The Great Meadows of the Connecticut River Glastonbury, Rocky Hill & Wethersfield, State of Connecticut

A Review of Its Resources & Recommendations for Its Protection & Preservation

Prepared for The Great Meadows Conservation Trust, Inc.

by Thomas Devaney, Lynn Dupuis, Paul Foley, Juliet Hansel, Renee Kinchla, Regina Mahony, Qiongli Peng, Gretchen Roberts

Graduate Students in the Master’s Degree Program Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning University of Massachusetts Amherst

Edited by Juliet Hansel

Supervised by Professor Robert Ryan

September 2000 – May 2001 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was conducted by graduate students in the Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning programs under the direction of Assistant Professor Robert Ryan. The study was initiated and financed by the Great Meadows Conservation Trust. Additional support was provided by the towns of Glastonbury, Wethersfield, and Rocky Hill.

The following graduate students contributed to the research component of this study: Thomas Devaney, Regional Planning (Natural Resources); Gretchen Roberts Regional Planning (Land Use); Regina Mahony, Regional Planning (Land Use); Paul Foley, Regional Planning (Public Use); Qiongli Peng, Landscape Architecture (Public Use); Lynn Dupuis, Landscape Architecture (Natural Resources); Juliet Hansel, Regional Planning (Agriculture); Renee Kinchla, Hampshire College (Historical Resources).

The final report was prepared by Juliet Hansel and edited by Professor Ryan.

Special thanks to the following people for their help and assistance in the research for this report: Robert Alvarado, Rocky Hill Engineering Technician; Vivian Bachteller, Rocky Hill Town Assessor; James Bennett, Director of the Glastonbury Historical Society; Jane Brawerman, Connecticut River Watch; David Cooke, resident archaeologist, Rocky Hill; Wesley Christensen, Wethersfield Historical Society; Ross Eddy, USDA Farm Services Agency; Vivian Felten, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service; Julius Fabos, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at University of Massachusetts Amherst; John Filchak, Executive Director of Northeast CT Council of Governments; Stephen Gephard, Supervising Fisheries Biologist, Connecticut DEP; Jim Gibbons, University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension; Katie Goldberg, Working Lands Alliance; Chester Hamlin, Assistant to Town Engineer in Glastonbury; Judy Harper, Connecticut Audubon Society; Tom Maloney, Connecticut Watershed Council River Steward; Tom Mocko, Environmental Planner, Glastonbury, CT; Stuart Popper, Town Planner in Wethersfield, CT; Peter Revill, Rocky Hill Historical Society; Kimberly Ricci, Town Planner in Rocky Hill, CT; Jeff Roller, GIS Administrator for Wethersfield; Linda Spencer, Connecticut Historic Commission; Elaine Todd Trench, U.S. Geological Survey; Casper Ultee, Connecticut Botanical Society; Cindy Walsted, Connecticut Farm Bureau.

We would like to express our appreciation to the Great Meadows Conservation Trust for initiating this study. We acknowledge with thanks the support of the Board of Directors: its officers Ralph Moyer, Mary Carter, Gary Gagnon and Paul Stacey*, and directors Ingrid Boelhouwer*, Francine Bransfield, Clyde Brooks*, Neal Cox*, Joseph Hickey*, Peter Revill*, Pamela St. Jean and Donald Watson* and, also, members of the Operations Committee: Joyce Bauer, Thayer Chase, Judith Haddad, Anne Kuckro, John Lepper*, Larry Lunden*, Deborah McIntosh, Joan Mihm, Carol Millard, Charles Morgan, Elizabeth Olson, Eleanor Revill, Edith Schade*, Julianne Steffens*, Eleanor Wolf* and James Woodworth. In particular, we would like to recognize for their guidance the members of board and operations committee who served on the project subcommittee (indicated with *).

i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ...... v TABLE OF MAPS AND FIGURES ...... vi INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 Assessment...... 5 Existing Conditions...... 5 Areas of Concern ...... 8 Options for Further Management and Protection ...... 9 Conclusion ...... 12

2. LAND USE AND REGULATION ...... 15 Introduction...... 15 Regional Trends...... 15 Economy ...... 16 Growth and Development...... 16 Town Open Space...... 17 Transportation...... 18 Zoning and Floodplain Management...... 18 Connecticut River Assembly ...... 19 Federal Flood Management ...... 19 Streambelt Protection...... 20 Glastonbury...... 20 Rocky Hill...... 20 Wethersfield...... 21 Town Plans of Conservation and Development...... 22 Glastonbury...... 22 Rocky Hill...... 22 Wethersfield...... 23

3. AGRICULTURE ...... 27 Introduction...... 27 Farmland in the Meadows...... 27 Economic Trends ...... 28 Farming Practices...... 28 USDA Conservation Programs...... 28 Organic farming...... 29 Direct marketing ...... 29 Farmland Protection...... 29 Connecticut Farmland Protection Programs ...... 29 Cause for Concern...... 31 Opportunities for Cooperation ...... 31

4. NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 33 Introduction...... 33

iii Topography...... 33 Geology and Soils...... 34 Hydrology ...... 35 Water Quality...... 36 Ecology ...... 38 Natural Resource Protection ...... 39 Puritan Tiger Beetle ...... 40 Shortnose Sturgeon ...... 41 Birds...... 41 Other Species of Note ...... 41 Areas of Concern ...... 43 Stormwater Runoff...... 43 Non-Native Vegetation ...... 44 Fish Habitat...... 44 Opportunities for Protection and Management of Natural Resources ...... 45

5. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 47 Introduction...... 47 Background...... 47 Historic Areas ...... 48 Historic Districts and Registers of Historic Places...... 49 Development Threats...... 50 Opportunities for Protection of Historic Resources...... 51 Village Districts ...... 51 Open Space Acquisition Programs ...... 51 Cooperation Between Towns...... 52 Conclusion ...... 52

6. PUBLIC USE AND ACCESS...... 53 Introduction...... 53 Recreational Uses...... 53 Parks and Public Areas ...... 54 Scenic Vistas...... 54 Town Trail and Recreation Proposals...... 56 Glastonbury’s Trail System ...... 56 Tank Farm and Liebler Property Redevelopment in Glastonbury...... 57 Rocky Hill Foundry ...... 57 Wethersfield Heritage Way...... 57 Balancing Public Use and Associated Impacts...... 58 Trail Signage...... 58 Connections Beyond the Meadows...... 58 Summary...... 59

CONCLUSION...... 61 REFERENCES ...... 63 APPENDICES ...... 70

iv FOREWORD

The following report was initiated by the Great Meadows Conservation Trust to update a previous study completed in the spring of 1969. The original study was sponsored by the Great Meadows Committee, which was composed of citizens from each of the towns of Wethersfield, Glastonbury, and Rocky Hill. This committee was formed through the combined efforts of Christopher Percy, regional planner in charge of open space planning at the Capital Region Planning Agency, and Joseph Hickey, resident of Wethersfield and planner for the State Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The original meeting of the Committee took place on January 24, 1968 at Eleanor Wolf’s home in Wethersfield. The Committee’s purpose was to determine ways to conserve the natural and cultural resources of the Meadows and to participate in the planning for the future of the Meadows. To achieve these goals the Committee agreed to sponsor a study of the resources of the Meadows and their land use potential. In March of 1968, members of the Committee formed the Great Meadows Conservation Trust, a non-profit corporation with membership open to the public with the same general purposes as the original Committee.

The Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Massachusetts was commissioned to undertake the original study in 1968. Four landscape architect graduate students conducted the research and wrote the report under the direction of Professor Julius Fabos. Edmund Mello, professor of economics at the University of Hartford, and Harold Mosher, professor of landscape architecture specializing in ecology, contributed consulting services in their respective fields.

In the summer of 2000, the Great Meadows Conservation Trust commissioned Assistant Professor Robert Ryan of the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts and the Center for Rural Massachusetts to perform a second study of the Meadows. The report that follows is a result of this study, which is an update to the original inventory and analysis. The research was undertaken initially by eight landscape architecture and regional planning graduate students enrolled in Professor Ryan’s Landscape Planning Studio II. The research team attended two of the Great Meadows Conservation Trust regular board meetings to report on the progress of the study and presented a first draft report in December 2000 which was distributed to the Trust for review. Juliet Hansel, graduate student of regional planning, continued the research as an independent project. Under the direction of Professor Ryan, Ms. Hansel made revisions and edits as directed by the Trust and compiled the final draft of the report.

v TABLE OF MAPS AND FIGURES

Figure A: Connecticut...... 3

Figure B: Greater Hartford Metropolitan Region ...... 4

Figure 1.1 Great Meadows of the Connecticut River ...... 13

Figure 2.1 Development along the Great Meadows ...... 24

Figure 2.2 Floodplain Assessment...... 25

Figure 3.1 Farmland Soils in the Great Meadows ...... 32

Figure 4.1: Historical Changes in the Connecticut River through the Great Meadows ...... 37

Figure 6.1: Proposed and Existing Trails in Glastonbury...... 60

vi INTRODUCTION

The area known as the Great Meadows is located just south of Hartford, Connecticut. The Connecticut River, whose mouth is located approximately 38 miles to the south, divides the Meadows. This floodplain and wetland area lies on the eastern borders of the towns of Rocky Hill and Wethersfield and on the western border of the Town of Glastonbury. There are 1,024 acres of the Meadows in Rocky Hill, 1,344 acres in Wethersfield, and 1,728 acres in Glastonbury. A number of small brooks and streams feed into the Connecticut River from each town.

In 1969, a study of the Meadows was conducted by the Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning Program at the University of Massachusetts under the direction of Professor Julius Fabos. The plan resulting from the earlier study provided an inventory and analysis of the resources of the Meadows and provided recommendations for conservation and development.

In the thirty years since the original study, the Great Meadows Conservation Trust has played an active role in supporting and promoting the preservation of the important natural and cultural resources of the Meadows. The Trust’s purpose is outlined in the organization’s by- laws as follows:

The Great Meadows Conservation Trust is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to preserving the Great Meadows, principally within the towns of Glastonbury, Rocky Hill, and Wethersfield, for the scientific, educational, historic, agricultural, flood control and natural resources significance.

Since 1968 the Trust has directly protected a number of key parcels in the Meadows by purchase, gift or easement. The Trust has also taken action…

• in a successful fight to prevent a horse racing facility in the Wethersfield meadows • to halt the clear-cutting of one of the last remaining flood plain forests • to have five miles of scenic river valley included in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory • as a cooperator in the purchase of the Rocky Hill Quarry for a Natural Heritage Park • to monitor proposals affecting the river and the floodplain.

Evidence of positive improvements since the time of the previous study can be found throughout the Great Meadows and in the adjacent uplands. Such improvements include termination of sand and gravel mining at Great Pond in South Glastonbury and creation of a conservation area on the site and closure of the Rocky Hill land fill. At the time of this study, the Trust had acquired over 120 acres of land and easements and had formalized inspection and recording procedures to ensure appropriate management of these properties.

The former Rocky Hill Quarry has been protected as a park through a cooperative state-town acquisition. In addition, the former oil tank “farm” on the edge of the Connecticut River in Glastonbury was recently acquired by the Town. Furthermore, the water quality in the

1 Connecticut River has improved significantly. Farming has been maintained in the Meadows; land in active agricultural production within the Great Meadows is roughly equal to the amount farmed in 1969 and significant wildlife and species habitat has been successfully preserved. Despite these positive signs, the Meadows continue to be threatened by encroaching development, increased stormwater runoff, and conversion of farmland in the upland areas.

The purpose of this study, under the direction of Professor Robert Ryan from the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts, is to perform an updated inventory and analysis of the area of the Great Meadows. The plan resulting from this study will provide the Great Meadows Conservation Trust as well as the towns with recommendations for a strategic and coordinated approach to land protection and management of the Meadows.

Thanks to the work of the Great Meadows Conservation Trust and the restrictions of the floodplain physiography of the Meadows, there have not been many significant changes within the Meadows since the Fabos study in 1969. However, the borders of the Meadows have experienced growth, which greatly affects the health and character of the Meadows itself. The purpose of this plan is to provide the Great Meadows Conservation Trust, and the towns of Glastonbury, Rocky Hill and Wethersfield, with a strategic and coordinated approach to land protection and management of the Meadows; this would be impossible without addressing the borders as well as the Meadows itself.

This report first presents an executive summary, followed by individual sections that focus on the specific components of the study including land use, agriculture, wildlife habitat, water resources, and historical and cultural resources.

2 Figure A: Connecticut The Great Meadows are located along the Connecticut River just south of Hartford within the towns of Glastonbury, Rocky Hill, and Wethersfield.

3 Figure B: Greater Hartford Metropolitan Region Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1994 Scale 1:100,000 (1 cm on the map represents 1 km on the ground)

4 CHAPTER 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Summary provides an overview of the inventory and analysis conducted for this study and includes some recommendations to be considered for the future planning of the Meadows. More detail of the components discussed in this chapter can be found in the following chapters of this report. The assessment and recommendations of this plan focus on proper landuse practices, wildlife and water quality management, historical and cultural preservation, and recreational activities. After an initial assessment of these individual issues, strategies for management and protection were considered for the Great Meadows as a whole.

ASSESSMENT

An assessment of the key issues relating to existing land uses and natural and cultural resources are described in this section. Figure 1.1 (p. 13) displays general land use conditions in the Meadows as well as displaying natural resources, important cultural and historic resources and public access areas. The resources shown on this map contribute to the unique character and natural diversity of the Meadows.

Existing Conditions

LAND USES Glastonbury, Rocky Hill, and Wethersfield are part of the Capitol Region Council of Governments and, as with the rest of the Capitol Region, have experienced rapid growth and development over the past 20 years. Although the Great Meadows, as part of a flood plain, are considered largely protected from development, this does not necessarily exclude them from the effects of encroaching development on the edges. Land use issues such as flood plain management and watershed management should both be considered when designing strategies for continued protection and management of the Meadows. Both approaches require gauging activities in the uplands for their potential impact on the lowlands. Increases in population and new development create a need for long term open space planning. As available open land declines and population rises, demand for access to reserved open spaces increases and pressure to balance conservation and public use of remaining areas become concerns.

All three of these towns are continuing efforts to balance the demand for residential land with community desires to protect existing open space for recreation, conservation, and farming. The town planning departments have implemented certain zoning and flood plain management regulations to help deter development in certain areas. Such regulations help the Meadows and reduce impact from development along the edges. However, there are some areas which remain unprotected by town regulations, and current development trends are cause for concern.

5 AGRICULTURE These three communities share a strong agricultural heritage and farming is still a vibrant part of the local economy. Agriculture accounts for the majority of land use in the Meadows. Farming contributes both economically as well as culturally to these towns, and farmland holds significant scenic value giving these suburban towns a distinctively rural character. However, with recent growth and development trends, farmland, considered prime for residential development, has been subdivided in a number of places along the edges of the Great Meadows. With availability of farmland dwindling in the uplands, farmers are increasingly dependent on the fertile flood plains of the Meadows for much of their crop production. In addition, one of the dangers of increasing residential development in traditionally agricultural areas is the potential for conflict between farmers and non-farming neighbors.

Permanent farmland protection is limited in the three towns. Overall, there is low enrollment in state or private purchase of development programs which would protect farmland from development (Goldberg, 2001). A few properties, which are currently leased by farmers, are designated town open space, and the Great Meadows Conservation Trust and local fish and game clubs also lease some of their protected land to farmers.

There are a number of options available in the state of Connecticut for preserving farmland. Some of these programs are the Open Space Acquisition Programs, Use Value Assessment, Right-to-Farm Laws, Connecticut Farm Viability Enhancement Program, Farmland Preservation Program, Environmental Assistance Program (Agricultural Waste Management Program), and the Joint State-Town Farmland Preservation Program (Working Lands Alliance, 2000). In addition, the USDA offers programs to assist farmers in soil and water conservation in return for financial benefits (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000). On a local level, municipalities can implement zoning ordinances to create agricultural overlay districts or other measures that guide development patterns in rural areas (Gibbons, 1999a). Finally, private initiatives, such as development rights purchases by land trusts or community supported farms, can also play a key role in protecting agricultural land and maintaining a viable agricultural community (Farmland Preservation Toolkit, 1999).

While opportunities exist for farmland protection, farmers are underrepresented in local conservation organizations as well as in town government. Cooperation may be possible between some of these groups if more of an effort is made to involve farmers and landowners in discussions about land protection.

NATURAL RESOURCES The Great Meadows is a large inland wetland and a significant regional resource. The Connecticut River meanders through the Meadows shifting over time and depositing sediments into the expansive flood plain (MacBroom, 1998). The river has been recognized regionally, nationally, and internationally. The river is one of 14 American Heritage Rivers and the Silvio O. Conte Refuge Act established a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service natural refuge encompassing the entire watershed. The Great Meadows has been listed as a special focus area to be targeted for natural resource protection as part of the Conte Refuge (US FWS, 1995).

6 Thanks to the efforts of the Trust, the section of river from the former oil tank farm in Glastonbury to the State Ferry landing in Rocky Hill has been listed in the National Rivers Inventory of the U.S. Park Service. This distinction makes this five-mile stretch eligible for nomination by Congress as a Wild and Scenic River.

There are a number of natural features that contribute to the unique character of this portion of the Connecticut River. Geologically, the Meadows are typical of the middle Connecticut River – the Connecticut River Valley Lowlands. Its basic characteristics include the soft, erodable sedimentary rock and interlayered deposits of hard traprock. Glacial forces have shaped the contour of the land, resulting in gently rolling valleys and the flat flood plain of the Connecticut River which is a remnant of ancient glacial Lake Hitchcock (Little, 1998).

Hydrologically, the Connecticut River is an alluvial river, which changes as the river channel erodes and redeposits sediment. The river floods regularly during the spring thaw, but has been known to flood every month of the year. As a natural storage basin for floodwaters, the Meadows help control flood levels for the surrounding areas, including Hartford. The water quality of the river has improved significantly over the past 30 years as a result of regional, state, and federal efforts. Formerly classified as a D grade river, the river now has a B grade rating and is considered safe for swimming and excellent for fish and wildlife habitat (MacBroom, 1998).

Ecologically, the Great Meadows feature a wide assortment of natural diversity. Three main ecological areas provide habitat for a variety of wildlife. These areas can be described as flood plain meadows, wetlands, and wooded riparian zones (Fabos, 1969; MacBroom, 1998). A number of endangered and uncommon species live in the Meadows. The Puritan tiger beetle and the shortnose sturgeon are endangered species. The Atlantic salmon is a federally endangered species, the great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, sea lamprey, blueback herring are all noted as species of special concern. The bur-head is a rare and endangered grass found along the borders of the Meadows, and the once endangered green dragon plant grows in the Meadows (CT DEP, 2000).

HISTORIC AREAS This study inventoried existing historical and cultural features of the Great Meadows and areas directly bordering it. Particular attention was given to those areas that are both historically and culturally significant and whose protection would prove valuable for the Great Meadows as a whole. This assessment identified existing levels of protection of the inventoried resources and highlighted areas that might be threatened by development or land uses that are contradictory to the historical and cultural character of the study area.

At present, there are no formal town regulations in effect to protect the historic areas in Rocky Hill. There is limited protection in Glastonbury, while Wethersfield has a significant Historic District. All towns have sites that are listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places, but these designations carry limited protection at the local level (Connecticut Historical Commission, 2000). In areas where no other protection exists, the towns must rely on the cooperation of current homeowners to protect the historic character of these homes.

7 PUBLIC USE AND ACCESS Existing public uses of the Meadows include bird watching, hunting and fishing, horseback riding, biking, hiking, and motorized recreation. Access is limited to a few public entry points as well as by the periodic flooding conditions. In addition, agricultural activities and concerns for wildlife habitat protection are reasons more widespread recreational uses are not encouraged. Recreational activities tend to be restricted to town roads, a few small parks along the periphery of the Meadows, and land owned or managed by local game clubs. Some hiking and horseback riding occur on private land with permission of the landowners.

In response to recent demographic changes and increased development, long-range open space needs are being studied in all these towns (Wethersfield, 2000; Glastonbury, 1995a; Rocky Hill, 2001). As demand increases for reserving open spaces for conservation as well as for meeting the recreational needs of the community, there will be rising pressure for utilizing the Meadows to address some of these needs. Some recent town proposals include adding trails to link the Meadows to other town parks and developing recreational parks at former industrial sites (Popper, 2001; Rocky Hill, 2001; Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc., 2000). Consequences of these proposals could be both beneficial and detrimental to the Meadows. While increasing access and visibility can create more public awareness to support protection efforts, more access could also invite the possibility for conflict with wildlife protection as well as hunting and agricultural activities.

Areas of Concern There are some areas in the Meadows where the existing features and resources may be under threat. A description of these areas of concern is offered below. In addition, some options for managing these areas have been included. These issues are not equal in level of impact or ease of being addressed. As with any management plan, it may be beneficial to initially focus on the issues that can be addressed with minimum opposition, to ensure enthusiasm and support for additional projects.

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Intensive development within the Meadows and its borders and along the tributaries is problematic because it contributes urban stormwater runoff into the Meadows and, eventually, the Connecticut River. This runoff can be caused by an increase in impervious surface material created by parking lots and buildings. Runoff from these areas is often significantly more polluted because there are minimal vegetated areas that can act as a natural filter of pollutants and sediment (Center for Watershed Protection, 1998). Examples of areas with potential for future commercial and industrial development are found in the Home Depot Commercial Complex in Glastonbury and the industrially zoned land adjacent to Beaver Brook in Wethersfield.

FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION The Meadows plays a major role in flood storage capacity for the Connecticut River watershed. Any filling in the floodplain for new development detracts from the flood capacity of the Meadows and may create a hazardous situation for nearby residents. Development in the Meadows is restricted by federal, state and local regulations. While the Meadows are restricted from development by municipal floodplain zoning, there are houses

8 in the floodplain zone in South Glastonbury and Wethersfield that were built before the flood zone regulations were established.

ROADS Running parallel to the Meadows through the towns of Wethersfield and Rocky Hill, Interstate 91 creates a physical barrier that limits public access and visibility of this highly scenic natural area. Route 3 crosses the Connecticut by way of the Putnam Bridge passing over the northern portion of the Great Meadows. The proximity of the Meadows to these transportation corridors is cause for concern due to pollution from road runoff, automobile exhaust, litter, and noise.

FARMING With population growth and development of upland farmland for other uses, the fertile flood plain soils of the Meadows become an increasingly important agricultural resource. The agricultural industry is not only important to these communities economically, but culturally as well. The scenic farm landscapes represent the agricultural heritage of these historic towns along the Connecticut River. Extensive farming has occurred in the Meadows since the first European settlements of this area, but the viability of the industry is threatened due to economic and cultural factors which reflect state and national trends (Working Lands Alliance, 2000). Some local efforts to protect farmland have been successful, however overall enrollment in state agricultural programs is low. In addition, not all farmland protection programs address the viability of the industry, a concern for local farmers.

Programs supported by the USDA provide financial incentive to farmers to implement certain conservation practices to improve soil and water quality on agricultural lands (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000). Although many local farmers implement some type of conservation practice on their land, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides may still be a cause for concern for potential impacts on the environment. Studies in other regions of Connecticut have found a close correlation between water quality and agricultural practices particularly during the spring floods (Mullaney and Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 1999). These concerns merit more conclusive scientific study to determine the impacts of agricultural practices on the ecology of the Great Meadows.

OPTIONS FOR FURTHER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION

In considering the multiple uses and unique features of the Meadows, this study has explored a number of options for a strategic and coordinated approach to land protection and management of this area. The goals are to protect and maintain water quality, wildlife habitat, farmland, and historic and cultural resources.

To achieve these goals a range of land protection strategies include:

Land Use Regulation • enforce regulations to protect floodplain areas Farmland Preservation • town programs and policies to support agriculture

9 Natural Resource Protection • water quality monitoring and clean-up projects along rivers and streams • maintenance and replacement of vegetative buffers along waterways • use of conservation easements or outright land acquisition to protect open spaces and wildlife habitat Historic Areas • adoption of Village District zoning or other historic district designation Public Use • community outreach and education to encourage respectful use of the Meadows

Based on the components of the study discussed in the latter sections of this report, certain key areas have been identified as the most threatened and would benefit most from protection efforts by the Trust and the three towns (refer to Figure 1.1, p. 13).

Elm Street area in Wethersfield: This area is located within the floodplain, but as it is on the west side of I-91, it is less visibly connected to the Meadows. In addition, its proximity to the highway interchange has made it attractive to development proposals in the past. These factors may place it in danger of development in the future. If development does occur here valuable farmland would be lost. Furthermore, the Elm Street access, which connects Wethersfield’s historic district to the Meadows, is currently one of the only places where pedestrians can bypass I-91 to get to the Meadows. Every effort should be made to maintain this section in its current land uses to ensure that these resources remain intact. Zoning regulations might be considered to restrict development in this area and encourage continued agricultural uses. Another protection strategy to consider could include purchase of easements or outright acquisition of this land by a public or private entity to prevent development.

South Glastonbury Meadows: This area is currently zoned residential although it falls within a floodplain zone as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Development in this area would reduce the flood storage capacity of the Meadows and result in additional loss of farmland. This area is one of the most visible parts of the Meadows. Ferry Lane, which runs along the northern portion of this part of the Meadows down to the ferry landing, has been designated a state Scenic Road. Tryon Street, which runs parallel to the river, offers views of the Town’s oldest farming properties that abut the river. Therefore, inappropriate development could be devastating to this unique historic landscape. Any decisions about this area should include active participation of the local landowners and area farmers. Some options for protection could include adopting overlay zoning such as a historic district or agricultural zone. One avenue to consider might be the new Village District zoning recently passed by the Connecticut legislature with the goal of protecting the distinctive character, landscape, and historic structures of an area. If local landowners are willing, this area may be considered for the Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program which buys development rights on important farmland to protect these areas in perpetuity. The Town, while it does not have an agricultural land protection fund may use the existing open space acquisition fund to buy farmland.

10 Rocky Hill Foundry Site: A former industrial complex just to the south of the Meadows area, formerly a foundry, is in a prime location for extending the Rocky Hill Ferry Park south along the Connecticut River. The Town Council and the Redevelopment Agency are considering a mixed-use plan that would include 40% open space, elderly housing, a restaurant, a riverfront boardwalk and a community center (Ricci, 2000). Some local residents and landowners in the Meadows have expressed concerns about the possible negative impacts associated with any increases in street and pedestrian traffic along the border of the Rocky Hill Meadows resulting from this redevelopment plan.

Connecticut River tributaries and feeder streams: There are a number of waterways running through the uplands of these three towns that flow into the Great Meadows and onto the Connecticut River. Major tributaries include Salmon Brook, Roaring Brook and Goff Brook. Development close to these areas can threaten the fragile riparian ecology and can contribute to pollution further downstream. With recent increases in population in these three towns and corresponding new development, protection of these waterways has become a concern. Where possible, a vegetative buffer along rivers and streams could be implemented as a no-build zone. Such buffers are essential to the maintenance of water quality as they naturally filter runoff and can reduce erosion of soils to prevent sedimentation. Thanks to controls on point source and non-point source pollution the overall water quality in the Connecticut River watershed has increased significantly in the past 30 years. However, maintaining the health of tributaries and feeder streams is still an important strategy for continuing to protect and improve the important riparian habitats of the Meadows. Local water quality monitoring can be carried out by volunteers as part of this cooperative effort (CT DEP, 2001A; Brawerman, 2001).

Historic areas: Important historic areas are present along the borders of the Meadows in all three towns, and there are significant historical properties within the Meadowlands themselves. At present, Wethersfield is considering an extension of a heritage way which would link its historic district to existing roads in the Meadows (Popper, 2001). The three towns could build on the strength of each other’s historic areas by linking the three historic areas through a tri-town heritage way. Building on the proposed trails in Wethersfield, this heritage way could be developed along existing public roads and could be used as both a walking and biking trail. A feasibility study could be conducted by the towns to determine where such a trail would be appropriate. The final route could be determined with local citizen involvement and could be designed so as to have minimal impact on the natural resources of the Meadows and without interfering with existing agricultural or sporting and game club uses.

Public Access Areas: Encouraging appropriate use of the Meadows could be accomplished through public outreach and education. For example, posting signs at any trails or public access points, whether existing or proposed, would alert users of their rights and responsibilities in the Meadows. In addition, involving local residents and landowners in future planning and protection of the Meadows would help raise community awareness about this important natural resource.

11 CONCLUSION

Significant cultural and natural features contribute to the unique character of the Meadows and the surrounding towns. As the largest contiguous open space in this area, the Great Meadows are a valuable regional resource for the economic and scenic qualities they contain. The prime farmland is essential to area farmers; the wetlands, woodlands, meadows, and streams provide habitat for wildlife and fish; and the scenic vistas and undeveloped expanses offer a pleasant refuge enjoyed by area residents in a variety of low-impact recreational activities. The Meadows proximity to residential, commercial, and industrial areas make this area a highly accessible and visible resource, but also threatens the health and protection of this open space. The following chapters review the natural and cultural resources represented in the Meadows. In addition, this study considered threats posed to the Meadows by the growth and development trends occurring along the borders.

12 Figure 1.1 Great Meadows of the Connecticut River Scale 1: 120,000

13 1984 Flood, View of Great Meadows in Glastonbury and Wethersfield, CT Photo by Edith Royce Schade

1984 Flood, South Glastonbury with Ferry Lane in foreground Photo by Edith Royce Schade

14 CHAPTER 2

LAND USE AND REGULATION

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of assessing the land use and development trends in the towns of Glastonbury, Rocky Hill and Wethersfield is to ascertain the future need for and potential impacts on open space parcels in the three towns and in the Great Meadows area. For this portion of the study, each town’s current land use laws, demographics and changes in land ownership and acquisitions were considered.

Wethersfield, Rocky Hill and Glastonbury experienced rapid economic development and population growth between the years 1950 and 1970. A boom in residential development accompanied this growth. While population growth rates in the three towns have slowed in the past three decades, development pressure has continued. An increase in the number of single resident households is largely responsible for this trend (Wethersfield, 2000; Mocko, 2000). Figure 2.1 (p. 24) is a map of all the new development (marked in purple) that has occurred in the tri-town area since 1964.

Demographic changes and development rates are good indicators of long-range open space planning needs in a community. As more people move to an area and as more homes are built, reserving open space becomes a more pressing concern. The Great Meadows are somewhat protected from development as they lie in the floodplain of the Connecticut River. This is not to say, however, that they are immune to the effects of development. Research on land use and regulation for this study extended beyond the physical borders of the Meadows area, to include each of the three towns, as well. Land use issues such as floodplain management and watershed protection are addressed on a regional basis. For this reason, this report includes an evaluation and assessment of the current land uses in each town and relevant management programs including the Connecticut River Assembly and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In addition, this chapter contains suggestions for measures that could be implemented to respond to land use and development trends in order to help ensure the sustained ecological and cultural integrity of the Great Meadows and of the tri-town area as a whole.

REGIONAL TRENDS

Glastonbury, Wethersfield and Rocky Hill are part of the Capitol Region Council of Governments. The Capitol Region has experienced rapid residential growth over the past twenty years. The towns of Rocky Hill, Glastonbury, and Wethersfield are located in close proximity to the city of Hartford, which is one of the main reasons that they are such an attractive place for new homes and businesses. Interstate 91 and Route 2 provide an easy commute of 10 to 20 minutes for many residents of these three towns. New Capitol Region residents tend to live in a suburban setting such as that provided by these three towns rather than in the city center. Light industry and commercial developments have sprouted up along

15 connector routes including Routes 2, 3 and 17 in Glastonbury, and along Route 3 and the Silas Deane Highway in Wethersfield and Rocky Hill over the years, as well.

Increases in the number of homes create a need for utilities, educational and community facilities and recreational areas. Responsible planning can help ensure that the region will be able to meet these needs while protecting wildlife habitat and open space, providing recreational areas, and maintaining town character.

ECONOMY

Major industries in these three towns include manufacturing and construction, services, retail and wholesale trade, finance and insurance, and public administration. The majority of the working population in these towns commutes to Hartford and the surrounding areas. Agricultural employment is highest in Glastonbury (approximately 1%) and slightly lower in Rocky Hill and Wethersfield (less than 1%) (Wethersfield, 2000; Glastonbury, 1995a; Rocky Hill, 2001).

Town unemployment rates are lower than the national and state averages and the average per capita income is higher than national and state levels (U.S. Census, 2000).

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Though there has been relatively little development within the Great Meadows, there has been significant development in the areas bordering them. Figure 2.1 (p. 24) shows new growth since 1964, marked in orange, within the Meadows borders. The purple denotes new development outside the borders and the solid red line represents the Meadows study area.

During the 20th century, these towns became increasingly urbanized and the human alterations related to this trend have impacted the Great Meadows as well. A report prepared by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in 1979 describes significant changes brought on by urbanization between 1955 and the mid-1970s. The construction of a major transportation network included Interstate 91 along the western segment of the Wethersfield Great Meadows and the Putnam Bridge across the Connecticut River and Keeney Cove into Glastonbury altered the floodplain and Wethersfield Cove. Other human impacts from urbanization include periodic channel dredging and spoil deposition to maintain the Connecticut River for maritime uses; borrow pits cut for sand and gravel excavation; placement of landfills; and sewage treatment plants (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1979).

The towns of Rocky Hill and Glastonbury have both experienced high rates of population growth in recent decades. In the 1970’s, the population in Glastonbury rose 17.8% from 20,651 people to 24,327. The years between 1980 and 1990 saw a growth rate of 14.7% and between 1990 and 2000 the population has grown another 14.2% (Glastonbury, 1995a; U.S. Census, 2000). Rocky Hill grew 31.7% between 1970 and 1980 and in the next decade the population increased another 13% (Rocky Hill, 2001). According to recent U.S. Census figures, Rocky Hill’s population growth has slowed to an 8.5% increase over the past decade.

16 Unlike Glastonbury and Rocky Hill, the population of Wethersfield has declined. From 1980 to 1990, the population actually shrank 1.4% and , according to town data, decreased another 4.6% in the following decade. Projections in the 2000 Plan of Conservation and Development indicate a further decrease of 1% before leveling out in 2005. Though the total population in Wethersfield has declined, the town has the highest percentage (22.6%) of people over the age of 65 in the Capitol Region (Wethersfield, 2000).

Population and growth trends in these towns indicate that there has been, and will continue to be, a large demand for housing, municipal services such as sewer and water infrastructure, senior housing, community centers and new schools. The town of Glastonbury has been acquiring large parcels to set aside for these future uses (Mocko, 2000). Wethersfield is largely built-up, so there is limited space still available for both new development and open space acquisition. Rocky Hill still has substantial acreage of undeveloped land along the river and in the western portions of the town. Decreasing open land in other parts of the towns could have implications for the Meadows. As the last large undeveloped open space in these three towns, there could be increased pressure to develop in the Meadows for recreational uses or to meet other municipal functions.

TOWN OPEN SPACE

Each of the three towns has set aside significant portions of open space for natural resource protection and recreational uses (see Figure 1.1, p. 13). In Rocky Hill, approximately 772 acres are currently dedicated and managed as open space representing 9% of the Town. The Town considers dedicated open space as that set aside in perpetuity for conservation or recreation and held by the Town or other public or non-profit entity. Managed open space is that which is used for other purposes that provide open space benefits such as golf courses, cemeteries or institutional grounds which may have some development limitations due to the current use, but which is not otherwise formally protected. In addition, about 35% of the Town’s open space is considered vacant or uncommitted to a specific use; agricultural land is included in this category. Since a land use survey conducted in 1972, the amount of land managed as open space has quadrupled, while almost 2,000 acres have been developed (Rocky Hill, 2001).

Wethersfield has approximately 3,394 acres that are considered open space by the Town. This represents approximately 39% of the Town. Wethersfield contains 680 acres of publicly protected parks and conservation areas and 2,595 acres of privately owned open space. Municipal and institutional holdings represent another 119 acres (Wethersfield, 2000). The Town did not further distinguish levels of protection but by applying the Rocky Hill definitions, a rough estimation reveals there are 645 acres of dedicated open space, 322 of managed, and the remainder is uncommitted open space (including agricultural land and other private holdings).

As of 1995, the Town of Glastonbury owned approximately 1,150 acres of open space. This includes protected parklands and preserves (Glastonbury, 1995a). Public open space including State, Town, and water company land represents 25% of the Town. In addition, there are a number of privately-owned open space parcels. Privately owned open space is

17 both protected and unprotected. Protected private open spaces are undeveloped or farmed lands that have private and/or public conservation easements to restrict development. In addition, the Town has acquired over 200 conservation easements to protect streams, steep slopes, and scenic areas from improper development (Glastonbury, 1995b).

TRANSPORTATION

Historically, there have been three major modes of transportation through the Meadows: water, rail and roads. Before the railroad and highways, the Connecticut River was a major regional commercial link. In the 18th and 19th centuries, ships traveled up the river as far as Wethersfield, which became a major port for transfer of goods to Hartford. Shipbuilding was also a major industry along this stretch of river (Rocky Hill, 2001). Since the turn of the century, however, river commerce has decreased considerably. The river continues to be used to transport oil and gasoline barges bringing fuel to riverside distribution points. In the past 30 years, this commercial use has also been reduced as evidenced by the closure of the oil tank “farm” in Glastonbury. The river is still used for recreational boating and fishing. A tour boat runs scenic boat tours down the river from Hartford through the Great Meadows.

The state-operated Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry is the oldest continuously operating ferry line in the United States and still carries cars, pedestrians, bikers, and even horses across the river (Rocky Hill, 2001). The ferry runs from spring to late fall.

The Providence and Worcester railroad runs along the west side of the Meadows, originally serving the industry of Rocky Hill and Wethersfield (Fabos, 1969). Although the rail line has been out of service for a number of years, it is being reactivated as a freight line (Rocky Hill, 2001).

Major highways in the study area include Interstate 91 and State Route 3. I-91 runs along the west side of the Meadows and Rte. 3 runs across the northern portion across the Putnam Memorial Bridge. This bridge connects I-91 to Route 2, which is a major commuter route to Hartford and I-84. On the Glastonbury side, Route 2 links to Route 17, which provides north-south access into the town center. Another primary road that connects the main highways to local areas is Route 99 (the Silas Deane Highway) running along the entire west side of the study area through Wethersfield and Rocky Hill. Secondary roads stem from the primary connectors and feed into the towns. The main secondary roads bordering the study area include Main Street, Broad Street, and Middletown Avenue in Wethersfield. In Rocky Hill, Old Main Street and Riverview Road run along the rocky bluffs above the Meadows. In Glastonbury, Ferry Lane and Tryon Street run through the South Glastonbury Meadows connecting to Main Street. Welles Street and Naubuc Avenue run along the northern portion of the Glastonbury Meadows.

ZONING AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

The Town governments have implemented a number of land use regulations and management policies to regulate development in the towns. Because of the important natural link between the Meadows and the upland areas, an understanding of the towns’ regulatory

18 policies is helpful for determining the potential implications of area growth trends for the Meadows.

CONNECTICUT RIVER ASSEMBLY The Connecticut River Assembly was formed by an act of the Connecticut State Legislature in 1982. Under Chapter 477C, this act created the Upper Connecticut River Conservation Zone including the municipalities of Middletown, East Hampton, Portland, Cromwell, Glastonbury, Rocky Hill, Wethersfield, Windsor, South Windsor, Windsor Locks, East Windsor, Suffield, and Enfield. Hartford and East Hartford were invited but did not join the Assembly. The purpose of this law was to protect water quality, preserve flood storage capacity, conserve the scenic, historic, and agricultural resources, and promote rehabilitation and protection of the river and riverfront for these uses.

The towns in this zone were members of the Connecticut River Assembly, which was established for the purpose of reviewing land use changes and projects that fell within the conservation zone. The Assembly has a regulatory role in land use decisions that support the goals of the Upper Connecticut River Conservation Zone (Connecticut, State of, 2001). The Assembly is a regional body responsible for upholding a set of minimum standards in this zone pursuant to the goals outlined in the law (see Appendix, p. 68).

FEDERAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT Flood prone areas are divided into 100-year and 500-year flood zones by the federal government. These zones denote the frequency that water levels reach a certain contour line. 100-year flood zones indicate that there is a 1% chance of a certain height flood each year. There have been at least seven occurrences of flood levels above 30’ in the past century. Within recent decades, there have been at least six incidences of floodwaters over 10’, which still pose a threat to structures built within the flood zone (USGS, 1984). These structures were built prior to the limits put upon development in the floodplain with the creation of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps in the early 1970’s. The towns later accepted the Connecticut River Assembly’s established guidelines and flood lines.

There are areas in each town designated floodplain by FEMA, but that are not included in the floodplain zones of the municipalities. Figure 2.2 (p. 25) shows the areas that are zoned “floodplain” versus those that are cited by FEMA. Floodplain zones include areas along the streams and brooks flowing into the Connecticut River. In watershed and flood plain management, protecting upland habitats are considered key for ensuring the ecological health of lowland areas. For this reason, upland areas containing feeder streams and tributaries to the Connecticut River are important for the health and protection of the Meadows. Attention should thus be paid not just to the floodplain and wetlands in the Meadows, but also to those in the entire watershed.

19 STREAMBELT PROTECTION Riparian buffers are a natural way to protect stream and river habitat and are another method for limiting development in flood prone areas. The towns have implemented some protections along waterways and wetlands and continued efforts along these lines are important for the health and protection of the Meadows.

Glastonbury Glastonbury’s Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations strictly limit the types and amount of development allowed in the floodplain and over groundwater recharge areas. Industrial uses such as underground fuel storage are prohibited in groundwater recharge areas and in the floodplain, and any new subdivision requires approvals and permits from a number of agencies, including the Conservation Commission, that indicate new development will not adversely impact environmental quality.

The regulations do allow for special permitting, waivers, and variances for new development in the floodplain. Although these laws were written in order to ensure that new development in sensitive areas is monitored closely and built in a manner that has minimal impact on the environment, the mere existence of the allowance provides an avenue for some development to occur.

For example, the newly approved Home Depot Complex on the north side of Route 3 near the Putnam Bridge is partially in the floodplain according to current FEMA maps. Porter Brook runs just to the north and west of the site and continues into Keeney Cove. A portion of the property is at the 29.5’ contour, and the floodplain boundary at this point is at the 30- foot contour. The Planning Board approved the construction on the condition that the owner fill a portion of the site above the 30’ contour, provide adequate replacement floodwater storage capacity. The Town’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency has also required that constructed wetlands be built for stormwater management. Although the Home Depot is in a commercial area and the lot was too degraded for habitat, the additional loss of land so close to the floodplain and to Porter Brook can only contribute to the amount of hard surface runoff flowing into the watershed. The new building also reduces the amount of open land available for riparian habitat and open space. Any development this close to a flood zone boundary gives some cause for concern.

The Glastonbury Zoning Regulations once had a section devoted to streambelt protection that was integrated into the Town wetland regulations in 1989. In general, Glastonbury’s laws are among the more restrictive in the State of Connecticut with regard to floodplain and wetland management.

Rocky Hill Rocky Hill’s Zoning Bylaw prohibits any development, diking, ponding or filling in of the floodplain zone. There have been few exceptions to this by-law. There is no stipulation in the Town regulations requiring a buffer near, or as an extension of, the 100-year flood zone. The Rocky Hill Wetlands Commission evaluates all new building proposals that are within 100 feet of a wetland or watercourse. The Town does not, however, have a streambelt protection program. Standardized restrictions could strengthen the Wetlands Commission

20 review. The Town is currently working on their Plan of Conservation and Development as well as an inventory of priority sensitive wetland habitat providing a good opportunity to introduce the issue of riparian buffer protection.

The town draft Plan of Conservation and Development (2001) has proposed updating the flood plain zoning regulations to meet the most current FEMA guidelines. In addition, the town is considering extending the Flood Plain District, which is located in areas adjacent to the Connecticut River to an overlay zone that applies to all flood plains in the town.

Wethersfield Wethersfield has effectively inventoried all of its wetland soils in order to protect this important habitat and drainage system. However, comparison of the town floodplain and land use maps show that the land use pattern has not followed the contour lines within the floodplain. Some development that has occurred around the Meadows and the Putnam Bridge area is not appropriate for a floodplain zone. Some examples are the oil storage facility and the Putnam Park office building north of the Putnam Bridge. The office park is located on top of an old landfill, so it is at a slightly higher elevation than the surrounding floodplain. The landfill could be a hazard, however, and building on top of it does not prevent leaching of contaminants into the Connecticut River.

Wethersfield requires no buffers for development adjacent to the floodplain. The Town generally prohibits development in the floodplain, but there are exceptions made for encroachments, provided an environmental engineer designs another portion of the land for storage capacity. This strategy might be used to get residential development approved along fringes of the floodplain, such as along Middletown Avenue, which could be detrimental to the Meadows.

A large land parcel of over 90 acres is located just to the west of the Putnam Bridge and to the east of the intersection of Middletown Avenue and Route 3. The site is located in the 100-year floodplain and contains regulated inland wetlands and farmland. The Town appointed an Ad Hoc Industrial Development Committee to investigate the development potential of the site and to consider it for a new zoning classification. The new classification, called the “Interchange Zone” included mixed uses through special permitting. The new zone was not approved, but there could be other proposals in the future. Not only would construction on this site have damaged the fragile wetland ecosystem, but rezoning it would have also created a successful method of circumventing the usually strict limitations on development in the floodplain (Wethersfield, 2000). The Trust has recently acquired land in this area that will remain open space in perpetuity.

Wethersfield does not have a streambelt protection program. Development is subject to review within 100 feet of a waterway that is also in the 100-year floodplain, but there are no strict, standardized buffer requirements.

21 TOWN PLANS OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

All three towns have recently completed or are in the process of completing the Town Plans of Conservation and Development. These plans indicate support for town protection of open space as well as efforts to conserve natural and cultural resources. A number of proposals discussed in these plans could have direct implications for the Great Meadows.

Glastonbury The 1995 Glastonbury Plan of Conservation and Development suggests that wherever possible, efforts should be made to protect the floodplain areas surrounding the Connecticut River and the tributaries that feed into it. The Town’s Plan also recommends that land surrounding bodies of water in the highlands be preserved in order to maintain water quality and wildlife habitat. The buffer zone along Salmon Brook, running east to west, has been considered for a recreational greenway corridor that could link to the proposed Charter Oak Greenway, which would extend from Manchester to East Hartford. The Town has obtained a number of conservation easements along the Brook’s path, but the recreational greenway proposal has not met with success because of reluctance on the part of many private landowners along the possible corridor. Nevertheless the conservation easements and open spaces along Salmon Brook in the Planned Industrial Zone, help protect the waters from impervious surface runoff. The brook is a major east to west habitat corridor which is another reason the Town has focused on acquiring conservation easements there (Mocko, 2000).

The Meadow Drain area (including Hubbard Brook, Smith Brook and Holland Brook) is another key target for conservation easements by the Town because of residential development pressure. All new subdivisions in the Town of Glastonbury are required to provide a portion of open space in their development plans. Easements have been obtained along portions of each of the brooks in the Meadow Drain, but there are subdivisions built before the Subdivision Regulations were adopted in 1953, which may negatively impact these watercourses.

The corridor that connects Keeney Cove to the Connecticut River is important riparian habitat. Salmon Brook flows from the east and intersects with the Cove’s southern outlet. The abandoned oil tank farm borders the outlet to the south where these two bodies flow into the Connecticut River. The Town owns the property and is in the process of removing above ground structures. The Town will be seeking grant assistance to complete site clean-up. Though all plans have not been finalized, the Town Council may want to develop the site and an adjoining property for a riverfront park. The Town owns several parcels along the Connecticut River south of the tank farm and there has been discussion of creating a large recreational area, including athletic fields (Mocko, 2000). The Town has already created new fairgrounds at this location. There may be a conflict between the riparian habitat that this site provides and future recreational facilities.

Rocky Hill The Town of Rocky Hill was in the process of updating the Plan of Conservation and Development for 2001 at the time of this study. A review of their Plan draft revealed interest

22 in protecting open spaces and connecting existing parks through a system of trails. A town- wide survey indicated that residents are supportive of efforts to protect natural resources as well as improve recreational facilities and trail systems. The Town has indicated particular interest in protecting water resources including wetlands and floodplains for their natural sensitivity. The Great Meadows is considered by the Town to be a significant conservation area worthy of more protection. Riverfront protection has been mentioned as the highest priority by the Town for open space protection efforts. The Town has included in its proposals, the development of a “Riverway” trail along the Connecticut River as well as improving Ferry Park for public use.

A former industrial complex just to the south of the Meadows area, formerly a foundry, is in a prime location for extending the Rocky Hill Ferry Park south along the Connecticut River. This type of use would be an example of redevelopment that incorporates the Town’s need for open space and riverfront access with economic development. The Town Council and the Redevelopment Agency are considering a mixed-use plan that would include 40% open space, elderly housing, a restaurant, a riverfront boardwalk and a community center (Ricci, 2000).

The Town is supportive of providing sufficient funding for open space acquisition. The Plan has called for establishment of a town-wide land trust for this purpose, as well as working closely with the Great Meadows Conservation Trust. Town residents indicated that they would not be reluctant to increase taxes for the purpose of protecting open spaces (Rocky Hill, 2001).

Wethersfield The Town Plan proposes enhancing the existing historic districts and conservation areas and providing additional recreational opportunities for residents. Among other goals, the Plan describes the need for a master plan for the Old Wethersfield Historic District to reaffirm the value of this area and guarantee its continued preservation. In an effort to expand recreational opportunities, the Town is exploring ways to connect open spaces and historic resources by way of a pedestrian path and bikeway called the Wethersfield Heritage Way. This proposed path will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

The Town supports educational efforts to promote the preservation and protection of wetlands and flood plains. In particular, the Plan supports local, state, and non-profit efforts to purchase privately-owned Crow Point for use as a park and a non-motorized boat launch. Wethersfield currently has a town agricultural land preservation fund that was established to purchase development rights or land outright in an effort to preserve local farmland. The Town Plan mentions that additional funding should be provided for this purpose.

23 Figure 2.1 Development along the Great Meadows (Scale 1:120,000)

24 Figure 2.2 Floodplain Assessment (Scale 1:120,000)

25 View of Rocky Hill Meadows

Farmland in Great Meadows, Tryon St., Glastonbury

26 CHAPTER 3

AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

In general, agriculture is the dominant land use within the Great Meadows with the border areas remaining in residential and commercial use. There are presently approximately 1610 acres of farmland in active cultivation of which approximately 1300 acres are tilled and 310 acres of pasture or hay (USDA, Farm Services Agency, 2001). The Meadows is used for growing both tilled crops representing a variety of vegetables as well as for pasture and hay. In addition, turf and tobacco are grown in some areas. While these towns share a common agricultural heritage, the number of active full-time farms and available farmland in the towns as a whole is in decline, mirroring state and national trends. Much of the local agricultural industry relies on the availability of Meadows’ farmland for crop production. Therefore, the health and protection of the Meadows is important for guaranteeing the future of farming in these towns. Conversely, farming has played an important part in preserving the Meadows.

FARMLAND IN THE MEADOWS

The flood plain soils of the Meadows are grouped in the Hadley-Winooski soil association (Fabos, 1969). Soils in this group vary from well-drained to swampy, but, in general terms, are considered fertile for agriculture. The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service has rated prime farmland areas across the nation based on soils and other natural conditions with much of the land in the Meadows considered prime farmland (see Figure 3.1, p. 35).

The largest contiguous agricultural land parcels are located in the Rocky Hill and Glastonbury Meadows. In Wethersfield, there are a few active farms concentrated to the east and west along I-91. For the most part, farming in the border areas is limited to Glastonbury, which also has a number of upland farms in central and eastern portions of the Town. Over the past thirty years, a number of the farms in the border areas have been subdivided and developed, particularly in South Glastonbury. The former thirty acres of orchards along the central Glastonbury bluffs are now the site of new homes. With the exception of a couple of farms located within the Wethersfield historic district, there are no active farms along the borders of the Great Meadows in the other two towns.

There are approximately 20 farmers using farmland in the Meadows. Of these, some farm the Meadows land for their own production while others rent out their land to other farmers. Current vegetable crops include pumpkins and other squash, green beans and soy beans. Sweet and fodder corn is grown, although with the closure of the last dairy farm in 2000, there is no longer a significant demand for feed corn. Tobacco, once grown in abundance, has seen a recent resurgence as the market for broad leaf tobacco has increased. In South Glastonbury there are also a few horse farms with farmers in these areas using the Meadows for pasture land and hay.

27 According to a recent land survey, there are an estimated 210 acres of active farmland in the Wethersfield Meadows, 556 acres in Rocky Hill Meadows, and an additional 842 in Glastonbury Meadows (USDA, Farm Services Agency, 2001). These totals reflect cropland as well as land used for pasture or hay. Cropland represents tilled crops (mostly vegetables) and within the Great Meadows study area there are approximately 156 acres in Wethersfield, 490 in Rocky Hill, and 652 in Glastonbury. In addition, approximately 390 acres of the Meadows are considered to be highly erodable land. This distinction makes such areas targets for USDA soil conservation programs, which provide some financial incentive for farmers to voluntarily implement certain conservation practices on their farmland.

ECONOMIC TRENDS

Although a significant portion of the Great Meadows is still being farmed, national and local trends of aging farmers and declining farming population overall suggest a need for more research to determine the future of farming in this area. Although restrictions to building in the floodplain may protect portions of the Meadows from development, the amount of farmable land will not have much value if there are no farmers to farm the land. Even if farmers can continue to farm in the Meadows they will need to have supporting services. Residential development of the uplands may create conflicts between farmers and their non- farmer neighbors. Furthermore, farming is an industry and requires a support network of equipment and service providers, wholesalers, and a market demand in order to be successful. Agriculture is a defining feature of the cultural landscapes of the Meadows and if farming is to continue in these areas, these concerns will need to be addressed.

FARMING PRACTICES

USDA Conservation Programs Through the Farm Services Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides incentives to farmers for implementing soil and water conservation practices on their land. These programs target farmland considered particularly sensitive to degradation from overuse such as wetlands and highly erodable soils. The Wetland Conservation provision of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills requires agricultural producers to protect wetlands on the farms they own or operate in order to be eligible for USDA farm program benefits. The Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a landowner to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to beginning activities that may require the dredging or filling of wetlands; however, established normal farming activities are generally exempted from this requirement.

Through the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Programs, the farmers enter into contracts that last between ten to fifteen years. These contracts require the farmer to implement certain conservation practices on their farmland in return for annual cash payments and cost-share assistance. Practices eligible for consideration are filter strips, riparian buffers, grassed waterways, field windbreakers, shelter belts, and living snow fences (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000).

28 Conservation practices used by local farmers in the Meadows include vegetative buffers, conservation tillage, and integrated pest and nutrient management. While many farmers express interest in enrolling in these programs, some criticize the lack of adequate financial incentive for implementing the conservation practices (Hansel, 2001).

Organic farming Organic farming has caught on significantly nationwide as consumers have become increasingly concerned about the health implications associated with chemical and biological treatments in food production. Although the state of Connecticut has a large number of registered organic farmers, there is currently only one who is practicing organic farming in the Meadows. While he has met with a great deal of success, he suggests that one of the limitations for converting to organic production is the requirement that the farmland be out of conventional agricultural production for 3 to 4 years before the crops can be certified organic. This requirement not only limits the ability to convert to organic production, but also limits the amount of land available for use by existing organic farmers (Hansel, 2001).

Direct marketing Many farmers who were traditionally wholesale suppliers have begun supplementing farm income by participating in direct marketing opportunities. Such opportunities include participation in local farmers markets, which often occur once a week in many nearby areas. In addition, many farmers sell locally by way of roadside farm stands. One of the benefits of being a farmer in a largely suburban area is large demand for locally grown fresh farm products. Some farmers have suggested that the best way to support farming in these communities is to buy locally grown products (Hansel, 2001).

FARMLAND PROTECTION

Permanent farmland protection is limited in these three towns. Within the Great Meadows there are a few properties, which are currently leased by farmers, that have been designated town open space, and the Great Meadows Conservation Trust and Sportsman’s Clubs also lease some of their protected land to farmers. Outside of the Meadows, there are additional conservation easements on some portions of agricultural properties in these towns, but overall there is a limited participation in state or local farmland protection programs (Hansel, 2001).

Connecticut Farmland Protection Programs There are a number of options available in the state of Connecticut for preserving farmland. Each of these methods has met with some success in different regions and towns within the State. Agricultural protection programs and legislation that address farmland conversion include municipal statutes and the Farmland Preservation Program. A number of state laws allow municipalities to adopt zoning laws to affect development patterns, require developers to donate a portion of subdivision land as open space, and require fees from developers in lieu of open space requirements to help fund town open space acquisition (Working Land Alliance, 2000). Through the Joint State-Town Farmland Preservation Program municipalities can establish a fund for purchase of the development rights and, once approved, the state will contribute a percentage of the cost towards purchases of farmland

29 (Connecticut Department of Agriculture, 2000). The Farmland Preservation Program is a purchase of development rights program at the state level. The stated goal of this program is to prevent non-farm development on prime agricultural lands. Landowners voluntarily sell development rights to the state but continue to retain all rights of ownership, except the right to develop or subdivide the farm. Although the State has managed to protect 178 farms consisting of 27,027 acres of farmland under this program, the program is under-funded and thus requires it to be more selective of the land it accepts for protection (Ferris, 2000; Working Lands Alliance, 2000).

The state of Connecticut has a number of laws and programs intended to support farming practices. State law reduces the tax burden on farmers by allowing municipalities to assess farmland at “use value” rather than market value of the land for non-agricultural purposes. However, the financial benefit for farmers who use the Meadows is not very significant. This is due to the low value that flood plain land is assessed. Connecticut also has legislation which defines “generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMPS). The law recognizes that normal farm operations can create odors, dust, noise, and water disturbances. This law restricts the grounds for nuisance lawsuits against farmers from nearby residents (Working Lands Alliance, 2000).

The Connecticut Farm Viability Program provides financial aid to farmers for expansion or improvements on existing farms over ten years. The program funds the development of a farm viability or business plan as well as the cost of implementing the plan. The plans are designed to increase on-farm income through such methods as improved management practices, diversification, direct marketing, value added initiatives, and agrotourism. In addition, these plans would include recommendations for pollution prevention and resources conservation. Although not a permanent method of protection, the agreement does require farmers to stay in operation for at least ten years with the hope that such a program will help keep the farms in business for much longer (Connecticut Department of Agriculture, 2000).

Programs promoting conservation practices on agricultural land in Connecticut include the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) open space acquisition programs and the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Waste Management Program. The DEP oversees two open space programs that emphasize preservation of natural and wildlife habitat. The Recreation and Natural Heritage Program allows the DEP to acquire land in fee that has cultural and aesthetic value as well as recreation and natural habitat value. The goal of the Protected Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Program is to protect wildlife and natural resources. Preservation of local agricultural heritage land is also included under this program (Working Lands Alliance, 2000). The Agricultural Waste Management Program allows the Commissioner of Agriculture to reimburse qualified farmers for part of the cost of implementing farm resource management plans. The objective of the program is to encourage agricultural efforts to protect water quality by improving waste and nutrient management. Depending on the availability of State funding, the program was projected to assist in the completion of up to 30 projects in from 1999 to 2000 (Connecticut Department of Agriculture, 2000).

30 CAUSE FOR CONCERN

One of the dangers of increasing residential development in traditionally agricultural areas is the potential for conflict between farmers and non-farming neighbors. Farming is, at times, a smelly and noisy operation. In communities that are experiencing an influx of non-farmers into residential areas which border directly on active farmland, current landowners often express concern over the possibility of nuisance complaints. Other negative impacts on farmers often associated with new residential development are higher property taxes, damage to crops, and loss of farmland for construction of public service such as roads or utility lines (Nelson, 1990).

Although many local farmers implement some type of conservation practice on their land the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides can be a cause for concern for the potential impacts on the environment. Studies in other regions of Connecticut have found a close correlation between water quality and agricultural practices particularly during the spring floods (Mullaney and Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 1999). These concerns merit more conclusive scientific study to determine the impacts of agricultural practices on the ecology of the Great Meadows.

Farmers have indicated that other community trends have interfered with their ability to farm effectively in the Meadows. Vandalism to crops in the Meadows is a concern for farmers particularly in areas where monitoring is difficult such as at locations along the river near boat access areas. The decrease in available farmland in the uplands due to conversion for development makes the Meadows lands even more important for local farmers. Increased traffic on local roads has caused some concern particularly where farm machinery uses public roads (Hansel, 2001).

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COOPERATION

Increasing involvement and participation of farmers in land use decisions at both the town level as well as within local conservation groups, could provide solutions to existing trends in farmland loss and help increase farm viability. The towns, with the assistance of local preservation organizations, should cooperate with local farmers to determine innovative methods for protecting agricultural land and for promoting local agricultural products. One method to consider would be to set up an agricultural advisory committee to advise on land use decisions related to farming as well as to oversee farmland protection efforts. Such an advisory committee already exists in Glastonbury, and similar efforts have met with success in other communities around the state (Gibbons, 2000).

In addition, local land stewardship efforts could be promoted not only to farmers but also to other landowners who may be interested in renting land to farmers. Improved land conservation practices and pesticide reduction could allow farmland to be used for organic farming production and would also ensure that the Meadows farmland is protected for generations to come.

31 Green = Prime Farmland Yellow = Other Farmland of State Importance

Figure 3.1 Farmland Soils in the Great Meadows Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service of Hartford County Windsor, CT April, 1981

32 CHAPTER 4

NATURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION

As New England's largest river ecosystem and as an American Heritage River, the four hundred and ten-mile Connecticut River is a significant regional natural resource. The Great Meadows is an important wildlife habitat corridor and bird flyway and a key link to the river’s ecosystem. Although the seasonal flooding of the Connecticut River protects much of the Great Meadows from residential and industrial development there are still some threats to the area's natural resources. Over much of the last half-century and specifically within the last thirty years the natural resources of the Great Meadows have been threatened by excavation, highway construction, urbanization, and problems associated with encroaching residential and commercial development along the periphery.

There are a number of species that are endangered, threatened, or considered to be of special concern within the Great Meadows. This report gives an overview of the topography, geology, hydrology, and ecology of the Great Meadows, potential threats to the health and well being of these natural resources, and offers suggestions for mitigating the harmful effects of these threats.

TOPOGRAPHY

The portion of the Connecticut River that runs through Massachusetts and Connecticut north of Middletown, CT is known as the Connecticut Valley Lowlands. In general, the land in the Lowland zone rises gently from the river into a series of terraces with the valley floor at less than 500 feet above sea level and the bordering ridges and uplands reaching elevations as high as 1000 feet. The Great Meadows are in the Lowland zone and contain many characteristics typical of this portion of the Connecticut River Valley (US NPS, 1998). The Meadows form a flood plain along the river extending approximately five miles south from East Hartford to the Rocky Hill-Cromwell town line. The Meadows as a whole vary only a few feet in elevation and in normal flow conditions rise only 4 to 5 feet above the level of the river. The flood plain is approximately 2 ½ miles across at the widest point, narrowing to steep bluffs in the south. A combination of terraces and dikes confine the river north of the Meadows (Fabos, 1969).

Terraces rise 20 to 30 feet above the flood plain in the border areas and form the sites for the historic town centers. The bluffs in the south rise abruptly 50 to 100 feet above the Meadows reaching 150 feet above sea level in Rocky Hill. The land beyond the bluffs and terraces ranges from flat to rolling hills with the entire drainage basin at this portion of the Connecticut River framed by hills which rise approximately 360 feet above sea level on the west side and to 530 feet on the east side (Fabos, 1969).

33 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The natural beauty of the Connecticut River Valley is attributed to a combination of unique features summarized by geologist Richard D. Little who specializes in Connecticut River geology.

Scale: one can see across the valley from side to side, even in its widest places, giving the region an “intimate”, “human” scale, easily visualized. Bedrock Diversity: excellent…examples of all three rock types (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary) are easily seen. Landscape Diversity: broad productive floodplains, gorges, waterfalls, rapids, watergaps, estuary marshlands, monadnocks, hogback / cuesta ridges, terraces, and glacial-age deltas are some of the prominent features found along the river (in US NPS, 1998: p. 55).

The geology of the Meadows is typical of the middle portion of the Connecticut River distinguished by easily eroded Mesozoic sedimentary rocks which result in the wide flood plain landscapes. The Connecticut River Valley originated in the Mesozoic Era (245-66 million years ago). A smaller scale of the same force that split the continents to create the Atlantic Ocean cracked the land to form a rift valley. Rivers rushed into the valley and deposited sedimentary materials (gravel, sand, mud) (Little, 1998).

Sedimentary rock can be found along river bends and roadsides throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts and contain numerous fossils. Some of the most recent discoveries were the dinosaur footprints at Rocky Hill in 1966 (approximately one mile from the present river). These footprints are preserved at Dinosaur State Park in Rocky Hill.

Stone resources in the form of traprock and brownstone are products of the Mesozoic Era. Basalt traprock is used for crushed stone and is mined in open pits such as at the former quarry in Rocky Hill adjacent to the Great Meadows (Little, 1998). Numerous sand and gravel mining operations along the river make use of sediment deposits for fill. These are generally located above the floodplain along the terraces and bluffs of the uplands. The Great Pond Preserve, behind the bluffs above the river in South Glastonbury, is a natural area surrounded by, but untouched by excavation for a former sand and gravel works (Fabos, 1969). In addition, Crow Point in Wethersfield was also the site of a major earth removal operation resulting in the present man-made cove at that location.

During the next geologic time period, the Cenozoic Era, the Ice Age imposed itself upon the landscape. Over 20,000 years ago an ice sheet covered the Connecticut River drainage basin. Glaciers left their mark on the landscape, wearing down the rock in the higher elevations and filling in the lower areas with glacial deposits. During ice retreat, rock deposits carried by the glacial meltwater filled the Connecticut River Valley at Rocky Hill creating a dam. Water backed up at this point to form Lake Hitchcock which gradually (over 200 years) reached up the river drainage basin to northern Massachusetts (Little, 1998).

A few rare areas preserved the permafrost landforms created soon after Lake Hitchcock drained approximately 12,500 years ago. Small lakes on the old lake floor in Wethersfield

34 are interpreted as scars from the freeze-thaw action of pingoes – volcano-shaped hills of ice. After draining, the Connecticut River and tributaries cut through the Hitchcock deposits creating terraces and floodplains. The fertile farmland of the Connecticut River Valley is attributed to this combination of geologic forces (Little, 1998).

HYDROLOGY

The Connecticut River is an alluvial river, which is dynamic, changing its characteristics as the river erodes and redeposits sediment. In contrast, a non-alluvial river resists erosion (MacBroom, 1998). The section of the Connecticut River between Rocky Hill and Hartford has changed its course significantly since the 1600s. Early maps show the river originally entering Wethersfield Cove near present day Folly Brook and swinging northeast and then south again through Keeney Cove. The area around the present Crow Point was in the mid- channel of the river. From periodic floods and natural erosion, the river changed its course a number of times over a 200 year span, bypassing Wethersfield Cove at times and abandoning Keeney Cove completely. By the mid-1800s the river channel was close to the present alignment with the characteristic bends and curves that frame the Great Meadows (MacBroom, 1998).

Hydrologists define a floodplain as an area periodically inundated by water during floods. Geologists describe a floodplain as an area with sediment deposited by floods. Floodplains are usually associated with mature, large, and meandering rivers (MacBroom, 1998). The Great Meadows are floodplains of the Connecticut River.

The floodplain characteristics of the Great Meadows largely restrict development that would be impossible without significant filling and levee construction in most places. The river floods regularly during the spring thaw; however, floods have been known to occur every month of the year. Spring floods are ten to fifteen feet higher than the normal river flow, flooding up to a contour height of approximately twenty feet and covering about 2,740 acres of the Meadows. Since 1900 there have been seven major floods reaching recorded heights over thirty feet. In 1936, spring floods reached thirty-seven feet above sea level covering about 5,430 acres of land (Fabos, 1969). These floods are considered 100-year floods because there is a 1% chance that they will occur any given year. In 1955 and again in 1984, major flooding occurred along this stretch of river. Both were classified as 500-year floods.

The Great Meadows serve as a natural storage basin for flood waters. Because of the constriction of the river valley 12 miles south at Bodkin Rock, the Meadows store excess river water that cannot be accommodated during periods of high volume flow (Fabos, 1969). Any encroachment on the floodplain would seriously impact the storage capacity of the Great Meadows and similar areas along the river. For the densely populated Hartford region, the Meadows play a strategic role in maintaining the water level at a safe range during annual flooding.

As far up as Hartford the Connecticut River is tidal. The water level rises and falls with the tides of the ocean approximately 1 ¼ feet at Rocky Hill and slightly less at Hartford (MacBroom, 1998). One consequence of being a tidal river is the impact of rising sea levels.

35 Rising sea levels have been recorded around the world and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has predicted an increase of as much as 2.6 feet by 2050. This trend can have significant impact on river channels, wetlands, and drainage systems associated with tidal rivers. Normal flood levels could be exceeded making the FEMA flood boundaries ineffective. Connecticut rivers expert James Grant MacBroom recommends locating all new structures on ground that lies higher than the FEMA designated flood boundary (1998).

Water Quality The water quality of the Connecticut River varies significantly but generally deteriorates from north to south. In early days of settlement the river actually served as both a sewer and a fish source as well as providing power and transportation to the river communities. The result has been overuse and abuse in many areas and resulting in its former label as “the country’s best land-scaped sewer” (US NPS, 1998: p.16). Over the past 25 years federal, state, and local governments have spent over $600 million cleaning up the river. As a result, the river’s water quality has improved significantly from a state water classification of D (unacceptable for most recreational uses and poor for wildlife habitat) to a B rating (suitable for swimming and excellent for fish and wildlife habitat) (MacBroom, 1998).

State efforts to improve water quality are guided by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. As mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act, each state is required to provide an annual list of waterbodies not meeting water quality standards. These standards consider two elements: the designated use of the waterbody and the specific quality criteria necessary to support these uses (CT DEP, 2001b). Two areas in close proximity to Meadows have been listed. Wethersfield Cove has high levels of bacteria caused by a combined sewer overflow pipe that flows out of Hartford. According to the DEP, the Hartford Metropolitan District Commission is currently implementing a long range and costly abatement project to eliminate the discharges. Another site located at headwaters of Goff Brook in Wethersfield is the 1860 Reservoir, which is listed as eutrophic (CT DEP, 2001b). Goff Brook is a tributary of the Connecticut River.

Although the DEP programs to improve water quality have had significant success, local monitoring efforts are also needed to supplement the state’s limited resources. The DEP encourages citizens to monitor local streams and rivers through its Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Assessment Program. The program provides guidance for volunteers interested in assisting to ensure that the data gathered are usable. Volunteers record macroinvertebrate data using the programs methods and equipment (CT DEP, 2001a).

The Connecticut River Watch is a non-profit group, which focuses on river water quality in Connecticut. At present their efforts are focused primarily on the Connecticut River south of Middletown, CT and on watershed protection of the major tributaries and feeder streams. However, they coordinate local monitoring efforts with volunteers and partner agencies and assist other groups to start their own volunteer programs (Brawerman, 2001).

36 Figure 4.1: Historical Changes in the Connecticut River through the Great Meadows (from The River Book by James Grant MacBroom)

37 ECOLOGY

The Great Meadows features an assortment of natural diversity in plants, animals and natural features. The Meadows is composed of three ecological areas: the flood plain, wetland habitat and wooded riparian areas. The Keeney Cove area north of the Putnam Bridge in Glastonbury is an example of a freshwater tidal wetland. The northwest portion of the Meadows, from Wethersfield Cove to Crow Point, consists primarily of lowland riparian forest with a stretch of upland riparian forest on the north side of the Point. The land west of Crow Point is upland forest that contains a few small ponds. Further south along the Connecticut River the landscape changes from dry sandbar in Glastonbury and parts of Wethersfield to wetlands in the South Wethersfield and Rocky Hill Meadows. The border areas along southern portions of the Great Meadows, in Rocky Hill and South Glastonbury, are composed primarily of upland forest and bluffs (Orson, 1996).

The river flood plain is now largely utilized for agriculture. Prior to being cleared for farming, the Meadows supported a flood plain forest of black willow, silver maple, cottonwood, and slippery elm. When unused, these cleared areas tend to revert to this woodland type (Fabos, 1969). Despite the extensive cultivation, the area supports small populations of deer, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, fox, and also coyote and beaver. The fields provide good habitat for ring-necked pheasant, which is stocked by local hunting clubs, and the corn fields attract migrating geese year round.

There are two types of wetland habitats represented in the Meadows – wet meadows and marshes. Wet meadows are characterized by poorly drained soils covered with grasses, sedges, and rushes. Shallow surface water or runoff from upland areas is generally present during the spring and winter (MacBroom, 1998). Most of these areas in the Meadows are former or active agriculture and are thus bare of trees. Marshes are areas where the ground is submerged during the growing season by ½ a foot to 3 feet of water. Typical plants include cattail and reeds and some trees. These areas are valuable as habitat for waterfowl as well as amphibians and some mammals (MacBroom, 1998). In the Meadows, these marshes generally follow parts of the old river bed. There are several marsh types representing various levels of succession from shallow cattail marsh to maple swamp in the Meadows (Fabos, 1969).

The wetland habitats in the Meadows comprise one of the largest inland wetlands in Connecticut. The state DEP estimates that Connecticut has lost between a third to a half of its original wetlands (Harris, 1990). This loss, along with wastewater and pollutant discharges, has had ecological and water quality impacts. Wetlands provide a natural filter of pollutants and nutrients contained in runoff and help maintain water quality (Harris, 1990).

Another significant habitat area in the Meadows is the riparian zone. These are areas adjacent to a river and are transition zones between the stream habitat and the uplands. Riparian zones are critical to river ecology as a main source of nutrients and the basis for the food chain. In New England, these areas are often wooded, regulating water temperatures and providing cover for fish and water animals (MacBroom, 1998).

38 The Great Meadows provide habitat for ducks and herons and a variety of other birds and animals. The Connecticut River is also a corridor that links other natural areas such as brooks, streams, upland and lowland areas. The linear, interconnected riparian and riverine system that the river provides is an important migratory corridor for many species of fish, birds, and animals. A list of the types of flora and fauna typically found within the Meadows include: Wetlands Flora swamp maple, silver maple, slippery elm, ferns, cattails, box elder, aspen, willow, greendragon, wild bergamott, bur marigold Fauna ducks, geese, muskrat, rabbit

Open Fields Flora agricultural crops, bluets, bluegrass, buttercup, meadow parsnip, white clover, wild garlic, silver maple, cottonwood Fauna rabbit, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, fox, ring-neck pheasant, turkey

River and Banks Flora willow, slippery elm, grape, box elder, water plants Fauna shad, alewife, black bass, catfish, pike, ducks, muskrat

NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION

The ecological and cultural value of the Connecticut River has been recognized on a regional, national, and even international scale. In 1997, President Clinton initiated the American Heritage Rivers program and the Connecticut River obtained this designation soon after. The program is significant for national recognition, but does not carry any additional funding. The Connecticut River's tidal wetlands have been designated "wetlands of international importance especially for wildlife" under the Ramsar Convention, a multi- national treaty that identifies wetlands of critical value for wildlife habitat, waterfowl and for their unique characteristics. As of 1996, the Ramsar Convention recognized only fifteen wetlands in the United States with this distinction (The Connecticut River Watershed Council). According to the National Parks Service which conducted a special resource reconnaissance study in 1998, the American Heritage River program and other programs of recognition “could strengthen the hand of those who seek to take a holistic approach to managing and understanding the region’s resources” (US NPS, 1998: p. 50).

The Nature Conservancy has called the Connecticut River one of the “Last Great Places” and has focused efforts on protecting the river’s tidal habitat. Through the organization’s Tidelands of the Connecticut River program, the group has worked to establish a

39 conservation region to help maintain a healthy coexistence between humans and natural resources. A goal of $18.1 million has been set by the group, which will support cooperative regional efforts to promote land protection and stewardship (The Nature Conservancy, 2001).

With the passage of the Silvio O.Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act in 1991 authorized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to study the Connecticut River for establishment of a new national fish and wildlife refuge. The study’s findings were summarized in an Environmental Impact Statement report, which also represents the Service’s intentions as authorized by the Act. The initial focus (through 2010) would include “encouraging use of voluntary efforts, developing educational partnerships, providing technical assistance, and offering a cost-sharing program to help other conservation interests carry out their land protection programs.” The FWS would also initiate its own land protection effort with emphasis on endangered, threatened, rare, and uncommon species and communities.

The Great Meadows was chosen as one of over 50 special focus areas by this study. The report indicates the existence of federally listed species, rare species, wetlands, and waterbirds as reasons for this distinction (US FWS, 1995).

The Fish and Wildlife Service has set a goal of protecting a total of 78,395 acres in the Connecticut River watershed. Of this 52,145 would be protected by state or local agencies and private organizations and thus has significant implications for land protection efforts in the Meadows. As of March 1999, the Silvio O. Conte Refuge Challenge Cost Share Program had supported 53 environmental education projects with $338,500 in federal funding matched by $595,926 in partner funds. This program also provides matching funds for management, protection, restoration, and protection on Service lands, other public lands and on private lands as well. In addition, the Partners for Wildlife Program is a voluntary habitat restoration program run in partnership between the FWS and other public and private organizations to improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat on private lands while leaving the land in private ownership. As of 1999, there were more than 65 grant-supported activities in wildlife and natural resource protection under this program in the Connecticut River Watershed (US FWS, 1999).

Two out of ten federally listed endangered species in the Connecticut River watershed, the Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela puritana) and shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), occur in the Great Meadows. In addition, the federally threatened Atlantic salmon, (Salmo salar) and species of special concern, great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), sea lamprey, blueback herring and alewife occur in the Great Meadows as well (CT DEP, 2000).

PURITAN TIGER BEETLE Other than the sandy banks along the Connecticut River near the Rocky Hill / Cromwell town line in the Great Meadows and a tiny cluster in Massachusetts, the Puritan tiger beetle's only additional habitat is found 600 miles away in the bluffs along the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland (USGS, 2000). Around the turn of the last century the Puritan tiger beetle was collected in several towns from Middletown Connecticut to the Massachusetts border.

40 Today, however, the total population in New England is less than one thousand, 99% of which are found in the Great Meadows. According to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, "the beaches and banks of the Connecticut River are an unusual and rare habitat, and the Puritan tiger beetle has adapted to these unique conditions" (1998). Dam construction, riverbank stabilization and human recreational activity in the shoreline habitat of the species have all contributed greatly to the beetle’s population decline (US FWS, 2000).

SHORTNOSE STURGEON Found in only sixteen rivers nationwide, the shortnose sturgeon existed in large numbers in the Connecticut River until the 19th century when this fish was harvested by the tens of thousands primarily for their eggs that brought huge profits in the caviar trade (National Wilderness Institute, 2000). Other factors contributing to the fish’s decline include: modern bridge construction and demolition activities; dredging of the river bottom, and disposal of dredge soil in the river; operation of power plants; release of toxic industrial chemicals; and domestic waste water disposal. Dams in particular pose the biggest threat to shortnose sturgeon restoration projects by blocking fish from traveling up the Connecticut River to their specialized spawning grounds along the river bottom (Kucik, 2000).

BIRDS The Connecticut River provides an important movement corridor and flyway for migratory birds such as harriers and hawks and waterfowl such as ducks, geese and mergansers. It is also a nesting site for species that use the lower portion of the river for breeding and wintering such as rails, plovers, sandpipers and osprey (CT DEP, 2000). The Great Meadows is also home to a great number of songbirds such as warblers, wrens and thrushes and nesting birds such as the great blue heron and the black-crowned night heron (US FWS, 1995). Recently, bald eagles have returned to this area as well. The grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus Savannarum) is another uncommon bird that frequents the Meadows.

OTHER SPECIES OF NOTE There are also endangered plants, trees and animals found on land bordering the Great Meadows. The bur-head (Echinodorus tenellus var. parvulus) is a rare small grass that grows along the perimeter of the Great Pond in South Glastonbury, and the sandbar willow is found near the ferry landing in South Glastonbury (Mocko 2000). The green dragon (Arisaema dracontium) a previously endangered orchid-type plant has been found in large numbers throughout the Great Meadows and along the Connecticut River corridor. As a result, the plant is no longer listed as a species of special concern (Metzler, 2000).

The federally endangered timber rattlesnake (Crotalus h. horridus) is found in the upland forests of East Glastonbury and the Meshomasic Highlands. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service division of the Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, this area features one of the best remaining populations of the timber rattlesnake in the Connecticut River watershed (US FWS, 2000).

41 Endangered Species

Shortnose Sturgeon

Puritan Tiger Beetle

Invasive Plants

Purple Loosestrife

Asiatic Bittersweet

42 AREAS OF CONCERN

The habitat of state and federally endangered, threatened and special concern species lies directly within and along the Connecticut River and encompasses virtually all of the project area (see Figure 1.1, p. 13). There are some areas where existing land uses have potential to negatively impact habitat of these species such as encroachment of commercial, industrial and residential development as well as agricultural activities. Pesticides and herbicides used in residential and recreational property management as well as in agriculture have the potential to permeate the soils, leach into ground water and run into neighboring streams and the Connecticut River. Highway runoff and other non-point source pollutants are also cause for concern. These factors have the potential to negatively impact the quality of water within the flood plain including first and second order steams and tributaries such as Holland Brook, Dividend Brook, Goff Brook and Hubbard Brook that feed into the Connecticut River.

Within close proximity to the project area, particularly in Glastonbury, lie several commercial and residential developments that may impact the delicate habitat area along the Connecticut River. Development of this type could directly impact the endangered species habitat by increasing the amount of impervious surfaces and creating excess point source pollution. These factors can lead to the degradation of the tributaries and the Connecticut River itself in addition to natural nesting sites for birds. It may also have a deleterious effect on wildlife migration corridors that allow certain species to pass uninterrupted through the area.

New development in areas upland from the Meadows is also a concern because of the potential to cut off corridors which allow the passage of wildlife to the lower elevations along the river.

Stormwater Runoff With increases in development come increases in impervious surfaces and more stormwater runoff. Smaller areas are now left to handle larger amounts of water with no chance for infiltration. The potential effects of stormwater runoff from areas surrounding the Great Meadows could be deleterious if not managed correctly. While stormwater management has been handled responsibly in most areas, there are still causes to be concerned such as in cases where stormwater drains directly into the Connecticut River.

Within the flood plain there are at least three stormwater pipes that empty directly into the Connecticut River without prior treatment. The water that drains into these pipes has crossed parking lots, roads, fertilized lawns and a multitude of surfaces. In the first flush of water after a storm the runoff will contain high concentrations of pollutants such as, petrochemicals, pesticides, bacteria, silt, and nitrogen. It is then carried into the storm sewer- pipe system and finally to the river. Three specific locations have been identified in the research for this study. Additional site analysis will be needed to determine the total number of pipes that drain directly into the river and whether they are impacting the water quality significantly. The sites identified in this study are located in Wethersfield south of Elm Street; in Rocky Hill at the end of Goff Brook Lane; and in South Glastonbury off Tryon Street below Great Pond Development.

43 Another problem, which affects water quality in the area, is caused by the antiquated sewer system of neighboring Hartford to the north of the Great Meadows. Hartford's sewer system was first installed during the 1840's and much of the same system is still in use today. Combined sewers originally transported sewage and stormwater directly into rivers. Today these feed into treatment plants. However, during heavy rains combined sewers are not adequate to handle the volume of flow of water and other materials. Excess is discharged into waterways. This situation often results in the incursion of raw sewage into points along the waterways leading into the Connecticut River, especially in the Wethersfield Cove area (CT DEP, 2000).

Non-Native Vegetation The proliferation of non-native plants such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb.) and buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica L.) especially along the southern portions of the Meadows in Wethersfield, could be a problem for natural habitats. These plants were introduced to the area in the last 200 years and have overgrown native trees within the Great Meadows and strangled other native vegetation. Invasions of these non-native plants into minimally managed habitats such as the Great Meadows could cause a significant decline in biological diversity and reduce the quality of this important ecosystem.

Implementation of biological control might be used as a sustainable, cost effective management strategy to reduce invasive, non-native species. Biological measures such as the use of leaf-feeding beetles were introduced in Connecticut in 1996 to combat purple loosestrife invasion and significant reductions have been reported in the Beaver Brook watershed (University of Connecticut, 2000). This method could be applied to Asiatic bittersweet that grows in abundance at Crow Point and other forested areas of the Meadows. In addition, periodic cuttings during the growing season can diminish the proliferation of non-native species. The Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group promotes awareness of invasive plants in Connecticut and throughout the region.

Fish Habitat Many of the brooks along the Connecticut River within the Great Meadows are clogged with man-made dams, beaver dams, trees, sand and sediment that prevent anadromous fish from spawning and traveling back to the river. This is especially true in Addison Pond in Glastonbury where transplanted alewife are unable to travel back to the Connecticut River via Salmon Brook because of two man-made dams, beaver dams and debris.

Shortnose sturgeon and salmon recovery programs have already been planned by the Conte Refuge and the Connecticut chapter of The Nature Conservancy. However, additional efforts devoted to the tributaries along the Connecticut River may be worth considering. For example, Stephen Gephard, Supervising Fisheries Biologist for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, believes that Salmon Brook and Roaring Brook may contain significant numbers of anadromous fish such as alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), sea lamprey (Lampetra appendix), and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis).

44 Because of the lack of natural barriers such as high ledges, restoration projects might focus on Salmon Brook and its connection with both the Connecticut River and Addison Pond as a potential site for conducting fish inventories, monitoring traps, clearing projects and the possible installation of fish ladders (Gephard, 2000).

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

As part of the Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offers the Partners for Wildlife Program to protect wetland, riparian and other wildlife habitat areas. The service will work with partners such as the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, The Nature Conservancy and local land trusts to protect focus areas through cost share challenge grants for conservation easements and fee title acquisition. In addition to cost sharing, the service may provide technical advice, design assistance, and earth moving equipment. This program has helped 14,000 landowners restore 235,000 acres of wetlands and other habitats (US FWS, 1999).

The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program through the University of Connecticut Department of Plant Science Cooperative Extension System offers an efficient alternative to conventional methods of fertilizer and pesticide application (University of Connecticut, 2000). The University and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Protection could offer assistance in promoting community-wide Integrated Pest and Nutrient Management in the Great Meadows. In addition to farms, this could focus on residential, recreational land, public land, parks, school grounds and cemeteries. IPM and Nutrient Management are cost efficient because fewer pesticides and fertilizers are used and application quantities are smaller. It is also an ecologically sound and efficient practice because pesticides and fertilizers are only applied as they are needed. Many farmers in the Meadows are currently practicing IPM (Hansel, 2001).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource and Conservation Service provides financial incentive and assistance to farmers for implementing conservation practices on farmland. For more information, please refer to Chapter 3.

The minimum standards developed by the Connecticut River Assembly have been incorporated into land use regulations (zoning, subdivision, etc.) in these three towns. These standards guide land use regulation and preservation efforts in the Great Meadows.

Efforts of local conservation organizations have been an essential part of the protection and continued management of the Meadows. The state chapter of The Nature Conservancy has identified endangered species and habitat in and around the Great Meadows. The Connecticut Audubon Society conducts educational programs in area schools and for the general public on ecological diversity of the area. Local fish and game clubs are good stewards of the land, organizing periodic clean up efforts in the Meadows. The on-going efforts of the Great Meadows Conservation Trust to protect the natural diversity and health of this important resource have been instrumental in preventing development which would have been detrimental to the area.

45 Tobacco farm in South Glastonbury

Historic home in Glastonbury

46 CHAPTER 5

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

The Great Meadows are defined both by natural history and the history of human land uses that have occurred there. Historic and cultural resources include historic buildings and sites as well as other structures and features of the land. All of these components comprise the cultural landscape which help define a community’s character and are visual reminders of the types of forces that shaped its development.

According to Charles A. Birnbaum (1994) of the U.S. National Park Service’s Heritage Preservation Department, a cultural landscape refers to “a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values”. The particular cultural landscape of the Great Meadows and the towns that encompass this area is what Birnbaum describes as a “historic vernacular landscape”:

A landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives (p.1)

One of the goals of the Great Meadows Conservation Trust is to preserve the Great Meadows, for the area’s historic significance.

BACKGROUND

The towns of Glastonbury, Wethersfield, and Rocky Hill are some of the oldest towns in Connecticut. Even before the arrival of Europeans there is archeological evidence that Native Americans inhabited the areas along the Great Meadows, fishing in the Connecticut River and possibly farming in the fertile floodplain soil. An ancient Native American burial site was identified in Glastonbury on the former Hollister property where a number of archeological objects were found (Housley, 1989). Condominiums were built on the property in the mid-1980s. Other Indian encampments have also been identified along East Meadow Hill in Glastonbury, as well (Whittles, 1937; Cook, 2000).

According to local historians, Native Americans may have held celebrations at an island they named Mannahannock. This same island was called Great Island by the early settlers of these towns and then named Wright’s Island after the original owner (McNulty, 2001). Since the earliest European settlements, these communities were predominantly agricultural. Like their neighbors, the Wright family were also farmers and, during the summer months, occupied a house on the island where they tended vegetable crops and grew hay.

47 The fertility of the Great Meadows is a result of the meandering nature of this section of the Connecticut River. Over the years, the channel along this section of river has shifted laterally across the floodplain, changing the features of the Great Meadows in its path and carrying nutrients onto the already fertile fields with each new flood (MacBroom, 1998). In fact, Wright Island is no longer an island -- more evidence of the powerful forces at work on this stretch of the river.

The Great Meadows have long been linked to the residential, industrial, and commercial areas of the border areas. Besides the opportunities to farm in the nutrient-rich floodplain soils, maritime activities have thrived along the navigable Connecticut River. The 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of industries with shipbuilding and the loading docks along the river (Revill). Mills have been built along various tributaries in all three towns were located adjacent to the Great Meadows in Rocky Hill and South Glastonbury.

The character of these three towns has become increasingly suburban since the establishment of transportation networks that carry commuters back and forth to nearby employment centers. Commercial development has grown along the Silas Deane Highway, which travels north to south through Wethersfield to Rocky Hill. This commercial area is just west of the Great Meadows and parallels the historic areas in both towns. Commercial and industrial development in Glastonbury is concentrated in the north near Route 3 and the Putnam Bridge. Along with the existing Somerset Square, a recently approved shopping complex will be constructed just north of Route 3 on the East Hartford and Glastonbury town line. This proposed complex will include the largest Home Depot in the Northeast. Just south of the commercial strip is the old town center which has undergone some changes as a result of the commercial development in the north, however Main Street is still lined with many original historic homes and town buildings (see Figure 1.1, p. 13).

While the border areas have seen significant residential and commercial development recently, the concentration of land within the Great Meadows area itself is largely undeveloped open space, used for recreational activities and agricultural operations. Despite recent residential subdivisions, build-up of commercial areas, and construction of office buildings, the rural character of these towns continues to be represented in the agricultural landscapes and historic buildings that still remain.

HISTORIC AREAS

Some of the oldest properties in the area are located within the Great Meadows itself in the farming community of South Glastonbury. These historic farms border either side of Tryon Street and the Ferry Lane Scenic Drive. The oldest farm in the area, the Hollister Property, is still farmed in South Glastonbury. The ferry landing, which runs between Rocky Hill and Glastonbury, is also a State Historic Landmark with the distinction of being the oldest continuously operating ferry in the United States.

The border areas of the Great Meadows include significant historical sections of all three towns. Many of the structures and properties adjacent to the Meadows date back to the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Although not all historic sites in each town have been officially

48 inventoried, a rough estimate gives a total of over 1000 historic properties. The proximity of these historic properties to the Great Meadows creates the distinctive rural landscape, which characterizes these three towns. In certain locations the bluffs that form the natural border of the Great Meadows afford views that are reminders of the way in which past inhabitants experienced the landscape.

At present, there are limited regulations to protect the historic areas in Rocky Hill. Glastonbury has limited protection, while Wethersfield has a well-established Historic District. All three towns have sites that have been listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places, but this distinction carries very limited protection at the local level. Where no other protection exists, the towns must rely on the consideration of current homeowners to protect the historic character of these homes.

Historic Districts and Registers of Historic Places According to the State of Connecticut General Statutes, localities may establish local historic districts. These districts are governed by local ordinances and overseen by a local historic commission. Communities may also provide design guidelines to assist the commissions in determining what new buildings or modifications would be appropriate in the historic district (CHC, 2000).

National and State Registers of Historic Places are inventories of buildings, structures, districts, sites and objects that merit preservation because of their cultural significance. Designation provides eligibility for tax credits and grants-in-aid. The State Register includes only those sites considered significant to Connecticut, but otherwise uses the same criteria as the National program. Registration does not prevent an owner from demolishing or altering property, but ensures assessment of impact from federally or state sponsored projects. The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CGS, Sec. 22a-1) directs state agencies to properly consider historic and architectural and archeological resources in the planning and development of state projects.

Glastonbury has a small Historic District extending from Main Street and Rankin Road to Hubbard Road which includes approximately sixty historic homes dating from the 17th to early 20th centuries. The Town’s historic district ordinance, adopted in 1984, requires property owners to apply for a “certificate of appropriateness” from the Historic Commission. The Glastonbury Design Guidelines provide suggestions for appropriate housing facades, exterior walls and siding, windows and entrances, roofs, additions, architectural ornamentation, as well as landscaping and site designs around the historic structure (Glastonbury, 1985). There are thirteen buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places and one National Historic Landmark – the Smith Sisters’ House. Additionally, there are over 400 historic structures and properties throughout Town (Bennett, 2000). Many of the historic residences and town buildings are located along Main Street just above the Great Meadows.

Wethersfield has a great deal of pride in its history as the oldest town in Connecticut. Throughout the Town there are over 400 colonial era homes on their original foundations. In 1962, the Town created the largest and oldest historic district in Connecticut. The district

49 currently includes 90 eighteenth century and 160 nineteenth century homes, most on original foundations. Extending north to south from Wethersfield Cove down Middletown Avenue, bound east and west by I-91 and the Silas Deane Highway, the historic district contains a number of large parks and open spaces including Wethersfield Cove and the Broad Street Green. As with Glastonbury, if an owner wishes to make any exterior changes or additions in this zone they first must get approval from the Commission (Christensen, 2000). The Wethersfield historic district is located in close proximity to the Great Meadows and two farms are located in the heart of the historic district, reminders of the Town’s agricultural roots. The farm stands on these properties sell much of the produce grown in the nearby Meadows land.

Rocky Hill has 20 individual historic buildings listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. In addition, 61 structures make up the Elm Street historic district, which is also listed on the National and State Registers. Along with a number of historic properties that are not listed on the historic registers, these properties are concentrated along the streets that directly border the Great Meadows including Old Main St., Riverview Road, and Meadow Road.

None of the historic properties within the confines of the Meadows are listed on the State or National Historic Place Registers.

DEVELOPMENT THREATS

The urbanization of this area, which occurred between the mid-1950s to mid-1970s, has impacted the growth patterns in these three communities significantly. Although growth and development can have economic benefits for communities, there have been some negative consequences from these changes, which have direct implications for the historic and cultural resources of the Great Meadows.

As well as altering the physical landscape, urbanization has increased demand for residential developments. Farmland, considered prime for residential development, has been subdivided in a number of places along the Great Meadows. The most recent development is evident on the Glastonbury side. In addition, commercial development in the form of office parks, retail and services have built up along the edges of the Meadows often encroaching on the historic sections. In particular, the dense commercial district along the Silas Deane Highway in Wethersfield and Rocky Hill parallels both Towns’ historic areas.

Urbanization has impacted the historic rural character of these towns, changing scenic landscapes and contributing to increases in traffic. Views looking north from the Meadows toward the Hartford skyline are intersected by the upper floors of an office building just north of the Putnam Bridge in Wethersfield. At the intersection of Routes 2, 17 and 3 in Glastonbury, new commercial buildings on the East Hartford line are leading to traffic increases on connector roads (Glastonbury, 1995a). The increased noise and air pollution as well as the development pressures associated with growth are issues of concern for these communities proud of their small New England town character. In 1999, three 18th century

50 homes were torn down on Main Street in Glastonbury to make room for new commercial development (Bennett, 2000).

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROTECTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

There are a number of options available in the state of Connecticut for protecting historic resources. Each of these methods has met with some success in different regions and towns within the State. An appropriate combination of these options in cooperation with local town and private efforts would be an effective strategy for protecting the historic and cultural resources that border and enhance the Great Meadows.

Village Districts New legislation recently approved at the state level allows town zoning commissions to establish “Village Districts” as part of the town zoning regulations. The intent of the Village District is to protect the distinctive character, landscape, and historic structures of the area. Village District zoning is easier to implement than a historic district, as it does not need approval of three-quarters of the residents. The Village District is a majority zoning ordinance that serves to protect the “distinctive character of the town” be it farmlands, historic homes and sites or more modernized neighborhoods. It requires that new development be “harmonious” with the community and surrounding homes and landscapes (Smith, 2000). At present there are a number of towns in Connecticut that are working to develop and implement Village District zoning including Brooklyn, Thompson, Greenwich, and Canterbury (Filchak, 2000).

The combined goals of protecting the cultural landscapes including farmland and scenic areas as well as preserving historic properties make the Village District a worthy consideration for the historic preservation efforts in and around the Great Meadows. The advantage of the act is that a community can determine what historic and cultural resources are worth protecting in order to preserve the distinctive character of these areas. Although there are a number of historic structures along the edges of the Great Meadows, there are few historic buildings located directly within the Meadows boundary. For this reason, a Village District overlay zone that would seek to protect not just the historical structures but the landscape itself might be appropriate for these areas.

Open Space Acquisition Programs The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection administers two open space programs. The Recreation and Natural Heritage Program allows the DEP to acquire land in fee to be held as open space. Land protected under this program can have cultural and aesthetic value as well as recreation and natural habitat value. The Protected Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Program matches funds for land acquisitions by municipalities, nonprofit land conservation organizations, and water companies. While the primary goal is to protect wildlife and natural resources and features, preservation of local agricultural heritage land is also included under this program (Working Lands Alliance, 2000). In considering open space preservation strategies for the Meadows, both of these programs could be utilized by these communities to protect landscapes of historic significance.

51 Cooperation Between Towns There are historic resources in all three of the towns that encompass the Great Meadows area. In addition, these three towns share a common history, having all once been part of the Township of Wethersfield. Cooperative efforts between the three towns to protect these sites and provide linkages across town borders could be beneficial for preserving the overall cultural resources of this area. The Town of Wethersfield is currently considering the development of a tri-town heritage way extending from the historic district into the Meadows along existing roads. The towns of Rocky Hill and Glastonbury have also considered expanding trail systems to increase access to local natural and open space areas such as the Meadows.

Although these three towns are distinctive from each other in many ways, they share a common natural landscape in the Great Meadows. This shared resource, along with similarities in their history and cultural heritage, offers an opportunity to cooperate on historic preservation and land conservation efforts. Developing a tri-town heritage way could link the historic and scenic resources across town borders. However, such an effort would have to take into consideration the potential impacts of increasing public access to the Meadows.

The key to responsible use of the Meadows is public education about these resources. As the goal of a heritage way would be to provide access to the historic sites and cultural landscapes of the area the Great Meadows, local connectors may need to be added to highlight local resources. One way to provide trail users a connection to the historic and cultural resources of these areas would be through interpretive displays at key locations along the route. These displays could point out significant historic sites as well as the natural history and cultural heritage that can be observed at the scenic overlooks.

CONCLUSION

Changes in the areas immediately adjacent to the Meadows have seen significant development over the past thirty years. It is important to recognize the potential impacts of increases in growth and corresponding development pressures of the bordering areas in all three towns. The cultural and historic resources of the Meadows are closely tied to the neighboring areas.

52 CHAPTER 6

PUBLIC USE AND ACCESS

INTRODUCTION

At present, the Meadows are used by the public for a number of low impact recreational activities. For the most part these activities occur on town-owned lands or on private land with the permission of the landowners. Public access to the Meadows is limited by physical barriers, such as Interstate 91, and few public entry points. Periodic flooding also inhibits access to many areas. In addition, with the majority of the land under private ownership, there is no official trail network to attract recreational hikers into the heart of the Meadows. For these reasons, public use and access are largely restricted to town roads, a few small parks, and land owned or managed by local game clubs. Because of increasing demand for protected open spaces and recreational opportunities as reflected in all three town Plans of Conservation and Development, the Meadows may be considered for increased public access and recreational activities. This section provides an overview of existing public uses and access points as well as proposed recreational uses and trails in the three towns. The research team assessed the potential impact of these existing and proposed uses on the natural and cultural features of the Meadows.

RECREATIONAL USES

A variety of recreational activities occur in the Great Meadows. Hunting and fishing activities are generally regulated by local game clubs and private property owners in all three towns which help control the number of hunters that use the Meadows. These clubs also stock the Meadows with game birds during certain seasons. Other, low impact activities include bird watching, hiking and biking which should only occur on existing public roads. In Glastonbury, members of the local pony club and other riders use farm roads in the Meadows with the permission of private landowners, and at Earle Park riding is also permitted.

Motor boat access to the Connecticut River is found at Wethersfield Cove, Ferry Park in Rocky Hill, and at the marina in South Glastonbury. A launching area for small boats is located at Keeney Cove. A boat pier at the former “Tank Farm”, which served for oil delivery, may be considered for public recreational use in the future. This property was recently acquired by the Town of Glastonbury.

A private landowner in the Rocky Hill Meadows has turned a former farm field into a motor bike course. This area receives an influx of “motocross” users periodically during the racing season.

53 PARKS AND PUBLIC AREAS

Because of the topography and surrounding development public access to the Meadows is limited. Public access points on the west side of the river are off Great Meadow Road in Wethersfield, at Goff Road and Ferry Park in Rocky Hill. On the east side there are points of access in Glastonbury at the Ferry Landing, Town Hall, Welles Street, and Point Road off of Naubuc Avenue. Meadows’ roads leading from these access points are unpaved. These roads are public in Wethersfield and Rocky Hill, but are privately owned in Glastonbury (Fabos, 1969).

There are several concentrations of parks and publicly owned land along the periphery of the Meadows. In Wethersfield, Wethersfield Cove Park is in the north of the town historic district. In Rocky Hill, Quarry Park provides scenic overlooks from the bluffs and a substantial trail system. This park is on the site of a former traprock quarry. There are parks at the Ferry Landing on either side of the Connecticut River. The Rocky Hill Ferry Park is primarily a boat launch and scenic area while the park on the Glastonbury side includes a small hiking trail south along the riverside. Bulkeley Park in the Rocky Hill Meadows, is within walking distance though not connected directly to either Ferry Park or the Meadows.

In South Glastonbury, the Great Pond Preserve is located on a former sand and gravel pit lying east of the river bluffs. Town-owned Earle Park, behind the Connecticut Audubon Center in Glastonbury, has a trail system that extends to the river. Keeney Cove near the Putnam Bridge is a public access area and is enjoyed by boaters and fishermen.

SCENIC VISTAS

There are a number of spots in Glastonbury, Rocky Hill, and Wethersfield that afford views of the river and Meadows. An overlook from the Quarry in Rocky Hill provides views of the farmland in the Meadows and across the Connecticut River. Views up and down the river can be found at the State Ferry landings. Behind the Town hall and treatment plant in Glastonbury is a short trail to the river that offers a panoramic view of the bend in the river.

In Wethersfield, access to the Connecticut River and Meadows is more restricted by the physical barrier of Interstate 91. Wethersfield Cove affords views and access to the river via an old road under the Interstate from the north end of the Wethersfield Cove parking lot. In contrast, the land on the west side of the highway is isolated and subject to heavy noise pollution from the highway. Interestingly, walking between the two sides gives an opportunity to witness the effectiveness of noise barriers along the highway.

54 View from Quarry Park in Rocky Hill

View from river bank State Ferry (Photo by C. Steffens)

55 TOWN TRAIL AND RECREATION PROPOSALS

Although recreational use of the Meadows is mostly restricted to existing public roads at this time, increasing residential development has corresponded with a rising demand for public recreation areas in all three towns (Rocky Hill, 2001; Wethersfield, 2000; Glastonbury, 1995a). Certain recreational proposals by the towns have included trail development through the Meadows and expansion of park facilities along the borders. While these proposals are not necessarily detrimental to the Meadows, any increase in public access and the use of the Meadows should take into consideration concerns about potential conflicts. Such conflicts include interference with existing agricultural operations, hunting and fishing, as well as possible interference with wildlife and damage to ecologically sensitive areas.

Glastonbury’s Trail System The Town of Glastonbury has considered a greenway plan, which would link existing trails throughout the Town into a network. The proposed route includes possible trails along the entire length of the river from Keeney Cove to the Portland border. While the ideas of providing local residents with improved access to the river is appealing, there is high potential for conflict, particularly in the Glastonbury Meadows. Much of the Glastonbury Meadows is farmed and a hiking trail into this portion far from public areas and roads might be difficult to monitor to prevent vandalism to crops and provide regular maintenance to the trail. In addition, a trail in such a flood prone zone may not be wise or ecologically sound. Both the members of the Great Meadows Conservation Trust , the Glastonbury Sportsmen’s Club, and local farmers have objected to such a trail proposal.

The extension of the river trail along the bank in South Glastonbury raises similar concerns about conflict with farming and limited supervision. However, the existing Earle Park and Ferry Parks already offer opportunities for public access to the river. As a floodplain, the Meadows have high potential for flooding at all times of year. Limited access is probably the best way to protect the natural ecosystems of this resource and reduce potential for interference with existing land uses. However, restricted access does not necessarily mean no access. There may be opportunities for the public to explore these areas on a periodic basis. One possibility might be to arrange with private landowners for access to their lands for specific events. This already occurs in South Glastonbury for the annual canoe race.

An example of a community trail program is Branford, CT where a successful partnership between private landowners and community members called “Walk around Branford” represents a simple approach to initiating a trail project for a small community with limited resources (American Trails, 2001). The town Parks and Recreation Department covers promotion of the twice-a-year event that is led by volunteer interpreters. Eight sections of the trail are covered over an eight week period for a total of 28 miles. The program also includes presentations by guest speakers on natural science and environmental topics.

Educational events about the natural science of the Meadows (such as those offered by the Connecticut Audubon Center in Glastonbury) could include field trips by special permission of landowners. In addition, “pick-your-own” crops provide opportunities to enjoy the Meadow farmland especially in the Keeney Cove Meadows during the fall. Such programs

56 and events represent some of the alternatives to a formal permanent trail network through the Meadows.

Tank Farm and Liebler Property Redevelopment in Glastonbury The Town of Glastonbury has recently acquired the former site of an oil tank farm along the northeast corner of the Meadows. Although significant clean-up will have to be undertaken to make this property usable, removing the tank farm in Glastonbury may provide more public access to the river adding to public open space. It is a large property on the river with good access to Town, the Meadows, and other parks.

The nearby town-owned property, formerly the Liebler Property, has also been considered for its recreational potential. Some of the proposals for this property include recreational ball fields and a riverside trail system. The fairground is already established and ready for use. An environmental review of the property was recently conducted by a team from Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc. for the Town. The review team found that with certain adjustments such as less intensive lighting for the ballfields, limited mowing of the fairground fields, and a great buffer near wetland areas would help reduce the potential ecological impact and improve habitat conservation in this area (2000).

Both of these properties are located along the upland terraces that border the river. However, there are concerns about interference with habitat, particularly species that require a significant buffer between intensive human activities and open recreational spaces in order to thrive. Designed with these considerations in mind, these proposals can help meet a public need for recreational space without detrimental impacts on the wildlife habitat.

Rocky Hill Foundry The former foundry is located south of Ferry Park and is currently being considered for development as a commercial site (Ricci, 2000). Impacts from such a use could increase traffic, which is a concern for the quiet residential area nearby. In addition, as the foundry property is adjacent to the river, increasing access would impact the remaining buffer.

Again, as with the properties in Glastonbury, the Town has also proposed developing a Riverside greenway trail, which would follow the Connecticut River. Public support for increasing access to the river as well as for developing a town-wide trail network would seem to support such a proposal (Rocky Hill, 2001). In addition, there is interest in improving Ferry Park as a recreational site.

Similar concerns to those considered in Glastonbury hold true for the Rocky Hill Meadows, however interest in improving Ferry Park may help serve a public demand while limiting direct impacts to the Meadows.

Wethersfield Heritage Way Wethersfield is currently considering development of a Heritage Way. The proposed trail will be in a number of phases, with implementation of these phases dependent on funding (Popper, 2001). The route would start at Cove Park and follow an existing roadway under the highway and along the river south to meet up with Burbank Road. The trail would follow

57 Burbank Road to Meadow Road onto Great Meadows Road under the Putnam Bridge to Second Lane Rd down to Elm Street entrance and then continue to Rocky Hill. The trail would be along existing roads using signage to mark the route. The Town has proposed making a 10-foot wide stone/dust trail in certain locations. Beyond this initial phase, the Town would like to consider connecting the trail regionally, crossing the State Ferry at Rocky Hill and through Glastonbury into East Hartford and across the river again on Founders Bridge into Hartford.

BALANCING PUBLIC USE AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS

Trail Signage Some concerns have been expressed by members of the Great Meadows Conservation Trust about increasing access to the Meadows. These concerns relate to potential interference with existing uses and damage to natural resources. Farmers also have concerns about vandalism to crops. The hunters are wary of increasing public access because of potential conflicts with non-hunters and concerns about wildlife protection. A possible solution involve signs to discourage trespass off roads onto private property plus regular police patrol on town roads in the Meadows.

People do hike, bike, and horseback in the Meadows, and have done so for generations, with permission from landowners or along existing town roads. An informal social arrangement such as this is preferable to maintain as long as possible. However, as the population increases, the pressures of changing land uses and demographics may make more formal arrangements necessary. While trespass and hunting signs are posted by landowners and game clubs, informational signage and maps of hunting areas at access points might also be considered.

Connections Beyond the Meadows There are some opportunities to connect public uses to the Meadows on a regional scale, which could have minimal negative impact on the Meadows themselves. For example, there are a number of parks located nearby in all three towns, which offer opportunities for trail development. Linking these parks to existing public areas in the Meadows may be a way to meet public demand for trails while limiting overuse of the Meadows. For non-pedestrians, the scenic boat tour from Hartford, which makes a regular trip to the State Ferry Landing and back, may offer an opportunity to connect with the lower sections of the Meadows. At present the boat does not stop to load or unload passengers at the Ferry Landing, but this may be a possibility to consider for the future particularly with the potential redevelopment of the Foundry in Rocky Hill as a waterfront park. The Charter Oak Greenway in Hartford may be considered for linking to the proposed Heritage Way by boat. The concept of extending the Heritage Trail offers an opportunity for tri-town cooperation building on the shared resources of the Meadows and the significant historic areas.

58 SUMMARY

The location of the Great Meadows in a highly residential and urbanized setting is largely responsible for the concerns about public access and use. The fear is that access to any degree is likely to attract inappropriate use and abuse of this fragile ecosystem. Fortunately, the natural characteristics of this floodplain help restrict access during many months of the year. However, restricting all use could also be detrimental whereas increased awareness and appreciation of the Meadows can help increase support for protection efforts. For these reasons, while formalized trail systems and permanent recreation facilities should be discouraged within the confines of the Meadows, periodic events and improvements of public parks along the edges could be beneficial.

59 Figure 6.1: Proposed and Existing Trails in Glastonbury

60 CONCLUSION

As the largest contiguous natural open space in this area, the Great Meadows are a valuable regional resource for the economic and scenic qualities they contain. The prime farmland is essential to area farmers; the wetlands, woodlands, meadows, and streams provide habitat for wildlife and fish; and the scenic vistas and undeveloped expanses offer a pleasant refuge enjoyed by area residents in a variety of low-impact recreational activities. The Meadows proximity to residential, commercial, and industrial areas make this area a highly accessible and visible resource, but also threatens the health and protection of this open space. This report has reviewed the natural and cultural resources represented in the Meadows. In addition, this study considered threats posed to the Meadows by the growth and development trends occurring along the borders. With continued efforts by the Great Meadows Trust, the three towns, and local landowners land management and protection efforts can continue to be successful.

61 62 REFERENCES

American Trails. (2001). Connecticut town’s trail system began with one man’s vision. Taken from American Pathways: Case Studies in Successful Partnering for Trails and Greenways. Washington, DC: American Hiking Society and National Park Service, 1998. Copy of article also available on American Trails website, http://www.AmericanTrails.org.

Bennett, James. 2000. Director of the Glastonbury Historical Society. Interview with Renee Kinchla and Juliet Hansel, September 2000.

Berchtold, Karen. 2000. Land Use Division, Capitol Region Council of Governments. Interview with Gretchen Roberts, October 2000.

Birnbaum, Charles A. 1994. Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Preservation Brief No. 36. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Heritage Preservation Services.

Borton, Mark C, Brian E. Becker, Tim Scannell, and Gene Mitchell, ed. 1990(?). The Complete Boating Guide to the Connecticut River, Second Edition. Easthampton, MA: Connecticut River Watershed Council.

Bouchard, Carl E. (1998). Sharing the land: agricultural land use and management. Resource: Engineering and Technology 5 n10: 7 (2).

Brawerman, Jane. 2001. Connecticut River Watch. Interview with Juliet Hansel, March 2001.

Center for Watershed Protection. 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for Managing Urbanizing Watersheds. Ellicot City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection.

Christensen, Wesley. 2000. Wethersfield Historical Society. Interview with Juliet Hansel and Renee Kinchla, October - November 2000.

Connecticut Department of Agriculture. 2000. Various documents summarizing State Purchase of Development Rights Program, Joint State-Town Farmland Preservation Program, Environmental Assistance Program, and Farm Viability Enhancement Program. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Agriculture. Photocopied.

Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection. 1999. Annual Report to the Environment Committee in compliance with General Statutes of Connecticut. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Agriculture.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP). (2000). Wildlife in Connecticut – Endangered and Threatened Species Series. Report available on-line,

63 http://dep.state.ct.us/onsp/ramsar/changes.htm. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP). (2001a). A Volunteer Opportunity for Citizens to Monitor Wadeable Streams and Rivers. Report available on-line, http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP). (2001b). Connecticut Waterbodies Not Meeting Water Quality Standards. Report available on-line, http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/303dlsttext.htm. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Connecticut Historical Commission. 2000. Preservation Information. Resource list available on-line, http://www.cthistorical.com/preservation.html. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Historical Commission.

Connecticut, State of. 2001. Chapter 477c: Upper Connecticut River Conservation Zone. Copy of legal document available on-line, http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2001/pub/Chap477c.htm.

Cooke, David. 2000. Citizen archeologist and resident of Rocky Hill. Interview with Renee Kinchla, September 2000.

Daniels, Tom. 1999. When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc. 2000. The Liebler Property, Glastonbury, CT: Eastern Connecticut Review Team Report. Glastonbury, CT: Office of Community Development. Photocopied.

Fabos, Julius, ed. 1969. The Great Meadows of the Connecticut River: An Inventory and Analysis of Resources and Recommendations for Conservation and Development. Amherst, MA: Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts.

Farmland Preservation Toolkit. (1999) From “Save the Land Conference” held on July 10, 1999 in Middletown, CT. Haddam, CT: University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension. Photocopied.

Ferris, Shirley. 2000. State Bond Commission Approves $1,083,095 in Funding to Purchase of Development Rights to Two Farms. Press Release from Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Office of the Commissioner. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Agriculture.

64 Filchak, John (2000). Executive Director of Northeast CT Council of Governments. Interview with Juliet Hansel, November 2000.

Flink, Charles A. and Robert M. Searns. (1993) Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development. Loring LaB. Schwarz, editor. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gephard, Stephen. (2000). Supervising Fisheries Biologist, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Interview with Thomas Devaney, October 2000.

Gibbons, Jim. (1999a). Local agricultural advisory boards and farmland preservation. Connecticut Agriculture Series. Haddam, CT: University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension. Photocopied.

Gibbons, Jim. (1999b). Zoning and agriculture. In Farmland Preservation Toolkit from “Save the Land” conference in Middletown, CT. Haddam, CT: University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension. Photocopied.

Gibbons, Jim. 2000. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Educator. Interview with Juliet Hansel, November 2000.

Glastonbury, Town Plan and Zoning Commission. (1973). Building Zone Regulations. Glastonbury, CT: Office of Community Development. Photocopied.

Glastonbury, Town of. 1985 Glastonbury’s Historic District Design Guidelines: A Plan for Appropriateness. Glastonbury, CT: Office of Community Development. Photocopied.

Glastonbury, Town Plan and Zoning Commission. (1993). Subdivision and Resubdivision Regulations. Glastonbury, CT: Office of Community Development. Photocopied.

Glastonbury, Town Plan and Zoning Commission. (1995). Plan of Conservation and Development. Glastonbury, CT: Office of Community Development. Photocopied.

Glastonbury, Town Conservation Commission. (1995). Policies Plan for Open Space and Resource Conservation. Glastonbury, CT: Office of Community Development. Photocopied.

Goldberg, Katie (2000). Of Working Lands Alliance and Hartford Food System. Interview, 2000.

Hansel, Juliet. 2001. Understanding Farmer Attitudes about Farmland Preservation in the Urban Fringe: A Case Study of the Great Meadows of the Connecticut River. Masters Thesis. Amherst, MA: Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts.

Harris, Sandra L. (date unknown). Connecticut Wetland Resources. In National Water Summary – Wetland Resources: STATE SUMMARIES: pp141-146. Hadley, MA: U.S. Geological Survey.

65 Housley, Kathleen. (1989) Natural History Journal. research journal prepared February 17 through April 25, 1989. Wesleyan University: Middletown, CT.

Kucik, J. (2000). Status of Fisheries Resources of Northeastern United States. Report available on-line, http://www.wh.whoi.edu. Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Kusler, Jon. And Teresa Opheim. (1996). Our National Wetland Heritage. A Protection Guide. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute.

Little, Richard. (1998). Geology of the Connecticut River Valley. In Connecticut River Valley: Special Resource Reconnaissance Study. Boston, MA: US National Park Service.

MacBroom, James Grant. 1998. The River Book: The Nature and Management of Streams in Glaciated Terranes. Hartford, CT: Natural Resources Center, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

McNulty, Marjorie G. (2001). “Wrights Island Remembered” in City Citizen. Glastonbury, CT: February 8, 2001.

Mocko, Tom. (2000). Glastonbury Environmental Planner. Interviews with Gretchen Roberts, Thomas Devaney, and Lynn Dupuis. September – October 2000.

. (2001). Interview with Juliet Hansel, March 2001.

Mullaney, John R and Marc Zimmerman. (1997). Nitrogen and Pesticide Concentrations in an Agricultural Basin in North-Central Connecticut: U.S. Geological Survey, Water- Resources Investigations Report 97-4076. Marlborough, MA: National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

National Wilderness Institute. (2000). Washington Conservation Project. Report available on-line. http://www.nwi.org. Washington, DC: National Wilderness Institute.

Nelson, A.C. (1990). Economic critique of U.S. prime farmland preservation policies. Journal of Rural Studies 6: 119-142.

Orson, Richard A. 1996. Letter regarding Application for Structures, Dredging and Fill Permits, Crow Point Cove, Wethersfield, CT. From Richard Orson of Orson Environmental Consulting to Joanne Barry of New England Division of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 3, 1996. File copy held by Great Meadows Conservation Trust. Photocopied.

Popper, Stuart. (2000) Wethersfield Town Planner. Interview with Gretchen Roberts and Thomas Devaney, October 2000.

. (2001). Interview with Juliet Hansel, March 2001.

66 Ranzau, C.E., Jr., T.W. Frick, J.R. Norris, and J.W. Martin. (1999). Water Resources Data Connecticut Water Year 1999. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Report CT-99-1.

Revill, Peter. Rocky Hill History. Historical overview prepared for the Rocky Hill Historical Society. Rocky Hill, CT.

Ricci, Kim. (2000). Rocky Hill Town Planner. Interview with Gretchen Roberts, October 2000.

Rocky Hill, Town of. (1998). Zoning Bylaw. Rocky Hill, CT: Planning Department.

Rocky Hill, Town of. (2000). Conservation Overview, Booklet #5. Rocky Hill, CT.: Planning Department.

Rocky Hill, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). (2000). Rocky Hill Plan of Conservation and Development: Draft Plan for Discussion Purposes. Prepared by Planimetrics Consulting Services. Rocky Hill, CT: Planning Department.

Schade, Gerhard R., Jr. (1993). Glastonbury Walks. Guide produced for the Glastonbury Tercentenary.

Smith, Brian R. (2000). The Village District Act: An Overview of the Legislation and Its Implications. Presented to the Historical Society of Glastonbury, Inc. March 21, 2000. Photocopied.

Stokes, Samuel, A. E. Watson, G. Keller, J.T. Keller. (1989). Saving America’s Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter. 2001. Tidelands of the Connecticut River. Report summary available on-line, http://nature.org/states/connecticut/news/news127.html. Middletown, CT: The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter.

Trench, Elaine C. Todd. (1996). Trends in surface water quality in Connecticut. Water- Resources Investigations Report 96-4161. Hartford, CT: U.S. Geological Survey.

Trench, Elaine C. Todd. (2001). Hydrologist with U.S. Geological Survey, East Hartford, CT. Interview with Juliet Hansel.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). (1979) Great Meadows: Existing and Future Land Use Plans for the Connecticut River Floodplain. Prepared for the Department of the Army, New England Division, Corps of Engineers. Waltham, MA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1996. Application for Structures, Dredging and Fill Permits, Crow Point Cove, Wethersfield, CT. ACOE File No. 1995-

67 00230N. From National Eastern Corporation of Plainville, CT. Waltham, MA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. 2000. Census 2000 Data. Report available on-line, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2000). Vegetative Buffers informational packet and brochures. Compiled by Vivian Felten, Project Coordinator. Windsor, CT.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency. (2001). Special report on crop production types and farmland acreages in the Great Meadows from aerial photos. Prepared for Juliet Hansel by Ross Eddy, County Committee Executive Director. Windsor, CT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). (1995). Final Action Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for implementing the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2000). Southern New England-New York Bi-Coastal Ecosystem Program. http://www.fws.gov/r5snep/inverts.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. (1999). At Work in the Connecticut River Watershed. Hadley, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1984). Known Connecticut River Floods, 1828-1984. Hartford, CT: U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2000). Status of Listed Species and Recovery Plan Development. Report available on-line, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/recoprog/states/species/cicipuri.htm. U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. National Park Service (US NPS), Northeast Region. (1998). Connecticut River Valley: Special Resource Reconnaissance Study. Boston, MA: US National Park Service.

University of Connecticut Department of Plant Science Cooperative Extension System. (2000). Integrated Pest Management Program. Report available on-line, http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/cipwg/index.htm. Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut.

Wethersfield, Town of. (1972). Subdivision Regulations. Wethersfield, CT: Planning Department. Photocopied.

Wethersfield, Town of. (1990). Zoning Bylaw. Wethersfield, CT: Planning Department. Photocopied.

68 Wethersfield, Planning and Zoning Commission. (2000). Wethersfield Plan of Conservation and Development. Wethersfield, CT: Planning Department.

Whittles, L.J. (1937). Local Prehistoric Village Sites. Presented at the meeting of the Historical Society of Glastonbury, January 28, 1937.

Working Lands Alliance. 2000. Preserving Connecticut’s Farmland for Generations to Come. Hartford, CT: Working Lands Alliance. Photocopied.

Zimmerman, Marc J. (1999). Pesticides in Surface Water in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, 1992-95: Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4247. Northborough, MA: US Geological Survey.

Maps:

GIS data was provided by each of the Town Planning Departments. This data was used by the study team at the University of Massachusetts Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning to create the maps contained in this report unless otherwise referenced.

69 APPENDIX 1: LETTER TO FELLOW CITIZENS PRESENTING THE REPORT ON THE GREAT MEADOWS IN 1969

Dear Fellow Citizen,

This report is about land, people and decisions. The land is the Great Meadows in Glastonbury, Rocky Hill and Wethersfield, Connecticut. The people are the residents of these three Connecticut towns – most particular the owners of property in the Meadows – but all those as well who today enjoy or tomorrow will or might enjoy the amenities offered by this presently largely open land resource. The decisions center upon the future of the Meadows. What is going to happen there tomorrow? and in the following years? These decisions will be made by private individuals and groups, and by public agencies at all levels. This report tries to suggest what values seem relevant and to point the way toward responsible decision-making. These decisions – and this report – would be unnecessary if we could look forward indefinitely to the present uses of the Meadows. Indeed, we all should feel gratitude for the careful land stewardship of many of the present users of this land and their predecessors in generations past. Reiterated at many places in this report is the thought that the present agricultural use of much of the Meadows should be encouraged to continue and develop as much and as long as possible.

But the pressures for change are upon us...for “ development,” for recreation, for intensified use. Past patterns cannot continue unaltered indefinitely. When they give way, what will take their place? Will the new uses occur by accident or as the result of thoughtful community planning? What directions can that planning take?

To these questions this report is addressed, not with the thought of providing “ all the answers,” but in the spirit of suggesting desirable directions for a rational future course. We feel strongly that consideration of the future of the Meadows should be high on the public agenda. We strive to stimulate public thought and discussion and to invite the broadest possible participation in dealing with the issues raised in the report.

Of only one thing about these areas we are certain: Responsible citizens must consider the future of the Meadows TODAY – for TOMORROW may be too late.

Great Meadows Committee,

By: HENRY S. BEERS, Chairman SEPTEMBER 1, 1969

70 APPENDIX 2: GREAT MEADOWS COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN 1969

Sponsorship 1968-1969

THE GREAT MEADOWS COMMITTEE

HENRY S. BEERS, Chairman (Glastonbury, Connecticut) FELIX MONTANO, Vice Chairman (Rocky Hill, Connecticut) MRS. RICHARD D. WOLF, Secretary (Wethersfield, Connecticut) KENNETH S. GEYER (Wethersfield, Connecticut) ATTY. RUSSELL L. BRENNEMAN (Glastonbury, Connecticut) MRS. BERTRAND H. BROWN (Glastonbury, Connecticut) MRS. WILLIAM H. FLAHARTY (Glastonbury, Connecticut) CHARLES CROSIER (Rocky Hill, Connecticut) MRS. HERBERT W. SEARS (Rocky Hill, Connecticut) JOSEPH HICKEY (Wethersfield, Connecticut)

MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

CHRISTOPHER PERCY Executive Director, Connecticut River Watershed Council THEODORE BAMPTON Director, State of Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game THAYER CHASE Assistant Director of Connecticut State Park and Forest Commission JOHN J. CURRY Director of Connecticut State Water Resources Commission HERBERT DARBEE Director of Connecticut State Historical Commission CHARLES HILL Assistant Director, Connecticut Development Commission HOWARD NANNEN Senior Planner, Hartford Commission on the City Plan, Hartford Connecticut CARL OTTE Open Space Coordinator of Connecticut State Dept. of Agriculture & Natural Resources ISREAL RESNIKOFF Chief of Planning of Connecticut State Highway Department MRS. RALPH L. LARSON Assistant Planner, Capitol Region Planning Agency, Connecticut WILLIAM WURTS Metropolitan District Commission, Hartford Connecticut

71 APPENDIX 3: CONNECTICUT RIVER ASSEMBLY MINIMUM STANDARDS

CROMWELL CONNECTICUT RIVER ASSEMBLY EAST HAMPTON EAST WINDSOR 214 MAIN STREET, HARTFORD, CONN. 06106 ENFIELD GLASTONBURY MIDDLETOWN PORTLAND CONNECTICUT RIVER ASSEMBLY ROCKY HILL MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE PRESERVATION SOUTH WINDSOR AND USAGE OF LAND WITHING THE CONSERVATION ZONE SUFFIELD WETHERSFIELD WINDSOR WINDSOR LOCKS Connecticut Special Act No. 79-77 as amended directed the Connecticut River Assembly (CRA) to determine land suitable for inclusion in a “ conservation zone” and develop minimum standards for the preservation and usage of land within this zone. This report contains the CRA’s minimum standards developed pursuant to Connecticut Special Act No. 79-77 as amended.

The minimum standards for the preservation and usage of land within the conservation zone are designed to promote development practices which will support the following program goals:

1. protecting and improving the water quality of the Connecticut River;

2. preserving the necessary flood storage capacity of flood plains;

3. preserving unique natural, historic and scenic areas, and the natural topography of riverfront land;

4. preserving and encouraging the development of agricultural land uses which contribute to conservation of the area’s soil and water resources and which increase a long-term food producing capacity;

5. promoting the recreational potential of the river area and public access to the riverfront which is consistent with the ability of the land and the river to support such use;

6. influencing the visual impact of riverfront development; and

7. encouraging the preservation and rehabilitation of the Connecticut River greenbelt.

The standards apply only to land use within the conservation zone. They focus on measures to control non-point sources of pollution, such as erosion and sedimentation, and limit destruction of the natural environment. The standards will begin to influence development within the conservation zone when they are incorporated into municipal land use regulations (zoning, subdivision, etc.) and are enforced at the municipal level.

Public Act 82-296 required that each member municipality review their local zoning and subdivision regulations for consistency with the following minimum land use standards and make any necessary regulation changes between October 1, 1983 and September 30, 1984. Municipalities are free to exceed the minimum requirements as they see fit.

72