Lower Farmington River & Salmon Brook Wild & Scenic Study

January 14, 2008         

    

LOWER

FARMINGTON

RIVER AND SALMON BROOK

          WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS STUDY COMMITTEE

                                           MINUTES

Meeting:  January 14, 2008

Canton

Community Center

CALL TO ORDER

Meeting called to order by Chairlady

Sally Rieger at 7:05 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Sally Rieger, Simsbury;  Alis Ohlheiser, Canton;  Margery Winters, Simsbury;  Diane Field, Avon;  Mike Krammen,  East Granby;  Sara Hincks, FRWA;  Carolyn Flint, Granby; Walter Sargent, Farmington;  Sue Murray, Hartland;  Ian Clark, East Granby; 

Larry Schlegel, Farmington; 

David Leff, Canton;  Paul Rocheford, Burlington;  Tom Small, Burlington; 

Eric Hammerling, FRWA; 

Joyce Kennedy Raymes, Community Planner;  Skip Alleman, SBWA;  Wanda Coleman, Tariffville Valley Association (TVA);  David Tolli, Granby SBWA;  Suzanne Battos, Simsbury;  Eric Lukingbeal, Granby;  Paula Jones, Bloomfield;  Kevin Gough, Bloomfield; Aimee Petras, FRWA;  Harry Spring, Avon

There being a large number of attendees including potential volunteers, Chairlady Reiger asked each individual to introduce her/himself.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES, MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 2007

Minutes were amended to include two members’ names inadvertently omitted.

Approval was then moved, seconded and approved.

GUEST SPEAKERS:

BRENDAN HANRAHAN

Sally introduced Brendan.  He is an author, lecturer and produces documentaries on community based environmental initiatives, directs the  CT  Earth Network website, authored “Between Land and Water” on lives of  amphibians,” Exploring CT’s Natural Wonders” and “Great Day Trips in Connecticut”, has written on dinosaurs and Connecticut’s Geological background and has compiled a compendium of over five hundred environmentally based organizations, 

As an introductory remark, Brendan described the Geology of Connecticut as “Very complex in a good way” and began discussion of the influence of Geology on Cultural Landscape (ORV).

Earth Science in the New World had its beginnings here in

Connecticut. Benjamin Silliman in 1804 began training the first generation of Geologists at Yale, setting in motion a wide range of studies in

Connecticut.  Also, Connecticut was the subject of the first US Geological Survey Prominent Geologic Zones in

Connecticut. The Eastern and

Western

Highlands and central Mesozoic Rift Valley formed when the continents were stretched apart and the central valley was “ripped” open about 200 million years ago. 

Glacial history is much more recent.

JANET STONE:

 Janet is a staff member of the US Geological Survey.  She co-produced the Quaternary Geology Map of CT in 2005 and is a foremost authority on Glacial Geology.  She has led studies of glacial erosion of “softer rocks “of the deposits in the

Mesozoic

Basin over its 200,000,000 year history and the re-deposition of materials.  Janet has conducted exquisite “detective work” elucidating the glacial sequences of

Connecticut history.   Glacial depression and rebound of the land is a response to glacier withdrawal, resulting in tipping of the originally horizontally oriented glacial deposits.  The subsequent deposited alluvial (river) deposits which remain essentially horizontal have added to the complexity of interpretation of events, and has led to more thorough understanding of those events. Striations in

remnant

Highlands and the Basalt flow bedrock marking direction of glacial movement and degree of surface grinding, scouring and transport lead to interpretations of the mass and depth of the last glaciation.   Deposition in the lowlands of ground, recessional, and lateral moraine material, the formation of kames, kame terraces, kettle holes, eskers and drumlins, glacial lake deposits such as seasonally varying varved clays, damming of the glacial outflow which originally ran southward trapping the melt water in the Farmington Valley at an elevation greater than that of Lake Hitchcock in the Central Valley are all processes elucidated in her work. The opening of Tariffville gap, a fault produced at a low elevation point, which had been sealed by ice and the rapid drain down of the lake in the Farmington valley lowlands and scouring out of the Tariffville Gorge led to the creation of massive delta deposits in East Granby and Windsor in the old

Lake

Hitchcock.

When

Lake

Hitchcock broke through its dam in Rocky Hill/Cromwell and began its drain down new, prime, agricultural soils were exposed and were utilized for agriculture by the early Native Americans, following the recession of the glacier as plant and animal populations became re-established.  That prime agricultural land is in use to this day.

JELLE de BOER

Jelle is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Wesleyan where he has made great contributions to the understanding of the “hard rock” geology of the region.

Professor de Boer initiated his discussion with a brief summation of Earth history.  It is currently understood that earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago and led to a solid crust.  That solid state crust then retained evidence of events “recorded in stone”.

Convection currents in the liquid/semi-liquid mantle under the solidifying crust produced both vertical (upwelling and sinking currents) and horizontal (spreading currents) which applied stresses to the crust resulting in breaking the crust into plates.  Movement of these plates, pulling apart, rebounding and colliding, slipping under some and crumpling others resulted in a period of mountain building approximately 500 million years ago at the beginning of what is known as the Paleozoic Era.  Evidence points to the inference that there were three collisions of continental plates, subduction and uplift between Africa and

North America.  Approximately 380 to 350 million years ago, the Alleghenian uplift gave rise to the Appalachian Mountain system of which our Eastern and

Western

Highlands are remnants.  At about 170 million years ago there was the first opening of final separation of the continents and the formation of the

Atlantic Ocean began.

It should be noted that mountains, like icebergs have most of their mass submerged.  In the case of icebergs, the submergence is in water, in the case of mountains, that submergence is in the semi-liquid mantle under the solid crust.  Our highland mountain remnants have 30 to 50 mile deep roots.

When continents separate fracture zones develop. Two did here in Connecticut leaving a central block sinking creating our

Central

Lowlands

Mesozoic

Era

Basin.  While that block was sinking, the mountains eroded and left sediments in the lowlands making the

brownstones, etc.  characteristic of our

Central Valley.  This was in the Age of the Dinosaurs.

Folding and fracturing in the highlands associated with mountain building processes subjected deeper rocks to heating and, with release of pressure along fractures, resulted in intrusion of the melted rock (magma) along the fracture lines  If fractures reach the surface, lava flows reach the surface, such as the three basalt flows of approx 150 feet thickness each.  The

Central Lowlands are a major fault zone with numerous faults in traprock ridges

In the

Highlands hard metamorphic rocks weathered and soils were formed but were largely transported (eroded) to lowlands, therefore creating cropland zones in lowlands.

Sally asked about the rarity of an area in

Simsbury, a contact between the Paleozoic outcrop of metamorphic rocks which were formerly sea floor, subsequently lifted in mountain building and a Mesozoic basaltic lava flow in a heavily fractured zone.

This led Jelle to a discussion of geotopes which are classic examples of geologic formations or processes.  Jelle insists that geotopes should be preserved for purposes of education and that the area referred to by Sally can be considered one.

Is there uniqueness?

Janet:  We have excellent examples of glacial features and history

Sally:  Are there things which ought not to be lost?

In bedrock geology, many areas should be preserved.  In terms of glacial, activities such as sand pits etc. have revealed and contributed to understanding so their disturbance has become an asset.

 The esker in Fisher Farm is essentially a geotope.  Other excellent places in area do exist showing eskers, kettles.

NEW BUSINESS:

*1.  MAILING LIST: 

Sally discussed the concept of “sharing” mailing lists with stated restrictions and asked committee members to sign up to contact organizations.  It was also suggested that we contact historical societies for the same purpose.  The mailing list will primarily be composed of the FRWA membership list and the list of riparian land owners who were the recipients of an initial communication during the summer.

Electronic mailing lists can be directly supplied to the mailing house to avoid any other access to lists. 

There was also discussion of building an e-mailing list.  Doubt was expressed by several members as to the effectiveness of this medium as opposed to a physical publication in hand. 

*2.  LEGISLATION:

A.                            Joyce discussed a list of State Representatives and their phone numbers.  She requested that individual members sign up to contact  each legislative member to set up a meeting to discuss the bill supporting the Wild and Scenic designation and two or three other committee members to join in the actual meeting.  The legislature has convened on February 7^th so the representatives should soon be available.

B.                             Joyce also reported that Eric H., Sally R. and she met with Linda Schofield who is an enthusiastic supporter and has contacted all legislators in the study area.  She also reported that Linda suggested that Joyce contact Richard Roy, House Chair of the Environment Committee. .  She reported a very successful meeting with him where he volunteered to introduce the proposed legislation to the Environment Committee.  Sally also suggested that we use any opportunity to contact local officials as well as those on the state level.  The bill has been drafted and is ready to be submitted for debate in the house sometime in February.

*3 BUDGETARY:

A.        Sally described an action taken by the committee at a previous meeting to    approve the Outreach and Education Committee’s expenditure of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for an initial mailing.

A question was raised by a committee member regarding a necessity for putting these projects out for competitive bidding. 

Eric Hammerling stated that he did not believe that we had such a requirement as long as we could demonstrate that the contractor was legitimately qualified to deliver the requisite services at a reasonable price.  Joyce indicated that she would verify this point with Jamie Fosburgh in the morning.  The committee member who raised the question said that his only concern was that we follow proper procedure within whatever guidelines are established for our fiduciary activities and not for purposes of obstruction.  Sally said that she was confident that Damon Hearne, who was involved in the Eight Mile Study, would have advised us of requirements such as competitive bidding procedures if they did exist.

      

B.     RESEARCH  PROPOSAL:

Economic Study:

The Center for Public Policy and Social Research (CPPSR) at

Central

Connecticut

State

University has submitted a detailed proposal for a multifaceted economic study of our ten town study area.  Copies of the detailed Proposal, methodology and detailed cost breakdown as well as the accompanying Curriculum Vitae of the principal researchers are available. 

Kevin Gough has reviewed the Economic Study of the

Upper Farmington and thoroughly discussed the details of the project with the principal investigators.  He stated that he is very comfortable with the value and quality of the entire proposal.  He further stated that this study will be a very valuable tool for the study area towns.  Further discussion followed.

Harry commented that there are a limited number of organizations equipped to do this study.  Eric H. also contacted the Social Inquiry group at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and the

University of

Connecticut. UNC provided a very high cost estimate but not a proposal, and the

University of

Connecticut’s Institute also gave a high estimate and a limited proposal.  Harry said that he was prepared to vote at that point.  Joyce said that CCSU was particularly eager to do the study.

Harry then moved that the Study Committee approve the expenditure and establish a contract with CPPSR at Central.  Kevin seconded the motion.  Sally asked for further discussion.  There being none, she called for a vote by show of hands indicating a readiness to vote.  Question carried with 20 yeas and one nay.

Sally then called for a vote by show of hands on the motion. 

                       There were nineteen yeas and one nay.  Motion carried.

C.     TOWN REGULATIONS COMPILATION AND REVIEW:

Eric Lukingbeal, a partner in Robinson & Cole, the firm which has offered to do the study including a pro bono matching of hours began the discussion saying that, in light of the previous discussion regarding the possible need for competitive bidding on contracts, he was perfectly amenable to delaying consideration of this project until a clarification is obtained from Jamie Fosburgh.  Eric did describe the scope and methodology of the study.

Sally proposed that a motion to proceed include the wording “in compliance with all requirements pertaining to the letting of contracts” be offered.

David Leff moved that the committee approve the award of the contract for Town Regulation Compilation and Review to the firm of

Robinson and Cole for the sum of twenty thousand dollars with the understanding that Robinson and Cole agreed to give time in similar value on a pro bono basis providing that said contract will be in full compliance with all requirements pertaining to the letting of contracts by this committee.

Motion was seconded.                      .

Vote by show of hands yielded twenty yes votes and one abstention.

Motion carried.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Joyce announced that April 26^th will be the 40^th anniversary of the establishment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.  The Simsbury River View and Banquet Hall has offered its space for a celebratory gathering marking the event.  Further, Eric described the possibility of events marking the anniversary in each of the Study Area towns.  Beyond that, a series of river walks could be organized to introduce citizens to their own town facilities.

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:37

Respectfully submitted

Harry

Spring

                                               

December 10, 2007

                               LOWER

FARMINGTON

RIVER AND SALMON BROOK

WILD AND SCENIC

RIVER STUDY COMMITTEE

MINUTES

Meeting: December 10, 2007

Canton

Community Center

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

 by Chairman Sally Rieger at 7:04 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Sally Rieger, Simsbury; 

David Leff, Canton;  Ian Clark, East Granby;  Mike Krammen, East Granby;  Kevin Gough, Bloomfield;  Tom Small, Burlington; 

Larry Schlegel, Farmington;  Margery Winters, Simsbury;  Paula Jones, Bloomfield; 

Joyce Kennedy Rames, Community Planner;  Kathy Dunn, Hartland; 

Eric Hammerling, FRWA;  Damon Hearne, Eight Mile Wild & Scenic Study Committee;  Jeff Bolton, FRWA;  Kurt Link, Stanley Works FRP;  Alis Ohlheiser, Canton;  Carolyn Flint, Granby;  Sally Snyder, Ct DEP;  Harry Spring, Avon

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  Meeting of November 19, 2007

Chairwoman

Sally Rieger called for corrections to the minutes.  There being none, approval was moved, seconded and passed.

NEW BUSINESS:

*1.  POWER POPINT PRESENTATION: 

Sally announced that Eric had developed a power point for Outreach and Education.  Eric asked that someone take notes on suggested revisions and critiques as he ran through the presentation.  Sally agreed to do this.  The intent of the presentation is to have each delegation to the committee use the power point as the core of a presentation on progress to date for town governing bodies and other organizations.

The first phase describes some historical background to the W & S Act.  This was followed by illustrations of the geographic area in the ten towns showing the watershed and areas of suburbanization.

Illustrations showing the three components of the study followed:

Science – does the river meet the criteria for Wild and Scenic designation?

Support – do the local communities support this designation?

Protection – are the communities involved willing to make efforts to protect

Very thoughtful discussion with the active participation of many members followed throughout the entire presentation.

The next phase describes some of the factors which make the river outstanding and deserving of local support for the designation such as recreation and water quality values.

A management plan to recommend practices to protect the Outstanding Resource Values of the study area is to be developed by the delegates from the component towns consistent with already in place local regulations.

A brief description of the five categories of ORVs follows this.  These are:

Geology, Cultural Landscape, Recreation, Biological Diversity & Unique Species, and Water Quality

Attention is then turned to the mechanisms and recommendations for protection based on community will to use existing local commissions, land use regulations and ordinances, appointing citizens in each town to develop and implement protection plans.

Responsibilities?  What are the private and local, state and federal responsibilities in the protection of the ORVs of our great natural asset?

Who is conducting the Study?  The Committee is composed of two or three delegates appointed from each of the ten towns as well As representatives from FRWA, Salmon Brook Watershed Association,  Ct. DEP, Stanley Co. because of its involvement with the operation and maintenance of Rainbow Dam and, finally, the National Park Service for providing assistance and funding for the implementation of the study.

In the period of less than one year, the Committee has learned a great deal about the Farmington River/Salmon Brook River Systems. 

The natural components of the area have created the canvas upon which this rich resource has been painted and we are learning more all the time.

Why the Wild & Scenic designation?  It will provide added protection, financial resources for management plan, and technical resources for habitat restoration.  Initially, there can be between thirty to sixty thousand dollars made available for river restoration projects.

Considerable discussion involving the entire presentation followed, insuring that an already excellent presentation will further evolve.

Protecting the Nation’s Best!  A good slogan!

Kudos to Eric for an excellent core presentation!

 Damon had several cogent remarks concerning preparation to present the power point. Principally he urged members to read the Wild and Scenic Act, particularly Section 6, Paragraph three which emphasizes the point that no condemnatory processes of any kind will be used in land acquisition in areas such as ours where zoning and allied regulations are sufficient to protect land areas therefore making the process of eminent domain entirely unnecessary and, therefore, the possibility of the exercise of eminent domain is extinguished.

He also urged members to review the FAQs associated with the copy of the act.

A great deal of information can be derived from the FAQs.

Most notably, local autonomy is enhanced on a legal level.  The partnership model we are developing protects local rights and regulations so that, in Damon’s words, “No one from

Washington can come in and screw up your river”.  Changes are possible but they are generated locally and must be approved locally.

Thanks to Damon.

*2.  GIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ASSESSMENT:

Joyce distributed a Summary Sheet characterizing Imagery Type with specifications and cost with pros and cons from four providers. (attached)  Eric asked Jeff Bolton to review the types of data and his recommendation as to which process nest suited the applications best suited to our purposes.  Jeff gave a good, succinct assessment of each imagery type and its potential use for the committee and member towns.

Jeff’s recommendation was to stay with the 2004 state data with the view that a new data capture process (in color) would be performed in the next year or two. 

Discussion centered on whether there would be any real practical benefit to any other provider.

Consensus on accepting Jeff’s recommendation to stay with DEP’s 2004 study already in hand at FRWA was quickly reached.

*3.  SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:

A.     Outreach and Education:  A newsletter is in preparation and will be sent out sometime in January.  The committee invites articles from committee members and would like to include photos from each town

B.     Management & Protection has two new members,

David Leff and Harry      Spring and is working on a project plan beginning with dam assessment.  Eric Luckingbeal is working with

Stanley on the Rainbow Dam.  The dam assessment needs to be correlated with flow studies, a meeting for which is scheduled for mid-December.  Threat assessment on ORVs is in the early organizational stage.    Initial writing of the Management Plan will begin soon.

C.     ORV spent the last meeting refining some explanatory statements defining the

*4.  OTHER BUSINESS: Sally called for other items of business.  There being none, meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Harry Spring