations. It recreational use. And, as authorized by the reduce either the Massachusetts legislature in 1984, the DCR creates a 200-foot riverfront area that quality or quantity of extends on both sides of any river or should continue to acquire key parcels along water flowing into the stream (although in certain urban areas the river. the riverfront area is 25 feet and pre- The DCR Lakes and Ponds Program designated segment provides technical assistance to existing structures are exempt). For downstream would be of communities and citizen groups, helps to details see: http://www.mass.gov/eea/ particular concern. agencies/massdep/water/regulations/ monitor water quality at various public massachusetts-rivers-protection-act-about. beaches , and provides educational materials html. The Massachusetts Department of about various lake issues. Intended to Environmental Protection (DEP) is charged ensure, through a watershed approach and with enforcing environmental laws enacted citizen education and involvement, a safe to protect wetland and riverfront water future for Massachusetts’ waterbodies. The quality and quantity. The Massachusetts program should be maintained, and, if DEP Division of Water Pollution Control possible, enhanced. should maintain its vigilance over water Participation in the FRCC pollution in this segment of the river. The Whether the Massachusetts segment is downstream Wild and Scenic designation designated as a National Wild and Scenic should be noted by the Massachusetts River, the Massachusetts shoreland towns DEP, as it regards water quality, and by and/or the state are welcomed to join the the Department of Conservation and Farmington River Coordinating Committee Recreation (DCR), relative to river basin (FRCC) as non-voting members initially planning. The Massachusetts Department of and, subsequently, with the unanimous Environmental Protection (DEP) is charged approval of existing members, as voting with enforcing environmental laws enacted members. Were the Massachusetts segment to protect wetland and riverfront water designated as a Wild and Scenic river, and quality and quantity. The Massachusetts regardless of whether they have been FRCC DEP Division of Water Pollution Control members, the State and the shoreland should maintain its vigilance over water towns automatically will be granted voting pollution in this segment of the river. The membership. 55 — Chapter 6 — Lower Farmington River Management

Overview for Congressional action. Were the lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook The upper Farmington River must be awarded Wild and Scenic designation, viewed as part of a larger river system. the Town of Canton river segment will Chapter Five addressed the headwaters be administered as a part of the upper area in Massachusetts. This chapter Farmington Wild and Scenic River by focuses on the downstream portion of the FRCC. This 1.1-mile river segment, the river that extends approximately 50 which reaches from the New Hartford/ miles and includes seven communities – Canton town line to the confluence with Burlington, Avon, Farmington, Simsbury, the Nepaug River in Canton, is contiguous East Granby, Bloomfield, and Windsor to the upper Farmington River Wild and – and identifies steps they and others Scenic area. (Once the lower Farmington could take to both protect the downstream and Salmon Brook Study concludes, portion of the river and support proposed Canton would no longer sit on the lower measures for the upper Farmington area. Wild and Scenic Advisory Committee.) These are recommendations only. Their Assuming Wild and Scenic designation implementation is not required under the is granted, there will be opportunities for Upper Farmington River Management Plan. the upper and lower river committees to In 2011, the Lower Farmington River work together to protect and enhance the and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Study river’s outstanding resources. See Figure 6: Committee recommended the streams for Potential Upper Farmington River Wild and designation and, to that end, completed Scenic Boundary Extension. an advisory management plan. In 2013 Wild and Scenic bills were introduced

56 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Management land protection is important to the lower Recommendations part of the watershed and local land trusts that dedicate themselves to river-related Local Government Actions parcels are welcomed partners in these As part of the Farmington River and efforts. Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Study, The FRWA, the CT DEEP, and other the study committee developed a plan to interested groups should consider protect and enhance the area’s outstanding expanding FRWA’s volunteer water quality resources. A subsequent review of existing monitoring program for the downstream municipal plans and regulations concluded segment. See Water Quality Section for that they adequately provide a needed details. protection scheme and, therefore, no Upper and Lower River further regulatory actions are needed to Committee Coordination meet the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Act. With that understanding, Were the lower Farmington River and despite how the Wild and Scenic designated Wild and Scenic, it is believed designation application fares, the ten towns that the Farmington River Coordinating that endorsed the study committee’s plan Committee (FRCC) and the Lower hope that it might help guide any future Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild work of the Lower Farmington River and and Scenic Committee (FSWS) would Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Committee develop a long-term partnership that (FSWS). It is hoped that the management entails sharing resources and information, plan will be implemented regardless of the coordinating on some projects, etc. The outcome of the designation effort. Town of Hartland, the Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA), and the Initiatives by Private CT DEEP, as members of both the FSWS Organizations and the FRCC, could potentially serve As discussed in the Land Management as liaisons between the two committees. section of this plan, the Farmington River If, however, the designation effort proves Watershed Association (FRWA) seeks to unsuccessful, lower river towns might protect watershed lands by promoting consider joining the Farmington River voluntary land protection programs, Coordinating Committee (FRCC) formally, adopting local shorelands protection or informally, by way of exchanging ordinances, and acquiring environmentally information and cooperating on projects sensitive lands. The FRWA identifies involving both sections of the river. (As potential site-specific projects, as examples, discussed in the plan’s Administrative producing a recreation management Framework section, formal membership on plan for Tariffville Gorge and developing the FRCC requires the unanimous consent a riverfront greenway in Simsbury. of current members. A new member’s Successful, broadly-supported voluntary voting status shall be determined by the Committee.)

57 58 — APPENDIX A — UPPER FARMINGTON RIVER WILD AND SCENIC LEGISLATION

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof: `( ) FARMINGTON RIVER, CONNECTICUT- The 14-mile segment of the West Branch and mainstem extending from immediately below the Goodwin Dam and Hydroelectric Project in Hartland, Connecticut, to the downstream end of the New Hartford-Canton, Connecticut, town line (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the `segment’), as a recreational river, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior through cooperative agreements between the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Connecticut and its relevant political subdivisions, namely the Towns of Colebrook, Hartland, Barkhamsted, New Hartford, and Canton and the Hartford Metropolitan District Commission, pursuant to section 10(e) of this Act. The segment shall be managed in accordance with the Upper Farmington River Management Plan, dated April 29, 1993, and such amendments thereto as the Secretary of the Interior determines are consistent with this Act. Such plan shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement for a comprehensive management plan pursuant to section 3(d) of this Act.’

Pat Keener at the Riverton Kiosk 59 — APPENDIX B — OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES (ORVs)

Recreation Fish Diversity of activities; intensity of use; High-quality fish habitat; significance to both uniformly high-quality experience for all users; Atlantic salmon restoration and to prime trout proximity to major population centers: stream: • sport fisherman • high-quality fish habitat (high water quality, • boaters (canoe and kayak) gravelly bottom, cold water releases) • tubers • classic habitat for salmonids • extended season due to dam releases • critical component of salmon reintroduction • regional draw • Farmington (and tributaries) is largest of sixteen • Satan’s Kingdom rivers in New England targeted for anadromous fish • Class III white water • One of only four river systems projected to reach • access to highly populated region restoration potential in twenty-five years • most heavily stocked trout stream in state • prime spawning grounds critical to success of • high-quality fly fishing, relatively high catch restoration (salmon) rate • all of Connecticut freshwater sport fish species • extended fishing season due to cold water • one of few unpolluted prime trout streams in releases southern New England • upper river portion most heavily stocked trout stream in Connecticut

Source: Adapted from Wild and Scenic River Study, Final Report, May 1995

60 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

Wildlife Scenic Historic Resources Large quantity and diversity of Topographical diversity key element Historic structures and other artifacts that wildlife; variety of habitats: contributing to character of area: remain reflect river’s central role in cultural heritage of Farmington Valley; nationally • provides habitat for federally • river and adjacent lands retain recognized sites linked to river: endangered bald eagle* natural character moderately • year-round population of altered by human activity • 19th-century structures (mills, hydro eagles. first eagle chicks born • Satan’s Kingdom perhaps most power industries in Riverton, Pleasant in Connecticut in more than dramatic scenic resource Valley, New Hartford) forty years • historic river communities add to • Chapin House (Pine Meadow) • avifauna extremely diverse scenic diversity • CCC shelter (American Legion Forest) (158 species observed) • natural segments of adjacent state • Old Riverton Inn (Riverton) forests and undeveloped land add • clusters of 19th-century buildings in to scenic diversity state-and locally-designated historic • forested ridges along both sides of districts (New Hartford, Pine Meadow) river form attractive corridor • Hitchcock Chair Factory (Riverton) • Union Church (Riverton) • pre-historic and pre-Colonial archaeological sites *Bald eagle has been removed • national historic site (archaeological from endangered species list remnants at Beaver Meadow, Peoples State Forest) • archaeological sites that were occupied year-round, possibly major trade route • Farmington Valley as distinct system from other river valleys

61 — APPENDIX C — LOCAL RIVER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS

The text of the Barkhamsted, Canton, Hartland and New Hartland Overlay Districts can be viewed on the FRCC website via this link: http://farmingtonriver.org/OverlayProtectionDistricts/tabid/59/Default.aspx

— APPENDIX D — SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES PROTECTIVE OF THE UPPER FARMINGTON RIVER There are many federal and state environmental statutes that offer some form of protection to the upper Farmington River. The most relevant of these are reviewed here.

At the Federal Level obtain a discharge permit from the Although enacted at the federal level by the appropriate authority. (In Connecticut, U.S. Congress, many sections of the statutes this program is administered by CT described below are administered at the DEEP.) Stormwater point sources are State and local levels. also regulated under NPDES, including: The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) discharges from municipal storm sewer was created to restore and maintain the systems in urbanized areas above a chemical, physical and biological integrity certain census size; stormwater associated of the nation’s surface waters. It sets forth with many kinds of industrial activities; both regulatory and non-regulatory means and runoff from construction sites of addressing point and nonpoint sources disturbing more than one acre. The Town of water pollution. Among other things, of Canton falls under the CT DEEP’s the CWA: NPDES “General Permit for Discharge of Stormwater from Small Municipal • requires states to adopt surface Separate Storm Sewer Systems” (MS4 Water Quality Standards to manage GP). The CT DEEP has established waterbodies according to defined goals general permits for stormwater discharges based on designated uses and criteria; associated with two types of activities: • requires states to adopt an anti- (1) construction projects that involve degradation policy to protect existing the disturbance of greater than one acre uses, and prohibit the lowering of high of land; and (2) industrial facilities, quality surface waters, except under as defined by the Standard Industrial certain conditions, following specified Classification (SIC) Codes. Applicants procedures; are covered by these general permits if • establishes the National Pollution they register with the CT DEEP, but they Discharge Elimination System must be able to demonstrate that they are (NPDES), a regulatory program, which in compliance with the general permit requires municipal, industrial and other requirements. The permits require, facility “point source” dischargers to among other things, that the permittee

62 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

develop a pollution prevention plan and source issues throughout the state. monitor the discharge. The CT DEEP Among other things, 319 funds were used cannot deny a registration; however, to assist another program within the CT the agency can enforce the permit DEEP to develop the “2004 Connecticut requirements if the permittee is found to Stormwater Quality Manual.” This be in violation. manual is intended as a planning tool • requires the federal government to and design guidance document to be obtain a Section 401 Water Quality used by the regulated and regulatory Certification from the state in which communities involved in stormwater they are issuing a license or permit which quality management within Connecticut. may result in a discharge to waters of the In addition to the summaries above, the United States, to ensure that the discharge CWA includes other elements aimed at is consistent with the CWA as well as any protecting and improving surface water state ambient water quality standards. quality. Recent court decisions appear • requires any project that would discharge to be expanding the interpretation and dredged or fill material into “waters of application of the CWA. the United States” to receive a Section TheN ational Flood Insurance Act 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of established the National Flood Insurance Engineers; Program (NFIP) which enables property There are many federal • provides a non-regulatory approach owners in participating communities to and state environmental to address nonpoint sources of surface purchase federally subsidized insurance statutes that offer some to protect against flood losses. NFIP is water pollution. Funding is available form of protection to the to states and other entities through the administered by the Federal Emergency federal CWA 319 grant program for Management Agency (FEMA), under upper Farmington River. the development and implementation of the Department of Homeland Security. nonpoint source management programs CT DEEP is designated as the State NFIP for the reduction of non-point source Coordinating Agency. pollution. Over the years, CT DEEP has In order to qualify for this program, a used the funds in its 319 grant program community must enter into an agreement to support many Agency and non-Agency with the federal government, and adopt projects focused on addressing nonpoint and enforce a floodplain management

63 appendiCES

ordinance to reduce future flood risks to effect on the river’s free flowing condition new construction in areas of highest risk, or its Outstandingly Remarkable Values called Special Flood Hazard Areas (i.e., (described as Outstanding Resources or as 100-year floodplain). While the primary ORVs in the Management Plan). goal of NFIP is to protect against flood The National Environmental Policy losses and prevent new development Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to from increasing flood threat, it does not incorporate environmental considerations necessarily discourage development from into planning and decision-making with taking place within floodplains. However, regard to major federal actions significantly NFIP does encourage communities to affecting the environment. The Council engage in better floodplain management, on Environmental Quality was established and also allows municipalities to adopt to oversee NEPA. However, each federal more restrictive ordinances than the agency undertaking an action is responsible minimum regulatory requirements of the for its own compliance with NEPA. federal government. States can require There are three levels of analysis under more stringent measures than those of NEPA: categorical exclusion determination; NFIP. The State of Connecticut recently preparation of an environmental adopted new requirements relative to assessment/finding of no significant “compensatory flood storage and equal impact (EA/FONSI); and preparation of conveyance” that establishs a regulatory an environmental impact statement (EIS). standard more protective of floodplains. An EIS is prepared in cases where it has TheWild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) been determined that environmental provides the strongest protection available impacts of the proposed federal action for free flowing rivers or river segments. may be significant, or a proposed project The WSRA protects designated rivers, is particularly controversial. Preparation or those under study, from any federally of an EA or EIS includes: consideration assisted or licensed dam, diversion, of alternative actions, evaluation of channelization, hydroelectric facility or environmental impacts, and a public other water resource development project participation process. While the goal of that would have a direct and adverse NEPA is to undertake federal actions in a

64 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 more environmentally responsible manner, recently, the National Park Service provided the process does not necessarily guarantee comments to CT DEEP regarding the that the least environmentally damaging Draft General Permit for the Discharge of alternative will be selected. Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Section 10 of the federal Rivers and from Construction Activities. While Harbors Act requires any structures or the original Management Plan directed work in, over or under “navigable waters the DEEP to take certain actions, it is of the United States” to receive a permit recognized here that the FRCC and CT from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DEEP must work together to protect the (US ACOE). In general, “navigable waters Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of the United States” include waters and identify projects that may have some affected by the ebb and flow of the tide, potential impacts to the ORVs. and/or are presently used, or have been TheInland Wetland and Watercourses used in the past, or may be susceptible Act (CGS Sec. 22a–36 to 22a-45)15 requires for use to transport interstate or foreign the regulation of activities affecting the commerce. Projects are evaluated not only inland wetlands and watercourses in for possible impacts to navigation but to Connecticut which involve the removal or aquatic resources, as well. At the very least, deposition of material, or any obstruction, the River and Harbors Act applies to the construction, alteration or pollution of section of the Farmington River below the these natural resources. The CT DEEP’s Rainbow Dam. It may also apply to sections role in implementing this Act is to regulate of the river above the dam, depending on state activities affecting inland wetlands interpretation of the Act, and the history and watercourses, and to provide technical and use of the river. assistance to municipal inland wetland commissions. Most wetland regulation At the State Level throughout the state occurs at the local In addition to federal statutes described level through municipal inland wetland in the foregoing section, the Connecticut commissions. General Assembly has enacted statutes, Water Quality Classifications are described below, that are administered assigned to surface and groundwater in all at the state and/or local level. The state areas of the state. These assignments are has comprehensive enabling legislation based on either the use or potential use of governing the use of land, and it grants such waters as well as on their known or authority to towns to adopt regulations presumed quality. The upper Farmington that effectively implement legislation at the River in Connecticut is currently local level. Towns therefore have the power designated as Class A (suitable for drinking to choose regulatory tools to gain greater water supply) from the Goodwin Dam resource protection and have the flexibility downstream to the confluence with the Still to do so. River, and as Class B (suitable for fishing Recommendations are presented within and swimming) for the remainder of the the Management Plan for the state to segment. For Class A waters, the CT DEEP’s potentially amend statutes to support existing anti-degradation policy prohibits proposed resource protection actions. As point source discharges “unless a temporary of the time of this update, FRCC has not discharge is necessary to remediate an regularly taken an active role in pursuing existing surface or groundwater pollution these changes; however, there may be problem” or “the discharge consists of opportunities for FRCC to comment when clean water, treated backwash waters from statutes are being revised. For example, just public or private drinking water treatment

15 CGS = Connecticut General Statutes 65 appendiCES systems or dredging and dredged material the state took an additional step by setting dewatering operations does not result in groundwater standards. violation of Class A standards.” The policy The Water Diversion Policy Act (CGS requires that Class B waters be maintained Sec. 22a-365 to 22a-370) requires the at their existing high quality unless a regulation of activities which cause, allow lowering of water quality “is necessary to or result in the withdrawal from, or the accommodate overriding economic and alteration, modification or diminution social development which the Commission of the instantaneous flow of the waters [of the DEEP] has determined is clearly in of the state. The purpose of the Act is to the public interest, and…existing uses will help ensure the balanced use of water be protected fully.” resources for human and ecological needs, especially with regard to long-range Inland Surface Water planning and allocation. There are several Classifications Descriptions different trigger points which would require Class AA obtaining a diversion permit, including Designated uses: existing or proposed any new diversions of greater than 50,000 drinking water supply, fish and wildlife gallons per day. Diversions which existed habitat, recreational use (may be restricted), on or prior to July 1, 1982 are exempt agricultural and industrial supply. from permitting requirements if these Discharge restricted to: discharges from activities were formally registered with CT public or private drinking water treatment DEP by July 1, 1983. However, those who systems, dredging and dewatering, failed to register prior to this date, or have emergency and clean water discharges. modified registered diversions, are subject to permitting requirements. In addition Class A to evaluating the factors listed above, CT Designated uses: potential drinking DEEP considers whether the applicant water supply; fish and wildlife habitat; has adequately addressed the following: recreational use; agricultural and industrial thorough exploration of alternatives, supply and other legitimate uses including including conservation; implementation navigation. of conservation measures; and initiation Discharge restricted to: same as allowed of public information programs on in AA. conservation techniques. In general, the Class B Department’s review emphasizes the Designated uses: recreational use: fish following sequence: (1) avoid adverse and wildlife habitat; agricultural and effects of any diversion; (2) minimize industrial supply and other legitimate uses any unavoidable effects; and (3) pursue including navigation. mitigation for unavoidable effects. Discharge restricted to: same as allowed If a withdrawal from the Farmington in A and cooling waters, discharges from River’s West Branch is pursued, the industrial and municipal wastewater applicant will need to prepare and submit treatment facilities (providing Best Available a plan that demonstrates the extent to Treatment and Best Management Practices which the river’s various resource and are applied), and other discharges subject to use requirements will be maintained, as the provisions of section 22a-430 CGS. described above and in the “Summary: Farmington River Instream Flow Study,” TheWater Quality Standards found on the FRCC website. and Criteria sets overall policy for TheWater Pollution Control Act management of surface and groundwater. (CGS Sec. 22a-14 to 22a-527) has many The Clean Water Act requires states to components, and offers significant water adopt surface water quality standards, and quality protection from specific sources 66 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013 of pollution. Many sections of this Act items such as wells and watercourses. deal with sewage and associated treatment TheDam Safety statutes (CGS Sec. facilities. Among other things, it addresses 22a-401 to 22a-411) gives CT DEEP the the planning, building, operation and authority to regulate the construction, regulation of municipal wastewater alteration, repair or removal of dams, treatment facilities and associated dikes, reservoirs and similar structures, infrastructure. The Act also creates which by, breaking away or otherwise, may the Clean Water Fund which provides endanger life or property. When making federal and state monies for loans and a decision regarding a permit, CT DEEP grants to municipalities for the planning, must consider, among other things, impacts construction and upgrade of these facilities to inland wetlands and watercourses. and systems. These activities and funding The Act also requires that existing dams, sources are overseen by CT DEEP. In dikes and similar structures be registered addition, the Act establishes authority and periodically inspected to assure that to regulate subsurface sewage treatment their continued operation and use does and disposal systems, more commonly not constitute a hazard to life, health or known as “septic systems”. As a result CT property. The CT DEEP commissioner may DEEP regulates conventional systems with order a private dam owner to remove or fix design flows greater than 5,000 gallons a dam she determines is unsafe, within time per day, community systems that serve limits she prescribes. The commissioner more than one household, and alternative may repair a dam and bill the owner for the treatment systems. Meanwhile, the CT department’s costs if (1) the owner does not Department of Public Health (CT DPH) comply with DEEP’s repair order within the regulates conventional systems with flows specified time, and (2) the commissioner less than 5,000 gallons per day, under the finds the situation presents a clear and Public Health Code. CT DPH has delegated present danger to public safety (CGS § 22a- conventional systems with flows less 402). However, CT DEEP authority does than 2,000 gallons per day to local health not extend to dams licensed by the Federal departments. The Public Health Code Energy Regulatory Commission. requires minimum separating distances TheA quifer Protection statutes (CGS between these systems and adjacent land Sec. 22a-354ato 22a-354bb) protect major

67 appendiCES public water supply wells (wells serving Connecticut statutes in order to protect 1,000 or more persons) from contamination the aquifers from contamination. “The by regulating land uses in mapped aquifer regulations restrict development of certain protection areas. Implementation of the new land use activities that use, store, Aquifer Protection Act is delegated to the handle or dispose of hazardous materials municipalities and carried out through and require existing regulated land uses municipal regulations. The regulations to register and follow best management prohibit development of new high-risk land practices.” The towns of Canton and use activities in aquifer protection areas, New Hartford have adopted final Aquifer and require existing high-risk activities Protection Areas. See Connecticut’s Aquifer in these areas to register and follow Protection Area Program Municipal best management practices. CT DEEP Manual 2011 for additional details found provides oversight, training, and technical at: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view. assistance to municipal aquifer protection asp?a=2685&q=322252&deepNav_ agencies. Eighty Connecticut towns have GID=1654. well fields in aquifers that serve more The Flood Management statutes (CGS than 1,000 people. The CT DEEP mapped Sec. 25-68b to 25-68n) cover a number these aquifers in what it calls “Level B” of flood-related activities, including mapping and requires the water utilities the requirement that all state actions in that pump from the aquifers to complete or affecting floodplains, or impacting and provide more accurate aquifer maps. natural or man-made storm drainage These refined maps, produced through facilities, receive CT DEEP approval “Level A” mapping standards set by the in the form of a “Flood Management CT DEEP, must be approved by the DEEP. Certification” permit, or an exemption The final maps define the boundaries of from such approval. In making a decision the Aquifer Protection Areas (APAs). to approve or reject a state agency’s flood Towns with APAs must designate an management certification, CT DEEP must Aquifer Protection Agency. The towns consider whether the proposed activity must inventory land use in these areas is consistent with state standards and and adopt and implement land use criteria for preventing flood hazards to regulations in accordance with State of human life, health or property and with the

68 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

provisions of the National Flood Insurance major objectives of the permit program Program (NFIP) and municipal floodplain are to avoid or minimize navigational regulations; does not adversely affect fish conflicts, encroachments into the state’s populations or fish passage; and does not public trust area, and adverse impacts on promote intensive use and development coastal resources and uses, consistent with of flood prone areas. For instance, the Connecticut Coastal Management Construction Over or Adjacent to Streams Act. Because the Connecticut River is (C.G.S. 13a-94), requires the Connecticut tidally influenced as far north as Enfield Department of Transportation to refer and Suffield, the municipalities along plans for state highways and bridges near the river corridor are considered “coastal streams to the CT DEEP. towns”, including Windsor. As a result, Stream Channel Encroachment Lines Coastal Permits apply to the section of statutes (CGS Sec. 22a-342 to 22a-349a) the Farmington River below the Rainbow require CT DEEP to regulate the placement Dam which is tidally influenced by the of encroachments and obstructions Connecticut River. riverward of stream channel encroachment TheSoil Erosion and Sediment Control lines, to lessen the hazards to life and Act (CGS Sec. 22a-325 to 22a-329) serves property due to flooding. Stream Channel to protect rivers from sedimentation Encroachment Lines (SCEL) have been impacts associated with construction established for about 270 linear miles of and new developments. The Act requires riverine floodplain throughout the state, municipalities to adopt regulations that: and are shown on SCEL maps which are provide for proper soil and erosion control; on file in the town clerk’s office in the ensure that a soil and erosion sediment affected town. In making a decision on a plan be submitted with applications for SCEL permit application, CT DEEP must development for any project cumulatively consider the impact of proposed activities disturbing more than ½ acre of soil; and on the floodplain environment, including guarantee that these plans be certified wildlife and fisheries habitats, and on by the municipality or Soil and Water flooding and the flood hazards to people Conservation District for compliance with and property posed by such activity. The the regulations. Intended to prevent soil SCEL statutes pre-dated many other federal from moving off-site, the Act can be very and state flood and floodplain management effective when vigorously implemented by programs that were subsequently towns. It also encourages towns to regulate established. A 2010 report, which CT DEEP stormwater runoff. To assist municipalities was required to submit to the Connecticut with these requirements, the Act directs General Assembly, reviewed and evaluated the Connecticut Council on Soil and Water the Agency’s permit programs. Concluding Conservation to develop guidelines for soil that more recent federal and state programs and sediment control for land that is being and SCEL statutes were duplicative and the developed. These guidelines are to outline jurisdictional boundaries between SCEL methods and techniques for minimizing and federal FEMA flood zone unclear. As a erosion and sedimentation, based on the result the SCEL statutes have been repealed. best available technology. In addition, the TheStructures, Dredging and Fill guidelines are to include model regulations Act (CGS Sec. 22a-359 to 22a-363f) and that can be used by municipalities to Tidal Wetlands Act (CGS Sec. 22a-28 comply with the Act. CT DEEP and the to 22a-35) require CT DEEP to regulate individual Soil and Water Conservation all activities conducted in tidal wetlands Districts are required to make these and in tidal, coastal or navigable waters guidelines available to the public. The in Connecticut. This is the basis of most recent version of these guidelines is Connecticut’s Coastal Permit Program. The the “2002 Connecticut Guidelines for Soil 69 appendiCES

Erosion and Sediment Control”. (2) authorize diversions without the usual In 1985, the Connecticut General permitting requirements for up to ninety Assembly established a long-range, days. The second statute authorizes the statewide water supply planning process: Commissioner of DOHS, in consultation the Connecticut Plan for Public Water with DEEP and the Public Utilities Control Supply Coordination, authorized under Authority, to declare a public drinking C.G.S. 25-33 et seq. The statute divided water supply emergency. Under those the state into seven planning regions, and circumstances, the Commissioner of established a “Water Utility Coordinating DPH may authorize the sale, supply, or Committee” (WUCC) for each region. taking of any waters for up to 180 days. Each water utility is required to prepare The definition of a “public drinking water a 50-year water supply plan (C.G.S. 25- supply emergency” in the statutes includes 32d); the WUCC for each region is then the contamination of water, the failure responsible for overseeing the preparation of a water supply system, or the shortage of a Coordinated Water System Plan, of water. In any future implementation which integrates the individual utility of these authorities that would affect the plans into a comprehensive regional plan. segment, the state should notify the FRCC. Both the individual utility plans and each The purpose of the Drought The FRCC should work Coordinated Water System Plan must Preparedness and Response Plan is to with the OPM to achieve receive approval from the Department of preserve essential water uses during a Public Health (DPH), with concurrence drought, to recommend a framework for consistency between from the CT DEEP. Potential needs for an integrated approach to the assessment these statewide plans and water supply withdrawals from the West of drought conditions, and to set forth the river management Branch will be determined through the drought action levels and the appropriate state’s water supply planning process. responses that should occur as drought plan. The CT DEEP and Department of Public conditions worsen. Health (DPH) maintain their authority TheModel Water Use Restriction to implement the state’s water supply Ordinance is for use in developing emergency statutes if conditions arise that ordinances to restrict the use of water necessitate such action under the Water supplied by a water company. It is Supply Emergency (22a-378) and Public for communities wishing to establish Drinking Water Supply Emergency (25- enforceable limitations on the use of 32b) statutes. Under the first statute, if a water during emergencies and temporary water supply emergency is declared by the periods of high water demand. Proposed governor or otherwise according to law, restrictions included in the ordinance the Commissioner of DEEP is empowered should be consistent with the schedule of to: (1) suspend existing diversion drought response measures indicated in the authorizations for up to sixty days; and individual water supply plans of the water

70 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

company and the Connecticut Drought powers have important environmental Preparedness and Response Plan. implications. ThePublic Act 490 passed the legislature TheState Plan of Conservation and in 1963 (C.G.S. 12-107a-e) and allows Development (C.G.S. 16a-24 through a farm, forest, or open space land to be 16a-33), serves as a statement of the assessed, for purposes of local property development, resource management and taxation, at its use value rather than its fair public investment policies for the state. market or highest and best use value (as The Office of Policy and Management determined by the property’s most recent (OPM) is required to prepare a state plan “fair market value” revaluation). Without of conservation and development on a the lower use value assessment, many recurring five-year cycle. The significance of landowners, unable to pay the higher taxes the upper Farmington River is recognized assessed on their property, would have to in the current Plan of Conservation and sell the land; thus, the act encourages the Development, which identifies the segment preservation of farm, forest, and open space as a preservation area. The Long Range Plan land. for Management of Water Resources has In addition to the state environmental not yet been prepared; when it is written, it laws described above, the Connecticut too should recognize the river’s outstanding General Statutes also designate to features and special status. The FRCC municipalities certain powers for land should work with the OPM to achieve use planning, zoning and subdivision consistency between these statewide plans regulation. Since most land use decisions and the river management plan. are made at the local level, these municipal

— APPENDIX E — FRCC BYLAWS

To read the bylaws for the FRCC, visit: http://farmingtonriver.org/AboutFRCC/tabid/54/Default.aspx

71 — APPENDIX F — FRCC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

The following is a scan of the original MOU.

72 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

73 appendiCES

74 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

75 — APPENDIX G — FRCC LIST OF MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In 1994, the United States Congress designated 14 miles of the upper Farmington River (from Goodwin (Hogsback) Dam in Hartland to the Canton-New Hartford line) as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The Farmington River’s outstandingly remarkable historic, fisheries, wildlife, and recreational characteristics led to its becoming Connecticut’s first National “Wild & Scenic” river. Congress established the Farmington River Coordinating Committee (FRCC) to implement the Upper Farmington River Management Plan and promote the long-term protection of the upper Farmington River. The Committee comprises representatives from the towns of Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook, Hartland, and New Hartford, the Farmington River Watershed Association, the Metropolitan District Commission, the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, and the National Park Service. In 2004, the FRCC added the Farmington River Anglers Association as a new member. Operations - Administration The Farmington ✓ Developed and signed Memorandum of Understanding to establish roles and River’s outstandingly responsibilities for FRCC members. remarkable historic, ✓ Developed FRCC organizational by-laws based on guidance from the Upper fisheries, wildlife, Farmington River Management Plan. and recreational ✓ Established an FRCC headquarters located at the historic Squire’s Tavern on East River characteristics led to its Road, Pleasant Valley, CT. becoming Connecticut’s ✓ Established a Grants Program to fund local projects that enhance protection of the W&S Farmington River. The FRCC has provided funding for projects including: first National “Wild & • CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection /Intern for Tree Scenic” river. Identification Signs (2012) • Barkhamsted Historical Society for Interpretive Signs for the Historic Lighthouse Site (2011) • Canton Land Trust for Watershed Trail Signs (2011) • Farmington River Anglers Association for a Trout in the Classroom Project in Avon (2010) • Barkhamsted Historical Society for Continued Archaeological Study of the Richard Smith Site (2010) • Colebrook Land Conservancy for Preparation of a Management Plan for the Sandy Brook Natural Area Preserve (2010) • Barkhamsted for Engineering and Surveying for a Detention Basin Retrofit and Washout Restoration Project (2010) • Town of Hartland and Hartland Land Trust for a Hartland Build-out Analysis (2010) • Town of Barkhamsted for Renovations to the Riverton Bridge (2009) • Town of Hartland for Wetlands Training for Municipal Officials (2009) • Barkhamsted Historical Society for Continued Archaeological Study of the Richard Smith Site (2008) • Roaring Brook Nature Center in Canton for its “Keeping the Water Clean” Program at Canton Intermediate School (2008)

76 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

• Farmington River Anglers Association for Revising and Publishing its Guide to Fishing the Farmington River (2008) • Camp Jewell in Colebrook for Watershed Education in the Afterschool Program (2008) • Barkhamsted Historical Society for the Richard Smith Site Archaeological Study (2007) • Farmington Valley Chapter Trout Unlimited for a Trout in the Classroom Project at the Hunter Montessori School in New Hartford (2007) • Farmington River Anglers Association for a Trout in the Classroom Project at Colebrook Consolidated School (2007) • Aton Forest in Colebrook for Land Preservation Transaction Costs (2006) • Hartland Land Trust Start Up Funding (2006) • Town of Barkhamsted for a Riverton Village Historic District Study (2006) • Town of New Hartford for Creating a Riverwalk Trail (2005) • Town of Barkhamsted Conservation Commission for Horizonline Mapping Training (2005) • Town of New Hartford for Vernal Pool Identification (2005) • Farmington River Anglers Association for Fish Habitat Enhancement. (2005) • Colebrook Land Conservancy for associated costs in protecting 100 acres in the Sandy Brook watershed. (2004) • Town of Barkhamsted Conservation Commission for costs associated with a public information meeting. (2004) • New Hartford Land Trust for construction of the Riverwalk project. (2004) • Storm drain markers for Miles Groth’s Eagle Scout badge project in Barkhamsted. (2003)

77 appendiCES

• Farmington River Anglers Association‘s support to the Connecticut River Salmon Association’s Classroom Project. (2003) • Town of New Hartford Open Space brochure (2002, 2003) • Winchester Land Trust Membership Drive (2002) • Litchfield County Conservation District – Stormwater Management Awareness Program for Businesses (2001). • Barkhamsted School’s Farmington River Celebration (2001). • Natural resource inventories for the towns of New Hartford and Barkhamsted (1999- 2000). • River bank enhancement projects in towns of Barkhamsted and New Hartford (1999- 2000). • Document research on the Richard Smith Historic Site (located on Sandy Brook, a tributary of the upper Farmington River)(1999). • Barkhamsted Land Trust start-up costs (2000). • The Community Watershed Initiative, a joint project of three watershed associations to develop a needs assessment of local land-use boards and their applicants. • A University of Connecticut study of the transferability of trout habitat suitability criteria (1998). ✓ Periodically reviewed and updated the Upper Farmington River Management Plan and accomplishments and improved organizational structure and function. ✓ Met regularly with the other national Partnership Rivers to discuss strategy and tactics for successful river management. ✓ Hired interns to assist on several on-going projects including invasive plant management, communications with the public, and improvements to the landowner database. ✓ Participated with American Rivers and the National Park Service in the study – Use and Economic Importance of the West Branch of the Farmington River. ✓ Created an Annual Report each year to report to members and others on the accomplishments of the FRCC and its partners. Education and Outreach ✓ Developed and printed brochures – “Wild & Scenic” Farmington River and “River Protection Overlay Districts”. FRCC has sent these out in periodic mass mailings to riverfront land owners, town land-use boards, and real-estate agents. ✓ Installed W&S Rivers System signs on highway bridges and major river access sites. ✓ Developed and continually update and improve web site - www.FarmingtonRiver.org ✓ Installed a series of Information Kiosks at high-use access points in the W&S corridor. The kiosks display a common set of information about the Wild and Scenic Farmington and site-specific displays with information on outstanding features and recreational amenities. ✓ Published and distributed FRCC newsletters to over 300 riverfront land owners and town leaders twice a year. ✓ Established the Pat Keener and Nancy Johnson scholarships for high school and college students going on to study environmental science.

78 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

✓ Held Annual Open House and W&S Art Show to celebrate accomplishments and share local art with partners and neighbors. ✓ Held 10th Anniversary Celebration with over 100 attendees including local and state officials and congressional members. ✓ Created an outreach campaign to improve river user “etiquette” and to reduce trash and glass in the river – including re-usable water bottles with a “Share the River” message, a water trail map that provides tips for cooperation between users, and a poster for local businesses and kiosks with logo stating “Please Tell Your Friends – No Glass – No Trash”.

Resource Stewardship ✓ FRCC has provided comments to appropriate authorities on a variety of issues - ranging from the designation of Sandy Brook as a CT Natural Area Preserve to updates of Plans of Conservation and Development, and potential closing of MDC lands to the public. ✓ FRCC completed Riverbank Stabilization projects in Nepaug State Forest (New Hartford) and along West River Road in the Town of Barkhamsted. The Nepaug projects were a collaborative effort between FRCC, DEP and MDC. The FRCC and the Town of Barkhamsted collaborated on the West River Road project. FRCC funded the design and received a grant for the streambank work. Barkhamsted provided labor and necessary equipment. FRCC coordinated two volunteer riverbank planting days at the West River Road site. ✓ FRCC contracted with FRWA to complete parcel mapping for the towns of Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook, and New Hartford. A flyover was done to obtain aerial photos of the five-town area. ✓ FRCC reviewed permitting and provided coordination for input to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline crossing project in the Town of Barkhamsted. DEP Fisheries was able to enhance fish habitat in the area disturbed by the pipeline crossing by guiding the placement of rocks.

79 appendiCES

Water Resources: ✓ FRCC contracted with FRWA to conduct an annual Water Quality Monitoring Program – including macro-invertebrate studies and testing for wastewater compounds - in the upper watershed. Conducted follow up studies – such as the Still River watershed analysis to determine possible sources and solutions to pollution coming from that river to the Farmington. ✓ Conducted a study through the University of Connecticut to determine the river and its inhabitants’ need for flushing flows. ✓ Held workshops for resource managers – a Stream Crossing Workshop for Foresters and Land Managers, and a Workshop for Public Works Managers on Water Quality Protection and Road Maintenance Practices. ✓ Contracted with FRWA and the Northwest Conservation District to determine the causes and establish methods for stopping pollution and bacteria from entering the west branch Farmington River from the Still River via Sandy Brook.

Land Resources: ✓ Developed policies and provided assistance for land protection projects – Sugar Meadow Island in Barkhamsted, Jones Mountain in New Hartford, Corliss Property in Colebrook, Aton Forest acreage in Colebrook, Kitchel property in Colebrook, and Bassett Property in Hartland. Continue to work with W&S town land trusts to further land protection in the upper watershed. ✓ FRCC is working with the Town of Barkhamsted and NRCS to determine approaches for bank stabilization and erosion control on Mountain Brook – a tributary to the Farmington River in Riverton. ✓ G IS Mapping – Including an analysis of Land Cover Change in the five-town river corridor since designation in 1994. ✓ Evaluated the stability and health of the riverbanks of the 14-mile Wild and Scenic stretch of the Farmington River.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat: ✓ FRCC contracted with botanist Betsy Corrigan to survey and create a management strategy for Non-Native Invasive Plants in the 14-mile W&S corridor. ✓ Contracted with Ethan Nadeau to study the distribution and habitat of fresh water mussels, snails and crayfish in the upper Farmington River. Nadeau determined that the Farmington has exemplary habitat for certain species. ✓ Joined the Sandy Brook Conservation Corridor Project to support planning for and protecting the Sandy Brook watershed (a major tributary of the upper Farmington River).

Historical and Other Resources: ✓ Supported the Barkhamsted Historical Society’s renovations of the historic Squires tavern. ✓ Supported the Barkhamsted Historical Society multi-year effort to study and record artifacts from the Richard Smith Forge archeological site in Colebrook. ✓ Supported the Barkhamsted Historical Society to gain a National Historic District status for Riverton. 80 Upper Farmington River Management Plan 2013

— photo credits —

Front and back cover photos by Tom Cameron Page 37 photos by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Title page (page i) photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 38 photo by Tom Cameron Page ii photo by Tom Cameron Page 39 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page iii photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 40 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page iv photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 41 photo by Tom Cameron Page v photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 42 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page vi photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 43 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 1 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 44 photo by Tom Cameron Page 2 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 45 photo by Duncan Somerville Page 4 margin photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 46 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 4 bottom photo by Bill Foreman / CT DEEP Page 47 photo by Duncan Somerville Page 5 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 48 top photo by Paul Fusco, CT DEEP Page 6 photo by Nick Masi Page 48 bottom photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 7 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 49 photo by Gail DiMaggio, Hartland Land Trust Page 8 photo by Richard English Page 50 photo – stock photo Page 9 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 51 margin photo by Tom Cameron Page 10 photo by Richard English Page 51 bottom photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 11 photos by Duncan Somerville Page 52 and 53 photos from historic archives Page 12 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 54 photo by Paul Fusco Page 13 photo by Paul Fusco /CT DEEP Page 56 photo by Bill Foreman / CT DEEP Page 14 photos by Liz Lacy Page 57 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 15 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 59 photo by Liz Lacy Page 16 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 60 left photo by Tom Cameron Page 60 right photo by Duncan Somerville Page 17 photo by Jamie Fosburgh Page 61 photos from historic archives Page 18 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 62 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 19 photo by Liz Lacy Page 63 photo by Bill Foreman / CT DEEP Page 20 photo by Liz Lacy Page 64 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 21 photo by Liz Lacy Page 65 photo by Tom Cameron Page 22 photo from historic archives Page 66 photo by Richard English Page 23 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 67 photo by Richard English Page 24 photo by Tom Cameron Page 68 photo by Richard English Page 25 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 69 photo by Richard English Page 26 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 70 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 27 photo by Tom Cameron Page 71 photo by Liz Lacy Page 28 photo by Richard English Page 72 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 29 photo by Richard English Page 73 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 30 photo provided by FRWA Page 74 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 31 photo by Paul Fusco / CT DEEP Page 75 photo from historic archives Page 32 photo by Liz Lacy Page 76 photo by Duncan Somerville Page 33 photo by Alisa Phillips-Griggs Page 77 photo by Joyce Kennedy Raymes Page 34 photo by Tom Cameron Page 78 photo provided by FRWA Page 35 photo courtesy of CT DEEP Page 79 photo provided by FRWA Page 36 photos by Duncan Somerville

Book layout and design by Mary Crombie, Acorn Studio

81 Farmington River Coordinating Committee 100 East River Road P.O. Box 395 Pleasant Valley, CT 06063 www.farmingtonriver.org