Keep Bloomfield Farming: A Farmland Preservation Plan for Bloomfield, Connecticut

Bloomfield, Connecticut—a Connecticut River valley town just north of Hartford—has a farming history dating back to the mid 1600s. The town faces the same challenge as many other New England communities: to protect its remaining farmland. Residents know that Bloomfield’s farmland is vital for local agriculture, rural character, and the protection of precious natural resources.

Keep Bloomfield Farming develops a methodology for prioritizing farmland for preservation.

Keep Bloomfield Farming A Farmland Preservation Plan for Bloomfield, Connecticut Prepared for the Town of Bloomfield and the Wintonbury Land Trust

Conway School of Landscape Design 332 South Deerfield Road, Conway, MA 01341 The Conway School of Landscape Design is the only institution of its kind in North America. Its focus is sustainable landscape planning and design. Each year, through its accredited, ten-month graduate program just eighteen to nineteen students from diverse backgrounds are immersed in a range of applied landscape studies, ranging in scale from residences to regions. Graduates go on to play significant professional roles in various aspects of landscape planning and design. www.csld.edu

Genevieve Lawlor | John C. Lepore | Jan Wirth

Conway School of Landscape Design | Winter 2011

Keep Bloomfield Farming A Farmland Preservation Plan for Bloomfield, Connecticut Prepared for the Town of Bloomfield and the Wintonbury Land Trust

Genevieve Lawlor | John C. Lepore | Jan Wirth

Conway School of Landscape Design | Winter 2011

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Town of Bloomfield, especially Thom Hooper, and the Wintonbury Land Trust for the time and energy they devoted to help make this project possible.

Many thanks to the residents of Bloomfield for attending two public meetings and generously offering useful feedback, insights and ideas for preserving the town’s farmland. Your enthusiasm and collaborative spirit will play an important part in moving the plan forward.

We also thank the faculty, staff, and our fellow students of the Conway School of Landscape Design for their guidance, patience, support, and great sense of humor. Š 2011 Conway School of Landscape Design

Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................v.

Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 .

Agricultural History and Natural Resources..................................................................................3 A Method for Prioritizing Farmland..............................................................................................9 How to Use the Scorecard............................................................................................................13 Recommendations........................................................................................................................19 Appendix A................................................................................................................................. A1 Bloomfield and Surrounding Towns........................................................................................... A1 Regional Watersheds................................................................................................................... A2 Open Space................................................................................................................................. A3 LESA Parcels 1984 & 2010........................................................................................................ A4 Farmland Preservation criteria diagram...................................................................................... A5 Farmland Suitability: Soils......................................................................................................... A6 .

Limits to Farmland Suitability: Wetlands................................................................................... A7 Limits to Farmland Suitability: Critical Habitat......................................................................... A8 Limits to Farmland Suitability: Impervious Surfaces................................................................. A9 Land Suitable for Farming........................................................................................................ A10 ..

Existing Farm Parcels............................................................................................................... A11 Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming..................................................................................... A12 Potential Farm Parcels.............................................................................................................. A13 DEP Natural Diversity Areas.................................................................................................... A14.

Farmland Parcel Table.............................................................................................................. A15 Proximity of Farms to Dedicated Open Space.......................................................................... A16 Proximity of Farms to Other Farms.......................................................................................... A17 Proximity of Farms to DEP Natural Diversity Areas................................................................ A18 Preservation Scorecard (Weighted Sample) . ........................................................................... A19 ..

Preservation Scorecard (Blank)................................................................................................ A20 Appendix B................................................................................................................................. B1 References................................................................................................................................... B1.

Resources – Federal and State of Connecticut............................................................................ B2 Resources – Non-Profit Organizations........................................................................................ B3 Resources – Farms and Farming Organizations......................................................................... B4

A “

griculture rises up from the fields, woods and streams.... From the complex of soils, slopes, weathers, connections, influences, and exchanges that we mean when we speak of the local community or the local watershed. It must know on intimate terms the local plants and animals.... local possibilities and impossibilities.... local histories and biographies....

People of the present, knowing that the land must be well cared for if anything is to last, understand the need for a settled connection, not just between farmers and their farms, but between urban people and their surrounding and tributary landscapes.”

Wendell Berry, from “The Whole Horse” in The Art of the Commonplace (2002)

Executive Summary

O

ver the last thirty years more than half of Bloomfield’s remaining prime farmland has been converted to non-agricultural uses: residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational.

Previous Plans of Development (PODs), in 1984 and 2000, addressed the importance of farmland preservation. The 1984 POD included a study which identified ninety-four farmland parcels suitable for protection. Neither plan resulted in any farms being preserved.

Writing the 2011 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) provides an excellent opportunity to address the preservation of important resources integral to the town, namely farmland and farmers. Topics relating to local agriculture, including climate change, rising fuel costs, and access to locally grown food, are also being discussed in the community at this time.

After receiving a farm viability grant, Thomas B. Hooper, Director of Planning; Diane Mack, chair of Bloomfield’s Conservation, Energy and Environment Committee (CEEC); and Vikki Reski of the Wintonbury Land Trust asked the Conway School of Landscape Design to assist them in developing a plan to preserve Bloomfield’s remaining farmland.

Goals and Objectives At the initial project meeting in late January 2011, participants determined that the overarching goal of the project is the permanent protection of productive agricultural land in the town. The specific objectives of the study are to:

• Identify and map Bloomfield’s remaining farms.

• Develop criteria for prioritizing farmland for preservation.

• Provide resources that encourage and assist the preservation of farmland and working farms.

The project included two public meetings—one in early February to gain an understanding of the residents’ priorities for farmland preservation in Bloomfield and a second to present the findings of the study to the community for feedback.

The Importance of Protecting Farmland The townspeople of Bloomfield recognize that local farmland is more than scenic beauty and a reminder of the community’s agricultural heritage. Farmland’s contribution to open space for recreational use and the maintenance of natural resources is invaluable.

Farmland, important to both state and local economies, is the basis of agricultural industry, generating revenue and jobs. Working farms provide local products for purchase at u-pick farms, farm stands, and farmers’ markets, which help keep money circulating locally, and often attract tourism. An important, but often overlooked reason for preserving farmland is its contribution to balancing local budgets. Farmland typically generates surplus tax revenue because it costs a town less for infrastructure and services than other development, particularly residential. Preserving farmland benefits the environment and supports biodiversity by providing habitat and protecting local water resources. Farms enhance local food security by providing locally grown, high quality produce and helping to buffer changes in food prices due to fluctuating transportation costs.

Challenges As the community develops a strategy for protecting its important remaining farmland, it faces challenges similar to those of many New England towns, including population that is both declining and aging, few current farmers and fewer new farmers, and development pressure to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Small farms have additional challenges, such as high input costs, regulatory obstacles, and land-use conflicts.

Identifying Farms for preservation Bloomfield’s original 1984 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) study provided valuable insights for developing a preservation methodology that is still relevant to the town in 2011. Other LESA studies, such as, the Town of Chatham Agricultural Protection Plan done in 2009 in Chatham, New York, provide important farmland protection criteria. In this study we developed a process for identifying farmlands and a system for ranking them.

Keep Bloomfield farming

executive summary

v

The chart below shows the process used in this study to identify and rank farmland parcels for preservation. The first determination establishes which areas of Bloomfield have suitable soils and are not wetlands, critical habitat or impervious surfaces. These are overlaid with maps of existing farmland parcels to reveal the percentage of suitable farmland within each parcel. Parcels that are candidates for preservation are evaluated based on criteria that reflect both the continued viability of an existing farm and the potential for a new farm, such as size and infrastructure. Additional site assessment

preservation Scorecard As farm parcels become available for preservation, a selection committee uses the scorecard to rank them by combining Part One, the “Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming” score, with the “Additional Site Assessment Criteria” of Parts Two and Three. The additional criteria include on-site and off-site categories. Off-site scoring uses maps showing dedicated open space, existing farm parcels, parcel sizes, and areas of natural diversity. The scoring for Part 3 requires a visit to the farm to determine site-specific qualities, such as the existence

criteria, developed in part from the feedback at public meetings, include historical value, contribution to rural character, and threat of development.

and condition of barns, greenhouses, orchards, and additional infrastructure. An interview with the farmer may be appropriate to gather information concerning the present or future educational value of the property and his/her interest in participating in internship programs or creating demonstration gardens.

The locations of current farms in Bloomfield was derived from a number of resources and references including the 1984 LESA parcel map, recommendations by local farmers, and land use tax assessment criteria.

The resulting map of preservation candidates shows almost fifty farm parcels suitable for evaluation for protection.

vi

Keep Bloomfield farming executive summary

Score Totals

Parcel

Pa

Weight

Pa

rt 1

Pe

Blank

rce n Fa t Sui rt 2 ta b r Of f-S min le A. fo r Pro ite Ass g O p xi es sm en mit en y B. ProSpac to D ts ed xim e ica ity te d C. Pro Farm to O t h Na xim s er tu r al ity to D D. ive CT Siz rsi DE ty e Are P Pa as rt 3 On -Si te E. As Cu se ssm rre en n tl ts y F. F arm Via ed ble In f ras G. Ed tru uc ctu a ti re o na H. lV His alu to r e ica I. R l Va ura lue lC ha rac J. te r Re cre a K. tio na Th lV rea alu to e fD ev elo pm en t

Preservation Scorecard

Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total

Recommendations Incorporate Keep Bloomfield Farming, A Farmland Preservation Plan, into the 2011 Town of Bloomfield Plan of Conservation and Development.

Form a Community Agricultural Partnership (CAP) similar to the model included in the “Keep Farming” program developed by Glynwood Center in Cold Spring, New York.

This plan is a tool to help guide land-use decisions of the Town for the next decade.

Glynwood Center, an organization dedicated to helping communities in the Northeast support local farming and conserve farmland, also works its own land to demonstrate the economic viability of environmentally sustainable agriculture. A CAP typically includes representatives of major stakeholders in the community, including municipal government officials, farmers, land trust members, the general public, local schools, and recreational and outdoors enthusiasts.

Enact a “Right to Farm” ordinance.

Enacting a “Right to Farm” ordinance formalizes what has been informally done by the Bloomfield Planning Department in the past. It protects local farmers from nuisance lawsuits and gives them the right to engage in the activities normally associated with growing crops and raising livestock.

Keep Bloomfield farming

executive summary

vii

Without farmland there can be No Farming

The Community Agricultural Partnership (CAP) forms assessment teams of volunteers to discover the multiple benefits that farming provides to Bloomfield. Teams document the role that farming plays in the local and regional community by studying local food systems, markets, and business opportunities based on local agriculture. Additional teams study the affects of farming on natural resources, viewsheds, and rural character, and the challenges and obstacles facing local farmers. The study and investigation done by teams, incorporating extensive community participation, provide the information and framework for development of a local food system plan. The CAP might also:

Conclusion The purpose of this farmland preservation plan for Bloomfield is to create an accessible method to identify and rank farmland for preservation. It is hoped that the preservation of Bloomfield’s farmlands, in addition to protecting precious natural resources, scenic beauty, and rural character, will lead to increased support of local farmers, a vibrant local food system, and exciting business opportunities based on the town’s agricultural resources.

• Create a program to match new farmers with existing farms to ensure that there will be a next generation of farmers in the area.

• Become familiar with the various land-use techniques for farmland preservation most effective in achieving the goals of the town.

• Help the community support its local farmers by linking them more directly to consumers, processors, and distributors in Bloomfield and the surrounding areas, including Hartford.

viii

Keep Bloomfield farming executive summary

Introduction The history and character of Bloomfield, Connecticut, is deeply rooted in agriculture. Residents farmed prior to European settlement and continue to farm today. Bloomfield’s agricultural resources and challenges, as well as its past policy decisions regarding farmland, have provided a framework for this study.

B

Resources loomfield has rich soils, significant resources, both natural and educational, and a citizenry engaged in issues of farmland protection. Bloomfield’s active farms contribute to the town’s rural character and to the growing interest in and demand for local foods. In addition to federal and regional programs that support farmland protection, the town has a key partner in The Wintonbury Land Trust. Other community resources include the Harris Agriscience and Technology Center at Bloomfield High School and the 4-H Education Center at Auer Farm.

Throughout Hartford County there are farmers’ markets, community farms, many farm stands, and examples of successful CSA models, such as Holcomb Farm in nearby Granby. Connecticut has extensive farmland protection programs and participates in joint federal programs. Bloomfield’s proximity to large urban populations including Hartford, New Haven, and New York City affords nearby markets for the farm products.

CHALLENGES Bloomfield’s population is declining and aging and there are few new farmers. Land prices are high and farm start-up costs are often prohibitively expensive for those who do want to farm. Although the national decline in real estate has reduced the threat of immediate development, pressure remains to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses.

PRECEDENT Bloomfield has responded to land-use challenges in various ways. In the 1970s its landscape was changing rapidly— farms were disappearing as farmland was developed for housing and industry. Similar changes were taking place all over Connecticut. The state enacted general statutes to encourage the preservation of undeveloped landscapes—under Public Act 490 (PA 490) farmlands and forests became eligible for tax assessment reductions.

The 1984 Plan of Development included a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment analysis which identified ninety-four farms as candidates for preservation and a recommendation to consider preservation of those properties. No farms were protected at that time and many were lost. The criteria and ranking process developed for this report can be used by the town to determine properties appropriate for preservation.

Keep Bloomfield farming

Introduction

1

2

Keep Bloomfield farming Introduction

Agricultural History and Natural Resources

F

Early Settlement–1650-1850 armers came to Bloomfield, Connecticut (formerly called Wintonbury) long before the American Revolution. Early in the seventeenth century, the rich alluvial soils of the Connecticut River Valley attracted settlement and provided the foundation for an extended period of agricultural prosperity. When the first European settlers arrived in the valley in the 1630s, it was populated by the Massaco, Tunxis, and Poquonock Indians, divisions of the powerful Algonquin tribe. These populations used the land for hunting and growing crops, including tobacco, which would later play a significant role in the history of Bloomfield.

The earliest pioneers came from Windsor, Connecticut. Their roots were rural and the selfsufficiency and sense of community they brought with them molded the character of the town for several hundred years.

The first explorers from Windsor found good ground “sufficient for three families.” The first purchase of land from the Native Americans was in 1660; the first settler home was built in 1661. This early settlement located at the eastern end of what is now Park Avenue, was known as the “Messenger Farms.”

community to walk back to Windsor to attend church on Sundays. In 1738, a petition was granted from the legislature to the then sixty-five resident families creating a new parish from lands previously part of Windsor, Simsbury, and Farmington, the towns from which these settlers had come and, from which the name Wintonbury was derived.

For the first two centuries the community was dominated by self-sufficient family farms. The land was fertile and the hard work of the large families allowed them to turn the forests and meadows into productive farms. Oxen and horses powered their simple farming equipment.

The products of this early farm economy were diverse: corn, hay, tobacco, dairy products, beef cattle, hogs, horses, vegetables, fruits, cider, and brandy.

Rye, oats, and wheat were lesser crops and sheep, hemp, and flax, important in the early decades, declined in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

By the early 1800s, Wintonbury was producing surpluses of some of its products. Meats, cider, brandy, casks, and barrels were More settlers came and sold to markets in Farming took place in the southeastern corner of early Bloomfield. Source: UCONN more of the original Hartford. Corn and Map and Geographical Information Center. forests of elm, butternut, walnut, chestnut, and oak were tobacco were exported to the West Indies in exchange cleared for farmland. The timber was used for their for molasses, sugar, and tropical fruits. Farming between homes and the stones gathered for the foundations.

1650 and 1850 changed little compared to the century These settlers found the land “remarkably excellent” for that was to follow, bringing with it highly specialized agriculture and it yielded crops of grasses, apples, pears, and capital-intense farming. cherries, plums and peaches. This early settlement continued for about seventy-five years and it expanded so far that it became difficult for members of the

Keep Bloomfield farming agricultural history and natural resources

3

toward Industry and Commerce Mid-1800s to mid-1900s By 1835 there were over nine hundred people living in the settlement that was soon to be incorporated as the town of Bloomfield. Native son Francis Gillette, who served as the United States Senator from Connecticut in the mid-1800s and was known for his strong opposition to slavery, is credited with suggesting the name.

During the century following incorporation (1850-1950), Bloomfield’s farm-centered economy, where production was limited to home consumption and local markets, changed dramatically. Numerous cider mills were built, as many as twenty-five at one time, as well as a distillery for the popular and profitable production and sale of cider brandy, a well-known early Connecticut export.

Tobacco farming grew in importance during this period.

For many years Bloomfield was part of the famous tobacco valley where a unique type of shade-grown tobacco was developed and carefully raised for worldwide markets. In the 20th century tobacco cooperatives were organized that imported hundreds of workers from the West Indies and also engaged local boys and girls to plant, cultivate, and harvest hundreds of acres. This period of tobacco production in Bloomfield was characterized by specialization, mechanization, and corporate management. Although the growing of tobacco ultimately declined, there are areas of Bloomfield and nearby Windsor where shade tobacco is still grown today.

As in many communities in Connecticut and other areas of New England, dairy farming in Bloomfield became a major business. Farms, such as the A. C. Petersen Dairy, employed intensive capitalization for buildings and machinery, and scientific methods for breeding and feeding in an ongoing attempt for greater productivity and production for mass markets – a prototype of modern agribusiness. Well into the 1950s, Petersen’s farm was Bloomfield’s largest taxpayer and there were still thirty working dairy farms in town.

Bloomfield remained a predominantly agricultural community until after World War II and even as late as 1958 the Connecticut State Register and Manual referenced agriculture as the principal industry in the town.

4

Historic Petersen Farm in the late 1950s.

Courtesy of Wintonbury Historical Society.

By the 1950s, an exodus from Hartford into the suburbs was underway. The building of Interstate 91 provided highway access via Windsor to Bloomfield from downtown Hartford. Hartford’s population declined during the same period that saw Bloomfield’s population grow 220 percent. The rapidly expanding population spurred housing development and the fast-growing local economy brought industrial growth and development to the town. This expansion continued through the 1970s, and over a fifty year period Bloomfield’s population increased from 2,000 to 20,000, growing not only in size, but also in ethnic and cultural diversity.

Contemporary Bloomfield Mid-1900s to today By the early twentieth century the changes affecting society everywhere were also apparent in Bloomfield.

The increase in non-agricultural employment with a move to industries other than farming, the rise of service industries and different forms of investment, and the changing composition of Bloomfield’s population heralded a new era.

In the late seventies, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a pilot farmland preservation program which allowed the state administration power to “borrow up to 5 million to purchase the development rights to

Keep Bloomfield farming agricultural history and natural resources

agricultural land”… and to determine “whether such land could be used for any other purpose than farming.”

In 1983, aware of the changing landscape and pressure to convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, the Bloomfield Town Council created a Farmland Site Assessment Committee for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing farmland for future preservation. After meeting with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, the committee made the decision to use the system of prioritization called LESA (Land Evaluation and Site Assessment) that had been presented to them. Ninetyfour farmland parcels in the town were identified as potentially valuable for preservation. The committee recommended that the town use this process as a tool for future land-use planning in Bloomfield, but it was not implemented at that time.

Today, the town’s industry, banking, and insurance enterprises far surpass agricultural production. The local population is declining and aging, and the additional problems and opportunities of contemporary society are being faced by a community that in the past has

responded successfully to racial, economic, and political changes. According to the 2000 POCD, the residents believe it is important that the town maintain its distinction as “an outstanding community in terms of services offered, location, government and physical and social environment.”

As the town moves toward the middle of its fourth century, Bloomfield faces new challenges, but also has a vision for its future which includes protecting its farmland and the occupation of farming which has been a strong part of the community’s identity for hundreds of years. regional context Bloomfield is a town of roughly twenty-six square miles in Hartford County, with an ethnically diverse population of nearly twenty thousand. Surrounding Bloomfield are the urban and suburban landscapes of Hartford and West Hartford to the south, and the suburban and rural towns of Avon, Simsbury, East

The pressure to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses is apparent in this view of Bloomfield’s farmland abutting industrial parks and residential neighborhoods. Courtesy of Town of Bloomfield. .

Keep Bloomfield farming agricultural history and natural resources

5

Granby, and Windsor to the southwest, west, north and east, respectively.

Town Center ★

Hitchcock, which stretched from Bath, New Hampshire, south to Rocky Hill, Connecticut, just twenty miles south of Bloomfield. Eventually the glacial lake drained, leaving behind rich lakebed and alluvial soils that contributed to the agricultural productivity of the Connecticut River Valley.

Not all of Bloomfield, however, is defined by the former lakebed’s metamorphic bedrock and alluvial soils.

Rising from the valley and running north-south along Bloomfield’s entire western extent is the much older Metacomet Range, a mountain range of hard basalt rock that extends from New Haven to nearly the Vermont border.

“Geologically and visually, the traprock ridgeline exists as one continuous landscape feature from Belchertown, Massachusetts to Branford, Connecticut at Long Island Sound, a distance of 71 miles, broken only by the river gorges of the Farmington River in northern Connecticut and the Westfield and Connecticut Rivers in Massachusetts.”

(Farnsworth, 2004)

Bloomfield has easy access to major northeast transportation corridors, as well as nearby Bradley International Airport. Interstate 91 lies just east of town, providing southern access to New Haven and New York City, as well as to points north through Massachusetts and into Vermont.

A tapestry of fragmented commercial and residential development, interspersed with farmlands and open space, Bloomfield’s landscape is typical of many Connecticut River valley towns. Beneath this tapestry are soils that contributed greatly to Bloomfield’s agricultural successes over many generations, and that have the potential to support farming into the future.

Geology

Bloomfield’s landforms, bedrock, and soil characteristics were shaped by the advance and retreat of glaciers over 20,000 years ago. With the glacier’s final retreat, roughly 16,000 years ago, natural dams formed glacial Lake

6

The Farmington River breaks through the Metacomet at Bloomfield’s northernmost boundary. Courtesy of Paul Gagnon.

Keep Bloomfield farming agricultural history and natural resources

Compared to Bloomfield’s lowlands, the ridgelands are unsuited for most agriculture, due to extreme slopes and relatively poor soils. The ridge does have relevance for agriculture in Bloomfield: its forested slopes protect the headwaters of many town streams, and support habitats of animals, plants, and insects beneficial to farming.

According to the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act passed by Congress on October 2, 1968, rivers that:

“possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

Farmington River

Mill Brook Town Center ★

Connecticut River

Park River

Source: UCONN Map and Geographical Information Center. March 2011.

Watersheds, Wetlands, and Watercourses The Metacomet Range divides two of the three distinct sub-basins within the larger Connecticut River watershed in which Bloomfield lies: the Farmington River watershed to the north and west of the range, and the Park River watershed to the south and east. The third sub-basin, Mill Brook, comprises the northeast shoulder of town.

The Farmington River snakes for eighty-one miles from its headwaters in the Berkshires to its confluence with the Connecticut River east of Bloomfield. A fourteenmile segment of the upper river, ending in the town of Canton (west of Bloomfield), received the federal Wild and Scenic designation in 1994, making it the only river in Connecticut with this distinction.

Currently, a committee consisting of representatives of ten towns, including Bloomfield, have embarked on a four-year feasibility study to similarly designate the lower Farmington River, from Canton east to the Connecticut River.

With the exception of Bloomfield’s east side, which is drained by the Connecticut River and Mill Brook, the remaining land drains, via the brooks of Beman’s, Wash and Tumbledown, into the north fork of Hartford’s Park River.

Despite being one of the most urbanized tributaries of the Connecticut, the Park River provides habitat for migratory songbirds such as the chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), Nashville warbler (Oreothlypis ruficapilla), and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina).

Chipping sparrows, wood thrushes and Nashville warblers are found in the Park River watershed during their annual southern migration.

Courtesy of Marshall Faintich.

Keep Bloomfield farming agricultural history and natural resources

7

Straddling both the Farmington River watershed and the Park River watershed is a red maple swamp, known locally as the Great Drain. Generally, northeast red maple swamps are characterized by nutrient-poor, acidic soils. The Great Drain swamp, however, receives mineral deposits leached from neighboring Metacomet ridge-rock. The resulting nutrient-rich, alkaline conditions support a great diversity of plant species.

and offer hiking, birding, and other recreational activities.

Bloomfield leases some of its town-owned protected land for farming, highlighting the mutual benefits of open space and farmland as potential partners in a connected network of greenways.

This regional and local context of natural resources informed much of the Farmland Preservation strategies and methodology included in this document.

Town Center ★

The Great Drain, a red maple swamp, supports many plant species with its unique nutrient-rich, alkaline soils. Courtesy of Dennis Hubbs.

All activities taking place within a watershed have the potential to support or compromise its health.

Bloomfield’s farmers, downstream and upstream, can engage in farming practices that contribute to the ecological integrity of the watersheds.

Source: UCONN Map and Geographical Information Center. March 2011.

Open Space Both the Metacomet Range and Bloomfield’s freshwater wetlands are part of the town’s four thousand acres of permanently protected open space. The Metacomet Range contains Talcott Mountain and Penwood State Parks (totaling fifteen hundred acres), which support extensive recreational activities.

Comparable acreage is covered by four dry reservoirs, the Tunxis, Wintonbury, Blue Hills, and Cold Spring, which were constructed after severe floods in 1955 did extensive damage to both Bloomfield and points downstream in Hartford. They are situated at the headwaters of three major tributaries to the Park River

8

Keep Bloomfield farming agricultural history and natural resources

A Method for Preserving Farmland Like many Connecticut towns, over the past thirty years Bloomfield has lost significant farmland to non-agricultural development.

Current dialogue about the values of farmland, working farms, and local agriculture reveals the need for preserving what farmland remains.

A

statewide agricultural trends ccording to a recent report published by the Working Lands Alliance (of American Farmland Trust), the reasons for preserving farmlands in Connecticut are numerous:

“Farmland is an integral part of Connecticut’s living landscape. The state’s 321,000 acres of cropland, pasture, and farm woodlands constitute the foundation for the state’s agricultural sector and provide the visual backdrops for Connecticut’s rural towns. Well-managed farms provide habitat for wildlife, filter drinking water, help reduce flooding, and sequester carbon. Local farm stands ensure the availability of fresh-picked fruits, summer vegetables, squash, eggs, meat, winter roots, and greens. Farmland owners frequently open their land to neighbors and community residents for hunting, walking, hiking, or snowmobiling.” (Plowing Ahead: Farmland Preservation in 2010 and Beyond, March 2010).

Trends developing over the past decade reveal a social and political shift in Connecticut’s attitudes about farmland protection. Interest in local farms and foods is rising, evidenced by the proliferation of CSA farms, farmers markets, and programs that link farms to institutions like schools and hospitals.

In Connecticut, according to the Plowing Ahead report, “Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms increased by 17 percent to 4,916 with a slightly higher rise (20 percent) in the number of smaller farms (under 50 acres)” —a significant shift from a decades-long trend of farm loss. Not surprisingly, Connecticut Farm Link, a Connecticut Department of Agriculture program that assists in the transition of farmland between generations of farmers, has a growing list of “farm seekers” that outnumbers “farm owners” looking to sell or lease farmland. Despite the increase of small farms, however, the overall amount of farmland in Connecticut continues to decrease, with approximately two thousand acres of active agricultural fields lost each year. (Plowing Ahead p.1) Bloomfield is part of this changing landscape, physically and culturally. Preservation of its remaining farmland will ensure that there is a place for farming well into the future.

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment In 1983, the Town of Bloomfield conducted a farmland preservation study using the national model known as Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA), a system developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to help town officials make effective farmland preservation decisions. The LE portion of LESA identifies the agricultural value of soils on site, and the SA portion encompasses any number of factors that might impact the viability and, by extension, the preservation of a site.

Bloomfield’s 1984 Plan of Development included the LESA evaluation, which identified ninety-four farm parcels, amounting to roughly 3,000 acres, ranked for preservation. A recommendation that the study be considered in future land planning decisions was not actively pursued and as a result less than one-third of the original 3,000 acres remains in farmland today. (See Appendix, page A4.)

Farmers markets, Community Supported Farms, and Farm-to-Institution programs have proliferated in Hartford County over the past decade.

Keep Bloomfield farming A Method for preserving farmland

9

identifying Farmland

The process outlined in Keep Bloomfield Farming is built on the LESA model. In short, both land evaluation and site assessment criteria were used to determine land suitable for farming. Parcel maps were evaluated to determine the farming (and preservation) potential of particular properties. Ultimately, those parcels that are candidates for preservation must be evaluated further based on additional site assessment criteria such as size, proximity to other farms, and educational value, resulting in fully prioritized farmland. The chart below diagrams this process.

Criteria to Determine Suitable Agricultural Land Not all land in Bloomfield is suitable for farming. The best sites have prime and statewide important soils.

with “the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops.” (USDA NRCS) • Prime soils generally have adequate and reliable moisture supplies, minimal slope, favorable acidity/alkalinity, good drainage, and few rocks.

• Soils of statewide importance are determined by state agencies and include those soils that are nearly prime.

The soils criteria reveal agricultural potential. The presence of wetlands, critical habitat, or impervious surfaces limit agricultural potential.

B. Avoid Wetlands: (See Appendix, page A7.)

• Bloomfield’s abundant wetlands are vital natural resources to be protected.

A. Soils: (See Appendix, page A6.)

• Wetlands must be buffered, which may limit farming, even in places of prime soils.

• The USDA NRCS defines prime soils as those soils

Farmland Preservation

Land Evaluation Criteria

criteria diagram

A

Soils

prime and important

Site Assessment Criteria

Additional Site Assessment Criteria

E

Suitable Farmland G

B

Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming

Wetlands C

Critical Habitat

PA-490

Farmer

Recommendations

D

Impervious Surfaces

F

Farm Parcels

Proximity to Dedicated Open Space

Proximity to Other Farms

Proximity to Natural Diversity Area

Size of Parcel

Currently Farmed

Educational Value

Historical Value

Viable Infrastructure

Rural Character

Recreational Value

Prioritized Farmland

Threat of Development

LESA

A criteria diagram charts the farmland preservation process, from farmland and farm parcels identification to the application of numerous site assessment criteria.

10

Keep Bloomfield farming A Method for preserving farmland

C. Avoid Critical Habitat: (See Appendix, page A8.)

G. Percent of Farm Parcel Suitable for Farming: (See Appendix, page A12.)

•

The majority of farm parcels are composed of more than fifty percent suitable farmland, as tabulated by GIS. This is the first step in prioritizing farmland for preservation, as outlined in the following chapter.

Critical Habitat, as identified by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, supports endangered or threatened species, and limits agricultural activity.

D. Avoid Impervious Surfaces: (See Appendix, page A9.)

• Includes roadways and built layers of varying densities, as indicated in a 1990 Land Cover map (the most recent map available).

• Despite the opportunities for highly productive backyard gardens, green roofs, and even roadside fruit trees, in general these impervious surfaces limit farming.

E. Suitable Farmland: (See Appendix, page A10.)

• Good soils, and no limiting wetlands, critical habitat, or impervious surfaces.

F. Identification of Farm Parcels: (See Appendix, page A11.) combines farmland properties that are:

The parcel map

• designated PA-490 farms (the state law that allows farm, forest, or open space land to be assessed at its use value rather than its market value); • identified from the 1984 LESA study; • identified by a local farmer as agriculturally productive.

It should be noted that a great deal of Bloomfield’s open space is also composed of suitable farmland. When all of these components—farmland, farm parcels, and open space—are viewed together, potential additional parcels become apparent. (See Appendix, page A13.)

Additional Site Assessment Criteria: Site assessment criteria are factors other than soils that influence the value of a particular site. These criteria help to further define the merits of a parcel, ostensibly making it easier to determine which ones become a priority. Unlike evaluation of soils, site assessment criteria tend to be more flexible, changing as the values and character of a community changes. The criteria outlined here have been informed by input from the community and by factors that have proven significant in farmland preservation case studies in New England.

Proximity to Other Farms and Protected Open Space: According to American Farmland Trust, the State of Connecticut “places a high priority on protecting farms that are in close proximity to other active farmland and preserved landscapes.” (Conservation Options for CT Farmland: A Guide for Landowners, Land Trusts, & Municipalities). This approach to clustered preservation seeks to maximize the mutual benefits that neighboring farms can have in terms of shared resources, to maintain the “mosaic of farms, fields, and historic structures that are important for agri-tourism,” and to expand contiguous tracts of land that provide habitat and preserve natural resources.

The farm parcel map should not be interpreted as final.

In the future, properties newly designated PA-490, or known to be farmed, should be added.

Keep Bloomfield farming A Method for preserving farmland

11

Proximity to Natural Diversity Area: Natural Diversity Areas, as defined by the CT Department of Environmental Protection, are approximate locations of special concern species and significant natural communities. In Bloomfield, these areas often overlap with already-protected lands. If active farmlands are using best management practices, proximity to such areas may be mutually beneficial. (See Appendix, page A19.)

Size: In terms of preservation, large parcels are prioritized over small ones, in an effort to maximize protected acreage.

Currently Farmed: Perhaps not surprisingly, farmland that at the time of prioritization is actively supporting a working farm may be valued above a parcel not in agricultural use.

Educational Value: Education is a key component of ensuring that the craft of farming is carried through generations. If an active farm offer internships, workshops, or otherwise serves an educational function, it might be of greater value than one that does not. If not actively farmed, a site may still support educational activities such as birding, local science classes, etc.

open space, woodlands, or otherwise “undeveloped” land. A site that exemplifies such characteristics, or is part of a cherished viewshed in town, may be of high priority.

Recreational Value: Farmlands and working farms often support recreational activities for a town’s residents such as hiking, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, hunting, or birding. A site that is actively used for recreation or has the potential for recreational use may be of high value in the community.

Threat of Development: Some farmlands are at greater risk of development into non-agricultural uses, and might therefore be prioritized over sites that are not as threatened.

This list is flexible. The significance of particular criteria will likely change over time. Some may be omitted, and new ones added. The following chapter details how a farmland preservation committee might rate and rank site assessment criteria, when applied to farmland parcels.

Historical Value: Farming is often associated with a town’s history, and may hold significant historical value for a town and its residents. If a particular parcel has been farmed for generations, or has historic farm structures, it might be considered of high value.

Viable Infrastructure: A site that has sound farm buildings, greenhouses, fencing, and/or other farm infrastructure, even if not part of an active farm, might be of more value than a site without such features. Infrastructure need not be viewed as built only; vegetative infrastructure—orchards, riparian buffers, sugar bushes, etc.—may also be considered.

Rural Character: Loss of a town’s farmlands are often associated with loss of its rural character—a term that suggests rolling hills,

12

Keep Bloomfield farming A Method for preserving farmland

How to Use the Scorecard Some farmlands are more valuable for preservation than others. The process of evaluating various properties uses a scorecard to weight scores and apply to parcels.

Using the Preservation scorecard

T

he Preservation Scorecard provides a systematic approach to ranking Bloomfield’s farmland parcels. The scorecard has three parts:

1. Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming 2. Off-Site Assessment Criteria 3. On-Site Assessment Criteria

In Part One the suitability of each farm parcel is calculated based on four fundamental criteria of land.

Areas are suitable for farming if they have good soils (rated prime or of statewide significance by the NRCS), and are not wetlands, critical habitat, or paved or otherwise impermeable. The values for Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming are listed in the Farm Parcel Table (See Appendix A, page A15).

In Part Two, the off-site assessment criteria are: • Proximity of Farms to Dedicated Open Space (See Appendix, page A16).

• Proximity of Farms to other Farms (See Appendix, page A17).

Parcel B

Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Total Weighted Total Sum of Weights Base Weight

99.0 7.9 120.0 10.4 0 0

1.0 0.08

nt me lop ve De

al

at

of

on

Th re

ati cre Re J.

K.

e

ter rac

lV alu

ha

I. R

ura

ica tor His

H.

lC

al on ati uc

Ed G.

Va lu

e Va lu

tru ras Inf le

F. Via b

e

re ctu

ed

ts en

arm

ss m

yF

As se

ntl

ite -S

rre Cu

On

E.

Pa

A.

rt 2 Pa

Pro

rce n Fa t Sui rm tab Of ing le f-S f

Score Totals

Weight

Pa

rt 1

Pe

Weighted Sample

Parcel A

ite or As s xim essm en i ts Op ty to en De B. Sp dic Pro ac ate xim e d ity Fa to O r ms the C. r P Na roxim tur i al ty to Div C ers T D D. ity EP Siz Are e as

Part Three requires a site visit to gather site-specific qualities such as existence and condition of barns,

Total

The nationally recognized Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model used in the 1984 Bloomfield study weighted some factors higher than others. For example, in that study, the land evaluation (LE) portion, which reflects soil quality, accounts for thirty percent of the final score. Since the LE portion of the current model combines Prime Agricultural Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance with the absence of wetlands, critical habitat, and impervious surfaces, the scoring committee may consider weighting the LE portion (summarized as Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming; see Appendix, page A15) higher than other criteria.

rt 3

• Size (See Appendix, page A15).

Parcel

Weighting the scores to Balance the Values The committee completing the scorecard may decide to weight one factor over another. By default, each criterion on the scorecard has been assigned an equal weight, which could be changed to reflect the community values. For example, if the location of farmland relative to open space should weigh more than educational value, then this factor could have its weight increased.

If the committee decides all criteria should remain equal, the base weight for each of the twelve criteria remains one-twelfth of the total and their total value should always equal one for ease of use. The decimal value of one-twelfth is 0.083, so to weight one criterion over another, simply increase one factor’s weight while decreasing another so the total sum always equals one.

• Proximity of Farms to DEP Natural Diversity Areas (See Appendix, page A17).

Preservation Scorecard

greenhouses, and orchards. Obtaining some information, such as a farmer’s willingness to participate in an intern/ mentor program, may require an interview.

0.25

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.08

8.0 2.0 10.0 2.5

8.0 0.0 10.0 0.8

5.0 0.4 10.0 0.8

8.0 0.7 10.0 0.8

10.0 0.8 10.0 0.8

10.0 0.8 10.0 0.8

10.0 0.8 10.0 0.8

8.0 0.7 10.0 0.8

8.0 0.3 10.0 0.4

8.0 0.3 10.0 0.4

8.0 0.3 10.0 0.4

8.0 0.7 10.0 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 Scores: High=10; Medium=8; Low=5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Excel versions of the Preservation Scorecard can be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/4bry7su

Keep Bloomfield farming

how to use the scorecard

13

As a practice exercise, the selection committee might consider taking a town-owned parcel to apply the scoring process. This provides a sense of how weighting could influence comparative ranking. A sample Preservation Scorecard with weighting of two fictitious parcels is included. (See Appendix, page A20.)

Step-by-step Scoring Process 1. Determine the weights for each criterion and enter on the scorecard. (See Appendix, page A19.)

2. Refer to the Farm Parcel Table to locate the Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming (PPF).

Grade the parcel by using the scoring box below.

Enter this value on the Preservation Scorecard.

3. Refer to the Farm Parcel Table (see Appendix, page A15) to identify the property being ranked.

View and grade Proximity of Farm Parcels to Dedicated Open Space (A) and Proximity of Farm Parcels to DEP Natural Diversity Areas (B) with the Farm Parcel Table. Enter those values on the scorecard.

Scoring Boxes Each of the following twelve scoring boxes provide values to enter onto the Preservation Scorecard as described above.

Part One: Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming

What percent of the parcel is suitable for farming?

Part One: Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming High (75 to 100%) Medium (50 to 75%) Low (Below 50% )

4. Refer to the Farm Parcel Table to obtain the Size (D), number of acres.

5. Visit the site to score the remaining eight criteria: Currently Farmed, Viable Infrastructure, Educational Value, Historical Value, Rural Character, Recreational Value, and Threat of Development. Enter those values on the scorecard.

6. Tabulate the final Total Score to complete the ranking process.

7. Repeat for each parcel.

14

Keep Bloomfield farming how to use the scorecard

Value 10 8 5

Parts Two and Three: site assessment

A. Proximity to Dedicated Open Space How near is the parcel to dedicated open space?

A. Proximity to Dedicated Open Space Adjacent Within 1/2 mile Over 1/2 mile

Value 10 8 5

B. Proximity to Another Farm Is the parcel near another farm?

B. Proximity to Another Farm Adjacent Within 1/2 mile Over 1/2 mile

Value 10 8 5

C. Proximity to DEP Natural Diversity Areas How far away are the DEP Natural Diversity Areas?

C. Proximity to DEP Natural Diversity Areas Adjacent Within 1/2 mile Over 1/2 mile

Value 5 8 10 Keep Bloomfield farming

how to use the scorecard

15

D. Size How large is the farm parcel?

D. Size Greater then ten acres Five to ten acres Fewer than five acres

Value 10 8 5

E. Currently Farmed How recently has the farm parcel been used agriculturally?

E. Currently Farmed Farmed today Farmed within last five years Farmed over five years ago or not at all

Value 10 8 5

F. Viable Infrastructure How completely does farm infrastructure support use?

F. Viable Infrastructure Full infrastructure Moderate infrastructure Little infrastructure 16

Value 10 8 5

Keep Bloomfield farming how to use the scorecard

G. Educational Value To what degree does the existing site offer educational opportunities that support or could support agriculture in the community?

G. Educational Value High likelihood Moderate likelihood Little likelihood

Value 10 8 5

H. Historical Value How well does the farm parcel contribute to the historical attributes of Bloomfield?

H. Historical Value High significance Moderate significance Little significance

Value 10 8 5

I. Rural Character How well does the farm contribute to the rural character of Bloomfield?

I. Rural Character

Value

High significance Moderate significance Little significance

10 8 5 Keep Bloomfield farming

how to use the scorecard

17

J. Recreational Value What level of recreational use does the farm parcel offer?

J. Recreational Value High Moderate Little

Value 10 8 5

K. Threat of Development How severe are the threats of non-agricultural development for this farm parcel?

K. Threat of Development High threat Moderate threat Little threat

18

Value 10 8 5

Keep Bloomfield farming how to use the scorecard

Recommendations Incorporate Keep Bloomfield Farming, A Farmland Preservation Plan into the Town of Bloomfield 2011 Plan of Conservation and Development.

The plan is a tool to help guide land-use decisions of the Town for the next decade. A tool of this type is not presently included in the POCD.

Enact a “Right to Farm” ordinance.

Enacting a “Right to Farm” ordinance formalizes what has been informally done by the Planning Department in the past. It protects local farmers from nuisance lawsuits and gives them the right to engage in the activities normally associated with growing crops and raising livestock.

Form a Community Agricultural Partnership (CAP) similar to the model included in the “Keep Farming” program developed by Glynwood Farm and Institute in Cold Spring, New York.

Glynwood Center, an organization dedicated to helping communities in the Northeast support local farming and conserve farmland, also works its own land to demonstrate the economic viability of environmentally sustainable agriculture. A CAP typically includes representatives of major stakeholders in the community, including municipal government officials, farmers, land trust members, the general public, local schools, and recreational and outdoors enthusiasts.

The newly formed Community Agricultural Partnership (CAP) forms assessment teams of volunteers to discover the multiple benefits that farming provides to Bloomfield. Teams document the role that farming plays in the local and regional community by studying local food systems, markets and business opportunities based on local agriculture. Additional teams study the affects of farming on natural resources, viewsheds, and rural character and the challenges and obstacles facing local farmers. The study and investigation done by teams, incorporating extensive community participation, provides the information and framework for development of a local food system plan.

The CAP might also: • Create a program to match existing farms with new farmers to ensure that there will be a next generation of farmers in the area.

• Become familiar with the various land- use techniques for farmland preservation most effective in achieving the goals of the town.

• Help the community support its local farmers by linking them more directly to consumers, processors, and distributors in Bloomfield and the surrounding areas including Hartford.

Keep Bloomfield farming

recommendations

19

20

Keep Bloomfield farming recommendations

Appendix A Bloomfield and Surrounding Towns

Town Center ★

Bloomfield encompasses twenty-six square miles in Hartford County, Connecticut and is surrounded by urban, suburban, and rural landscapes.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A1

Regional Watersheds

Town Center ★

Within the larger Connecticut River watershed in which Bloomfield lies, are the Mill Brook, Farmington River, and Park River watersheds. Significant wetland features such as the Great Drain —a red maple swamp enriched by Metacomet Range calcium deposits— support diverse habitat and assist in flood control.

A2

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Open Space

Town Center ★

The roughly thirty percent of Bloomfield in open space supports recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, flood control, agriculture, and rural character.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A3

LESA Parcels 1984 & 2010

Town Center ★

±

±

Bloomfield, CT

Legend LESA 1984 LESA Today

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

±

LESA Parcels 1984 and 2010 reveals a significant loss of prime agricultural land in less than thirty years.

A4

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A5

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Prime and State Important Soils are found throughout much of Bloomfield and indicate land that is well-draining and of minimal slope, among others. A clear exception is the entire western boundary, wherein the Metacomet Range, with its significant slopes and thin soils, does not lend itself to agriculture.

A6

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Bloomfield has abundant and diverse freshwater wetlands that aid in flood control, support fish and wildlife habitat, improve water quality, and contribute to open space and recreation.

Agricultural activities are not feasible within wetland buffers.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A7

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Most areas of Critical Habitat are found along the Farmington River, west of Bloomfield.

An exception is at Bloomfield’s northernmost boundary, where the river cuts through the Metacomet Range.

A8

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Impervious surfaces—roads, residential and commercial developments—are concentrated in south-central and south-east areas of Bloomfield. These areas typically do not support significant areas of farmland.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A9

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Land Suitable for Farming—or land with Prime and Statewide Important soils and no limiting wetlands, critical habitat or impervious surface—is found scattered throughout Bloomfield. Clear exceptions are the entire west boundary and pockets in the southeast.

A10

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Existing Farm Parcels

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Legend Farm Parcels

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

Âą

Farm parcels reveal the fragmentation of farmland in Bloomfield. It is likely that more farm parcels exist, and they should be added accordingly.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A11

Percent of Parcel Suitable for Farming

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Legend Farm Parcels Suitable Farmland

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

Âą

Most parcels are composed of over fifty percent suitable farmland, with high percentages in the northeast shoulder of town. There is substantial suitable farmland outside of identified parcels.

A12

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Potential Farm Parcels

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Legend Farm Parcels Open Space Suitable Farmland

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

±

A great deal of Bloomfield’s open space is composed of suitable farmland, with the clear exception of its western ridgelands. Land outside of open space that appears undeveloped should be investigated further to assess its farmland preservation potential.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A13

Town Center ★

Bloomfield, CT

Natural Diversity Areas—approximate locations of special concern species and significant natural communities—are mostly found among wetlands, rivers, and protected open space.

Farmland found to be in or adjacent to Natural Diversity areas may be of high priority if best management practices are followed.

A14

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Farm Parcel Table OID

PPF

Street Address

29

79

BLUE HILLS AVE

Owner Name WILLIAM B MEYER INCORPORATED

Book & Page

Lot

1472/ 149

Size (Acres) 454

Zone

7.03 I-2

99

96

448 TUNXIS AVE

ALEKSANDRAVICIUS BRONIUS &

82/ 141

7

327

79

2 MUCKO RD

BALA MAGDALEN SZOZDA

570/ 214

15

3.40 R-40

400

64

696 COTTAGE GROVE RD

BARVENIK KATHLEEN &

715/ 63

1005

766

56

174 DUNCASTER RD

BRAVO PAUL &

1367/ 281

1056

4.89 R-40

927

34

DUNCASTER RD

BULL LEONARD H JR

1361/ 90

1116

25.49 R-40

1099

66

461 TUNXIS AVE

CARSON DEBRA L &

799/ 303

10

1.14 R-40

1240

27

WINTONBURY AVE

CHURCH HOME OF HARTFORD

530/ 29

178-4

19.25 R-30

53.30 I-2 13.06 R-20

1511

80

WEST DUDLEY TOWN RD

WEST DUDLEY TOWN ROAD LLC

1244/ 169

300 14

1565

18

256 DUNCASTER RD

HULME JENNIFER M

1103/ 269

638 13

2000

0

LOEFFLER RD

DUNCASTER FOUNDATION INC

832/ 79

2003

35

31 DANIEL BLVD

DUNKLEY HARRY A JR

767/ 307

36

0.27 R-10

2318

73

24 TARIFFVILLE RD

FORSTER CARL F JR REVOCABLE TR

892/ 191

1008,2

12.30 R-40

2321

65

FILLEY ST

FORSTER RONALD W &

666/ 326

1023

10.60 R-30

2465

75

16 GALE RD

JEPSEN EDWARD G

1043/ 693

232-3 8

10.00 R-80

2552

100

1370 BLUE HILLS AVE

RIVER BEND ASSOCIATES INC

1450/ 12

1003

2860

59

440 TUNXIS AVE

GRIFFIN LAND & NURSERIES INC

736/ 261

1019

2902

41

200 DUNCASTER RD

STEDMAN JOHN M & CARYN W

1106/ 308

10

0.93 R-40

3078

80

DUNCASTER RD

HAWK HILL ASSOCIATES

318/ 748

11

44.00 R-40

176-3&4

8

49.00 I-2 4.65 R-40 16.14

24.12 I-2 0.53 R-40

3113

66

407 WOODLAND AVE

HEEBER W C & UBAN JOHN &

770/ 234

3159

73

271 DUNCASTER RD

HESS AARON E &

671/ 2

3198

55

438 TUNXIS AVE

HILENSKI GEORGE J &

1127/ 222

1018

1.03 R-40

3677

60

LISA LN

K.R.A. LLC

984/ 176

131-3

10.21 R-10

3833

29

COTTAGE GROVE RD

MUSIAL DARLENE K

1165/ 147

128-2

12.06 R-10

3870

74

CIDER HILL RD

APPLE ORCHARD LLC

1305/ 98

85-4

43.60 R-80

3897

70

32 MUCKO RD

KRISS STANLEY

851/ 126

7

3988

75

FILLEY ST

STERLING RIDGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC

1435/ 51

9

4334

51

202 DUNCASTER RD

MALONE AMELIA (LIFE USE) & PATRICIA &

1123/ 89

11

0.93 R-40

4364

78

12 BURR RD

MAPLE HILL FARMS INC

79/ 335

126-2

29.54 R-30

4459

91

RYEFIELD HOLLOW DR

MAULUCCI BROTHERS LLC

1245/ 157

3009

74.08 R-30

4459

100

RYEFIELD HOLLOW DR

MAULUCCI BROTHERS LLC

1245/ 157

3009

74.08 R-30

4620

64

GRIFFIN RD N

MEADOW PARK ASSOCIATES INC

405/ 125

638

5067

76

442 TUNXIS AVE

NOLAN LEONARD J

663/ 159

1020

1.16 R-40

5084

28

8 PETERS RD

NORTHEAST LIGHTNING

283/ 345

3006

1.84 I-2

5096

34

208 DUNCASTER RD

NOVARR DANIEL & AVRA

273/ 229

1130

0.92 R-40

5098

27

208 DUNCASTER RD

NOVARR LEO J & DANIEL J &

1032/ 23

1131

24.13 R-40

5108

51

536 SIMSBURY RD

OCONNELL JOHN F JR &

738/ 22

6C

8.50 R-80

5219

96

33 FILLEY ST

AIKEN ALPHIE S

1011/ 20

2037

1.33 R-30

5247

35

12 RICHARD LN

PANNELL-HUYGHUE YVETTE

1268/ 356

1420

0.34 R-20

5264

96

436 TUNXIS AVE

PARKER WALTER J

852/ 45

71

0.45 R-40

5287

61

204 DUNCASTER RD

MOSHER STEFANIE A &

1430/ 253

12

0.93 R-40

5691

42

ADAMS RD

RIVER BEND ASSOCIATES INC

737/ 25

62

11.80 R-80

5693

77

OLD IRON ORE RD

RIVER BEND ASSOCIATES INC

737/ 25

373 8

5694

51

TUNXIS AVE

RIVER BEND ASSOCIATES INC

737/ 25

63

5695

76

29 GRIFFIN RD N

RIVER BEND ASSOCIATES INC

1447/ 152

638

45.35 I-2

5695

96

29 GRIFFIN RD N

RIVER BEND ASSOCIATES INC

1447/ 152

638

45.35 I-2

5696

85

OLD IRON ORE RD

RIVER BEND ASSOCIATION INC

737/ 25

1005

19.18 I-2

5849

37

59 DUNCASTER RD

ROY RAYMOND J & JUDITH

275/ 104

297-3 8

6132

68

391 SIMSBURY RD

SHEPHERD JOHN R &

276/ 298

14

6194

72

WEST DUDLEY TOWN RD

SILVESTER SPACE SERVICES

755/ 279

1012

6206

32

452 TUNXIS AVE

SIMMONS RICHARD C &

234/ 250

6

9.58 R-40

6406

58

35 FILLEY ST

SPROUT HOWARD E &

337/ 38

3

1.15 R-10

6559

83

69 DUNCASTER RD

STOUT ELIZABETH S

742/ 126

2013

2.00 R-80

6561

90

17 GUN MILL RD

STOUT FRANCES S

59/ 37

296

25.61 R-80

6806

81

BLUE HILLS AVE

TORZA SOPHIE

291/ 180

1013

14.39 R-15

7137

75

TUNXIS AVE

WEATHERBY HENRY C TRUSTEE

823/ 276

1032

3.10 R-30

7366

64

MILLS LN

WILLOUGHBY DOROTHY M

686/ 327

2004

10.60 R-15

7777

90

BLUE HILLS AVE

WINFIELD BUSINESS PARK

1013/ 448

4003

6.00 I-2

8322

81

37 FILLEY ST

CARUSO JOSEPH A

1192/ 21

2012

8392

75

WOODLAND AVE

WINFIELD BUSINESS PARK LLC

8394

64

TOBEY RD

BACK 40 LLC

1-B

2006 1244/ 167

1+2

14.00 I-2 1.00 R-40

30.40 I-2 0.00 R-30

45.44 I-2

55.57 I-2 7.50 R-40

69.16 R-30 4.96 R-40 5.79 I-2

1.10 R-30 14.78 I-2 55.83 R-40

OID = Object Identification from GIS ; PPF = Percent of Parcel for Farming Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A15

99

10 99

62 06 50 67

52 64

56 95 23 18 31 59

28 60

31 98

A. Proximity of Farms to Dedicated Open Space

56 95

46 20 50 96

15 65 71 37

52 87 43 34

56 94 29 02

50 98 56 91 77 77 29

76 6

56 96 83 92 25 52

38 97

56 93

311 3 15 11

50 84

32 7

65 61

61 94 39 88

65 59

23 21

52 47

82 35 58 49

68 06 92 7

83 22

44 59

30 78

64 06

24 65

44 59

52 19

73 66

12 40

51 08

20 00

Town Center ★

20 03 43 64

40 0

38 33

36 77

38 70 83 94 61 32

Bloomfield, CT

Legend Adjacent- optimal Less than 1/2 mile Over 1/2 mile Dedicated Open Space

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

Âą

Streets

A. Proximity of Farms to Dedicated Open Space includes parcel Object Identifier (OID) referenced on Farm Parcel Table, page A15.

A16

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

10 99

50 67

B. Proximity of Farms to Other Farms

62 06

31 98 99

56 95 31 59

23 18

28 60

56 95

52 64

46 20 15 65 43 34

71 37

50 96 52 87

56 94 29 02

50 98 56 91 77 77 29

76 6

56 96 83 92 25 52

38 97

56 93

311 3 15 11

50 84

32 7

65 61

61 94 39 88

65 59

52 47

82 35

23 21

58 49 68 06 92 7

44 59

30 78 24 65

44 59

64 06

83 22

52 19

73 66

12 40

51 08 20 00

Town Center ★

20 03 43 64

40 0

38 33

36 77

38 70 83 94 61 32

Bloomfield, CT Legend Adjacent-optimal Less than 1/2 mile More than 1/2 mile

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

Âą

Streets

B. Proximity of Farms to Other Farms includes parcel Object Identifier (OID) referenced on Farm Parcel Table, page A15.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A17

62 06

99

10 99

50 67

52 64

56 95 23 18 31 59

28 60

31 98

56 95

46 20 50 96

15 65 71 37

52 87 43 34

56 94 29 02

C. Proximity of Farms to DEP Natural Diversity Areas

50 98 56 91 77 77 29

76 6

56 96 83 92 25 52

38 97

56 93

311 3 15 11

50 84

32 7

65 61

61 94 39 88

65 59

23 21

52 47

82 35 58 49

68 06 92 7

83 22

44 59

30 78

64 06

24 65

44 59

52 19

73 66

12 40

51 08

20 00

Town Center ★

20 03 43 64

40 0

38 33

36 77

38 70 83 94 61 32

Bloomfield, CT

Legend Adjacent Less than 1/2 mile More than 1/2 mile - optimal

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

Âą

Natural Diversity Streets

C. Proximity of Farms to DEP Natural Diversity shows the relationship between the two factors. The map includes parcel Object Identifier (OID) referenced on Farm Parcel Table, page A15.

A18

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

A19

Weighted Total Sum of Weights Base Weight

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

99.0 7.9 120.0 10.4 0 0

1.0 0.08

Score Totals

Pa

rt

8.0 0.0 10.0 0.8

5.0 0.4 10.0 0.8

0.08

0.0 0.0 0.0 Scores: High=10; Medium=8; Low=5

8.0 2.0 10.0 2.5

0.08

0.0

8.0 0.7 10.0 0.8

0.08

1 P erc en Pa Fa t Sui rt 2 rm ta O i f ng ble f f-S ite or A. As Pr s e o s x sm im en i ts Op ty to en De B. S P pa dica rox ce ted i m ity to F a rm Oth C. s er P N rox a tur imity al to D ive CT rsi DE D ty P A rea s

0.25

.S iz

e

0.0

10.0 0.8 10.0 0.8

0.08

O

me s As ite n-S rt 3

Pa

nts

0.0

10.0 0.8 10.0 0.8

ra Inf

ed 0.0

10.0 0.8 10.0 0.8

0.08

F. Via ble

es s

nt rre

E

rm

ly F a

.C u 0.08

tur

e 0.0

8.0 0.7 10.0 0.8

0.08

0.0

8.0 0.3 10.0 0.4

0.04

.H is

str uc E

e I. R

on H

e tor

Va lu

0.0

8.0 0.3 10.0 0.4

0.04

l

ica l

ura

al Va lu

ati du c

G.

rac

ter Ch a

Weight

Prioritization Scorecard with Sample Weighted Scoring demonstrates how weighting “Part 1 Percent Suitable for Farming” by three times could reflect the committee’s values more accurately than if all factors receive equal ratings. Note that the base weight equals one. Weighting should be tested and agreed upon using a town owned parcel before attempting other farm parcels. Excel versions for the Preservation Scorecard are available from http://tinyurl.com/4bry7su.

Parcel B

Parcel A

Parcel

Sample

0.0

8.0 0.3 10.0 0.4

0.04

0.0

8.0 0.7 10.0 0.8

0.08

K. T

(Weighted Sample) Weighted

hre

n tio Re J.

e a

al Va lu cre a

ve De to f

Preservation Scorecard

en

t lop m

A20

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a

Parcel

Weighted Total Sum of Weights Base Weight

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

Weighted Total

Total

(Blank) Blank

Preservation Scorecard

0.0 0.08

Score Totals Weight

Scores: High=10; Medium=8; Low=5

Pa

rt

1 P erc en Pa Fa t Sui rt 2 rm ta O A. ff-Site ing ble f or P A Op roxi ssess mi e ty men B n .

Pr Spac to D ts ox e ed i m i c ity ate C. d P Fa to O Na roximrms ther t u ral ity t D oC D i v . e Siz rsi T DE ty e P A Pa rea r t s 3O n-S i t E. eA sse Cu s r s r m e en n tly ts F. F a V r me iab d le I nfr G. as E t r d u uc ctu a re tio na H. l H V alu is t o e ric I. R al V u alu r a lC e ha r a J cte .

Re r cre a K. tio na Th l r e V at alu e

of D

ev

e

lop m

en

t

Appendix B References American Farmland Trust and Connecticut Farmland Trust. Conservation Options For Connecticut Farmland – A Guide for Landowners, Land Trusts, & Municipalities. 2010.

Berry, Wendell, The Art of the Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry. Ed. Norman Wirzba.

Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 2002.

Farnsworth, Elizabeth. Metacomet-Mattabesett Trail Resource Assessment. 2004.

Ipswich Agriculture and Agricultural Land: A Study of the Challenges and Opportunities Facing Land- and SeaBased Enterprises in Ipswich.Walter Cudnohufsky Associates, Inc. Ashfield, MA. December 2009.

Orange County, New York— One of the 15 Case Studies for the Research Project—Farm Viability in Urbanizing Areas. University of Nebraska. Lincoln. 2008.

Plowing Ahead, Farmland Preservation in 2010 and Beyond. Working Lands Alliance. A Project of American Farmland Trust. March 2010.

Regulating the Farm: Improving Agriculture’s Viability in the Capitol Region. Funded by the Connecticut Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Viability Grant Program. 2007.

Town of Bloomfield Plan of Development. Bloomfield, Connecticut. 1984.

Town of Bloomfield Plan of Development. Bloomfield, Connecticut. 2000.

Town of Bloomfield Zoning Regulations. Bloomfield, Connecticut. August 2009.

Town of Copake Preliminary Farmland Protection Strategies. Dodson Associates, Ltd. with Paul Lacinski, January 2010.

Town of Chatham Agricultural Protection Plan, Chatham, New York. Adopted by the Town on September 17, 2009.

Wintonbury Historical Society. Bloomfield, Images of America. 2001.

Wintonbury Historical Society. From Wintonbury To Bloomfield, Bloomfield Sketches: A collection of papers on the history of the Town of Bloomfield, Connecticut, formerly known as Wintonbury. 1983.

Working Lands Alliance. A Call to Farms! A Mid-Decade Look at Connecticut’s Agricultural Lands. 2005.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix a B

B1

Resources: Federal Agencies

Resources: State of Connecticut

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Connecticut Department of Agriculture

Farm Services Agency

165 Capitol Avenue

344 Merrow Road, Suite B

Hartford, CT 06106

Tolland, Connecticut 06084

Agricultural Grants: (860) 713-2550

(860) 871-2944

CT Farm-Link: (860) 713-2588

www.fsa.usda.gov

Farmland Preservation: (860) 713- 2511 www.state.ct.us/doag

USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service 344 Merrow Road, Suite B

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

Tolland, Connecticut 06084

79 Elm Street

(860) 871-4011

Hartford, CT 06106

www.fsa.usda.gov

Division of Forestry: (860) 424-3630 Open Space and Land Acquisition Grants:

USDA/Rural Development

(860) 424-3081

Southern New England Office

www.dep.state.ct.us

451 West Street, Suite 2 Amherst, Massachusetts 01002

Connecticut Department of Transportation

(413) 253-4300

1107 Cromwell Avenue

www.rurdev.usda.gov

Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Scenic Highway Coordinator: (860) 258-4516 www.ct.gov.dot University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System Farm Risk Management and Crop Insurance New London County Extension Center 562 New London Turnpike Norwich, CT 06360 (860) 887-1608 www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/frm Through workshops and training, the University of Connecticut Farm Risk Management Team helps farmers address farm management issues, including farming business planning, farm transfer and estate planning, and farmland preservation.

B2

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix b

Resources – Non-Profit Organizations American Farmland Trust

Trust for Public Land

775 Bloomfield Avenue

Connecticut Office

Windsor, CT 06095

101 Whitney Avenue

(860) 683-4230

New Haven, CT 06510

www.farmland.org

(203) 777-7367

A national organization working to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment at the federal, state and local level.

www.tpl.org

Connecticut Farmland Trust 77 Buckingham Street Hartford, CT 06106 860) 247-0202 www.CTFarmland.org A statewide land trust dedicated to farmland protection, CFT accepts donations of agricultural conservation easements and assists landowners with the sale of their development rights.

Connecticut Land Conservation Council 55 Church Street, Floor 3 New Haven, CT 06510

A national land conservation organization with a commitment to protecting land for people to enjoy, including farms and forest that support land-based livelihoods; TPL helps communities define a conservation vision, raise funds, and negotiate conservation transactions.

Working Land Alliance 775 Bloomfield Avenue Windsor, CT 06095 (860) 683-4230 www.workinglandsalliance.com A statewide coalition of farmers, planners, conservationists, anti-hunger advocates, historic preservationists, chefs, and food retailers working together to increase the state’s commitment to farmland preservation.

(203) 568-6293 www.crtconservation.org The council advocates for land preservation, stewardship, and funding to ensure the long term strength and viability of the land conservation community.

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix b

B3

Resources: Farms and Farming Organizations

4-H Education Center at Auer Farm

Holcomb Farm C.S.A.

158 Auer Farm Road

111 Simsbury Road

Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002

West Granby, Connecticut 06090

Cathy J. Cohen, Interim Executive Director

Sam Hammer, Farm Manager

cjcohen@comcast.net

Sam@holcombfarmcsa.org

(860) 242-7144, ext 16.

(860) 653-5554

www.auerfarm.org

www.holcombfarmcsa.org

Center for an Agricultural Economy

Northeast SARE

Post Office Box 451

Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education

41 South Main Street

655 Spear Street

Hardwick, Vermont 05843

University of Vermont

www.hardwickagriculture.org

Burlington, Vermont 05405 www.nesare.org

Glynwood Center PO Box 157

Northeast Organic Farmers Association

Cold Spring, New York 10516

Connecticut Chapter

Virginia Kasinski, Keep Farming Program Director

Post Office Box 164

vkasinski@glynwood.org

Stevenson, Connecticut 06491

(845) 265-3338, ext 125.

www.ctnofa.org

www.glynwood.org Harris Agriscience & Technology Center Huckleberry Lane Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002 Jaunice Edwards, Director jedwards@blmfld.org (860) 286-2630, ext. 1155. www.blmfld.org/agriscience

B4

Keep Bloomfield farming appendix b