THE HOUSATONIC IN CONNECTICUT A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR : NATIONAL PARK SERVICE As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation conmunities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE William J. Whalen, Director FINAL REPORT
THE HOUSATONIC IN CONNECTICUT
A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY
August 1979
Prepared by:
U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (formerly Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) Northeast Regional Office
Printed by the National .Park Service
FOREWORD
On October 12, 1976, the U.S. Congress amended the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542) to include for study the Housatonic River in Connecticut from the Massachusetts/Connecticut boundary downstream to its conflu ence with the Shepaug River. This action was the result of the initia tive taken by the people of the Housatonic Valley to protect the natural beauty and cultural heritage of their river.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers System was established by Congress in 1968 to protect and conserve outstanding free-flowing rivers of this nation for the future. Its purpose as stated in the Act is "that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cul tural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoy ment of present and future gener ations."
This report evaluates the Housatonic River in Connecticut, discusses the actions required for conservation and protection of the river, and explains the procedures for designation of the eligible river segment as a National Scenic and Recreational River. SUMMARY. . . • . . . • . . . • . • • . . . . • • . . • • • • . . • • . • . • • • • • • • . . . • • • • . . • • . • . • • • • • . . . 1 Findings. • . . • • • . . • . • • • . . . • • . . . . • . . . • • • . • • • • • . • • • . . . . • • • • • . . • • • . . • • • • 2 Recommendations. • • • . . . • • • . • . • • . . • • • • • . . • • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • . • • • • • • . . • • . . 4
THE RIVER ENVIRONMENT Natural Resources. . . • • . . . • ...... • • • • ...... • • . • . . . • • • • ...... • . . . 5 Topography. . . • . • • • . . . • • • . . • • • . . . • • . • . . . • • . • ...... • • . • . . . . . • • . . . • . 5 Geology...... 7 Hydrology. . . . . • • . . . . • • • . . • • • • . . . • . • . . • • • • • • • . . . . • . . • ...... • • . . . . • . 9 Water Quality...... • • • . • • • • • . . • • • . . . • • ...... • • • ...... • • • • . . • . • • . . 11 Climate •...... ••...... ••..•••....•••.....••...•....•.....•••.... 13 Soils ..•..•....••••...••••..•••....•.•.....••••.....••••...•..•... 14 Vegetation ..•••.•....••...••••...•••...••.•.....••••....••...... 16 Wildlife. . . • • . . . . . • • • . . . • • • • . . • • ...... • • . . • . . . • • ...... • . . . . . • . • • 18 Fisheries ..•.•....••.•...•••..•••....••••....•.•••...•••...... •.. 18 Critical Habitats ...... 19 Settlement Pattern •.•.....••.....•....•••...... ••.....•••... 21 Land Use ...•.•.....•.••.....••..••••...••...... •.•.....•.•...... 21 Population •••...... ••....•.•...••••...•••••....•.••.....••.....••. 22 Agriculture ....••••....•.••....•••..•••.•...... •.•....•...... •••. 24 Forestry...... • . • . . . . • • • • . . . • • • . . . . • • • • ...... • • . . . . . • • • • . . . . • • . . . . 24 Mining ....•.•.....•.•...... ••.....••••....••.••...••••.....•.•.... 25 Manufacturing ...•.••...•.•••....•.••..•.•..•...•.••.•.....•...... 25 Hydropower Production. • . • • . . . . • . • • . . . • . • • • . . . . . • • . . . . • . • • • . . . • • • • . 27 Recreation. . . . • • • • • . . . . • • • • • • . . • . • • • • . . . • • . • . . . . . • • . . . . . • . • • . . . . . • 29 Conservation Ac ti vi ty ..••...... ••....••••....•.••...•.••...... ••.. 33 Archaeological Activity ..•.••.•.•....•.•...•.•.....••••...•.•••..• 33 Historical Development ••...... ••••....•.••...•••.•.....•••...... •• 33
WILD AND SCENIC RIVER CRITERIA. . . . • . • • . • . . . . • ...... • • ...... • • • . . . . . • • . 35 Eligibility Criteria. • ...... •. • • . . . . • • • • • . . . . • . . . . . • • • . . . . • . • • . . . . • • 35 Classification ..•...... •••.•...... •.••....••.....•••....•••...... •.. 38
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES. . . • . • • • . . . . . • . . • . • . . . • • • . . . • . • • ...... • . . • • 39 Inventory ....••••.•.....••..•••...... •••.•...•.....••....•....•.•... 40 River Corridor...... • . • • ...... • . . . . • . • • . • • . • . . . . • • • . . • . • ...... 40 Critical Areas •••...... •••...... •.....••..•.•...... •.•.....•••..• 41 Poli ti cal Actions ...••.•....•••••....•••••.•.•...•...•...... ••.. 43 Analysis •.....•.•.....••••.....••.•....•.•...•••.....••••.....••.••• 44 Programming ...... •.•...•••••.....•••••.....•...•.••.....•...... •.•. 44 Land Use Management Program .••....•••...... •..••....•..•.....•• 44 Recreation Management Program .•••....•.•...•.•.....•••....•••..•.. 47 Water Quality Management. • . . • . . . . • • • • • . . . . • . . . . • • ...... • • • ...... 48 Implementation •.•....••••••.•.•.....•.•••.••.•.•...••.••....••.•.•.• 50 Wild & Scenic River Designation ...••.•...... •.••....••••...... 51 APPENDICE8
PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS...... 52 Description of the Plans...... 52 Evaluation and Comparison of the Plans...... 56 Wild and Scenic River Evaluation...... 65
FISH AND WILDLIFE OF THE HOUSATONTC RIVER VALLEY...... 71
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 75
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES...... 77
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ...... 79-111
MAPS
1. Location...... • . • ...... 1 2. Housatonic Watershed...... 1 3. Housatonic Study Segment...... 3 4. Topography...... • . • ...... 6 5. Bedrock Geology...... • . . . • ...... 8 6. Hydrology...... • . • ...... 9 7. Soil Associations...... • ...... 14 8. Vegetation Zones...... 16 9. Population Density...... • . • . • ...... 23 10. Manufacturing Employment 1970-2000...... • . • . • ...... 26 11. Settlement Patterns...... • ...... 32
TABLES
1. Average Annual Water Budget...... 10 2. Average Climatic Conditions...... • ...... 13 3. Land Use...... 22 4. Population Projections...... 23 5, Commercial Forest Land Benefits ...... •...... 25 6. Manufacturing Employment...... • . • ...... 26 7. State Parks and Forests...... • ...... 29 8. Mean Monthly Flow ...... •...... , ...... 36
PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS TABLES
A. Description of the Plans...... 54 B. Environmental Quality Objective ...... • ...... 57 C. Economic Development Objective...... 59 D. Regional Development Objective...... 62 E. Social Well-Being Objective...... 64 F. Wild & Scenic River/Existing Trends Comparison ...... 66 G. Wild & Scenic River/Economic Development Comparison ...... 68 H. Wild & Scenic River/Environmental Protection Comparison ...... 69 '/ ' (p,---"AS_':_ "T.)\., \ i \ .., CONN. ' .
..... ~.:
N.Y. CD MAP1: LOCATION
l>""·""I The Housatonic Watershed
SUMMARY
The Housatonic River basin lies principally in western Connecticut and southwestern Massachusetts with small sections extending into southeastern New York. Of the river's total 132 miles, only 51 miles in Connecticut were iden tified for this study. The general study area includes the towns of ,, Salisbury, North Canaan, Canaan, /' Sharon, Cornwall, Kent, Sherman, Danbury New Milford, Bridgewater, Brook field and Newtown. This area is well known for its charming rural character, historical heritage and natural beauty which is remarkable considering its proximity to the northeastern megalopolis. 0 4 8 16 miles This hilly upland area was passed Scale over as an urban corridor developed CD between Boston and New York along MAP 2: HOUSATONIC WATERSHED the flat coastal plain of Long Island Sound. Today, urban The Study Area pressures are beginning to be felt here, as the nearby Danbury metro politan area continues to expand rapidly, and as the popularity of was brought about by their interest river-oriented recreation continues in preserving the Housatonic and to increase. The residents of the has involved a full variety of Housatonic Valley are aware of public and private officials and these pressures and their potential citizens who are working together b.LgU.LJ..LC'.C:UlU ctrt.:ucteU..LUg.Lt.:<:J....L J. .LIJUb from prehistoric cultures and is a The Housatonic River from the uniq_ue archaeological resource in Massachusetts/Connecticut this area of New England. border to its confluence with the Shepaug River has been WATER QUALITY. The study segment carefully studied by an of the Housatonic River has a interagency study team of general class "B" rat· ing un d er representatives from several the 1973 Water Quality Standards federal agencies, the State for Connecticut. This indicates of Connecticut, regional plan the river's ability to support ning agencies, and several bathing and other recreational recreation and conservation activities as well as to provide groups. This team found the an excellent habitat for fish and following outstanding wildlife including a cold water qualities and values of the fishery. The 1976 water quality river and its valley: standards, however, downgrade the river to class "D" due to the SCENIC QUALITY. The visual and high levels of PCB's (poly spatial experiences of the river chlorinated biphenyl) found in valley are highly diverse as the the fish. Efforts are being river flows through areas of made to return this river steep forested mountains with segment to its original prominent bedrock outcroppings class "B" rating by 1979. near their summits, to areas of gently rolling hills and broad VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE VALUES. 2 flood plains covered with The Housatonic Valley contains agricultural fields and dotted certain Wliq_ue environmental with tiny villages. conditions that create suitable habitats for rare and endangered HISTORICAL VALUE. The Housatonic species of both plants and animals. Valley originally developed as a Several of these sites are recog river-oriented agricultural area nized as 11 cri ti cal habitats 11 by in colonial times and eventually the State of Connecticut and are played a prominent role in the of scientific and educational 19th century iron industry. significance of New England as a Reminders of these historical whole. periods are evident today in the general appearance of the valley RECREATIONAL VALUE. The with its picturesque riverside Housatonic River supports a full villages of colonial homes and range of river-oriented activities stores, and its old stone fences and is well known in the Southern running through fields of crops. New England-New York region for State and/or national recognition canoeing, kayaking, trout and bass has been given to several histor fishing, and fly-fishing. State ical sites in the valley. park and forest lands in the area provide public access to the river ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUE. Archaeologists and acconunodations for camping, maintain that the Housatonic Valley hiking, and hunting. has an excellent potential to yield '1UALu·1cA'1'1Ul1. 'l'he major purpose of the study team in evaluating N Ca·~ the river was to make findings .-·-- and recommendations concerning the suitability of the Housatonic Salisbury ,r--- / River for inclusion in the National 111 Wild and Scenic Rivers System. FFalls These major findings on qualification Can=/ Mountain Rd. are as follows!
1. THE 41-MILE SEGMENT OF THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FROM THE MASS .---'E-- ACHUSETTS/CONNECTICUT BORDER TO ~ ·--i BOARDMAN BRIDGE NEAR NEW MILFORD MEETS THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND Sharon THUS QUALIFIES AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Jc"""'"/ SYSTEM. HOWEVER, PROTECTION IS ( . CONTINGENT UPON THE COMPLETION OF AN ACCEPTABLE MANAGEMENT PLAN THROUGH LOCAL ACTION.
2. THE 10-MILE SEGMENT OF THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FROM BOARDMAN BRIDGE TO ITS CONFLUENCE WITH THE 3 SHEPAUG RIVER DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM DUE TO THE COMBINED ADVERSE EFFECTS OF IMPOUNDED WATERS AND SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. NEVERTHELESS, A MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PRESERVATION OF THE SPECIAL VALUES OF THIS RIVER SEGMENT SHOULD BE PREPARED \ THROUGH LOCAL ACTION. Boardman. Bridge \. \
Eligible segment: scenic class Eligible segment: recreational class Ineligible segment
MAP 3: HOUSATONIC STUDY 2.25 5.5 (f) ,... .. -...... I I milo... CLASSIFICATION. In addition to 2. IF NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL determing, the study team classified RIVER DESIGNATIOJI IS DESIRED, THE the eligible segment of the river COMPLETED MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOULD BE into one SCENIC and two RECREATIONAL PRESENTED TO THE LOCAL TOWNS FOR segments. This determination is APPROVAL, AND THEN TO THE STATE LEG based on the degree of development ISLATURE FOR RECOGNITION AS A STATE along the river as compared to other SCENIC RIVER AND FOR LEGISLATION rivers in the National System. The OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZING THE MANAGING scenic segment is the 20.5 miles AGENCY. of the river from Falls Mountain Road in Canaan to Kent Bridge. The 3. THE GOVERNOR SHOULD SUBMIT THE recreational segments are the 8.5 PLAN TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR miles from the Massachusetts/ WITH A REQUEST FOR NATIONAL DESIGNA'rION Connecticut border to Falls Mountain AS A STATE-DESIGNATED UNIT, AS Road, and the 12 miles from Kent PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 2(a)(ii) OF Bridge to Boardman Bridge. This THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT. classification is not intended to indicate the "most scenic" or'~best 4. THE FINE SCENIC, CULTURAL AND recreational 11 areas and does not RECREATIONAL FEATURES OF THE 10-MILE affect the amount of protection INELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT SHOULD BE extended to a river segment. RECOGNIZED AND LOCAL INTEREST IN ATTAINING ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR Recommendations THIS AREA SHOULD BE SOUGHT.
1. THE RESPONSIBILITY AND INI The recommended management plan for TIATIVE FOR PREPARING A MANAGEMENT this river segment should provide a PLAN AND REQUESTING NATIONAL SCENIC coordinated state and local effort AND RECREATIONAL RIVER DESIGNATION towards preserving its values and 4 SHOULD BE WITH THE LOCAL TOWNS. guiding its future, even though federal commitments through river This report, therefore, includes designation cannot be made lll1less guidelines to assist the towns in a special exception is granted by preparing an acceptable management Congress. plan and in requesting designation, if they choose to do so. Basically, an acceptable management plan should include programs to guide land use, recreation and water quality through administrative and legal actions of the federal, state and local govern ments and the voluntary cooperation of interested groups and individuals. Primary responsibility for imple menting the management plan could be delegated to either the town governments, or the state govern ments, or a combined state/local arrangement. This managing agency should coordinate the actions of the towns, the State of Connecticut, the federal government. the rerrional The Housatonic valley changes The Housatonic River runs Quickly dramatically from the northern to through a scenic forested valley southern edges of the study area. which reflects the rural-agricul From the Massachusetts/ Connec tural character of its New England ticut border downstream to colonial heritage. To thoroughly Falls Village the river meanders understand this river, a discussion slowly alongside a rugged moun of its natural resources and tain rising 700 feet above the settlement pattern is presented river to an elevation of 1461 here. This is the basic infor feet on its west bank and past mation on which the study team has several lower hills rising formed the decisions and recomm only 200 feet on its east bank endations of the report and into a broad flat floodplain should provide a basis for and wetland area. Then the river management planning for the river. valley narrows gradually until it is pinched between the mountains NATURAL RESOURCES of the Housatonic State Forest which rise approximately 900 feet The natural resources of the river above the river in Cornwall to an valley are the result of processes elevation of 1400 feet. In the which have occurred in the area town of Kent, the flood plain on through eons of time. An under the east bank widens as the standing of these processes can mountains, rising gradually to 5 clarify the importance of what 1300 feet, are stepped back from is there and suggest why the valley the river. The west bank, has come to be as it is today. however, continues to form a steep forested wall rising 1000 feet over the river at St. Johns Ledge and Schagticoke Mountain. Then the river turns sharply at Bulls Bridge into a narrow flood plain lined intermittently with steeply sloped hills, rising only 300 feet above the river, to an elevation of 500-600 feet. As the river reaches the village of New Milford, the flood plain widens considerably especially on its western bank. Then it is pinched suddenly into a small ste~p forested gorge at Lovers Leap. Beyond this gorge the river becomes the long narrow Lake Lillinonah nestled in rugged and steep forested hill sides which rise 500 feet over the water to elevations of 600- 700 feet.
These changes in topography from
------l-1.-. -1------.1..1. _, ---- ...... , __ --~------FALLS VILLAGE
Elevation: 1400'
Elevation: 1500 r
Elevation: 1400 1 STATS HOUSATONIC STATE FOREST
Elevation: 1514' FLOODPLAIN WIDENS ON EAST BANK Elevation: 1300 1 ST. JOHNS BULLS BRIDGE Elevation: 1300'
VILLAGE OF KENT Elevation: 600 r SCHAGTICOKE MTN. 6
Elevation: 1061' FLOODPLAIN WIDEN ON WEST SIDE NEW MILFORD
LOVERS LEAP Elevation: 991•
LAKE LILLINONAH
Elevation: 700 1
Steep Slopes EJ Tributaries 00 High points ~ Towns and Villages Generally the Housatonic River originally granite with some sed Basin, including its New York iments deposited by the sea, were and Massachusetts sections is a pressured and uplifted to form maturely dissected upland with metamorphic rocks. Today, this narrow, flat-topped hills pre Precambrian gneiss and schist forms serving in their summits the old the steep mountains of the Housa uplifted plain in which the present tonic State Forest and the east valleys have been cut. The northern wall of the river through Kent. perimeter of the basin is ringed with steep-sided mountains rising Early in the following era, the 1500 feet above the wide valley Paleozoic, seas covered large to elevations of 2600 feet. In parts of the region, which deposited the lower Connecticut part of a carbonate material that became the basin, the tops of the even limestone, and which formed sandy crested hills rise approximately beaches that later became sandstone. 500 feet above the valley floor. Eventually these limestone and This distinctive decline in ele sandstone deposits were changed to vation along the river from the the marble and quartzite which mountains in Massachusetts to the forms the broad flood plain areas hills of southern Connecticut, of the river valley, especially reflects the passage of the river north of Falls Village, south of through two sections of the New Cornwall Bridge, and near the England physiographic province of village of New Milford. North America - the Taconic section and the New England Upland section. Later in the Paleozoic era, the ancient seas retreated and large 7 The transition zone dividing these two areas occurs in the general masses of silt and mud were washed vicinity of Bulls Bridge. The into the area from the higher lands Taconic section to the north is to the northwest. The resulting the smallest subdivision of the New sediments first became shales, then England province and consists of were metamorphosed into slates, mountains and limestone valleys. and today form the schist and The New England Upland below Bulls gneiss, located on the west bank Bridge extends from the tip of Maine of the river above Falls Village, through Connecticut and is generally on the eastern boundary of the described as a widespread plateau broad flood plain in Kent, and on like area with several thousand part of Lake Lillinonah's shores. scattered lakes and isolated hard rock hills. Following the retreat of the ancient seas, massive forces Geology slowly lifted the land far above sea level, probably as high as The basic topographic form of the twenty thousand feet. During Housatonic valley today is deter these upheavals, the Paleozoic mined by the location and relative intrusive rocks of granite and strength of bedrock in the area diorite entered the valley in which has been formed through eons New Milford, below Bulls Bridge of time by natural forces, pressures and along a portion of Lake and processes. The oldest known Lillinonah. rocks in the Housatonic valley are the gneiss-schist complex from the Millions of years of erosion during the iast ml.l.llOn year::;, .Lu the Pleistocene epoch, the Ice Age began. Masses of grinding and crunching ice moved into Connec ticut, advancing and retreating at least twice and quite likely four times. As the ice left each time, the path cut by the river was altered, especially within the less resistant marble areas. One interglacial stage found the river flowing through the large lakes in Salisbury and then looping into New York State in the Ten Mile River System before rejoining the present course near Bulls Bridge. Evidence also exists of an earlier path north of Falls Village through the Hollenbeck River, east of the present Housa tonic and eventually back to the current valley at Cornwall Bridge.
The glaciers also created various landforms which are evident in the valley. Those composed of 8 sand and gravel deposits and in the form of sinuous ridges or mounds are known as terraces, eskers and kames. The hard packed material below these sand and gravel deposits is consoli dated glacial till which forms elongated hills in some places that are known as drumlins.
Marble and quartzite ~ (Cambrian and Ordovician) Gneiss and s~hist llIIIIll (Precambrian) Schist and gneiss ~ (Cambrian and Ordovician) Gneiss and schist [I] (Cambrian and Ordovician) Granite and diorite D (Paleozoic) Source: King's Mark Resource Con servation and Development Plan.
0 2.25 5.5 The Housatonic River Basin extends from Connecticut into Massachusetts Ir, and New York, and is comprised of // ;/ II a/.~,, I 1950 square miles. 1he river itself ·'"-/ r is formed by the confluence of the East Branch and West Branch l!ousa / ~Pit\J}ield tonic Rivers at Pittsfield, I '°9' l 1'1; Massachusetts. It follows a generally southerly course for 36 I/, I ~· Ii miles through Massachusetts and I I 30 miles through northwestern I I 1 • I Connecticut to the vicinity of 1 I ) Bulls Bridge, where it turns and I flows southeastward for miles I 53 I to tidewater at Derby. It then I \ continues for 13 more miles to I its mouth at Long Island Sound, 4 miles eastward of the city of I BLACKBERRY Bridgeport. RIVER ' \ ' \ The study segment of the river is ' a 1232 square mile area in Connect \,',, icut, located in the upper Connect \ icut portion of the basin. Five of I I 9 the seven major tributaries enter the river in this area. These are the Blackberry River, the Ten Mile \ River, the Rocky River (Candlewood ' \ Lake), the Still River, and the I I Shepaug River. This area also I I includes five of the eight major I aquifers in the basin. These are I located at Preston Brook, Gunn I ,, I Brook, Millard Brook, Mauwee Brook, I and Macedonia Brook. '~~- ..__ I ':,, \ - STILL ] IVER - '- _,. 1 I I ' ' ' \ \ Bridgeport •'
3 5 7 Scale O · 14 mies'I CD MAP6•HYDROLOGY E22J The Study Area @] Aquifer Locations study segment of the Housatonic is from Massachusetts 840 billion gallons. Direct precipitation accolints for 66% of this water budget, while 34% is l attributed to streamflow from New York and Massachusetts. Only 568 j from~ billion gallons per year, however, are released from the study area rom NY ~ PJ'Qtion·( through the Shepaug Dam. The remaining 272 billion gallons in oNY • \ .... the water budget leave the study area through a diversion for the evapotra:~piration } to city of Waterbury, run-off to New '-._ ,\aterbury York State, and the natural ~. j Di version evaporation and transpiration processes. L \~/t~~tflow The Housatonic has been considered as w Shepaug Dam a potential source of water supply for Connecticut in a recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report. It discusses the potential for developing 100 million gallons of water supplies GAINS ..LOSSES 1 per day from the ri vers existing power Precipitation 556 262 Evapo-trans impqundments, should Connecticut From Mass. 220 568 Outflow at change its policy of developing Shepaug Dam 10 supplies only from these sources which From New York 64 1 To New York do not receive treated wastes. 9 To Waterbury The gradient of the river in TOTALS 840 840 Connecticut is generally steeper and Above figures in billion gallons per more evenly sloped than it is in year. Massachusetts. From Falls Village downstream to Derby, the river frABLE 1: AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER BUD drops 534 feet in 63 miles which pET FOR THE UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER includes a natural fall of 95 ~ource: Water Resources Inventory feet in 2 miles near Bulls Bridge. pf,Connecticut: Upper Housatonic In addition, this river segment ~iver Basin, Part 6, USGS, 1972 includes the Shepaug Dam which accounts for 97 feet of fall, and Streamflow rates for the Housatonic the Stevenson Dam which accounts River are slightly lower than those for 68 feet of fall. The average for other rivers in Connecticut. slope of the river in this area, The average annual discharge for the excluding these three steep drops study segment is 1072 cfs (cubic feet is 4.9 feet per mile. By contrast, per second) at Falls Village and 1651 the Massachusetts portion of the cfs at Gaylordsville, which is river has an average slope of l. li sufficient for canoeing, which requires feet per mile excluding the 280 700 cfs in this area. Seasonal foot natural fall in 21 miles at variations in steamflows however, Great Barrington and the 99 foot cause lower flows to occur in the natural fall in 2 miles at Falls summer months when water is lost by iT~ll..,,,,.= of the river indicate that the The existing water quality average seven day-ten year low flows classification of the Housatonic are 120 cfs at Falls Village and 170 River was downgraded from Class B cfs at Gaylordsville. These are to D when it was discovered that natural low flows averaged for a PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) seven day period and having a concentrations in Housatonic fish recurrance interval of ten years. exceeded limits set by the United States Food and Drug Administra Floods may occur in the upper tion. The PCB count varied Housatonic River basin in any from more than 35 to less than season of the year. Spring floods one part per million in fish. are common and sometimes accom In 1977, the Connecticut panied by destruction from moving Department of Health placed a ice. Floods ±n later swmner and health advisory against eating fall are usually the result of fish from the Housatonic. hurricanes or other storms. Winter floods result from occasional thaws, particularly in years of heavy snowfall.
Flood records at Falls Village indicate the mean annual flood to be 6,600 cfs and to reach an elevation of 537 feet. At 11 Gaylordsville, the mean annual flood is 11,000 cfs, reaching 246 feet in elevation. The maximum flood of record on the Although the State of Connecticut river above Kent occurred on Nater Quality Standards Classifi New Year's Day, 1949. Below cation (September 1977) lists the Kent, the maximwn flood of anticipated conditions of the Housa record occurred in August 1955. tonic as Bsb (suitable for bathing and other recreational activities) by November 1979, the PCB problem in the Housatonic will not actually be solved by that time. A special act of the Connecticut Legislature (78-50) appropriated an initial $200,000 by the Department of Environmental Protection for planning to solve the PCB problem in the Housatonic. This allocation was in response to strong interest in restoring water quality in the Housatonic. A portion of the initial effort will be to determine the health effects of PCB's. The Health Department will examine the bio chemical effects of PCB's on Discharges of PCB's from the General Electric plant site upstream in Pittsfield, Massachusetts have been virtually eliminated and cleanup operations are underway under the NPDES permit schedule. After April 1, 1979 the permit will limit levels to 10 parts per billion. Connecticut is evaluating potential problems from, and seeking solutions to, residual PCB's in landfills, sediments and other sources.
Since efforts are underway to solve this specific problem, it should in no way detract from designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
In addition to PCB's, there are several other water quality problems in the study segment of the Housatonic. In Lake Lillinonah an algae bloom occurs every swnmer due to high phosphorous levels in the water. Near the village of 12 New Milford, the turbidity of the water is quite noticeable. Above Falls Village, stream bank erosion due to agricultural practices have contributed to sedimentation of the river. Non-point source pollution due to agricultural practices may be present not are unknown. Industrial plants and municipal sewage treatment plants along the river and its tributaries in Massachusetts and Connecticut discharge waste materials into the river. The Still River, a major tributary in New Milford, is a pollution source to be considered. All of these pollution problems are recognized by the water quality control agencies in Connecticut and Massachusetts and are addressed in their programs to maintain and improve water quality throughout the Climate In the Housatonic River Basin, climatic conditions differ quite The Housatonic River valley has markedly from north to south. a humid continental climate, The southern portion of the basin classified as a snow-forest type has fairly hot summers and relative with warm summers. The prevailing ly mild winters; whereas the northern westerly wind, blowing from the portion has shorter,cooler summers southwest in the summer, but from and much colder winters. The follow the northwest during other periods, ing table of temperature, preci is often interrupted by the arrival pitation and snowfall summarize the of maritime air from the Atlantic climatic conditions of the river Ocean to the south and east. basin. Mean temperatures generally average about 70D(F) in July and 24D(F) in January. Weather is seldom ex cessively hot, and prolonged periods of extreme cold are rare. Rainfall is plentiful in the area and well distributed throughout the year. The average annual rain fall ranges from 44 to 52 inches. Snowfall varies considerably from season to season and averages about 45 inches in the Lake Lillinonah area to about 75 inches above 13 Falls Village.
s:1 Studv Segment s:1 "'al 0 "' (_) ::>:. s:1 . s:1 +' rl s:1 s:1 0 >< ""
14
Copake-Groton-Genes see ~ Hinckley-Merrimac-Hartland Stockbridge-Farmington I~ Amenia [ill Hollis-Charlton [ill Charlton-Paxton-Hollis F~ Paxton-Woodbridge Source: Soil Survey, Litchfield County, Conn., U.S.D.A., 1970.
0 2.25 5.5 ... ------~~--~ ~ ... «•v"' '-' V.J. u.uc:c .Lctuu .LU vue::;e vwu the Housatonic Valley above Kent associations is covered with cut are occupied by the Copake-Groton over forest, although 40% of the Genesee Association. These well Charlton-Paxton-Hollis Association drained soils are generally level has been cleared and is used for to sloping or undulating, and have dairy farming and orchards. been derived from limestone and schist. About 60% of this assoc From Kent downstream to Lake iation has been cleared and is Lillinonah the Housatonic River used mainly for farming or is idle. valley lowland is occupied by the In fact, these soils are among the Hinckley-Merrimac-Hartland Associa better ones for farming on tion, while the uplands continue terraces and flood plains in the Hollis-Charlton and Charlton Litchfield County. The rest of Paxton-Hollis Associations des the association is in forest, cribed above. Soils in this area home sites, estates and indust are nearly level or undulating to rial development. sloping, but commonly they are steep on terrace breaks, developed The area to the west of the river in deep deposits of sand and gravel, and above Falls Village is occupied and are excessively well drained. by the Stockbridge-Farmington A large percentage of this assoc Amenia Association, most of which iation has been cleared and is is gently sloping to steep, well used for vegetable crops, nursery drained, deep soils formed in stock, and crops for dairy farming. limestone glacial till and schist. The rest of the cleared area is 15 This association includes some of idle or used for housing and indus the better upland soils for farming trial sites. in Litchfield County and are generally well suited to crops A small upland portion of the river grown in support of the dairy valley near the village of New industry. About 60 percent of Milford is occupied by the Paxton the acreage consists of open Woodbridge Association. These fields for dairying, but some soils are gently sloping to steep, areas are used for swnmer well drained, formed in glacial cottages, camps, and year round till, have a fragipan layer, and residences. are located in an area of elongated drumlins. Much of this acreage is Most of the uplands of the river used for crops in support of valley below Falls Village are dairy farming, and the rest is occupied by the Hollis-Charlton cutover forest used for homesites Association and the Charlton or is idle. Future residential Paxton-Hollis Association. Both developments in this area should of these soils are generally gently be carefully planned since these sloping to steep, and include rocky soils are severely limited for soils which are shallow to bedrock, onsite sewage disposal systems. and deep, well-drained soils formed in glacial till. The Hollis soils are most notable in the area for their shallow nature which pro duces prominent bedrock outcrops in the ridges along the river. Vegetation
The major vegetation associations of the Housatonic Valley reflect the patterns of geology, soils and climate in the area as they gradually change from the northern to southern limits of the study area, and as they provide habitats for several species which are rare in Connecticut and New England as a whole. These qualities of the valley's vegetation provide a visually pleasing setting for the river and add to the scientific and educational value of the area.
16
Transition Hardwoods: EB White Pine - Hemlock Zone Central Hardwoods: mm Hemlock - White Pine Zone Central Hardwoods: ml Hemlock Zone
Source: King's Mark Resource Con servation and Development Plan.
0 2.25 fifi Li'-''-'.'-- '-''-'.J._ ii'IVU....1...... 1... .LJ.J._ ..l.Uf5<::' Vll<:: 11vu;:.a.- tonic river passes through a transition Hardwoods-White Pine Hemlock zone, whose dominant hard woods are Northern Red Oak, Bass wood, White Ash, and Black Birch. Hemlock and White Pine are also frequent and locally dominant. A number of northern bog and forest species reach their extreme southern range limits in this area's cooler habitats. Some rare plant species of this region are Bog Rosemary, Marsh Willow-Herb, Canada Violet, and Stiff Club-moss.
The next vegetation zone of the river is the Central Hardwoods The scientific and educational Hemlock-White Pine, which occurs value of the vegetation in the from Cornwall Bridge downstream Housatonic valley is attributed to through Kent and into New Milford. the occurrence of critical habitats The dominant species in this which support a variety of plants association are several Oaks (Red, that are scarce to absent over the White, and Black) and Hickories rest of the state and parts of (Shagbark, Pignut, and Bitternut). New England. These critical habi Chestnut was formerly a major tree tats include marble ridges and 17 species here, until the Chestnut ledges, and calcareous wetlands Blight of the 1920's. Stump whose vegetation is uniquely suited sprouts of Chestnut are still to the marble or carbonate rocks common in this area. White Pine that occur in the Housatonic valley, and Hemlock are frequent and yet are of extremely restricted locally abundant to dominant. Some occurrence in the rest of the state. characteristic rare plants in this Several of these sites have been area are New England Grape, Hairy proposed for Connecticut's Critical Wood-Mint, and Wiegand's Wild Rye. Biological Area status.
The most southern portion of the study area is located in the Central Hardwoods - Hemlock Zone, whose dominant tree species are Oaks(White, Red, and Black), Hickories (Shagbark, Bitternut, Mockernut, Pignut),Yellow or Tulip Poplar, Black Birch, White Ash, and Hemlock. White Pine is generally absent to scarce in this region, although it does occur on dry ridges and sandy soils with Scarlet and Chestnut Oaks. Some rather rare plant species of this region are the Green Violet, Small Shorled Pogonia, Virginia Snakeroot, ,-., __ - - -- Wren, Eastern Bluebird, Parula The Housatonic Valley contains an Warbler, Magnolia Warbler, and abundant wildlife population owing Myrtle Warbler. U.S. Endangered to the di verse habitats of the species include the Peregrine area's agricultural lands, wood Falcon, Bald Eagle, Eastern lands, wetlands, and overgrown Cougar, Indiana Bat, Atlantic abandoned fields. Woodland species Ridley Turtle, Hawksbill Turtle, include white-tailed deer, gray fox, and Leatherback Turtle. The U.S. gray squirrel, snowshoe hare, por Threatened species include the cupine, ruffed grouse, and wood Bog Turtle, Green Turtle, and cock. The openland habitat supports Loggerhead Turtle. ringnecked pheasant, cottontail rabbit, red fox, and woodchuck. Fisheries River oriented mammals are primarily furbearers such as beaver, muskrat, The Housatonic River supports an raccoon, river otter and mink. excellent cold and warm water Waterfowl present in the area fishery owing primarily to the include canada goose, mallard, diverse stream habitats, the state blackduck, woodduck, blue-winged trout stocking program, and the teal, ringnecked duck, common golden generally excellent water quality. eye, and hooded and common merganser. Other species, mainly amoung the small Within the limits of the study mammals, songbirds, and raptors, area, the river contains three also inhabit the area. distinct fish habitats. Above Falls Village, the river is slow The State of Connecticut owns 6000 moving with a low gradient and acres in the Housatonic area for supports carp, largemouth and 18 wildlife management which are smallmouth bass, bullheads, yellow located in Canaan (Robbins Swamp perch, suckers, sunfish, and Wildlife Management Area), in the various minnows. The middle Housatonic State Forest (Sharon stretch of river between Falls Mountain Block), and in Cornwall Village and Kent is a pool and (Cream Hill Block). Management riffle stream which is stocked in these areas includes a program with brook, brown, and rainbow to re-establish populations of trout. Below Kent, the river is wild turkey. primarily a bass stream, especially in Lake Lillinonah although there The Housatonic valley supports is a pool and riffle stretch near several rare and endangered the Ten Mile River. Connecticut marrrrnal, amphibian, and reptile species including the The trout stocking program on the Deer Mouse (Peromyscus manicplatus), Housatonic and its tributaries has Eastern Woodrat, Slimy Salamander, been quite extensive. Approxi Northern Spring Salamander, Four mately 20,000 brook, brown and Toed Salamander, Mud Puppy, Eastern rainbow trout have been placed in Spadefoot, Fivelined Skink, Bog the river annually by the State of Turtle, Blanding' s Turtle, Eastern Connecticut in conjunction with the Mud Turtle, Rough or Keeled Green Housatonic Fly Fishermen. After Snake, Eastern Smooth Green Snake, the discovery of PCB's, stocking and the Northern Red-Bellied Snake. dropped to 6,ooo fish annually. Any birds, which are listed as rare During the past year stocking has over rates for all three species Critical Habitats of trout is about ten percent and their growth rate is about The geology, topography, soils, three to six inches per year. hydrology, climate, vegetation, Good growth rates are attributed wildlife and fish of the Housatonic to the return of aquatic insects River and its valley provide both in the last few years. Natural the general scenic, natural char reproduction of trout does occur acter of the area, and the unique in the area, primarily in the environmental conditions of certain better tributary streams. In spec.ific areas. These "critical general, water quality of the habitats 11 were identified in a river appears to be quite good natural areas inventory of Connecticut for the survival of trout and and are special areas that support other species. Water temper species of plants and/or animals ature is usually 70°F or less that are rare (i.e. occur sparingly) and dissolved oxygen levels or local (i.e. occur at isolated are generally 7 ppm or greater. localities) in their occurrence. The comeback of aquatic insects They are included here to identify in the past few years also the most outstanding environments indicates good water quality of the valley formed by the natural for the survival of fish. The processes of the area. high levels of PCB's in the river, however, are of concern Marble Ridges and Ledges. These are from a fish and wildlife exposed faces of marble projecting viewpoint for their possible above the surrounding terrain or in infiltration of the natural deep river cut ravines, with unusually 19 food chain. Large concentrations large concentrations of rare, state of this substance in fish, bird endangered or very uncommon plant or mammal tissue could lead to species. Ferns are especially notable reproductive failures and/or in these areas and generally include mortality of the animals them the rare Narrow-leaved Spleenwort, selves. the North American Wall Rue, and the State endangered Slender Cliffbrake. Habitats of this type occur on the l!ousatonic River at Great Falls, (Canaan), Bulls bridge (Kent), and Point of Rocks (Canaan), all of which have been recommended as Critical Biological Areas in the State.
Marble Caves. These are solution caves in marble and limestone formations. Not much is known specifically about the species present in these caves, but it is possible that they could support the U.S. Threatened Indiana Bat. Some of the marble and lime stone caves in the Housatonic area are: Devantery's Cave, Warner's Cave. Lost Brook CavP.. anil RHshf11l Ca.lcareous wet.lands. These are High Summits. These are wind swamps and marshes occurring in swept mountain summits of granite, marble valleys which support a schist, or gneiss which are only lush and di verse flora, including sparsely vegetated with low-growing a number of Connecticut's rare and woody or herbaceous plants, lichens, very uncommon plant species. The and mosses. Some of these plants Spreading Globe-flower a species are quite rare south of Central which has been proposed for U.S. Vermont and New Hampshire. Examples Endangered status by the Smith of this habitat in the Housatonic sonian occurs in this habitat, as Valley are Canaan Mountain (Canaan), well as the State-endangered Showy Bear Mountain (Salisbury), Mohawk Lady's slipper and native Northern Mountain (Cornwall), and Schagticoke White Cedar. Generally these Mountain (Kent). wetlands attract many birds of both game and non-game species. The Black Spruce Bogs. These are major example of a calcareous wet poorly drained acid wetlands which land in northwest Connecticut is have developed in deep glacial de Robbin Swamp in Canaan and North pressions and are characterized Canaan which is a potential National by a luxuriant cover of mosses, Natural Landmark and a proposed an abundance of Ericaceous (Heath) Critical Biological Area in the shrubs, and the presence of Black State. Spruce and Larch. In addition, many other species of distinct Marl Lakes and Ponds. These are northern or boreal affinities, bodies of basic or "hard" water, generally absent from the region as opposed to the common acid or as a whole, are commonly present "soft" water of the region. These in these communities. Excellent 20 ponds contain many unique aquatic examples in the Housatonic area plants, which are generally common include Bingham Pond (Salisbury) in the Midwest, but relatively rare and Spectacle Pond (Kent). in New England. Examples in the Housatonic area are Twin Lakes in Grasslands. These areas include Salisbury and Mudge Pond in Sharon. croplands, pasturelands, hayfields, grassy meadows and lawns which are Flood Plain Forests. These are generally decreasing in size and forests communities dominated by quality throughout the Housatonic Cottonwood, Black Willow, and Silver area. Several of Connecticut's Maple that were once abundant in rare breeding birds are strictly the region until they were exten limited to this habitat, including sively cleared for agriculture. the Short-Billed Marsh Wren. Remnants of these forest occur only along a few major rivers in the State including the Housatonic from Falls Village to Kent. Several rare -and very uncommon plant species found here, are Box Elder, Ostrich Fern, and Verigated Horsetail. Songbirds occur in great diversity in these forests and include the State rare Parula Warbler. covered bridges, and colonial stone fences. In this area, the two lane The settlement pattern of the paved highway, Route[, and the Housatonic Valley today, reflects abandoned Berkshire Railroad line the area's rural-agricultural enter the valley and generally heritage, colonial charm, natural parallel the river until they reach resources, and economic and cultur the village of New Milford, where al activities. This view of the both turn south towards Danbury. Housatonic valley provides a pic In the southern portion of the river ture of what is there today, its valley, the evidence of residential, general development trends for commercial and industrial activities tomorrow, and how the area has increase, especially near the developed historically. village of New Milford where sev-
21
LAND USE eral industrial plants are located in the flood plain areas. Below The visual appearance of the Housa this point, however, the river tonic valley changes from the returns to a scenic forested land northern to southern edges of the study area. In the northern valley scape on the shores of Lake Lillinonah, although summer cottages above Falls Village, large fields of crops and pastureland can be and suburban development are seen, especially in the flood plain evident in places. areas. Below Falls Village, the valley makes a transition to the forest-town landscape of Cornwall, Sharon and Kent with its pictur- This visual transition of the ~ ;:< tJ +' valley from a rural-agricultural Q Q) •rl Q Q bO 12' ~ Q area in the north to a suburban 0 Q 'd 0 l'i' ~ U•r-IS:::Q>H +' ~·r-1 s::: industrial area in the south is LAND USE s::: 0 :> 0 ro ru s::: o ). • s::! •ri 0 r.-i Ulrli:l·rlO substantiated in land use data "' TOTAL ACRES 230,897 215,881 TABLE 3: LAND USE - NW Conn. and Housatonic Valley Planning Regions Source: A Plan of Conservation & Development in Connecticut, 1974 22 Population Population distribution and trends in the study area reflect the visual and topographic transition of the valley from north to south, and the general land use pattern in the region. In 1970, the total population in open space land uses, however, the study towns was 57,000 people occupied a significant portion of at an average density of 120 per both the northern and southern sons per SQUare mile. The greatest planning regions, 80 percent and concentration of people, however, 73 percent respectively, which occurred in the southern towns reflects the overall natural con below Kent where 77% of the popula dition of the Housatonic valley tion resided at 245 persons per throughout the study region. square mile. The agricultural towns near Falls Village averaged only 54 persons per SQuare mile and the forest-town area of Sharon, Cornwall and Kent average an even rUJJU.LtlVJ..UU J:JLUJC:O...:V..LVUi:I VV VU<::: ,;J<:::O.._,_ 2000 indicate a 45% increase in the study area, with the greatest rate ·---· of growth expected in Sherman and Kent, at 92 and 76 percent respect ively. This phenomenal growth rate in the lower study area towns is attributed to continued expansion of the Danbury metropolitan area where major highway improvements have attracted new industry, and which was recently ranked as the 11th fastest growing metropolitan area in the nation. Study Area Population % n Towns 1970 2000 Change Salisbury 3573 4700 31.5 N. Canaan 3045 3500 14.9 Canaan 931 1200 28.8 Sharon 2491 3500 40.5 Cornwall 1177 1400 18.9 Kent 1990 3500 75.8 Sherman 1459 2800 91.9 New Milford 14,601 22,000 50.6 23 Bridgewater 1277 2100 64.4 Brookfield 9688 15,000 54.8 Newtown 23~00 TOTAL iM:fi~ 82 00 ~~l TABLE 4 : POPULATION PROJECTIONS- 1970 - 2000 Source: Population Projections for Connecticut Planning Regions and Towns, Dept. of Planning & Energy Poliq,_ June_,_ m_6. Density 1970 Class Town Density Cornwall 25.3 [[] 0-50 Canaan 28.1 Kent 4o.6 Sharon 41.6 50-100 Salisbury ~ Sherman g~j Bridgewater 78.3 § 100-200 N. Canaan 155.3 200++ New Milford 232 .5 Newtown 289.6 • Brookfield 494.3 0 5,5 __ ., - .r1.gricuJ..i:;ure Efforts to relieve these pressures have been made through Connecticut's Agriculture is one of the most Public Act 490, which protects farm important economic activities in land from prohibitive taxes that the study area. In 1974, there might force its conversion to more were 591 farms in Litchfield County, intense uses. Most of the farm occupying 19% of the land and land in the Housatonic study having an average size of 185 acres. area is participating in this Dairy farming is the leading agri program. cultural industry in the area, although fruit farms, poultry farms, Forestry beef production and nurseries are also active. Most farm crops are Forests are an abundant resource in produced in support of the dairy the study area, although their industry. potential for timber production is greatly under utilized. In 1972, 67%(399,100 acres) of the total acreage of Litchfield County was classified as commercial forest by the U.S. Forest Service. This is land that is producing or capable of producing crops of wood and is not withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or admin istrat,ive order. The volume of timber on commercial 24 forest land in Litchfield County averages 1600 cubic feet per acre for growing stock, and 3600 board feet per acre for sawtimber. Both of these figures are higher than the averages for Connecticut as a whole of 1300 cubic feet of growing stock per acre, and 2700 board feet of sawtimber per acre. The stand size classes of commercial forest land in Litchfield County Along the Housai:;onic River, farming favor sawtimber stands which occupy is quite evident, especially in the 47% of the area. Poletimber stands broad flood plain above Falls occupy 31% of the area and seedling Village, and in Kent and New Milford. s aplings stands occupy 22%. The In the six towns above New Milford, optimum situation for sustained 10% of the active dairy farm land yield forest is approximately 30% is located along the river. sawtimber, 30% poletimber, and 40% seedling-sapling. The dispropor Pres sure to convert farm land to tionate area of sawtimber size other uses is beginning to be felt stands further substantiates that in the valley. Between 1969 and timber production i.s not fully 1974, the number of farms in Litch- active in the area. JillaJ.ys1s or "tne oener1-cs derived i rorn ..L;;1uu t..u ..L;J r J. l,U111u..Lueu from commercial forest land in tonnage of the two commodities Connecticut also reflects the increased from about 0.9 million under utilization of this resource. tons in 1966 to almost 1.4 million Between 1970 and 1975 only 4% of tons in 1975. the commercial forest land acreage was sold for timber, and projections Four or five stone quarries and to 1980 indicate a continuation of seven to ten sand and gravel pits this trend. Most landowners cited are active in Litchfield County. recreation, land value increase or The quarries produce limestone, residential use as their primary dolomite, and traprock for agri reasons for owning forest land. cultural lime and construction aggregate. Sand and gravel was used primarily for construction l'il aggregate and bituminous paving. [j] REASONS FOR OWNING '-'<>: FOREST LAND "" >'1 In the town of Canaan, high grade 0 0~ ""<>: dolomite has been quarried and used for production of calcium Recreation 19% 22% metal. This metal is used for Timber Prodµction 6 6 the removal of impurities in steel Land Investment 19 20 making and the production of General Farm Use 9 12 aluminwn, magnesium,uranium Part of Residence 36 27 oxide and thorium. Agricultural Other 11 13 limestone is also produced in 25 significant quantities from TOTAL 100% 100% this area. TABLE 5: REASONS FOR OWNING FOREST Along the river there are several LAND IN CONNECTICUT small sand and gravel pits and Source: USDA Forest Service stone quarries, according to the Resource Bulletin, NE-41, 1976. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Most of these are less than 1/4 mile from the river. The larger sites are generally 1/2 to 3/4 of Mining a mile from the river and include one stone quarry and two gravel Sand, gravel and stone resources pits near Falls Village, and one are excellent in the Housatonic gravel pit near New Milford. valley and appear to be virtually unlimited in supply for the fore Manufacturing seeable future. Production and use, however, could be curtailed There are several manufacturing in 20 years if the current rates centers in the Housatonic River continue for direct and indirect Basin including Pittsfield in elimination of this resource by Massachusetts,and the Danbury residential, commercial, and New Milford area and the Naugatuck industrial development. River valley in Connecticut. Within the study area, most manu Production and dollar value of facturing activity occurs in the sand, gravel and stone in Litch village of New Milford where five f'i Pl A C:n11n+.v h.q\rF> ~hn"Wn .q nF>+. ~·io.uuJ. a,o...: v u.J. .i..uts a.i..: v.L v .L v:t vuruugnoui:; the river basin is projected to continue its steady growth trends ·-·--· of recent years. A 31.6% increase in manufacturing employment in the basin is expected between 1970 and 2000. This ~rend is expected to have a great impact on the study area towns where manufacturing employment is projected to increase 77% between 1970 and 2000, with the greatest increase projected for the towns of Brookfield and New Milford. Study Area # of persons in Towns manufacturing 1970 2000 Salisbury 154 181 N. Canaan 584 672 Canaan 297 342 Sharon 194 323 Cornwall 35 41 Kent 165 195 26 Sherman 0 0 New Milford 1692 2944 Bridgewater 2 3 Brookfield 251 1430 Newtown 1176 1930 TABLE ·6: MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT Source: Housatonic River Basin Plan Dept. Finance & Control, 1972 ~ 0% increase ~ 15-20% increase ~ 50-78% increase ~ 470% increase Source: Housatonic River Basin Plan, Dept. Finance & Control,1972 MAP 10: MANUFACTURING ----· -~·-·-··- ~------high dam and a 13 mile reservoir There are four hydroelectric having an area of 1870 acres. The generating stations in the study Falls Village dam is 14 feet high segment of the Housatonic River. but backs up the water for less than These projects are the Falls one mile in an area covering 150 Village, Bulls Bridge, Rocky acres. The Bulls Bridge project includes River, and Shepaug installations, two dams, one of 24 feet in height and all of which are conventional one of 17 feet. Its reservoir is 4.5 hydro facilities with the exception miles and occupies 120 acres. of the Rocky River pumped storage project. The Rocky River installation is a seasonal pumped storage project, The conventional hydro facilities drawing down Lake Candlewood from are all run-of-the-river projects December to February and refilling whose reservoirs do not have it during spring high flows in the sufficient storage to materially Housatonic River. This project affect the river flow other than consists of a dam, located one on a daily basis. During high mile from the river, which is 27 water periods, pondage allows for connected to the river by a limited daily peaking operations. canal, conduit and penstock. Normal operations at each project Pumped generation on a diurnal provide for daily fluctuations in and weekly basis is carried out water surface elevation of less than when the river is flowing at three feet. less than 6000 cubic feet per second. Although the operation of these three projects are quite similar, Recently, these four projects came the Shepaug dam and reservoir are under federal jurisdiction and much larger than those at Falls will be required to apply for a negu.La.Lory i.....:ormnission trormer.ly " "" ua,y comp.Leto eel 1n iy·r·r by Chas. the Federal Power Coll!11lission). T. Main, Inc. for The Stanley This application will include a Works, owner of flowage rights and review of all physical and oper river front~ge beginning at Kent ational aspects of these hydro Furnace and extending upstream projects and will include an approximately 5 miles to Swift's evaluation of their environmental Bridge in Sharon-Cornwall, impacts. In addition, this indicated that an 800 megawatt application will maximize public pumped storage installation at benefits by encouraging the power Kent was economically feasible. companies to prepare plans to However, the possibility of such enhance the recreational and installation becoming a reality fish and wildlife values of the has been eliminated for the project lands in coordination foreseeable future through a with State, regional and local 30-year conservation easement plans for the area. conveyed to the Housatonic Valley Association by the Company. In the future, it is unlikely that a new hydro power project would In summary, the current records be installed within the study of the FERC do not indicate any segment of the Housatonic. The new applications for development 1955 water resources report of the of conventional or pumped storage New England-New York Interagency hydroelectric facilities on the Coll!11littee identified several sites study segment of the river. on the upper Housatonic that could accor.tlllodate a hydro installation of 28 rather limited capacity. It con cluded, however, that none of these developments could be economically justified. Office based reconnaiss ance of the study area by the Federal Energy Regulatory Coll!11lission (FERC) identified one site having There are many opportunities for recreation along the Housatonic River in Connecticut. These include general tourist activities as well as the more active sports of canoe ing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and camping. Tourism is well developed in Litch field County and the surrounding area, due primarily to its scenic rural character and historical sites. Some of the tourist attractions within the study area towns include the covered wooden bridges at West State park and forest lands are the Cornwall and Bulls Bridge, the Kent primary sites for active recreation Furnace and Sloane-Stanley Museum, in the study area. Within the Music Mountain, the Sharon Audubon study towns there are five state Center, sports car racing in Salis parks and three state forests. Those bury, canoe racing near Cornwall located directly on the river above Bridge, an& several fine country New Milford accommodate approximately inns and restaurants. In addition, 174,000 visitors per year. the state is considering a proposal to purchase the abandoned Berkshire 29 line for a scenic tourist railroad w-1 0 l'1 ~[f) excursion through the river vallev. H"' 0 O• STATE PARKS E-< *Located on he Housatopie Riv rr TABLE 7: STATE PARKS AND FORESTS - Housatonic Study Area Source: Connecticut Department of is a 20 mile stretch from Falls Village to Kent with a halfway access point at Housatonic Meadows State Park where camping is per mitted. This stretch provides a one or two day canoe trip and is rated 2 on a scale of difficulty from 1-7 in New England. In the summer months canoeing must be coordinated with the release of water from the Falls Village dam which generally provides 4 or 5 hours of mid-morning to early after noon canoeing. The number of canoeists on the river has nearly Trout fishing and bass fishing are tripled since 1974, and appears very popular sports on the Housa to be reaching its capacity for a tonic River, attracting fishermen pleasant canoeing experience in from all parts of southern New the late spring and early fall when England and western New York State. 450 canoeists can be expected on The Housatonic River is the largest a typical weekend day. An estimated trout stream in Connecticut due to 75% of these canoeists are from the State's trout stocking program outside Connecticut, especially here, and is well known for its southern New England and several three and one half mile "fly Mid-Atlantic states. fishing only" area. In addition, 30 Lake Lillinonah is one of the Kayaking is also very popular on best bass fishing lakes in Connec the Housatonic, especially in the ticut. River access is generally scenic gorge below Bulls Bridge. ~uite good, especially in Sharon This is a highly challenging area and Cornwall where the State owns rated at a difficulty of 4 to 6 land along the bank, and where and considered a premier white the Appalachian Trail parallels water asset in the northeastern the river. Fishing pressures, U.S. by kayaking enthusiasts, and however, are evident in the spring should be used by experts only, when it is not unusual to see because of the danger involved. 300-500 fishermen in the trout stocking area. Estimates generally indicate that in 1975 approximately 2,500 individuals made at least one trip to the Housatonic corridor to fish. This activity will probably decrease in the next couple of seasons due to the contamination of fish by PCB's. As this problem is over come, however, the popularity of fishing will probably return to its 1975 level. The scheduling of fishing activities is generally compatible with the operation of ,...... ,..__,., ..1..,p, ..,.__,,....., ,_i.,q.v.;:;; 'J.1\V,J. U...L.UQ' l,J!J,'U,i=> vcwr1J:J.L.ug ct;,un.g vr1e rl. ver :i..s proncted, allowing the river to be low and at the Housatonic Meadows and Kent undisturbed in the prime morning Falls State Parks and is generally and evening fishing times. The associated with canoeing, fishing release of water also provides a and hunting activities. Overnight natural divide between the best campers for 1975 in Housatonic canoeing and fishing conditions, Meadows totaled 28,000 people and which serves to minimize conflicts in Kent Falls totaled 2 ,800 people. between these two groups. Overall recreational activity on the Hunting in the study towns is Housatonic River is expected to allowed not only in Housatonic, increase in coming years. This gen Wyantenock and Paugussett State eral conclusion is based on the Forests but in all state forests. increasing recreational trend on the Estimates for 1975 indicate that river for the past few years, and there were approximately 1150 on the projected population growth hunters in the Housatonic River for the Danbury-New Milford area. corridor above New Milford. The Furthermore, recreation trends for only big game hunting in the area the entire Northeastern U.S. appear is a two month deer season. However, to be increasing. A recent survey pheasant are stocked and a wide of data from recreational organiza variety of small game are in abun tions, river managing agencies and dance. Hunting of small game and academic research indicated that waterfowl is allowed anywhere such river-oriented recreation in the activity is not in conflict with Northeastern U.S. is generally local or state laws. increasing, especially on rivers near highly populated areas. The impli 31 There are several hiking trails in cations of this research for the close vicinity to the Housatonic Housatonic River are significant due River, including an 8-mile segment to its close proximity to the New of the Appalachian Trail. This York metropolitan area. nationally recognized trail enters the corridor at Schagticoke Moun tain in Kent and continues north along St. John's Ledge and the west river bank to Cornwall Bridge. This trail appears again on the east bank of the river in Canaan and continues north for a short distance to Falls Village. Estimates of hiking activity in the corridor indicate that at least 10,000 people per year use the Appalachian Trail along the river and that the greatest con centration of use occurs on St. John's Ledge in Kent. Other trails in the corridor include paths through state park and forest lands, the Housatonic River Road between Boardman Bridge i' tl.LL::; V .L.L.U'.l.gt: Housatonic State Housatonic State Forest Forest Trout stocking W. Cornwall Covered W. Cornwall to Bridge Cornwall Bridge Housatonic Meadows Stzte Park Cornwall Bridge Stanley Works Mohawk Mountain Property State Park/Forest Kent Falls State Park Macedonia Brook Wyantenock State State Park Forest Abandoned railroad Stanley Museum Village of Kent Kent School 32 Bulls Bridge Dam/ Kayaking area/ Boardman Bridge Covered bridge Gaylordsville New Milford/ Industrial area Rocky River Pump Storage Lovers Leap Bridgewater Brookfield George C. Waldo State Park Shepaug dam State Parks and Forests ca Privately-owned open space L*J Hydro power projects [Q] Points of interest ~ Towns and villa~es !:'VV<::UV..LO....L VV .;J..LC'.LU ;:)..l!:::,11.1.L.L(;tJ.Il-(; archaeological finds. This is Several private conservation organ due to the deeply stratified izations are active in the study layers of soil in the area which area to protect and conserve the has isolated the remains of scenic beauty and natural value of various cultures in sequence, and the river corridor and surrounding due to the generally undeveloped areas. These organizations include condition of the valley. Archaeol the Housatonic Valley Association, ogists maintain that this river the Nature Conservancy, and the valley is a unique archaeological Audubon Society as well as several resource for this part of New local land trusts. England and that a systematic archaeological survey should be Four parcels of waterfront property made of the valley. in the town of Kent have been placed in conservation status by the Stanley Historical Development Works through a 669 acre conservation easement granted to the Housatonic The Housatonic River basin was Valley Association for 30 years and first settled by English puritans a 159 acre donation to the State of who established the town of Strat Connecticut and the Nature Conser ford at the mouth of the river in vancy. Other significant conser 1639. Gradually the central vation areas on the river are portion of the basin was settled Miles Sanctuary in Sharon and and Litchfield County was formed Sunny Valley Preserve on Lake in 1751. Life of the colonists Lillinonah in Bridgewater. Some in this inland region was based 33 of the local preservation organ on agriculture for which they izations ·that are active in the cleared thousands· of acres of area include Weantinogue Heritage, forests. By 1796, Litchfield Kent Pond Mountain Trust, and the County contained 283,000 acres in Mt. Riga Forest Preserve. farm land and 45,600 acres tilled for crops, which together accounted Archaeological Activity for 54.7% of the land in the county Early settlements were founded in Archaeological research is also the towns of New Milford and Wood quite active in the study area bury where grist mills, sawmills, due to the work of the American tanneries, blacksmiths and other Indian Archaeological Institute. small businesses typically devel It is generally held that the oped. Other small towns developed Housatonic valley was first and prospered along the river since occupied by Paleo-indians in approx waterways were the primary arteries imately 10,000 B.C. and since that of transportation. Today several time has been occupied by three villages in the study area contain distinctive indian cultures before homes, churches, schools and the first Europeans explored the stores from this colonial period, area. In a recent dig on the which are recognized as State Shepaug River, a major tributary Historical Resources. to the Housatonic, an indian artifact dating back 12,000 years The 18th and 19th centuries brought was discovered. Preliminary inves many changes to the agrarian culture tigations indicate that the Housa- of this area as industry expanded +r.Yl;,... "troll,-..-.r ;+,...,-..1.f' .... i~~ 't.------.L genera~, the popu~at1on was drawn include two Wootten coverea or1age~ out of the farms to the urban centers and two wrought iron bridges, all where manufacturing was thriving. of which remain today. The two In the Housatonic basin, Danbury, covered bridges were built in Waterbury, Seymour, and Shelton the mid-1800's at West Cornwall became the manufacturing centers in and Bulls Bridge. The two the south, while Pittsfield developed iron bridges were built later at as the industrial center to the Boardman Bridge in 1888 and Lovers north. Eventually the Bulls Bridge Leap in 1895. All four of these power plant was built on the river bridges are listed on the National to supply electricity to the city Register of Historical Places for of Waterbury. This was considered their engineering significance. an ambitious project when it was undertaken in 1902 and is still These changes in transportation in operation today. along with the movement of people to urban centers, brought changes In the central portion of the to the agricultural practices of basin, iron production prospered the area. Basically, farming in the 19th century as hardware for changed from a family subsistence tools, railroad equipment and operation to a commercial enter machinery were needed for the prise which supplied food and nation's westward movement. This dairy products to the cities. iron industry along the Housatonic It was during this time that dairy began at Salisbury in 1730 and farming and poultry production lasted until 1923 when the last developed and farms became larger iron furnace was closed. Today the in size and fewer in number. This 34 remains of the old iron furnaces trend has continued even to this can be found along the river. Most day, when commercial farming is well known is the Kent Furnace, the main economic activity of the which i7 owned by the Connecticut area. Historical Commission. Today, the influence of these The 19th century also brought great colonial and industrial periods improvements in transportation in the valley's history are through the development of rail evident not only in the historical roads and highways. The Berkshire buildings, bridges and iron fur railroad was built during this naces, but also in the area's agri time to connect the southern cultural economy. These elements, industrial centers of the basin together with the valley's scenic with Pittsfield in the north. Sev natural conditions and rural eral railroad stations and depots settlement pattern, create the remain in their original condition historical colonial charm of this along this line and are recognized !!ilBl!IRllpart of New_____ England. _ by the State for their historical value. Two of these structures, the Cornwall Bridge Railroad Station and the Union Depot in North Canaan, are listed on the National Register of Historical Places. YYILU Al'IU ;>1.,l:l'lll,; HIVl:H \,;HI I t:H IA Quality Standards for Connecticut. This indicates the river's ability to support bathing and other recrea The analysis of the Housatonic tional activities, as well as, to River, its natural processes and provide an excellent habitat for settlement pattern, has led the fish and wildlife, including a study team to a determination that cold water fishery. The 41 miles of the Housatonic River 1976 water quality standards, from the Massachusetts/Connecticut however, downgrade the river to border to Boardman Bridge is class "D" due to the high levels eligible for inclusion in the of PCB's (poly-chlorinated biphenyl) National Wild and Scenic River found in the fish. Efforts to System. This finding is based on return this river segment to its criteria developed by the U.S. class "B" rating by 1979, are being Departments of Agriculture and made by the State of Connecticut Interior, which considers the in coordination with similar river's free-flowing and natural efforts in New York and Massachu condition, its water quality, setts. This situation is acceptable its capability to support water under the National Wild and Scenic related recreation, its length and River criteria since reasonable its outstandingly remarkable values. efforts are being made to return The following analysis indicates how the river to its original excellent these criteria apply to the class "B" rating. Housatonic River in Connecticut. FREE-FLOWING NATURAL CONDITION 35 The eligible segment of the Housa tonic River is generally free flowing as it runs through a notably natural and undeveloped corridor. This free-flowing character is not significantly affected by the two run-of-the river hydro power dams at Falls Village and Bulls Bridge. In the Lake Lillinonah area, the Shepaug hydro power project includes a 1870 acre impoundment of the river's free-flowing condition. This large impoundment, plus the presence of industrial and other structures on the shoreline in New Milford are the reasons why the ten miles of the river below Boardman Bridge were found ineligible for National Wild and Scenic River designation. WATER QUALITY The study segment of the Hausa- ..L ----' - "-'--- SUFFICIENT VOLUME FOR WATER-RELATED OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES RECREATION The eligible segment of the Housa The eligible segment of the Housa tonic River valley contains cer tonic River supports a wide tain attribut~s which have received variety of water-related recreation State, regional, or national including canoeing, kayaking, trout recognition and are considered to and bass fishing, and fly-fishing. be outstandingly remarkable values Streamflow data indicates that the under the Wild and Scenic River average monthly discharge throughout criteria. These are the following: a normal year exceeds the minimwn 700 c!"s required for canoeing. The daily HISTORICAL VALUE. The Housatonic operations of the Falls Village and valley developed as a river oriented Bulls Bridge power facilities do not agricultural area in colonial times seriously limit canoeing or fishing and eventually played a prominent activities. In fact, the release role in the 19th Centu;ry iron of water around noon tends to industry. Reminders of these coincide with popular canoeing historical periods are evident today times, while the lower water periods in the general appearance of the tend to coincide ,with prime morning valley with its picturesque river and evening fishing activities. side villages of colonial homes and stores, and its old stone fences. Gaylordsville Within the eligible river segment, ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUE. It is gen erally helQ that the Housatonic valley was first occupied by Paleo indians in 10,000 B.C. and since that time has been occupied by three distinctive indian cultures 37 before the first Europeans explored the area. Archaeologists maintain that this river valley has an excellent potential to yield signi ficant archaeological find from prehistoric cultures and is a unique archaeological resource in this area of New England. This is attributed to the stratified soils of the valley which have preserved the prehistoric remains in sequence, and the generally undeveloped condition of the river's stream banks. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE VALUES. The Housatonic Valley contains certain unique environmental conditions that create suitable habitats for rare and endangered species of both plants and animals. Several of these sites are recognized as "critical habitats" by the State of Connecticut and are of scientific and educational significance to l\T--- p ___ , ____, - - CLASSIFICATION good access to much of this area and are generally screened from In addition to determining eligi the river by natural streambank bility, the study team also class vegetation. ified the river into one scenic and two recreational segments. RECREATIONAL RIVER SEGMENTS. These This determination is based on the are river segments which are degree of development along the readily accessible by road or shoreline of the river a.s com railroad, have some development along pared to other rivers in the their shorelines, and may have National Wild a.nd Scenic River undergone some impoundment in the System. This classification is past. The 8.5 mile recreational not intended to identify the "most river segment from the Massachu scenic" or "best recreational" setts/Connecticut border to Falls areas and does not affect the Mountain Road is a slow moving amount of protection extended to meandering stream through flat a river segment. These issues agricultural land with only should be addressed in the manage occasional access by road, rail- ment plan through its land use, road or trail. The Falls Village recreation, a.nd water quality hydroelectric power dam in this programs. The following analysis area backs up the water for less indicates how these classifications than one mile and has altered the were determined. natural flow of the river over Great Falls. The streambanks show evidence of man's influence as a two to three foot mud bank is exposed by 38 the daily hydro power operations. Furthermore, agricultural activities have caused gullying of the stream- banks and have hindered the growth of natural streambank vegetation in places. The 12-mile recreational river seg ment from Kent Bridge to Boardman Bridge flows through a steep SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS. These a.re forested valley, yet it contains river segments which a.re free of several elements of man's influence. impoundments, with shorelines or The Bulls Bridge hydro power project watersheds still largely primitive in this area creates a 4.5 mile and shorelines undeveloped but pool of impounded water and has accessible in places by road. altered the natural flow of the The 20.5-mile segment of the Housa river through a spectacular rock tonic River from Falls Mountain gorge. The streambanks along this Road in Canaan to Kent Bridge is pool are exposed for 2-3 feet below classified as scenic. In this their natural water level by the area the river is free-flowing and runs through a generally undevel daily hydro power operations. The abandoned Berkshire railroad, Route oped corridor with steep forested 7 highway and residential develop valley walls and prominent bedrock ments are obviously exposed along outcroppings. The abandoned +_hi::> c:::hriY'i::::il;ne> in -nlo.-.oc:< ~.7-i+i-.,,.,,,,+ MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES In addition to determining the problems resulting from contaminants, eligible segment of the Housatonic alterations in stream flow from River for inclusion in the National potential h:rdropower or industrial Wild and Scenic River System, the facilities, increased sediment load study team has recommended that from upstrean1 erosion, or increased a management plan be completed flood heights from the loss of through local action and has pre upstream natural valley storage. pared management guidelines to These issues should be considered assist that local effort. Essen when coordinating with agencies tially these management guidelines and communities not only in Conn provide a framework for preparing ecticut itself but in Massachusetts a management plan which will be and in New York. acceptable for National Wild and Scenic River designation. During this management planning process, technical assistance ·will In these guidelines, manageraent be available upon reQuest from the planning is regarded as a process National Park Service. In addition, which brings about the actions and the State of Connecticut, other commitments of the local, state, and federal agencies, regional planning federal governments, and of inter agencies, and private recreation/ ested groups and individuals re conservation groups could be Quired to protect the existing contacted. A list of the agencies, values of the river. On the Housa and groups which participated in this study is included in the Appendix. 39 tonic River, this process was begun by the Housatonic Study Group - an At the local level, valuable ad hoc committee of representatives assistance could be attained from the from N. Canaan, Canaan, Salisbury, various town commissions and Cornwall, Sharon and Kent. The interested groups and individuals. responsibility to continue this planning process has been trans The framework for management ferred to the Housatonic River planning in these guidelines in Commission, which is an official volves four basic steps - inventory, committee of town representatives, analysis, programming and imple to plan for permanent p"otection mentation. Each of these steps is of the river. thoroughly described and specific applications to the Housatonic River In the Lake Lillinonah area, a are suggested. This framework has similar cornmittee has been formed been developed as a conceptual guide to develop a plan for protection .of to preparing a river management the ineligible river segment. Both plan and is intended to assist local of these committees have made eff planning efforts for both the eli orts to coordinate with each other gible and ineligible river segments. and with the Shepaug-Bantam Committee However, references to the National which is also preparing a management Wild and Scenic River system are plan for another potential wild and made throughout these guidelines, scenic river segment. and the steps for reQuesting desig nation are clearly outlined. This The impact of activities outside information is intended to assist +.hP ri 1rp·r roriY'ri rlr.r c::hn11l ~ -:.1 c::n hci. planning for the eligible river INVENTORY preservation of their natural con dition. On the Housatonic, the Inventory is the initial "fact foreground should include the river, finding" stage of the management its streambanks, inland wetlands, planning process in which the river floodplain and other lands which are corridor is defined, critical areas critical to protection of the are located, and political actions ecological functions of the river. affecting the river and its future Management strategies in the fore are identified. The inventory should ground should prohibit new develop be conducted through careful study, ment, protect farm lands, forest lands mapping, fieldwork, and consultation and other existing compatible land with knowledgeable parties. On the uses, and encourage the maintenance Housatonic River, some valuable in and enhancement of natural conditions. formation sources include the State Historic Preservation Officer, the The background zone of a river Connecticut Historical Commission, corridor is the land beyond the the Connecticut Department of Environ foreground yet within the river mental Protection, the regional Plan valley. Generally the outer ning agencies, Litchfield County boundary of the background should Conservation District, the Housa be formed by the ridge line or sight tonic Valley Association, the line of the valley. Management Housatonic Fly-Fishermen's Associa strategies in the background should tion the Housatonic Audubon Society, prohibit visual intrusions, and air, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the water, or noise polluting activities; American Indian Archaeological protect and enhance farm lands, Institute, Lake Lillinonah Authority, forest lands, and other compatible 40 the Berkshire-Litchfield Environ land uses; and provide visual and mental Council, Northeast Utilities, ecological guidelines for new the Nature Conservancy, local development. historical societies and educational institutions, town officials, know ledgeable residents, and others. RIVER CORRIDOR. The river corridor is the land on either side of the river which reQuires protection to preserve its visual, ecological and cultural values. Specific bounda ries for the river corridor should be mapped to document the major jurisdictional area of the manage ment plan. Some problems outside of this corridor will be addressed in the management plan, but most of the management strategies will be focused within these boundaries. The river corridor should be divided into two zones - the foreground and the background. The foreground encompasses the river and its ad- CRITICAL AREAS. Critical areas are CRITICAL ECOLOGICAL AREAS specific sites within the river corridor requiring special attention MARBLE RIDGES AND LEDGES (Bulls Bridge, Great Falls, point of Rocks) Steep ledges of contor and protection due to their ecolo ted marble vith a great abundance of rare, endangered or very uncommon plant species. gical, cultural, recreational, and Great Falla and Point of Rocks are potential economic values. Generally, these Natione.l Natural Landmarks, critical areas should include habi SCHAGTICOKE MOUNTAIN (Kent) Steep forested tats of rare and endangered species, mountain with a large area of scantily vege tated and bare, exposed rock ledges, Area potential archaeological sites, has outstanding scenic quality and is fragile ecological areas, potential classified in Connecticut as a "critical 11 sites of incompatible land uses, habitat • historical sites, public use areas, FLOOD PLAIN FOREST AND ALLlNIAL WETLANDS (Falls Village to Kent) Well developed flood plain pollution sources, and areas of forests which occur only along a few major special interest. Several of these rivers in the state and are most extensive along the House.tonic. Area supports several sites have been identified by the rare plant and animal species and a high diversity of songbirds. Classified in Connec study team and are included here 11 as examples. Management strategies ticut as a critical habitat" for critical areas should protect HIGH MOUNTAIN SUMMITS (Mt. Canaan, Bear Mt, , Mohawk Mt.) Sparsely vegetated, wind blown their special values, prohibit over summits which support low growing woody and herbaceous plants, lichens and mosses that use and degradation of the environ are very susceptible to trampling. Classj +'ied ment, and provide guidelines to in Connecticut as a "critical habitat" maintain and enhance their natural DEGRADED STREAMBANKS Loss of natural vege condition. tation on streambanks occurs along the river in a few places due to intense land use practices which result in sedimentation, gullying, and exposure of adjacent roads and railroads. 41 FARM LAND Farming is a major industry in CRITICAL CULTURAL AREAS the river valley which is primarily respon 1 POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES River valley sible for the area s rural New England has a significant potential to yield archaeolo character. Problems concerning erosion, sedi gical finds which couJ.d be lost to development, mentation, and waste di_sposal due to agricul intense use and scavenging. tural activities have increased in recent years. In addition, there is pressure to HISTORICAL BRIDGES (West Cornwall Bridge, Bulls convert farm lands to more intense uses. Bridge, Boardman Bridge, Lover's Leap Bridge) Tvo wrought-iron bridges and two covered FOREST LAND The abundant forests in the wooden bridges of the 19th century listed on House.tonic Valley provide a scenic background, the National Register of Historical Places for a valuable timber resource and a significant engineering significance. wildlife habitat to the area. Pressure for residential, commercial, industrial and KENT FURNACE (Kent) One ot several remaining recreational uses of forest land is generally furnaces from the area's thriving iron industry increasing. · of the early 19th Century. This fieldstone hearth is a recognized historical resource of MILES SANCTUARY (Sharon) Diverse habitat Connecticut and has been nominated to the of forest, streams, ponds and meadows pre National Register of Historical Places. served by the Audubon Society and recognized as a potential National Natural Landmark. KENT HISTORIC DISTRICT {Kent) Sixty acres in the village of Kent for which a local commission DEAN'S RAVINE (Canaan) Narrow stream through reviews and approves construction for all visi interesting rock formations with vestiges of ble structures. an old mill-dam, and only site of luminous moss in Connecticut. Recognized as a poten CORNWALL BRIDGE RAILROAD STATION (Cornwall tial National Natural Landmark. Bridge) One story building of board and batten construction, built between 1860-70 in "Railroad STANLEY WORKS PROPERTY {Kent) Four parcels Gothic" style. Listed on National Register of of land along the Housatonic River having Historical Places. historical, recreational, ecological and scenic values which have been placed in envir SCHAGTICOKE INDIAN RESERVATION (Kent) The onmentally protective status through a 669 Schagticoke Indians have a 450 acre reservation acre conservation easement granted to the on the river and have filed claim to an addi House.tonic Valley Association for 30 years, tional 1600 acres adjacent to their property. and 159 acre donation to the State of Connec The.tribe is pla~ning to build housing on ticut and the Nature Conservancy. CRITICAL ECONOMIC AREAS CRITICAL RECREATION AREAS SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE RESOURCES Mining HOUSATONIC CANOE AREA (Falls Village to Kent) and quarrying are active industries along Twenty mile canoe run through Class 1, 2 and 3 the river which have grovn steadily in res rapids vith a halfway access point at Housa ponse to residential, commercial and highway tonic Meadows State Park where camping is construction. The scenic landscape and water permitted. This area attracts many out-of-state quality of the river could be damaged by the canoeists and activity here is expected to improper management and location of future sand increase. and gravel pits and stone quarry sites. HOUSATONIC KAYAKING AREA (Bulls Bridge) Class KYDRO POWER DAME (Falls Village, Bulls Bridge, 4-6 rapids in a scenic gorge below Bulls Bridge Rocky River and Shepaug) These are conven dam, which is considered one of the premier tional run-of-the-river hydro power facilities, whitewater assets of the Northeastern U.S. by with the exception of the Rocky River puro.ped kayaking enthusiasts and should only be used by storage installation. Falls Village and Bulls experts because of the danger involved. Bridge are relatively small projects which have been in operation for over 50 years. Their HOUSATONIC TROUT FISHING AREA (Falls Village daily release of water serves to time-zone the to Kent) This is one of the best trout fishing popular fishing and canoeing activities on streams in Connecticut. It draws fishermen the river. However, the 2-3 foot daily fluc from Nev York State and southern Nev England tuation of water behind these dams creates and contains a 3 1/2 mile "fly-fishing only" an unattractive mud bank and affects the area. The State has an extensive trout stock nat\U'al streambank vegetation along the river. ing program here and fishing pressures are Federal licensing of these four projects will heavy, especially upstream of Cornwall Bridge. lead to the procurement of plans to enhance The State is considering expanding its fishing the recreational and fish and wildlife values access and stocking program on the river to of their project lands. relieve some of these pressures. BLEACHERY DAM AREA (New Milford) Site of a APPALACHIAN TRAIL (Kent to Cornwall Bridge and proposal to restore river to its normal course Dean's Ravine to Falls Village) National over the Bleachery Dam. Several deaths have trail from central Maine to northern Georgia occurred here as canoeist8 crossed this dam which parallels the Housatonic River for under deceptive hydrological conditions. approximately 8 miles and provides several Clearly marked portage is needed. scenic vistas of the river valley. Overuse is a problem along St. John's ledge in Kent. ROUTE 1 CORRIDOR (New Milford to N. Canaan) Major access road through the Housatonic Valley. STATE PARKS AND FORESTS The State owns and Proposed improvements, as considered in the operates 2600 acres in the river corridor for 42 past few years, would make the river more recreation and wildlife purposes. These are accessible, thus increasing recreational use the major public access and activity areas on and suburban development pressures. These the river for hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, plans are no longer under consideration by the snovmobiling, and picnicking. The State has no State. plans for expansion or reclassification of these areas, although a potential overuse problem at PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (New Milford) Kent Falls is recognized. This proposed project is an element of the Federal and State water pollution control pro CANDLEWOOD MOUNTAIN TRAIL (New Milford) Scenic grams for the Housatonic, which could affect trails transversing many areas of huge outcrops, the visual quality and phosphorous level of ledges and small caves. Physical management the river and possibly encourage new residential is needed. development in the area. Mitigation of these problems is in progress under the Wild and HOUSATONIC RIVER ROADS (Board.man Bridge to Scenic Rivers Act. Gaylordsville.and West Cornwall to Falls Village) Dirt roads paralleling scenic stretchs of the river. PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING (Nev Milford) This proposal is for the construction of a new LOVER'S LEAP (Nev Milford) Vista point and bridge across the river, located immediately unorganized trail system overlooking scenic south of Board.man Bridge. This project gorge of lush vegetation. Threatened. will require a review under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to insure protection of LAKE LILLINONAH Beautiful man-made lake with the river and the values for which it is steep forested banks which is considered one being studied. of the best bass fishing lakes in Connecticut. The area is popular for boating, water skiing, fishing, sailing, swimming and other water sports. Increasing residential development pressures and a seasonal algae bloom are serious problems in this area. BERKSHIRE RAILROAD (Nev Milford to N. Canaan) Abandoned railroad line which the State of Connecticut is considering for purchase and lease to a tourist excursion service. It is a significant linear element in the corridor which separates public activities on the river from private land uses and discourages stream.side .t'ULl'l'lt....:AL At....:'1'1U1~0. ~olitical actions include activities, trends, plans and policies occurring outside the river corridor which could have an impact on the special values of POLITICAL ACTIONS the river. In identifying these GROWTH TRENDS The continuation of recent actions, attention should be given growth trends in the Brookfield-Nev Milford to local attitudes and land use area will probably increase pressure for practices, town laws and policies, suburban development in the river corridor. state and regional planning ROUTE 7 HIGHWAY The new north-south super highway, gradually taking shape, piece by policies, recreational trends and piece in or near the present U.S. Route 7 activity patterns, industrial and corridor of western Nev England, could dramatically alter the land use and population commercial interests, Federal patterns of the rural Housatonic valley, programs and policies, and regional Although plans to improve Route 7 in Connec ticut have been abandoned for the foreseeable growth and development trends. future, construction of segments in Massachu setts and Vermont will only increase pressure The study team has identified a few to construct the Connecticut segments. of the actions currently affecting WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS The effectiveness of preservation efforts on the Housa water quality planning programs in Massachu tonic, which are included here as setts and Nev York, as well as Connecticut, to control point source pollution and to examples. Management strategies implement best land use management practices, for these problems should call will largely determine the quality of water in the river corridor. upon state, regional, and local decision makers to coordinate their UTILITY LICENSING Federal licensing of the hydro power facilities on the river, which activities with respect for the encourages the utility companies to prepare plans to enhance the fish, wildlife and recreational ecological and cultural values values of their properties, could provide an of the river corridor. opportWlity to protect some critical areas in 43 the corridor, yet could also lead to increased recreational activity. STATE RECREATION POLICIES Implementation of the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan's policies to protect natural, scenic and his torical resources greatly supports preservation efforts on the Housatonic River. However, its policies to expand fishing, hWlting, camping, swimming, boating and canoeing opportWlities for the general public could lead to increased recreational activity in the river corridor. REGIONAL RECREATION TRENDS Recent research indicates a strong upward trend in river oriented activity, especially on rivers near large population concentrations. As long as this trend continues the Housatonic will remain a primary candidate for increasing recreational activity due to its proximity to the Nev York metropolitan area, ANALYSIS PROGRAMMING Analysis is the second phase of Programming is the third and most the planning process in which important phase of the planning management objectives are developed process. It involves the develop from the inventory information. ment of strategies to accomplish For Wild and Scenic River desig the management objectives through nation, these objectives should the application of several legal reflect the intent of the Wild and administrative tools, and and Scenic Rivers Act to protect the coordination of functions and enhance the special values of and policies at all levels of the river and its corridor without government. If Wild and Scenic limiting other uses which do not River designation is desired for substantially interfere with public the Housatonic River, the management use and enjoyment of the area. The plan should include management study team suggests the following programs for land use, recreation type of management objectives for and water quality. the Housatonic River, in case National designation is requested. Land Use Management 1. The preservation of a free The Land Use Management Program flowing river. should be designed to protect 2. The maintenance of high water the land within the river corridor quality. from activities which would alter 3. The protection and enhancement its visual, ecological, and cul of natural and scenic features tural values. Special attention 44 along the river. should be given to maintaining 4. The protection and interpre natural conditions in the fore tation of historic and archaeolo ground area, protecting the crit gic values. ical areas from degradation, and 5, The preservation of the farming preventing visual intrusions in heritage in the valley. the background zone. 6. The protection of existing opportunities for public enjoyment. There are several legal and admin 7. The prevention of overuse and istrative tools which could be misuse of the river environment. incorporated in this program to 8. The allowance of compatible effectively protect and guide activities along the river which land use activities in the river do not substantially interfere corridor. Many of these tools with wild and scenic river objec are described below and their tives. possible applications to the Housatonic River are suggested. 1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. Planning, zoning and other regu latory functions of local govern ments along the river could be coordinated to provide compre hensive protection to the river corridor. In addition, special town ordinances could be adopted ..La..l Qt: ..LUU l..Ull.l.UQ ;:;. U<:l..UU<:l...l Ub' Jll.l.U- ) • CUNNJ<:C'l'.Lt;U'l' 't> t>'l'Hl':AM CHMNJ<:L imum set back distances, minimum ENCROACHMENT LINE PROGRAM. This river frontage-distances, plant program was designed to maintain material removal restrictions, the capacity of a river to carry or other similar regulations. and store flood waters, and to protect the lives and property of 2. INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS area residents. A permit is re ACT. This act requires a permit quired on any obstruction, encroach for "any operation within or use ment or hindrance within certain of a wetland or water course established encroachment lines involving removal or deposition of along flood prone rivers in the material, or any obstruction, con state. Currently, encroachment struction, alteration or pollution lines have been established along of such wetland or water courses." 2.5 miles of the Housatonic Towns could coordinate to strengthen River in New Milford. The program the application of this regulation has several administrative pro by placing a high priority on blems, however, due to the high wetlands and water courses within cost of delineation, the difficulty the foreground zone of the river of enforcement and its overlap corridor. with the National Flood Insurance Program. If these problems are 3. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ironed out by the state, consider PROGRAM. Tnis program was enacted ation could be given to the addi by Congress in 1968 to make flood tional protections which this insurance available at reasonable program could provide for the rates, and requires that certain river's flood plains. 45 flood plain management regulations be adopted. Towns could coordinate 6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAMS. with the Flood Insurance Admin These are federal ·and state require istration to hasten the completion ments that certain projects be of the required Flood Insurance reviewed for their impact on the Rate Maps so that permanent flood environmental and cultural values plain regulations can be enacted of their development sites. Often along the Housatonic. these programs include procedures for public participation through 4. CONNECTICUT'S PUBLIC ACT 490. which the preservation of the This act protects farm, forest or Housatonic could be coordinated. open space land against prohibitive Some of these programs are the Na property taxes which might force tional Environmental Policy Act, the conversion of the land to more Federal Water Pollution Control Act, intensive uses. The farm and the Federal Energy Regulatory Com forestry elements have been widely mission Licensing Procedure (Exhi used in the river corridor, yet bit W), the National Historic Pre the open space element has had servation Act, the Archaeological and only a few applications. The full Historical Preservation Act, and the use of P.A. 490 could be considered Connecticut Environmental Protection by the towns as a means to preserve Act. In addition, King's Mark Re the rural character of the valley source Conservation and Development and to promote orderly growth in Project, supports an environmental the surrounding parts of the towns. review team to assess the impact of proposed large scale developments for 7. LESS-THAN-FEE-SIMPLE LAND Regional Planning Commission, the OWNERSHIP. This is a means of Connecticut Plan of Conservation preserving land by placing certain and Development, the State Compre restrictions on the use of the hensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, land, or by granting specified the King's Mark Resource Conser rights to others regarding the vation and Development Program and use or development of the land. individual town plans. Guidelines could be prepared to assist landowners in the river 10. SPECIAL POLICIES could De corridor who are interested in developed which guide local, state, preserving their land through deed and federal cooperation in con restrictions, easements and other trolling land uses and their effect less-than-fee-simple techniques. on the river corridor. These policies should provide guidelines 8. FEE-SIMPLE LAND OWNERSHIP is and establish review procedures full ownership of all rights to the for highway improvements, bridge, land and is the soundest means of dam or power line construction, assuring complete protection and sand and gravel operations, timber control. This technique should removal, large residential commer be used only where a parcel of land cial or industrial developments is threatened with development and other major activities which which would seriously detract from could have an adverse impact on the river's special values, or the ecological, and cultural where a specific parcel is needed values in the river corridor. for public access and use. Guide lines could be prepared for inter actions between the managing 46 agency and landowner when this type of purchase is under consi deration. These guidelines could describe willing-seller/willing buyer provisions, donations, installment purchases, long term lease with options to buy, purchase and resale, land exchange, condem nation and other approaches to fee simple land ownership. 9. PLANNING COORDINATION could be pursued with all state, regional and federal agencies involved in land use, water quality, recreational or other planning programs which en compass the river corridor. Some of the major planning programs for this area are conducted by HUD's 701 Comprehensive Planning Process, EPA's Water Quality Planning Pro grams, the Corps of Engineers' Water Resources Development Plans, t.hP FP<'lF>ral Energv Regulatory Recreation Management site abuse due to recreational activities. Such policies could The Recreation Management Program include monitoring of recreational should be designed to protect and activities, visitor fees and regis maintain the diversity and Quality tration, activity zoning, licensing of recreational opportunities of outfitters, party size limits, in the river corridor, especially trash policies, water safety as the general trend towards in requirements, information brochures, creasing recreational demand and publicity bans. Coordination continues. Specifically, this with State Department of Environ program should not be concerned mental Protection, Northeast with providing more and more Utilities, recreational organ recreational sites, but instead izations and businesses could should strive to control recrea be valuable in developing and tional development and activity implementing these policies. in a manner which preserves the ecological and cultural values 3. STATE RECREATION POLICIES. of the river. This objective The State of Connecticut holds can be achieved through several a significant role in the recrea legal and administrative tools for tional aspects of the river recreational management which are corridor due to its State forest described below. and park lands, and its compre hensive outdoor recreation plan 1. FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ning responsibilities. Full This plan is a guide to the expan coordination with the State in sion and development of recreational recreational matters could be 47 facilities in the river corridor, pursued to insure the state's whose objective is to allow for commitment to protection of the slow and controlled growth of ecological and cultural values recreational facilities in a of the river while providing for manner which accommodates increasing controlled public use. recreational activities without creating additional recreational 4. STATE MINIMUM FLOW STANDARDS demand. A plan of this type are being considered to regulate could be designed for the Housa the minimum flow and release tonic River to control the location, of water from any drun or other design and timing of new recrea structure which impounds or tional facilities. The Connecticut diverts waters in which fish Department of Environmental Pro are stocked by the State. tection has much experience and ex These regulations are primarily pertise which could be of great intended to protect the state's value in preparing this plan. stocking program, however, they Coordination with Northeast Util also give consideration to water ities is also necessary to assure Quality, wildlife and recreational that the recreation plans for their values. Coordination with the hydropower facility sites are State in developing and applying consistent with the recreation these regulations to the Housa objectives for the river corridor. tonic River could be useful in protecting the area's recreational 2. ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT POLICIES. values. These arP A.rlmi ni i:::t.ri::i.t.i VP nrn0PA11rP.i:i. 5, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSING of Northeast Utilities' hydro-electric projects on the Housatonic involves among other things, the development of plans for outdoor recreation ' r-.~ (Exhibit R) and the protection of ...... - fish and wildlife (Exhibit S) in coordination with federal, state, regional and local agencies. These guidelines provide an opportunity for water release schedules to be coordinated with fish, wildlife and recreational purposes; for boating safety precautions to be made near the dams; for the cost Water Quality Management of recreation to be shared with the utilities; and for other actions The Water Q.uali ty Management to be taken which further the Program should be designed to preservation efforts on the river. maintain and enhance the water Coordination and updating of these quality and free-flowing condition Exhibits with the facilities of the river. Specifically, this development plan and activities plan should include coordination management program mentioned with water quality control pro earlier, are essential to insure grams for the upstream and tri the proper timing, design, loca butary areas to the river corr 48 tion and management of these idor and special attention for proposals. the PCB and other pollution problems. The following are some of the legal and admin istrative tools available to control water quality. 1. AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. This is a planning program, established under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which is 6. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION designed to tie together water FUNDS provide 50/50 matching pollution control and abatement grants through the State of regulations for both point and Connecticut and U.S. Bureau of non-point sources. The results Outdoor Recreation for the acqui of this program will be the sition and development of recrea identification of state and tion sites. Wild and Scenic River local agencies needed for imple designation might encourage the menting long term Water Quality state to give a high priority to Management Programs, including the funding of projects on the the National Pollution Discharge Housatonic River which are con- Elimination System, EPA con- programs in Connecticut, Massachu hearings and reports. Coordination setts and New York could give with this program throughout the consideration to the formation Housatonic River basin could be of an interstate management pursued to prevent degradation of agency for the entire Housatonic water quality from site develop River basin. The New England ment fills, causeway and road Interstate Water Pollution Con fills, dams and dikes, property trol Commission might be an protection or- reclamation devices, element in facilitating this sanitary landfills and other interstate cooperation. projects. 2. NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE 4. CONNECTICUT'S STATE AU1'HORI ELIMINATION SYSTEM. This is a TIES. The State of Connecticut permit program, currently in has several programs which pro effect throughout the Housatonic tect the water quality and free River basin,designed to control flowing condition of its water the discharge of pollutants. It ways. AlreadY mentioned are the includes a tight regulatory system 208 and NPDES programs, the In with precise and detailed abate land Wetland regulations, the ment requirements, heavy penalties Streain Channel Encroachment Lines, for violations, and several oppor the proposed Minimum Stream Flow tunities for public involvement. Regulations and the Connecticut Since the states have primary Environmental Protection Act. responsibility to administer this In addition, the state has program within the framework of authority over the construction the federal law, coordination with and maintenance of all dams to 49 New York, Massachusetts, and protect the public welfare. Connecticut is necessary to insure Coordination with state in its water quality standards are met exercise of these authorities as scheduled for the Housatonic on the Housatonic and its tri River. This coordination can be butary could be useful in accomplished through the NPDES protecting water quality. public participation program which allows public access to permits 5. LOCAL PRESERVATION EFFORTS. and reports; requires public In the New York and Massachusetts notices, fact sheets, and hearings portions of the Housatonic River before a permit is issued; and basin there is local interest includes the public's right to in protecting the river and its take court action. environment. Coordination with these efforts could be pursued 3. U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT through the Housatonic River Water PROGRAM. This program regulates shed Association in Massachusetts the discharge of dredge and fill and the Dutchess County Planning materials in coastal and inland Federation in New York. waters and wetlands th1·ough the issuing of permits under Section 6. PLANNING COORDINATION could 404 of the Federal Water Pollution be pursued with all state, reg Control Act Amendments of 1972. ional and federal agencies in It requires the consideration of volved in planning programs which environmental, social, and econo encompass the river corridor, as mic imnacts. anCI thP invnlvPmPn+. ,..,,.,,,,...,+4 ,,,...,,,,,:i .p,..,..,,. +i-,,... T """;! TT,..,... J\.f...,v..-.,.....-.. should be given to those programs which study and plan for the Housatonic River basin as a whole. The New England River Basins Comm ission will conduct a Housatonic River Basin - Overview which could be fundamental to the coordination of New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut's water pollution control programs. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAMS. Several state and federal programs that review projects for their IMPLEMENTATION impact on environmental and cul tural values, as mentioned for Implementation is the fourth the Land Use Management Program, also consider water quality and phase of the planning process and free-flowing condition in their involves the formation of a evaluation. Coordination with managing agency to execute the these programs could be pursued. programs of the management plan. The structure of this agency could 8. SPECIAL POLICIES. Guidelines include a small leadership comm for the proper conduct of agri ittee and a larger advisory body. If Wild and Scenic River desig culture, timbering, mining, con nation is desired, the leadership struction, landfill, sewage 50 disposal and other activities in of the agency should be delegated the river corridor could be devel to the town governments, the State of Connecticut , or a com oped to protect water quality. bined state/local arrangement. In addition, the advisory body should be made up of represen tatives from all organizations involved in preservation of the river including town governments, the State of Connecticut, regional planning agencies, landowners, and conservation/recreation groups. The major responsibilities of the managing agency in executing the The Connecticut 208 program will management plan shouJ d be to pro recommend best management prac vide coordination and leadership tices for some of these activities in carrying out its major programs, which could be useful in develop and to evaluate , revise and update ing these guidelines. Also, the plan as necessary. State policies on the construction of enabling legislation may be dams, bridges and other water required to authorize the managing resource projects could be devel agency with certain responsibil oped to protect the free-flowing ities such as the ability to condition of the river through apply for state or federal grants, WlLD AND oC~NlC RlVER DESIGNATION should be undertaken. First, the completed management plan National Wild and Scenic River should be presented to the local designation represents a federal towns for approval, and then to commitment to the protection of the State legislature for recog a river and its immediate environ nition as a state scenic river ment. The specific benefits pro and for legislation officially vided by National designation are recognizing the managing agency. the following: The governor should then submit the plan to the Secretary of the 1. Protection from federally Interior with a request for licensed or funded water resources National Wild and Scenic River projects, such as dams, water designation as a state-designated conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, unit, as provided for under Section transmission lines and other 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic project works (Section 7 of P.L. Rivers Act. 90-542). In addition, the Depart ment of the Interior can be an appellant agency. 2. Added compulsion to improve water quality through cooperative efforts by the managing agency, the Secretary of the Interior, the State water pollution control agencies and the Environmental 51 Protection Agency (Section ll(c) of P.L. 90-542). 3, Higher priority for financing from existing federal programs for compatible projects which improve the river and its watershed. The Secretary of Interior will review the management plan for For the Housatonic River, Wild acceptability according to and Scenic River designation would Section lO(a) of the Act, which provide an additional layer of states that "Each component of protection in which the federal the national wild and scenic river government takes a special interest system shall be administered ..... in preservation of the river. This to protect and enhance the values federal interest could provide the which caused it to be included "added leverage" needed in dealing in said system without .... limiting with certain problems affecting other uses that do not substan the future of the river, such as tially interfere with public use interstate water quality problems, and enjoyment of these values ... growth trends in the Danbury- primary emphasis shall be given New Milford area, and the expansion to protecting its esthetic, scenic, of recreational facilities. historic, archaeologic and scien tific features." Upon approval of If a decision is made through the management plan, the Secretary local action to pursue National of Interior will grant inclusion APPENDIX PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS plan data minus Existing Trends Plan data). A similar comparison Principles and Standards is a pro is made between each plan and the cedure developed by the Water Re Wild and Scenic River Plan in ·Table F-H. sources Council in 1973 to guide Federal water resources planning activities. The goal of this DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANS procedure is to improve the plan ning criteria used to achieve wise The four plans or scenarios devel use to the Nation's water and re oped here address possible future lated land resources by placing development and protection of the environmental concerns on a basis visual corridor of the Housatonic equal to economic development. River from the Massachusetts/ This allows decision makers to Connecticut border to Boardman identify and evaluate tradeoffs Bridge. These plans include between the objective of national estimates of population growth, economic development and environ mining and timbering activity, mental quality. river corridor acreage, town zoning and ordinances, land The Principles and Standards pro acquisition and easement programs, cedure used here involves 1) the tax base changes, and the devel development of several plans or opment of recreational facilities. scenarios for the river corridor, The data used here have been de 2) the evaluation and comparison veloped from the best available of these plans, and 3) the com sources of information, yet should parison of each plan with the Wild be interpreted only as estimates 52 and Scenic River plan. of future conditions. The Wild and Scenic River Plan data, espe These plans have been developed cially, should be interpreted as to represent four possible devel an estimate of future conditions opment trends in the river corri and not as a set of minimum stand dor - 1) the continuation of ards. This plan is simply an existing trends, 2) the growth of example of one of the many schemes economic development in the area, for protecting the river within 3) the inclusion of the river in the National Wild and Scenic River the National Wild and Scenic System. River System, and 4) the maximum protection of the natural environ ment. An evaluation of the effect The EXISTING TREND PLAN assumes of each plan on the objectives that growth and development in the of environmental quality, economic eight river corridor towns will development, regional development occur as projected in existing and social well-being is made and state and regional plans through presented in the Principles and enforcement of local and state Standards Table A. A comparison regulations. Specifically this between each plan and the Existing means that the State planning Trends Plan is made in Tables B-E designation of the river will con to indicate the net effects of tinue to be "Maj or Recreation each plan on environmental quality, Stream in an Open Space and Rec- " the river's !"l.ood pl.ain and we-e activities in the area and in - lands. State parks and forest crease suburban pressures on the will continue in their present towns. Specifically, this assump use without significantly changing tion implies that suburban and their boundarieso State plans to second home development pressures purchase the abandoned Berkshire will bring about some medium Railroad line from New Milford to density (1/2-1 acre) zoning in North Canaan for a tourist excur the valley. Mining and timbering sion will be realized. Existing activities will increase to meet low density (1-5 acre) zoning accelerated building demands in regulations will be enforced. the region. Population growth Modest mining and timbering acti will occur at approximately a vities in the corridor will con 2.2% average annual increase. tinue. Pressure to convert agri Conversion of agricultural lands cuctural land to residential and will lead to several new residen other uses will also continue. tial projects and mining sites in Population growth will occur at the river corridoro New recrea the 1.5% average annual increase tion facilities will be the same as projected by the State. Ad as anticipated in the existing ditional recreation facilities trends plan, although the private will be developed. Additional campground and canoe livery busi recreation facilities will be nesses are expected to expand more developed through the utility rapidly due to the accelerated companies and the private sector. local population growth. Canoe This example anticipates that the ing, fishing, hunting, camping, and hiking will continue to in 53 utility companies, through the Federal Energy Regulatory Comm crease at their current national ission's licensing procedure will trend. develop a modest picnicking/camp ground area and open five miles The WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN of their riverside property for assumes designation of 41 miles fishing access and stocking. of the Housatonic River and imple In addition,several new campgrounds mentation of a management plan and canoe liveries are expected to which conserves the existing en develop through the private sector. vironmental and cultural assets Canoeing, fishing, hunting, camp of the valley. Although a de ing and hiking activities will tailed management plan will be continue to increase at their eventually developed for the current national trend. area, a general concept plan is presented here for this analysis, The ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN which is only one of many accept assumes that growth and develop able plans for the Housatonic as ment in the eight river corridor a National Wild and Scenic River. towns will be accelerated over This plan assumes that town ordin current projections by the major ances could be developed to pro urban developments in the adja tect the visual corridor from cent Danbury metropolitan area. inappropriate development and to These proposed developments in protect the flood plains for their clude the New Milford sewage ecological and archaeological treatment plant and Route 7 ex- values. Provisions could be made - __ ,_ - ..::i ..:i..: ..j.. rP.auiring an archaeological survey ' ~-::i:rsc::>::E:;':'t:_L QL-,~_LI'I':' cc;;<.RI~'JR PE0'I::::CT:O:i 1 \\"ild & Scenic River ~·'.ilcs 0 0 41 41 2 Wild and ::'-cenic River Corridor I 0 0 32000 ac 32000 ac 3 Strear.telt Crdinance 0 0 Looo ac 4000 4 Land !;se .& 1/ew Const. Ordin. 0 0 15000 ac 32000 "ac 5 Visual Character Ordinance 0 0 17000 ac 1000 ac 6 Inland Wetlands Protection 3900 ac 3900 ac 3900 ac 3900 ac 7 Flocd Ir.surance Protection 6200 ac 6200 6200 ac 6200 ac 8 State Cwned Land I 2500 ac 2500 ac" 2500 ac 2500 9 Land Trust Property 1400 ac 1400 ac 1400 ac 1400 "ac 10 ~ow Density Zoning I 31000 ac 25000 ac 32000 ac 32000 ac 11 :-:edium I:ensity Zoning I 0 6000 ac 0 0 12 Poter.tial Ee.serr.ent I 0 0 500 ac 2000 ac 13 Potential Acquisition 0 0 100 ac 1000 ac NA'TIJF.AL PROCESS PPO'I-ECTIONl 14 Geologic Processes ma ' ma mp hp l' Soil Stability ma ma mp hp 16 Water Quality mp mp hp hp 17 Vegetation Diversity .. ma mp hp 18 Fish & 1-:ildlife P.abitat ma ma mp hp F.are t, Endangered Species 19 mp mp hp hp 20 Air Quality ma ma mp hp 21 Scenic ('.;.uali ty ma ma hp hp Ecc:;C!·!IC DEVELOP!!ENT DIRECT COSTS TO l·if<'.iAGING AGEiJCY 22 Acquisition Costs {1975 $) 0 0 $895000 $6,980,000 23 Development Costs 0 0 0 0 24 Cperations & /,'.aint. Costs 0 0 $ 25000/yr $25000/yr Aili'ilJAL FOEEGONE OPPOR'Ilff!ITIES 25 /.:ineral Resources 480 ac-ft 780 ac-ft 780 ac-ft 1980 ac-ft 26 Forestry Resources 105 ac 120 aa 115 ac 170 ac 27 Agricultural Resources 195 ac 210 ac 200 ac 215 ac 28 Hydro-electric Power Capacity 2000 mw mw mw 2000 2000 2000 rr.w 54 REGIClIAl DEVELOa!ErlT Mil/UAL GRO'../Tfi INDICATORS 29 Population Growth Rate 1. 5 % 2.2 % 1.5 % 1.5 % 30 Housine Starts 190 280 190 190 31 Retail Sale Growth(1974 $) $ 1 million' $ 1.5 million $ 1 million $ l r::illicn 32 Additional Employees 150 300 150 150 AI'/J.:\JAL REAL PROPERTY TAX FOREGOilE 33 ::. Canaan (am't/ %Grand Levy) 0 0 $ 900 I 0.1% $ 4500 I 0.5% 34 Canaan 0 0 $1700 I o.4% $ 8500 I 2.1% 35 Salisbury 0 0 $ 300 I 0.0% $15 ,100 I 1.0~ 36 Cornwall 0 0 $1500 I 0.2% $ 7400 I 1.3~ 37 Sharon 0 0 $1200 I 0.1% $ 6000 I o.6;~ 38 Kent 0 0 $6800 I o.8% $34,200 I 4.4% 39 Sherr.'lan 0 0 $ 600 I 0.0% $ 3100 I o.4% 40 Kew l SOCIAL \..'".SLL-BEI:;G 2 RECREA'i'IO!i FACILITIES 41 :toad.side Parks 5 5 5 5 42 Ca.n:pgrounds (public) 3 3 3 3 43 Carpe;rounds (private) 6 6• 6- E- 4!: Canoe Li very {private) 3 3• 3- 3- 45 Trails (n:i:-i.es) 50 mi 50 mi 50 mi 50 r.i L6 Stocked Fishing 11.5 mi 11.5 mi 11. 5 mi ll.5 r.i ,, Hunting Grounds 1336 ac 1336 ac 1336 ac 1336 aa 48 'Iourist f.ailroad 30 mi 30 r.ii 30 mi 30 mi 49 Sviru::dng Sites 0 0 0 0 P.ECREA'I-ION ACTIVITIES 3 50 Canoeing high high moderate moderate 51 Fishing high high r.J.Oderate moderate 52 Hiking high high ir.oderate moderate 53 Swii::ming moderate high moderate moderate 5L Pleasure Driving moderate high rr.oderate moderate moderate "N Picnicking high high moderate 5E Cill!".ping high high moderate moderate 57 Hunting moderate moderate moderate moderate Cl'LTL'PAL H'ESOURCES 1 mp 5E Eistoric Sites mp •.a mp mp 59 llrchaeologic Sites mp ma mp ... ----- .. CtJ.1U. .LU.L VlJ..L.l<;;;J. VUVO\JO,UU.1.UQ C..<;;;QJJLC::UV'-' Critical natural areas, such as of the rivero Furthermore, this very steep slopes, bedrock out association would encourage a crops, critical plant and animal strong.program for protecting the species habitats, islands, water ecological factors of the river falls, natural springs, and wild as a part of the Wild and Scenic life areas could be identified River management plan. Such a and protected through regulations, plan could call for an extensive easements, or acquisition. In program of acquisition and ease particular, this example calls for ments to protect most of the the managing agency to acquire-in ecologically critical lands. In fee 100 acres and to purchase this example, the managing agency easements for 500 acres. New rec would acquire-in-fee 1000 acres reational facilities would be and purchase easements for 2000 generally the same as anticipated acres. Town ordinances could be in the Existing Trends Plan al enacted to control all new con though the managing agency struction and to exclude mining would have greater control over and timbering activities from the the location, amount, type, and corridor. Much of the agricultural timing of all new facilities, both lands would be preserved through public and private. Furthermore, easements. Population growth in recreational activities could be the corridor is assumed to continue controlled and managed to protect at 1.5% average annual increase as the environmental and cultural projected by the State. New rec values of the river and its valley. reation facilities would generally be the same as anticipated in the 55 Population growth under this plan existing trends plan although the is assumed to occur at the 1.5% managing agency would have greater average annual increase projected control over the location, amount, by the State for the area. Some type and timing of all new facil restrictions could be placed on ities, both public and private. the location of mining and timber Furthermore, recreational activi ing activities in the corridor to ties could be controlled and man protect the river, however, these aged to protect the environmental restrictions would not exclude and cultural values of the river these activities from occuring in and its valley. the corridoro The conversion of agricultural land to other uses could be reduced as easements are encouraged to protect the agricultural character and herit age of the valley. The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN assumes that a watershed associa tion is formed to improve water quality and to preserve the spe cial values of the entire Housa tonic River Basin. This associa tion would support National Wild and Scenic River protection for J<:VALUA'l'lUN AND COMPARISON OF PLANS future threat to the natural processes of the valley. Environmental Quality Objective The water quality and rare and The effect of each plan on the endangered species of the Housa environmental quality of the tonic Valley, however, do main Housatonic valley is evaluated in tain a moderate degree of pro terms of the amount and type of tection under this plan. Water protection provided for the water quality will continue to be mon way, visual corridor and natural itored and upgraded through the processes of the area. This State and EPA's water quality analysis includes an indi_cation programs, the National Environ of the acres of land proL2~ted mental Protection Act, and the through local, state and Federal State Inland Wetlands Program. programs, and an estimation of how each plan protects or adversely Rare and endangered species in effects the natural processes of the valley are generally protected the valley. Also, a comparison is through programs to preserve their made to indicate the net effects critical habitats, such as con on environment quality of each servation easements, State land plan over the existing trends ownership, and private land trusts. plan. The ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN pro The EXISTING TRENDS PLAN protects vides the same basic legal protec less than 30% of the river corri tions to the Housatonic corridor, dor through the Inland Wetlands as the Existing Trends Plan, but 56 Act, the National Flood Insurance has more adverse effects on the Program, State ownership and pri natural processes of the valley, vate land trusts. Since these These adverse effects are due to legal protections o~en overlap in the assumed accelerated population the area they protect, a more growth and resulting in increased precise estimate is difficult, how activities by sand and gravel ever, it is clear that a relatively operations, timber harvesting, small part of the river corridor and residential development, It is protected under existing pro is anticipated that the increase grams. This fact, plus the con of these activities will adversely tinued expansion of sand and impact the environmental quality gravel extraction, timber har to a greater degree than the vesting, and residential develop Existing Trends Plan, but not to ment account for the moderately a severe or highly adverse degree. adverse effects on this plan on geology, soils, vegetation, fish The WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN and wildlife, air quality and provides additional legal protec scenery of the valley. Another tions to the Housatonic Valley important factor in determining over Existing Trends. These pro these moderately adverse effects tections include an acquisition/ is the possibility of increasing easement program for critical the size and operation of the two areas, the enactment of streambelt hydro power dams in the area. ordinances which protect the flood Although this is an unlikely plain and associated critical <1F'VP1 onmPnt. ~+. t.hP ..-.11Y.l"'An+ +_;mi:::> ---··-, --·--· - ' l I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' COR: WILD & SCENIC RIVER PLAN CORRIDOR PEOTECTIOU 1 Wild & Scenic River j,~iles 41 0 41 2 Wild and Scenic River Corridor 32000 ac 0 32000 3 StreaTibelt Ordinance 4000 ao 0 4000 "'ao 4 Land l;se & :rew Const. Ord in 15000 ac 0 15000 ao 5 Visual Character Ordinance 17000 ao 0 17000 "' 6 Inland Wetlands Protection 3900 ao 3900 ao 0 0 7 Flood Insurance Protection 6200 ac 6200 ao 8 State Owned Land 2500 ac 2500 ao 0 0 9 Land Trust Property 1400 ac 1400 ao 57 10 Low Density Zoning 32000 ao 31000 1000 "' 11 i·'.ediun: Density Zoning 0 0 "' 0 12 Potential Easement 500 ac 0 500 13 Potential Acquisition 100 ac 0 100 "'ao ~!ATURAL P!':OCESS PROTECTIO:rl 14 Geologic Processes mp ma favorable 15 Soil Stability mp ma favorable 16 Water Quality hp mp I favorable 17 Vegetation Diversity mp ma favorable 18 Fish f< 1-.'ildlife Rabi tat mp ma favorable 19 Rare & Endangered Species hp mp favoreble 20 P.ir G.uality mp ma favorable 21 Scenic Quality hp ma favorable ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN ' CORRI DOE PPD':'EC7IC:·; ' l Wild Scenic F.iver t'.iles 41 0 ~l I 2 Wild acd' Scenic Eiver Corridor 32000 ac 0 32000 ao 3 Strear:;belt Ordinance 4000 ac 0 4000 ao I 4 Land L'se & r:ew Const. Ordir.. 32000 ac 0 32000 aa 5 Visual Character Grdina 1000 ac 0 1000 aa " aa 0 6 Inlar.d Wetlands Protect on 3900 3900 "' 7 Flood Insurance Protect en 6200 ao 6200 ao 0 e St ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN :JI~2CT co~~':'S ';_'Q !·:A.L:AGIJ:G ;._cn;cy a ,',cquisition Costs (1975 .::) 0 0 0 23 .Sevelopll'_ent Costs 0 0 0 21.i Operations r, /.'aint. Costs 0 0 0 A.L;:i:cAL FOFEGOi/E OPPOR'IU!:I?IES 25 :.'ineral Resources 780 ac-ft 480 ac-ft 300 ac-:'t 26 Forestry Resources 120 105 15 27 Agricultural Resources 210 "ac 195 "ac 15 ac" 22 !!ydrc-electric Fower Capacity 2000 mw 2000 mw 0 WILD & SCENIC RIVER PLAN DIRECT COSTS TO f.lAi'iAGH/G f_GENCY 22 Acquisition Costs (1975 ~) $ 895000 0 $ 895000 0 23 revelop~ent Costs 0 0 2i. Operations & 1-'.aint. Costs $ 25000/yr 0 $ 25000/yr A:ll:C-AL FOREGOiiE OFPOETUNITIJ: S 300 ac-ft 25 l.'ir:eral Resources 780 ac-ft 480 ac-ft 10 ac 2E Forestry Resources 115 ac 105 ac ac 27 Agricultural Eesources 200 ac 195 ac 5 0 28 Hydro-electric Fewer Capaci t~' 2000 mw 2000 mw 59 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN DIRECT COSTS TO !-~IAGI!;G AGENCY 22 Acquisition Costs (1975 .$) $6,980,000 0 ~6,980,000 23 DevelopL".ent Costs 0 0 0 24 Operations & i·'.aint. Costs $25,000/yr 0 ~ 25,000/yr fa2li:L'AL FOREGOl:E OFPORTUJ!ITIES ac-i't 25 i·'.ineral F.esources 1980 ac-ft 480 ac-ft 1500 26 Forestry Resources 170 ac 105 ac 65 ac 27 ;.gricultural f,esources 215 ac 195 ac 20 ac 28 Eydrc-electric Power Capacity 2000 mw 2000 row 0 .i. '-'>O>\... n,A.i. '-'<.:;;;> VVUQ,...L Cl,J:'J:'.t."U.h..1.!IH:t.lo~.L.)' 21,400 acres in the Housatonic ment plan by a full-time pro corridor, although timbering fessional. activities are minimal. Deple tion of this forestry resource Economic resources of minerals, due to growth and development forestry and agricultural would occurs at 0.5% per year. Agri be depleted at a slightly great er cultural resources are estimated rate than under the Existing at 18% of the valley and are Trends Plan due to the proposed being converted to other uses at acquisition/easement program" the rate of 3.4% annually, In addition, the potential of the The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN corridor to support a new power calls for acquisition costs of project has been foregone by the approximately $7 million. This placement of the prime site for inc.ludes acquisition-in-fee of this development in a 30 year 1000 acres and easements for 2000 conservation easement. acres. Like the Wild and Scenic River Plan, no development costs 'me ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN, are anticipated. Maintenance and like the Existing Trends Plan, operations estimates include a does not include any significant salary and expenses for imple acquisition or development pro mentation and update of the manage posals in the corridor. Mineral, ment plan by a full-time pro forestry and agricultural re fessional. sources, however, are foregone at a slightly greater rate, since Economic resources are foregone 60 growth and development in the at a higher rate under this plan valley are assumed to occur at an than the Existing Trends Plan due accelerated rate under this plan. to the extensive acquisition/ easement program. Mineral re The WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN sources would be depleted at 4.8% would require a $895,000 expendi annually, forestry resources at ture for the acquisition/easement .8% per year, and agricultural program. This estimate is based land at 3,7% per year. on the acquisition-in-fee of 100 acres and the purchase of ease ments for 500 acres. The land values used in this estimate are $1800 per acre as an average value and $25,000 per acre for prime developable land. Development costs are not anticipated l)Ilder this plan since the projected expansion of recreational facil ities is anticipated to be devel oped by the power companies through the Federal Energy Regu latory Commission's licensing procedures. Operation and main tenance estimates are based on salary and expenses required to J:Ilt! WJ.l..JlJ lU~lJ OV.J:!JHJ.V n.Lv.c.n .Ll.Jl-U~ 111,;1,0 no significant effect on regional The effect of each plan on re growth since population, housing, gional development is evaluated retail sales, and employment pro in terms of growth in the 8 town jections are the same as existing study area and real property taxes trends. Real property taxes, foregone. Growth indicators in however, will be effected by this clude population, housing, retail plan due to the acquisition/ease sales and employmento Real pro ment program which removes some perty taxes foregone for each town properties from the tax base. The are based on the estimated value estimated value of real property of acquired lands and easements taxes foregone under this plan is proposed under each plan. less than 1% of the Grand Levy of each town and, therefore, does not The EXISTING TREND PLAN assumes have a significant effect on re population growth in the 8 towns gional development of the towns. will occur at 1.5% annually to the year 2000 as projected by the The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN Connecticut Department of Planning has no significant effect on pop and Energyo The growth in housing ulation, housing, retail sales, starts, retail sales and employ and employment over the Existing ment are all based on this annual Trends Plan. Real property taxes, population increase and are re however, are more greatly effected flective of normal growth projec by this plan, than under the Wild tions for the areao Real property and Scenic River Plan, since more taxes will not be effected by this property is acquired or placed 61 plan since no major land acquisi under an easemento The greatest tion is proposed. effect on this plan on real pro perty tax occurs in Kent and Canaan The ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN where the Grand Levy would be re assumes a 2.2% annual population duced by 4.4% and 2.1% respec growth resulting from major urban tively. developments in the Danbury-New Milford area. Housing starts and retail sales are greater than under the existing trends plan, due to this accelerated popu lation growth. Employment, how ever, reflects not only the in creased population of the area, but also the greater employment rate of the Danbury Labor Market. Some of this increase employment could be attributed to increased sand and gravel mining, timber harvesting, and construction in the Housatonic corridor. No major acquisitions of land or easements are foreseen by this plan which would deplete the real property tax base. l J ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN + PJGL'AL GRO'~'TH n:I.IICATOPS 29 Population Growth Rate 2.2 % 1.5 % 0."7 % I 30 l-:ousir.g Starts 280 190 90 I 31 ?etail Sale Growth (1974 $) $ 1.5 million $ 1 million $.5 IT:l~.Ll 32 Additional Employees 300 150 150 " c1 ANNUAL REAL PROPERTY TAX FOREGO!lE 33 iL Car.aan (am't/ % Grand Levy) 0 0 0 34 Canaan 0 0 0 I 35 Salisbury 0 0 0 36 Cornwall 0 0 0 37 Sharon 0 0 0 38 Kent 0 0 0 39 Sherman 0 0 0 40 i'iew ~~ilford 0 0 0 WILD & SCENIC RIVER PLAN ANNUAL GROWTH INDICATORS 29 Population Growth Rate 1. 5 % 1.5 % 0 30 Housing Starts 190 190 0 31 Retail Sale Growth (1974 $) $ 1 million $ 1 million 0 32 Additional Employees 150 150 0 ANNUAL REAL PROPERTY TAX FOREGONE 33 N. Canaan (am't/ % Grand Levy) $ 900 I 0.1% 0 $ 900 I 0.1% 34 Canaan $1700 I o.4% 0 $1100 I o.4% 35 Salisbury $ 300 I 0.0% 0 $ 300 I 0.0% 62 36 Cornwall $15co I 0.2% 0 .$1500 I 0.2% 37 Sharon $1200 I 0.1% 0 $1200 I 0.1% 38 Kent $6800 I o.8% 0 $6800 I o.8% 39 Sherman $ 600 I 0.0% 0 $ 600 I 0.0% 40 New Milford $3300 I 0.0% 0 $3300 I 0.0% ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN A.'iNUAL GROWTH Ii!DICATORS 29 Population Growth Rate 1.5 % 1.5 % 0 30 Housing Starts 190 190 0 31 Retail Sale Growth (1974 $) $ 1 millior. $ l millior. 0 32 Additional Employees 150 150 0 AH::LlAL REAL PROPERTY TAX FQR[C:JllE 33 1'. Canaan (~.'t/% Grand Levy) $ 4500 I 0.5% 0 $ 4500 I 0.5:: 34 Canaan $ 8500 I 2.1% 0 $ 8500 I 2.1:: 35 Salisbury $15100 I l.0% 0 $15100 I l.O'.". 36 Cornwall $ 1400 I 1.3% 0 $ 1400 I 1.3;: 37 Sharon $ 6000 I o.6% 0 $ 6000 I o.6% 38 Kent $34200 I 4.4% 0 $34200 I li.4% 39 Sher:r.an $ 3100 I o.4% 0 $ 3100 I o.4;; 40 l The EXISTING TRENDS PLAN antici The WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN pates a modest expansion of rec calls for the controlled expansion reational facilities in the river of recreational facilities to main corridor. Some new public fac tain activity levels at a moderate ilities would be provided by the level for a pleasant recreational power companies under the Federal experience, No additional public Energy Regulatory Commission's facilities are anticipated by this licensing procedures. Private plan over the Existing Trends Plan 63 facilities, such as campgrounds since existing facilities are and canoe liveries are expected adeQuate for public enjoyment of to expand in response to popu the river. Private recreation lation growth in and around the facilities are expected to expand area. Recreation activity levels more slowly under this plan than will probably continue to grow and the Existing Trends Plan, since eventually reach overcrowding management policies would be levels for water related activi developed to guide both the number ties. and Quality of private recreation development for the overall pro The protection of cultural re tection of the river. Recreation sources will continue through the activity levels would also be State Historical Commission's guided through management policies programs for historical and ar to maintain a pleasant recreation chaeological resources. However, experience. uncontrolled development and scavenging of archaeological sites Cultural resources of the valley could have some negative effect would receive a higher degree of on these resources. protection under this plan than under the Existing Trends Plan due The ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN to the acQuisition of critical calls for a greater increase in areas, legal protections, and private recreation facilities over special management policies, the Existing Trends Plan, while Archaeological sites would receive additional public facilities are additional protection due to their assumed to be the same as the outstanding value and location in - - - - - .- - - I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN Rl::CREATIOi': F/1CILITIES2 41 ~oadside Farks 5 5 c 1;2 Cm::pgrounJs (P'_:blic) 3 3 0 43 Cmnpgrounds (private) 6• 6 44 Canoe Li very (private) 3• 3 ' 45 Trails (rr.iles) 50 mi 50 mi '0 46 Stocked Fis!-:ing 11. 5 mi ll.5 mi 0 47 EuntiTig Grounds 1336 a.c 1336 ac 0 48 ':'.ourist Railroad 30 mi 30 mi 0 49 S>:i!:'JDing ::Oi tes 0 0 0 RECREATION PCTIVITI:'.:S 3 50 Canoeing high high 0 51 Fishing high high 0 52 !-ii king high high 0 53 Swi=ing high moderate unfavorable 54 Pleasure rrivint; high moderate unfavorable 55 Picnid:ini; high high 0 56 Carr.ping high high 0 57 Eunting moderate moderate 0 1 CULTUF.AL RESOL'.RCES 58 Historic Sites ma mp unfavorable 59 J..rchaeologic Sites ma mp unfavorable WILD & SCENIC RIVER PLAN R~CREATION FP-.CILITIES 2 41 Roadside Parks 5 5 0 42 Campgrounds (public) 3 3 0 43 Can:pgrounds (privete) 6- 6 - 44 canoe Livery (pri V.?.te) 3- 3 - 45 Trails (miles) 50 mi 50 mi 0 46 Stocked Fishing 11.5 mi 11. 5 mi 0 47 Hunting Grounds 1336 ac 1336 ac 0 48 Tourist RailroE..:. 30 mi 30 D'.i 0 49 Swillllliing Sites 0 0 0 64 RECREATIOi·i ACTIVI'='IES 3 50 Canoeing moderate high favoreble 51 Fishing moderate high favorable 52 Hiking moderate high favorable 53 Swi=ing moderate rr.oderate 0 54 Pleasure Di·i ving moderate moderate 0 55 Picnicking moderate high favorable 56 Carr.ping moderate high favorable 57 P.unting moderate moderate 0 CUL'il1RAL EISOUF.CESl 58 Historic Sites mp mp 0 59 P..rchaeologic Sites mp mp 0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN 2 RECREATIO~: FACILiTIES 41 Roadside Parks 5 5 0 42 crur.pgrounds (public) 3 3 0 43 cmr,p[rour.ds (private) 6- 6 - !,L Cance Livery (pri-.rate) 3- 3 - 45 Trails (miles) 50 mi 50 mi 0 liE Stocked Fishing 11.5 mi 11.5 mi 0 47 Eun ting Grounds 1336 ao 1336 0 LB Tourist F:ailroad 30 mi 30 mi" 0 49 Swirr.rr.ing Sites 0 0 0 RECREATIO•; AC'.:·IVITIES3 50 Canoeir.g moderate high favorable 51 Fishing moderate high favoi·ab~e 52 P.iking moderate high favorable 53 Swiu-.ming moderate moderate c 51, Pleasure Driving moderate moderate 0 55 Picnicl-·.ing moderate high favorat~e 56 Cen:ping moderate high favoroble :;unting moderate moderate 0 57 1 CUI.TL: fl.AL R:i'.:SOL:7C.t:S 58 :<:istoric Sites mp f.',P 0 59 Archaeologi c Sites mp ma 0 '11"'1'1.' '. 'rn - \.,.; ~1.1" r>'"t-o,...~ i "" """'" 0. "-'-" ---- -'-'--- """"'" '· l..' -"' ---··"-.-l ~"nM<~l,.,ne legal protection woUld be 1·ocused. through an acQuisition/easement Historical sites will be protected program for critical areas. The by scenic easements and protective net result of these protections zoning. is favorable to the natural pro cesses of the valley as mining, The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN timbering and residential develop calls for the same control of rec ment are guided to minimize their reational facilities and activities environmental impacts. as the Wild and Scenic.River Plan. Cultural resources, however, would This plan, however, does incur a receive a slightly higher degree net cost of economic and regional of protection to the archaeological, development over the Existing and historical sites due to the Trends Plan due to the direct more extensive acQuisition/easement costs of implementing the plan, program. and the indirect costs of natural resources foregone by land acQuisi tion and restrictions on mining and timbering. The magnitude of these costs are Quite reasonable when compared to the Grand Tax Levy of each town and the natural resource base of the corridor. The budget for the acQuisition/ easement program when distributed to each town in proportion to 65 their percentage of the river cor ridor, represents less than 1% of the Grand Tax Levy of each town in 1975· Similarly, the net impact of natural resource depletion over the Existing '.l'rends Plan is negli gible with only .7% of the mineral WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN COM resources, .047% of the forestry PARISON resources, and .008% of the agri cultural resources being depleted Since Wild and Scenic River des from the corridor annually. ignation for 41 miles of the Housatonic River is recommended The social well-being objective by this report, a closer look at is favorably affected by the Wild the Wild and Scenic River Plan in and Scenic River Plan as it pro comparison to the other alter vides management of recreation native plans is in order. and some additional protection for cultural resources. The man In comparison to the EXISTING agement of recreation is achieved TRENDS PLAN, the Wild and Scenic through policies to guide the size, River plan provides a higher de location, design, and timing of gree of environmental protection new facilities, and programs to to the river corridor. This is maintain a moderate activity level. achieved through local ordinances Cultural resources are protected to guide land use and new con- under this plan through zoning ;::;-i;::.c-::1 'HIT,~.L C"l'AL:L':'Y CORRIJOR PF.O'::'EC'l'IO~i 1 Kild & Scenic River 1':iles 41 0 ll 2 '"ild and Scenic River Corridor 32000 ac 0 32000 ac 3 Streambelt Ordinance 4000 ac 0 4000 ac ' ac 4 Land Use & ~!ew Const. Ordin. 15000 ac 0 15000 5 Visual Character Ordinance 17000 ac 0 17000 ac 6 Inland Wetlands Protection 3900 ac 3900 ac 0 7 Flood Insurance Protection 6200 ac 6200 ac 0 8 State Owned Land 2500 ac 2500 ac 0 9 Lur.d Trust Property 1400 ac 1400 ac 0 10 Low Density Zoning 32000 ac 31000 ac 1000 ac 11 1'!edium :Censity Zoning 0 0 0 12 Potential Easement 500 ac 0 500 ac 13 Potential Acquisition 100 ac 0 100 ac ilATURAL PROCESS PROTECTIOi':l 14 Geologic Processes mp ma favorable 15 Soil Stability mp ma favorable 16 Water Quality hp mp favorable 17 Vegetation Diversity mp ma favorable le Fish & Wildlife Habitat mp ma favorable 19 Hare & Endangered Species hp mp favorable 20 Air Quality mp ma favorable 21 Sce!lic Quality hp ma favorable ECOi1CiHC DEVELOPl,::ENT DIRECT COSTS TO HA.llAGI!:G AGENCY 22 Acquisition Costs (1975 $) $895000 0 $895000 23 Development Costs 0 0 0 24 Operations & Maint. Costs $25000/yr 0 $25000/yr All::UAL FOREGONE OPPORTUNITIES 25 l·'.ineral Resources 780 ac-ft 480ac-ft 300 ac-ft 26 Forestry Resources 115 ac 105 ac 10 ac 27 Agricultural Resources 200 ac 195 ac ac 28 Hydro-electric Power Capacity 2000 mw 2000 ITM 0' EEGIOtrAL DEVELOPMENT 66 ANNUAL GROii'J'H I!iI;ICA'IORS 29 Population Growth Rate 1. 5% 1.5% 0 30 Housing Starts 190 190 0 31 Retail Sale Growth (1974 $) $ 1 million $ 1 million 0 32 Additional Employees 150 150 0 AiUnJAL REAL PROPERTY TAX FOREGONE 33 N. Canaan (am't/ % Grand Levy) $900 I 0.1% 0 $ 900 I 0.1% 34 Canaan $1100 I o.4% 0 $1700 I o.4% 35 Salisbury $ 300 I 0.0% 0 $ 300 I o.c% 36 Cornwall $1500 I 0.2% 0 $1500 I 0.2% 37 Sharon $1200 I 0.1% 0 $1200 I 0.1% 38 Kent $6800 I o.8% 0 $6800 I o.8% 39 Sherman $ 600 I 0.0% 0 $ 600 I 0.0% 40 r:ew l-!ilford $3300 I 0.0% 0 $3300 I 0.0% SOCIAL l.'ELL-BEHJG RECHEA'IION FACILITIES2 41 Roadside Parks 5 5 0 42 Ca.~pgYounds (public) 3 3 0 43 Ca.r.pgrounds (private) 6- 6 - 44 Canoe Livery (private) 3- 3 - 45 Trails (rr,iles) 50 mi 50 mi 0 46 Stocked Fishing 11.5 mi 11.5 mi 0 47 Hunting Grounds 1336 ac 1336 ac 0 h8 Tourist Railroad 30 mi 30 mi 0 49 Swi~:111ing Sites 0 0 0 RECREAT-ION ACTIVITIES3 50 Canoeir..g moderate high favorable 51 Fishing moderate high favorable 52 Hiking moderate high favorable 53 Swirrz.ing moderate moderate 0 54 Pleasure Driving moderate moderal;e 0 55 Picnicking moderate high favorable favorable ~6 Cru:r.ping moderate high 57 Eunting moderate ll'.Oderate 0 1 CULTl'RJl.L PESOURCES 58 Historic Sites mp mp 0 mp 59 Archaeoloeic Sites !IOTE l: hp - highly protective NOTE 2: "+" - more thar NOTE 3: high - crowded conditions cu;:; Lb cw.-t:: ou10._i_..Le:::.r· unller iJne WJ..LU historical and archaeological sites. and Scenic River Plan than under All of these effects of the Wild the Economic Development Plan. and Scenic River Plan, are over and This i's attributed to the acceler above existing conditions in the ated population growth and resi corridor and, therefore, yield a dential development under the net benefit to the social well Economic Development Plan which being objective. would cause more mineral, forest, and agricultural lands to be un In general, the Wild and Scenic available for economic developmento River Plan compares favorably to the Existing Trends Plan for the The social well being objective is environmental quality and social favorably effected by the Wild and well-being objectives, while Scenic River Plan over the Economic having only a minimally negative Development Plan since recreation impact on the economic and re activities could be held at a gional development objectives. moderate level, the expansion of recreational facilities could In comparison to the ECONOMIC be properly controlled, and cul DEVELOPMENT PLAN, the Wild and tural reso11rces would receive Scenic River Plan provides a some additional protections. considerably higher degree of These management abilities of the environmental protection to the Wild and Scenic River Plan are river corridoro Although the very important in this comparison Economic Development Plan main because the accelerate population 67 tains the existing legal pro growth of the Economic Development tections on the river corridor, Plan could lead to an excess of the accelerated population growth recreational facilities, crowded assumed in this plan would lead conditions, and negative impacts to higher development densities on historical and cultural re and more active mineral and timber sources. extraction which would adversely effect the environment. The Wild In general, the Wild and Scenic and Scenic River Plan, therefore, River Plan provides a consider provides a relatively higher net able net benefit over the Economic benefit for environmental quality Development Plan for environmental over the Economic Development Plan quality and social-well being with than it does over the Existing only minimal negative impacts on Trends Plan. economic and regional development. In terms of economic and regional In comparison to the ENVIRONMENTAL development, the Wild and Scenic PROTECTION PLAN, the Wild and River Plan incurs a net cost over Scenic River Plan does not provide the Economic Development Plan for as high a level of protection to its acquisition/easement program, the river corridor, since the and for operation and maintenance Environmental Protection Plan of this plan. These costs to the calls for stricter zoning ordin towns, however, are relatively ances and a more extensive acqui small in comparison to the town's sition/easement program. These Grand Tax Levy, as explained protections, plus the coordination earlier. In terms of foregone of the Environmental Protection - j r:::vr r-:c,;;:.!E!lT AL '.;_t:.\i,:::':'Y CORIUD0:'. PF.C'Tl::C'L!:·J:: l ·,:ild & Scenic Fiver !'.iles 0 hl i 2 Wild and Scenic River Corridor ~32000 ac 0 32COG ac 3 Strea'!lbelt Ordine.nce 4000 ac 0 4000 ac 4 Land t.;se & '.few Const. Crdin 15000 0 15000 ac 1700".l 5 Visual Cba~·acter Crdinance 11000 " 0 "' 6 Ir.lanG. 1\etlands Protection 3900 "ac 3900 ac 0 7 FlocU Insurance Protection €200 6200 ac 0 8 State Owned Land 2500 " 25"00 ac 0 9 Land ':'rust Property 1400 "ac 1400 ac 0 10 Low Density Zoning 32000 25000 ac 7000 cc 11 ~:edi UJll Density Zoning 0 " 6000 -6000 " 500 " 12 Potential Ease~ent 500 ac 0 "' 13 Potential Acquisition 100 ac 0 JOO NA'lt:PJ..L PRCCESS PROTECTIC:1 " 14 Geologic Processes mp ma favor ab~ e 15 Soil Stability mp ma favorable 16 Water Quality hp mp favorable 17 Vegetation Diversity mp ma favoreble 18 Fish & Wildlife Habitat mp ITO :avorable 19 Rare & Endangered Species hp rr.p :'."avorable 20 Air ~.uali ty mp ma favorable 21 Scenic Quali t~· hp ma :'."avorable Ecciro:.'.IC D:!'.:VELOPl·::F:·IT DIREC'l' COSTS TO 1-CA~·!AGIXG AGEI·:CY 22 Acquisition Costs (1975 $) $895000 0 $895000 23 Develop~ent Costs 0 0 0 24 Cperations & ~~a int, Costs $25000/yr 0 $25000/yr AIE!L'AL FOREGONE OPPOR'rUH':'IES 25 !.lineral Resources 780 ac-ft 780 ac-ft 0 2€ Forestry F.esources 115 ac 120 ac -5 27 Agricultural Hesources 200 210 ac -10 " 28 Hydro-electric Power Capacity 2000 "mw 2000 mw 0 " HEGIGl!AL DEVELOP!'.E~·!T 68 Af-H:L'AL GROWTH INDICATORS 29 Population Growth Rate 1. 5% 2.2% -0.1% 30 Dousing Starts 190 280 -90 31 Retail Sale Growth (1974 $) $1 million $:!.. 5 million $ - . 5 r.iillion 32 Additional Employees 150 300 -150 Ain;uAL REAL PP.OPL"TY -TAX FOREGO;·:c 33 r-;. Canaan (run't/ % Grand Levy) $ 900 0.1% 0 $ 900 I 0.1% 34 Canaan $1700 0.4% 0 $1700 I 0.4% 35 Salisbury $ JOO 0.0% 0 $ 300 I 0.0% 36 Cornwall $1500 0.2% 0 $1500 I 0.2% 37 Sharon $1200 0.1% 0 $1200 I 0.1% 38 Kent $6800 0.8% 0 $6800 I 0.8% 39 Sherrr:an $ 600 o. o~ 0 $ Eoo I 0.0% ho i:er,.; ~'.ilford $3300 I o. o~ 0 $3300 I 0.0% SOCIAL ',,'E~L-BEI:·iG 0 HECR!CA'::'IC:; FACILI~IES~ 41 Roadside Parks 5 5 0 42 Ca:r.pgrounds (pullic) 3 J 0 li3 C.9.rr.pgrolillds (private) 6- 6• - 44 Canoe Livery (privG.te) 3- J• - 45 :'rc..ils (rr.iles) 0 50 mi 50 mi 116 Stocked Fishing 11.5 mi 11.5 mi 0 l,7 Eur.tin£ GrounC.s 1336 ac 1336 ac 0 48 Tourist Railroad 30 mi 30 rr.i 0 49 3wir:-cr.::ir.g Sites 0 0 0 EECRF..ATIG!f AC'I:::VITIF:S3 50 Canoeing moderate high favorable 51 Fishing r::oderate high favorable 52 Hiking rr.oderate hi gr. favcrable 53 Swirr.'lling moderate high favorable 5h Pleasure I:ri ving or.oderatP high favorable 55 Picnicking favorable moderate high 56 Carr.ping favorab:!.e moderate hi,-;:h 57 1:untir.g moderate moderate 0 CTJLTl.'HAL P:ESOlECE:Sl 58 H!storic Sites rr.p ma favoratle 59 Archaeolcgic 2ites rr.p ma favcrable :!OTE 1: hp - highly protective liOTE 2: ''+" - !:".ore than ~/OTF. 3: h:gh - crowrled conC.i tior.s c- ;,·:;1::'.::::::::.rE_·l':'f..L ,;_r;,;: l'l'Y COR::tICCP. P'.'.C':'ECTIO:i 1 \{ild & Scenic f-:iver V.iles 41 41 0 2 t:ild and Scenic ~iver Corridor 32000 32000 c 3 Strea:r:belt 0rdir.ance 4000 " 4000 "' 0 4 Land L'.se ::ew Const. Ordin. 15000 " 32000 " -170CO ac 5 Visual Ctaracter' Ordinance 17000 " 1000 ao" 16000 ac 6 Inll'.nd Wetlands Protection 3900 " 3900 ao 0 7 Fl cod Insurar>ce Protection 6200 " 6200 0 8 State Owned Land 2500 "' 2500 ao" 0 9 Land Trust Property 1400 " 1400 0 10 Low Density Zonir.g 32000 " 32000 " 0 11 l-:ediwn Density Zoning 0 "' 0 "' 0 12 Potential Easell'.ent 500 2000 -1500 ac 13 Potential Acquisition 100 " 1000 " -900 ac 1 NA~UR/\L PROCESS PFOTEC':'Io:; " " 14 Geologic Processes mp hp unfavoratle 15 Soil Stability mp hp unfavorable 16 Water QuP.lity hp hp 0 17 Vegetaticn Diversity mp hp unfavorable 18 Fish & Wildlife Ea bi tat mp hp unfavorab::.e 19 P.ere & Endangered Species hp hp 0 20 J\ir Quality mp hp unfa•1orable 21 Scenic Quality hp hp 0 Eco:;c~.'IC DE 'ii~LOP!,'EliT DIREC'l' COSTS ':'Q ;.:p_;:AGI;:G ;'..Gfl;cy 22 Acquisitio~1 Ccsts (1975 C) $895000 $6,980,000 $-5,995,000 23 Develop~ent Costs 0 0 0 24 Operaticns & ~·'.aint, Costs $25000/yr $25000/yr 0 A:JNUAL FOREGCIE OPPCRTCliITIES 25 Mir.eral Resources 780 ac-ft 1980 ac-ft -1200 ac-ft 2E Forestry Resources 115 ac 170 ao -55 27 Agricultural Resources 200 a.c 215 ao -15 "' 28 Hydro-electric Power Capacity 2000 mw 2000 mw 0 " REGIO~!AL DEVELOP!·!E~lT 69 ANNUAL GP.OWT!i I?iDICATORS 29 Population Growth Rate 1. 5% 1.5% 0 30 Housing Starts 190 190 0 31 Retail Sale Growth (1974 $) $ l million $ 1 million 0 32 Additional Empl0yees 150 150 0 Afiil1JAL REAL PROFERTY TPJ.. FOREGOllE 33 r!. Canaan (ru:i't/ f, Grand levy) $ 900 I 0.1% $ 4500 I 0.5% $- 3600 I -o.L;; 34 Canaan $1100 I o.4% $ 8500 I 2.1% $- 6eco I -1. 7:~ 35 Salisbury $ 300 I 0.0% $15100 I L 0% $-14100 I -1.05 36 Cornwall $1500 I o. 2% $ 7400 I 1.3% $- 5900 I -1.1% 37 Sharon $1200 I 0.1% $ 6000 I o.6% $- 4800 I -o.s:' 38 Kent $6800 I o.8% $34200 I 4. 4% $-21400 I -3.6~ 39 Sherr:,an $ 600 I 0.0% $ 3100 I o.4% $- 2500 I -o.4'.\ 40 :Jew !·:ilford $3300 I 0.0% $19600 I 0.3% $-16300 I -o. 3:~ SCCIAL 'lILL-EEI?iG RECR.o.ATIO;J F/,CILITIES2 41 Roadside Parks 5 5 0 42 Car.:pgrcunds (public) 3 3 0 !:3 Ca!::pE;rounds (private) 6- 6- 0 44 Canoe Livery (private) 3- 3- 0 45 ~rails (~ile~) 50 mi 50 mi 0 4€ Stocked Fishing 11. 5 mi 11.5 mi 0 47 Hunting Grounds 1336 ac 1336 ao 0 118 Tourist F.ailroad 30 nd 30 mi 0 49 Swirrmir.g Sites 0 0 0 P.ECEF.A':'IC!; /._CTIVITIES3 50 Canoeing moderate moderate 0 51 Fishing rr.oderate moderate 0 52 Eiking moderate moderate 0 53 Gwi::-.I'ling moderate moderate 0 5!1 Fleasure Driving moderate moderate 0 55 Ficnicking moderate moderate 0 56 Cru:-.pir.g moderate moderate 0 57 Eur.ting moderate moderate 0 1 CUL'i'l"I',AL PJ::'::ouFcr:s 50 i:istoric Site:;; rr.p mp 0 59 ,\rchaeologic Sites mp. mp 0 IJ(l'I'"' 1 · h,., - hi""hlv ,.,,.,...,,..,,.~J,.., protection program, yield a high In general, the Wild and Scenic degree of protection of the natural River Plan compares favorably with processes of the valley. The Wild the Environmental Protection Plan and Scenic River plan, therefore, for the economic development, has a net negative impact on regional development and social environmental quality in compari well-being objectives. However, son to the Environmental Protec it does fall short of the Environ tion Plan. mental Protection Plan in meeting the environmental quality objec However, the Wild and Scenic tive. River Plan does have a favorable net effect on the economic and regional development objectives. The Wild and Scenic River Plan's budget for the acquisition/ease ment program is nearly $6 million less than the Environmental Pro tection Plan, and likewise it has a substantially smaller impact on the Grand Levy of each towno Furthermore, the Wild and Scenic River Plan allows a greater amount of mineral, timber and agricultural resources to remain available for economic development. The social well-being achieved by 70 the Wild and Scenic River Plan is comparable to that of the Environ mental Protection Plan. This is attributed to the recreation management program and protections for cultural resources included in both of these plans. APPENDIX B FISH AND WILDLIFE OF THE HOUSATONIC RIVER VALLEY MAMMALS Virginia Oposs um (Didelphis marsupialis) Common Mole (Scalopus ag uaticus) Hairy-Tailed Mole (Paras calops breweri) Star-Nosed Mole (Condylura cristata) Masked Shrew (Sorex .~inereus) Northern Water Shrew (Sorex palustri~) Shorttail Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) Silver-Haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipis trellus subflavus) Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis) Hoary Eat (Lasiurus cinereus) Raccoon (Procyon loto~) Shorttail Weas el (Mustela e rminea ) Longtail Weasel (Mustela frenata) Mink (Mustela vison) Otter (Lutra canaclensis) Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) 71 Red Fox (Vulpes fulva) Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Bobcat (~ynx rufus ) Wood chuck (Marmota monax) Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) Beaver (Cas tor canadens i s) White-Foo ted Mouse (Peromyscus ~ e ucopu s ) Meadow Vole (Micr otus pennsylvanicus) Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus ) House Mouse (Mus musculus) Norway Rat (Rattu·s norveg·icus) Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) Woodland Jumping Nouse (Nepaeozapus insignis ) Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) Snowshoe Ha re (Lepus americanus) Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) ~ l Kl!:> Pied-Billed Grebe Red-Bellied Woodpecker "R" Great Blue Heron 11 R11 Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker "R" Green Heron 11X 11 Hairy Woodpecker "X" American Bittern 11 R" Downy Woodpecker "X" Canada Goose 11x11 East~rn Kingbird "X" Mallard "X" Great Crested Flycatcher "X" Black Duck "X" Eastern Phoebe "X" Blue-Winged Teal Alder Flycatcher "X" & "R" Wood Duck "X" Traill' s Flycatcher "X" Ring-Necked Duck Least Flycatcher "X" Common Goldeneye Wood Eastern Pewee "X" Hooded Merganser Olive-Sided Flycatcher Common Merganser Horned Lark 11 R11 Turkey Vulture "X" Tree Swallow "X" 11 11 Goshawk X II & R II Bank Swallow nx" Sharp-Shinned Hawk "R" Rough-Winged Swallow Cooper's Hawk 11 R11 Barn Swallow "X" Red-Tailed Hawk "X" Cliff Swallow llX" & llR II Red-Shouldered Hawk "R" Purple Martin "X" & "R II Broad-Winged Hawk "X" Blue Jay "X" 11 Marsh Hawk 11 R11 Common Crow 11 x Osprey 11 R11 Black-Capped Chickadee "XII Peregrine Falcon 11 R11 Tufted Titmouse "X" Sparro'!;\T Hawk "X" White-Breasted Nuthatch nx" Ruffed Grouse "X" Red·-Breasted Nuthatch "XII 72 11 11 Bobwhite 11 X11 Brown Creeper x Ring-Necked Pheasant "X" House Wren 11 X 11 Turkey Winter Wren 11 X11 Virginia Rail 11 x" Long-Billed Harsh Wren Sora Short-Billed Marsh Wren "XII & "R II Killdeer "X" Mockingbird "X" American Woodcock "X" Catbird "X" 11 Common Snipe "X" Brown Thrasher "X Spotted Sandpiper "X" Robin "X" Pectoral Sandpiper Wood Thrush "X" Rock Dove 11 X 11 Hermit Thrush :t-1ourning Dove "X" Swainsvn' s 'Thrush "R" Yellow-Billed Cuckoo "X" Gray-Cl:ieeked Thrush Black-Billed Cuckoo "XII Veery 11 X11 Screech Owl "X" Easten:::t Bluebird 11 x11 & 11 R" Great Horned Owl "X" Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher "X" Barred Owl "X" Goldeu---Crowned Kinglet "R" Saw-Whet Owl Ruby-Cirowned Kinglet Whip-Poor-Will "X" Cedar Waxwing "X" Common Nighthawk "X" Starli:img "X" Chimney Swift "X" White-Eyed Vireo "X" Ruby-Throated HuDlllingbird "X" Yellol!'--Throated Vireo "X" n-1 .__.J v.: __ .C.! _\...___ llvll £"-1~""----- U~--- BIRDS (continued) Black-and-White Warbler "X" Common Grackle "X" Worm-Eating Warbler Brown-Headed Cowbird "X" Golden-Winged Warbler "X" Scarlet Tanager "X" Blue-Winged Warbler "X" Cardinal "X" Tennessee Warbler Rose-Breasted Grosbeak "X" Nashville Warbler Indigo Bunting "X" Parula Warbler 11X11 & "Rll Dickcissel Yellow Warbler "XII Evening Grosbeak "R" Magnolia \farbler "X" & "R" Purple Finch "X" Cape May Warbler House Finch Black-Throated Blue Warbler "X" Pine Grosbeak Myrtle Warbler "X" & "R" Common Redpoll Black-Throated Green Warbler "X" Pine Siskin Blackburnian Warbler 11x" American Goldfinch "X" Chestnut-Sided Warbler "X" Red Crossbill Bay-Breasted Warbler White-Winged Crossbill Blackpoll Warbler Rufous-Sided Towhee "X" Pine Warbler "R" Savannah Sparrow 11 R" Prairie Warbler "X" Vesper Sparrow "R" Palm Warbler Slate-Colored Junco "X" Ovenbird "X" Tree Sparrow Northern Waterthrush "X" Chipping Sparrow "X" Louisiana Waterthrush "X" Field Sparrow "X" Yellowthroat "X" White-Crowned Sparrow 73 Yellow-Breasted Chat White-Throated Sparrow Hooded Warbler Fox Sparrow Wilson's Warbler Lincoln's Sparrow Canada Warbler "X" Swamp Sparrow 11 X11 American Redstart "X" Song Sparrow "X" House Sparrow 11 X" Bobolink "X" Eastern Meadowlark "X" Redwinged Blackbird "X" Northern Oriole "X" "X" = breeding "R" = Listed in "Rare & Endangered Species of Connectiout and Their Habitats". opottea 1~ewt ~~ea J:t.;rt J ~Triturus viriaescens J Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma punctatum) Mud Puppy (Necturus maculosus maculosus) Four-toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) American Toad (Bufo americana) Tree Toad (!!yla versiclor) Spring Peeper (H. crucifer) Eastern Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii) Tree frog (llyla hylidae) Bull frog (Rana catesbiana) Green frog (R. clanitans) Pickerel frog (R. palustris) Leopard frog (R. pipiens) Wood frog (R. sylvatica) Common Box Turtle (Chelydra carolina) Common Snapping Turtle (C. serpentina) Spotted Turtle ( Chelopus guttatus) Wood Turtle (C. insculplus) Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Mud Turtle (Rinosterron subrubrum subrubrum) Musk Turtle (Sternotherus oboratus) Blanding's Turtle (Emys blandingi) Puff Adder (Hog Nosed Snake) (Heterodon contortrix L.) Milk Snake (Lam ro eltis trian ulum trian ulum) Black Snake Coluber constrictor constrictor) Ringnecked Snake (Diadopis punctatus edwardsii) 74 DeKay's Snake (Storeria dekayi) Water Snake (Natrix sipedon sipedon) Garter Snake (Thomnophis sirtalis sirtalis) Smooth Green Snake (Liopeltis vernalis) Copperhead (Agkistrodon mokasen) Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus horridus) Brook Trout (Salvelinos fontinalis) Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) Rainbow Trout (S. gairdneri) Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieui) Largemouth Bass (M. salmoides) Pickerel (Esox neticulatus) Northern Pike (E. lucius) White Sucker (Costostomus Commersoni) Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) Fallfish (S. corporalis) Sunfish (Bluegill) (Lepomis macrochirus) Common Shiner (Notropis cornatus) Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) Blacknose Dace (R. atratulus) Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) Carp (Cyprinus carpis) BIBLIOGRAPHY King's Mark Resources Conservation and Development Project, An Evaluation of Public Act 490: Connecticut Department of Connecticut's'Open Spaces' Act, Envi·ronmental Protection, Connecticut Department of January 1976. Environmental Proection, July 1976 Kirby, Edward, The Upper Berkshire Line Railroad Study, Housatonic River Valley Geologic Connecticut Department of Trans Abstract, Curriculum Paper portation, Bureau of Planning Number 12, Falls Village, and Research, February 1973. Connecticut, October 1976. Connecticut's Energy Outlook McGowan, Everett and Dougherty, 1976-1995: Annual Report A Preservation and Conservation to the Governor and General Study, Northwestern Connecticut Assembly, Connecticut Energy Regional Planning Area, September Advisory Board, January 1976. 1975. Connecticut Market Data 1976, Northwestern Connecticut's Connecticut Department of Iron Hills Heritage: An Commerce. Analysis of Restoration Proposals, Connecticut Connecticut Master Trans Department of Environmental portation Plan 1976, Connecticut Protection, September 1975. Department of Transportation, December 1975. Open Space and Recreation 75 Plan: Housatonic Valley Developer's Handbook, Conn Region, Housatonic Valley ecticut Department of Environ Council of Elected Officials, mental Protection, Coastal August, 1975. Area Management Program. Plan of Conservation and Dowhan, Joseph and Craig, Development for Connecticut, Robert, Rare and Endangered Connecticut Department of Species of Connecticut and Finance and Control, September Their Habitats, State Geological 1974. and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, 1976. Population Projects for Connecticut Planning Regions Forest Statistics for C0nnecticut, and Tuwns 1980-2000, Conn USDA Forest Service Resource ecticut Department of Planning Bulletin NE-44, 1976. and Energy Policy, June 1976. Proceedings: River Recreation Housatonic River Basin Plan, Management and Research Sym Connecticut Department of posium, USDA Forest Service, Environmental Protection, General Technical Report Water Compliance and Hazardous NC-28, January 1977. Substances, January 1975. Izaak Walton League of America, State of Connecticut, Compre A Citizen's Guide to Clean Water, hensive Outdoor Recreation btatew1ae ~omprehensive Water Resources Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Plan: Connecticut, Part 6, Upper Citizens' Swnrnar:y_, Connec Housatonic River Basin, U.S. ticut Department of Environ Geological Survey, Connecticut, mental Protection. Water Resources Bulletin No. 21, 1972. Statewide Long Range Plan for the Management of the Water Resources of Connecticut, Interagency Water Resources Planning Board, May 1971. Smith, Chard Powers, The Housatonic: Puritan River, Rinehart and Company, New York, 1946. Soil Survey: Litchfield County Connecticut, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, November 1970. The Connecticut Areawide Waste Treatment Mana.gement Planning Program: 208 Work Plan Summary, Prepared by 208 Central Agency, Middletown, C0nnecticut. The Connecticut River Gateway, 76 Connecticut River Gateway Commission Essex, Connecticut, May 1975. The Forest-Land Owners of Southern New England, USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin NE-41, 1Q7h. The Resources of the New England New York Region, Part Two, Chapter XXII, Housatonic River Basin, New England - New York Interagency Committee. The Timber Resources of Southern New England, USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin NE-36, 1974. Water Resources Data for Connecticut, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975. Water Resources Developments in Connecticut, U.S. Army {"I,...... ,.,.....,,.. ~-P V~~..:~~~~~ T.T~1+t...~~ 55 Court Street This study was conducted through Boston, Massachusetts 02108 the combined efforts of the follow ing Federal, State, and local organizations which provided CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES information and guidance in their area of expertise. This list is here to simplify the coordination Department of Environmental which will be required as efforts Protection to preserve the Housatonic continue. State Office Building Hartford, Connecticut 06115 FEDERAL AGENCIES Department of Planning and Heritage Conservation and Recrea Energy Policy tion Service (formerly the Bureau 20 Grant Street of Outdoor Recreation) Hartford, Connecticut 06115 600 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19146 Department of Transportation 24 Wolcott Hill Road U.S. Forest Service Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 80 Daniel Street Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Department of Commerce 210 Washington Street Environmental Protection Agency Hartford, Connecticut 06106 JFK Federal Building 77 Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Office oi' the Governor State Capitol U.S. Geological Survey Hartford, Connecticut 06115 135 High Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 Connecticut's 208 Program P.O. Box 1088 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Middletown, Connecticut 06457 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 State Historical Commission 59 South Prospect Street U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hartford, Connecticut 06106 55 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 OTHER PARTICIPANTS Northwest Connecticut Regional Federal Highway Administration Planning Agency 990 Weathersfield P.O. Box 30 Hartford, Connecticut 06114 Warren, Connecticut 06754 National Park Service 143 South 'l'hird Street Housatonic Valley Association Philadelphia, PA 0 19106 West Cornwall, Connecticut 06796 Bureau of Mines Housatonic Valley Council of 4800 Forbes Avenue Elected Officials Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 256 Main Street l..Jtt..l\.t' l..J.L.L.L.LUUiltlU 1-1..UIJUUL" .L li:J nerKsn.iL·e Hctt.ura..L nesources c/o Dick Lucas Council Keeler Road 7 Bank Row Bridgewater, Connecticut 06752 Pittsfield, Massachusetts 01201 Housatonic Fly Fisherman's Massachusetts Department of Association Fisheries and Wildlife c/o Ed Kluck 100 Cambridge Street 291 Broadway Boston, Massachusetts 12116 Hamden, Connecticut 06068 Berkshire County Regional Housatonic Audubon Society Planning Connnission Sharon Audubon Center 208 Program Route 4 10 Fenn Street Sharon, Connecticut 06069 Pittsfield, Massachusetts 02601 American Indian Archaeological Dutchess County Department Institute of Planning Washington, Connecticut 06793 47 Cannon Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Berkshire Litchfield Environ mental Council NY State Dept. of Environmental Box 552 Conservation Lakeville, Connecticut 06039 208 Program 50 Wolf Saad Litchfield County Conservation Albany, New York 12201 District Dutchess County Planning 78 Agricultural Center Federation Litchfield, Connecticut 06759 c/o Dutchess County Dept. of Planning Connecticut Forest and Parks 47 Cannon Street Association Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 P.O. Box 389 E. Hartford, Connecticut 06108 Kayak and Canoe Club of The Nature Conservancy Connecticut New York Chapter c/o Theodore Stienway Science Tower Stienway Place P.O. Box MMM Long Island City, New York 11105 Middletown, Connecticut 06457 Trout Unlimited, Connecticut Appalachian Mountain Club Council c/o Worthington Mixture c/o E.F. Miller 116 Westmont Road 4 Twilight Drive W. Hartford, Connecticut 06117 Granby, Connecticut 06035 Connecticut Chapter of the Northeast Utilities Sierra Club P.O. Box 270 c/o Lowell Krassner Hartford, Connecticut 06101 60 Washington St. Suite 611 Hartford, Connecticut 06106 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 79 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D,C, 20250 February 2 3 1979 Honorable Cecil D. Andrus Secretary of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Secretary: This is in reply to your November 14, 1978, letter requesting our views on your Department's proposed report on the Housatonic River in Connecticut. We are pleased to see that the report recognizes the potential of agri cu·lture and fores try in the alternatives analysis, inc 1udi ng an analysis of the impacts of alternative plans on economic activities. The report would be improved if the economic impacts discussed were, insofar as possible, evaluated in economic terms rather than physical terms. We agree with the study findings and conclusions that 41 miles of the 80 Housatonic River meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Although we concur with your recommendation that protection of the river area should be accomplished through State and local initiative, it is not entirely clear in the report why this course of action is recommended rather than a Federal designation by the Congress. Through various cooperative programs in the Department of Agriculture, we will, if requested, continue to provide assistance to State and local agencies in conservation planning for the river area. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on your proposed report. Sincerely, Bob Ber1la1td Secretary DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310 ' I DEC 1978 Honorable Cecil D. An:drus Secretary of the Interior Washington, D,C, 20240 Dear Mr, Secretary: This letter constitutes comments of the Department of the Army on your proposed report on inclusion of the Housatonic River, Connecticut in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The report provides adequate knowledge and insight into previous water resource development studies in Housatonic River Basin, There are no conflicts between the report's findings and recommendations with 81 any prevailing authority of the u. s. Army Corps of Engineers. We appreciate the opportunity afforded us to review and comment on your proposed report. Sincerely, ~u~/ Michael Blumenfeld Deputy Under Secretary Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20461 FEB 5 1979. Honorable Cecil D. Andrus Secretary of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Secretary: This is in response to your request of November 14 for comments on the draft report, The Housatonic in Connecti cut, A Wild and Scenic River Study. It reflects both our favorable response to the descriptive material and our concern that river classifications should receive care ful review where their application may relate to develop ment of power generation facilities. This consideration is particularly notable in the subject area, New England, which is heavily dependent upon imported energy. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on 82 the Housatonic Study. Sincerely, ~-,~le)~ ~~e S. Mcisaac · Assistant Secretary Resource Applications Enclosure: Comments on "The Housatonic in Connecticut, A Wild and Scenic River Study, "Draft Rpt, August 1978. Scenic River···- Study",· ·------···- Draft' " Report,"""'""\.."""''""u"'' August, u. n11u1978 QflU (1) The 41-mile section of the Housatonic River eligible for inclusion in Natural Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS} includes a scenic region and two recreational regions above and below the scenic section (Map 3). These latter two regions include small (120-150 acre) reservoirs formed by hydro power dams. A 2-3 foot mud bank is exposed along the stream bank in the pools above the darns {p. 38). The Bulls Bridge dam has also "altered the natural flow of the river through a spectacular rock gorge", and the Falls Village Dam "has altered the natural flow of the river over Great Falls". Considering these disturbances to the river as a result of hydroelectric generating facilities, the inclusion of these two regions of the river in the NWSRS is questionable, even though they have been classified as 'recreation' and not scenic. 83 (2) It is stated that dam operations "do not seriously limit canoeing or fishing activities" {p. 36) and the conclusion is reached that there is sufficient volume for water-related recreation. The validity of this conclusion is questionable because the canoeing potential is limited to 4-5 hours per day in the summer. That is, it is dependent ~pon releases from the dams from late morning to early afternoon . Apparently, canoeing during other times of the day in the summer is limited due to low river flows. Also, the statement that the average monthly discharge exceeds the minimum flow (700 cfs) required for canoeing is based on 1-year of data (October 1974-September 1975) (Table 8). No consideration is given to historical river flows and no indication is given concerning whether or not the 1974-75 flow data represented a year of average flow. The significance of these concerns is related to the fact that sufficient volume for water related recreation is one of several criteria used to determine eligibility in the NWSRS (p. 35}. (3) Quantitative data on water quality should be presented to support the general statements that agriculturally-related problems such as erosion and sedimentation have increased in recent years (several other perturbations are described on p. 12). The reader is left with no concept of the present condition or quality of the river. (4) In 1976, the river had a class D water quality designation which will be upgraded to class B by 1979. The present classification ("D") is due to PCBs in fish. Again, no quantitative data on the concentrations in fish is given. The PCB source is not identified and no indication is given as to whether these chemicals are still being discharged to the river. 84 Finally, and most importantly, the plan to achieve the class ''B" designation by 1979 is not given. How will the problem of PCB levels in fish be resolved when these compounds are so persistent in the environment long after discharges have been terminated? (5) With so much agricultural land along the river, non-point source pollution may be a problem. This topic was not addressed in the report. (6) Is the existence of a scenic tourist railroad excursion (the railroad already exists along the valley) through the Housatonic River Valley (which has been proposed by the State of Connecticut) incompatible with one of the objectives of the NWSRS, namely the protection of the river and its immediate environment? (7) More quantitative data should be given on the three areas along the river that have been designated as critical habitats by the State, such as acreages, specific locations, and detailed infonnation on the flora and fauna in these habitats. Similarly, the eight critical areas (definition?) listed on pp. 19-20 should be drawn on a map of the valley. (8) A map should be presented to show the location (with boundaries), the acreage, and/or ecological characteristics of the 6000 acres owned by the State and managed for wildlife (all wildlife?). Similarly, there is no detailed information given on the location and size of the preserves and sanctuaries along the river. (9) Apparently, not all the species listed as rare or endangered are listed as such by the State. The term 'rare' is not defined with regard 85 to its official state or Federal status. Instead, statements such as "some characteristic rare species" or "some rather rare species" are pre sented. These are confusing terms, since no documentation of their status is given. (10) Quantitative data on use of the valley for hunting and fishing is not included. If information such as creel censuses and deer harvest for counties along the river is available, it should be included. (11) Common names of species listed as rare are used. For example, the deer mouse (presumably Peromyscus) is listed when, in fact, there are many species of deer mice, one of the most common and ubiquitous of which is the white-footed deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Also, note spelling of ruffed grouse on p. 18 as ruffled grouse. 't (12) The trout fishery should be placed in perspective - it is maintained by a stocking program. I would assume that carry-over from one year to the next is minimal even though it is stated that natural reproduction occurs. The statements in the report are probably misleading in this respect. The "excellent" growth (referred to in the report as carry-over rates of 3-6") must be considered cautiously if only a small fraction of the fish stocked each year actually survive to the following year. (13) Generally, the report lacks sufficient quantitative ecological data for an accurate picture of its ecological value or uniqueness to be assessed. The area apparently is rich in both historical and archaeological resources. Ecological resources, however, cannot be evaluated given the level of information presented in the text. Much more data on water quality, recreational activities such as fishing and hunting, and the ecological 86 characteristics of the valley must exist and should be incorporated into the study. (14) In this report, a land use map of the valley would be more meaningful than the information given in Table 3 (p. 22). Classifications such as 'agriculture forestlands' or'woodlands and open space' (p. 22) are of questionable value. (15) All the photographs in the text should be labeled with regard to location. (16) The relationship of other laws and management programs to the Housatonic basin is the strongest part of the report. (17) In light of the many developments in the valley (towns, roads, bridQes, etc.), a stronger case should be made as to how the stream segment qualifies as a scenic/recreational segment. How does the number of artificial features along the stream compare with other segments in the Wild and Scenic River System - are there other streams which are as developed or ~developed than the Housatonic segment? (18) The completion of Route 7, along the Housatonic, sounds like a dead issue in this report - how certain is that? rs there much of a danger that the highway could be enlarged while the Housatonic is being considered for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System? This seems like an important issue. 87 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410 1 4 DEC 1978 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT lN REPLY REFER TO: Honorable Ceci 1 D. Andrus Secretary of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Secretary: Your letter to Secretary Harris of November 14, 1978, requesting review and comment on the draft report on the Housatonic River in Connecticut, in accordance with the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, has been referred to our Boston Regional Office for response. The Regional Administrator is cognizant of the river study area and the Department's programs relating thereto. If there are substantial concerns in reference to the Department's programs in the area or the findings and recommendations of the study report, you will be advised by the Regional Administrator, Mr. Edward T. Martin. He 88 will, therefore, provide the Department's views which are to accompany the report to the President. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. ~_j ~cerely, ' . Q /,.,,., '-i;--y--yJ.10'-'-) ¥ L L,\j, ~~:e S. Perry Deputy Assistant Secretary for Interprogram and Areawide Concerns cc: Guy R. Martin IN ltBPLY MBl&IL TOI Trust Services Wildlife & Parks 459 DEC 7 1979 Memorandum To: Director, National Park Service Attention: Mr. Robert Eastman From: Acting Director, Office of Trust Respo~l~s 1; • 'C..H~ Subject: Review of August 1978 Draft Report, The Housatonic Wild and Scenic River Study (Connecticut) We have received a copy of your November 14 letter to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, which transmitted the subject document and requested comments within 45 days. During our review of the subject report we noted that you have included 89 the Schagticoke (Scaticook) State Indian Reservation as a "critical cultural area" in the State of Connecticut. Although this Reservation has never received Bureau of Indian Affairs' services, we are interested in the results of the Tribe's claim to an additional 1,600 acres of land adjacent to their existing 450 acre reservation. Thank you for providing us with a copy of the subject study. 0NSERVE AMERICA'S ENERC3Y 1ia l United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES 2401 E STREET, NW. IN REPLY REFER TO: WASHINGTON, D.C. 20241 December 20, 1978 Memorandum To: Robert L. Eastman, Outdoor Recreation Planner, National Park Service From: Chief, Office Environmental Coordination Subject: The Housatonic in Connecticut, A Wild and Scenic River Study Our Eastern Field Operations Center, Pittsburgh, comments on the prelim- inary draft of January 1978 have been incorporated on page 25 of this draft, We have no further comments. 90 W. L. Dare ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 In Reply Refer To: FWS/ES ,, ' ..)/-,ii Memorandum To: Director, Nation«l ~ark Service Associate From: Director, Fish and Wildlife Service Subject: Housatonic River (Connecticut) Wild and Scenic River Study--Comments on Department's Draft Report In response to Secretary Andrus' letter of November 14, 1978, we offer the following comments on the subject report. l. Findings and Recommendations, pages 2-4. In the paragraphs of this section devoted almost exclusively to findings of the 91 study are occasional sentences which in effect serve as recommendations. These sentences are somewhat buried among the findings. We suggest some reorganization of the section by clearly listing the recommendations separately from the findings. We believe there should also be discussion in the report text concerning the reasoning which led to the apparent recommendations, as well as a brief summary of that reasoning in the Summary section. Especially important is inclusion of the reasons for the proposed administrative option (local or local/State) for the river. 2. Wildlife, page 18. The first paragraph under this heading could be improved somewhat by adding a new final sentence in substance as follows: "Other species, mainly among the small mammals, songbirds, and raptors, also inhabit the area." Specific listing of the thrush, woodpecker, mourning dove, meadowlark, and sparrow could be omitted. 3. Fisheries, pages 18-19. The discussion of the trout stocking program on these pages should be corrected slightly by stating that the growth rate of carryover trout is about three to six inches per year and that the carryover rate is about 10 percent. 4. Recreation, page 31. The discussion of hunting in the first (full) paragraph leaves the impression that hunting is allowed only in the three named State forests. Actually, deer hunting is permitted in all the State forests, and hunting of small game and waterfowl is allowed anywhere such activity is not in conflict with local or State laws. 5. Miscellaneous Comments. The Shepaug River, which is included in the legal description of the study area boundaries, is identified on only one of the report maps (Map 6, page 9). The reader would be assisted in locating that river by includ ing it on other report maps also, or at least on one additional map--No. 2, page l. This is the first study area-labeled map encountered in the report. You may wish to include in the Appendix, with a cross reference thereto in the text under the Wildlife and Fisheries headings, the list of mammals, birds and fish occurring in the Housatonic River study area which we provided. This would give the reader a better knowledge of fish and wildlife species inhabiting the study area. 92 We appreciate the opportunity for commenting on the draft report. United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 In Reply Refer To: December 27, 1978 EGS-Mail Stop 441 Memorandum To: Robert Eastman, National Park Service From: Thomas J. Buchanan, Geological Survey Subject: The Housatonic in Connecticut ... A Wild and Scenic River Report The subject draft report has been reviewed by personnel in our Connecticut District Office, and our reviewer's comments are enclosed. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to review this report. 93 Enclosure TO Assistant Chief Hydrologist DATE: Dec. 19, 1978 for Operations, WRD, Reston, VA FROM Michael A. Cervione, WRD, Hartford, CT SUBJECT: PUBLICATIONS.--The Housatonic in Connecticut - A Wild and Scenic River Report I have reviewed the subject report, giving emphasis to the Hydrology section, and found it to be in very good shape. I found several errors in the Hydrology section when I reviewed the initial draft in January. They have all been corrected in this draft. One item that was OK in the initial draft has been typed incorrectly in this version. In the third paragraph on page eleven, the mean annual flood figure should be 6,600 cfs, not 660 cfs. 0~r:/(~~ Michael A. Cervione Hydrologist 94 Jt UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 Honorable Cecil D. Andrus Secretary United States Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Andrus: We have reviewed the report, The Housatonic in Connecticut: A Wild and Scenic River Study, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and support implementation of the findings and recommendations. We are pleased that the Housatonic towns have already formed a Housatonic River 95 Conunission to develop a specific management plan for in1plementing the recommend ations. Since efforts are underway to solve the PCB problem, the di.scovery of PCB' s in fish should not deter any request by the State for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It has been our pleasure to serve on the Housatonic Wild and Scenic River Study. Sincerely, ~-· -2m£~Adaq~ Regional Administrator Status of PCB Problem in the llousatonic Kiver For Wild and Scenic River Study The existing water quality classification of the Housatonic River w·~s do~n graded from Class B to D when it was discovered that PCB concentrations in Housatonic fish exceeded limits set by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In 1977, the Connecticut Department of Health placed a health advisory against eating fish from the l!ousatonic. Although the State of Connecticut Water Quality Standards Classific_ation (September 1977) lists the anticipated conditions of the Housatonic as Bsb by November 1979, the PCB problem in the Housatonic will not actually be solved by that time. A special act of the Connecticut Legislature (78-50) appropriated an initial $200,000 by the Department of Environmental Protection for planning to solve the PCB problem in the l!ousatonic. This allocation was in response to strong interest in restoring water quality in the Housatonic. A portion of the initial effort will be to determine the health effects of PCB's. The Health Department will examine the bio-chemical effects of PCB's on persons who have ingested PCB-contaminated fish. Discharges of PCB's from the General Electric plant site upstream in Pitts 96 field, Massachusetts have been virtually eliminated and cleanup operations are underway under the NPDES permit schedule. After April 1, 1979 the permit will limit levels to 10 parts per billion, Connecticut is evalu ating potential problems from, and seeking solutions to, residual PCB's in landfills, sediments and other sources. Since efforts are underway to solve this specific problem, it should in no way detract from designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW YORI< f~EGIONAL OFFICE 26 FEDERAL PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORI< 10007 January 29, 1979 ~Ir. Jack E. Stark Regional Director North Atlantic Region National Park Service 15 State Street Bos ton, ~Ji\ 02109 Re: Re vie\~ o:[ the 1-Iousatonic River \l'ild and Scenic River Draft Study Report Dear Mr. Stark: In res1)011se to your corrcs1")011dence of Deccmbc:r 6, 1978, \ve appreciate the opportunity of revie,ving and co1nn1entin9 on the 97 Housatonic Wild and Scenic River Draft Stud)' Report. Our comments follow: Tl1ere are existi11g river crossings of electric transmission lines within the de,;ignated study area that should be detailed. These include extra high voltage (EHV) lines.· Transmission towers associatecl \•Ji th these lines may have an aesthetic be>aring on- the 0 w·ilderness 11 characteristic of river seqn1ents and. im1)inge 011 the scenic vista. In addition, transmission lines presently under construction or ct1rrt:-ntly propc)Scd 1nay have direct bearing on the study area proposal. It is st199csted tl1at electric utilities in the llousatonic area be consulted so that cxal.::t or proposed trans1niss ion routi11g can be detern1ined. l~ncloscd for your i11for1uation is the latest schematic map from FERC Form 12F 1978 foi: the Northeast Utilities system which serves the study area. In addition, tj1cre are two major natural gas pipelines (not indicated on that map) O\\lned by Algonquin l~.:\S Transn1ission Compa11y and 1\..~nncssee Gas Pipeline Co1npany that traverse the stucly area. Pa0e 4 (last para0raph). - There is a basic question as to whether the ri vcr reach, si tuatect bPt ween Fi\lls t·Iountaj n Ho ad and the t-1assachusetts - Connc~cticut boundary, should be incorpo rated into the National Wild and Scenic River system. According to the study report, Falls Village dam, located in this river 'rho +..,,+:".1. l l ,:-.nn1 h rv1:r .. ~l:arK Pa\Je 2 1/29/79 appears to violate, a U.S. Department of the Interior criteria for recreational river classification which states that the water should not have characteristics of an impou.ndment f·or an)' signi£ica11t distance. Paoe 10 (3rd Paraaraph) - Spelling error: Gaylordsvills should be Gaylordsville. Paqe 11 (_1st paraqr~ The study report states that flows in th•' eligible study reach are not directly influenced by the daily operations of the Falls Village and Bulls Bridge hydropower plants. According to U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 2101, however, upstream powerplants do affect the flows in the stud)' area (i.e., Falls Village and Gaylordsville stream gac1ing stations). Page 27 (section on hydropuwer production} - An important consicleration in this 11 \\!ild and scenic river" classification process is the fact that I.he t1rofJOscd areas ei1con1pass t\\'O existing hydroelectric developments, Falls Village (9000 kW) 98 and Bulls Bridge (8400 kW). There is no specific mention in the study report as to provisions for minimizing the aesthetic impact of certain features of these developments (i.e., transmission lines, powerhollSe). Page 28 (last par~qr~ - Although there are currently no plans for further hydropower development in the eligible stream reach, certain potential hydroelectric project s:ltes have been identified (71,500 kW combined Ci\pacity). At the time of their identification in the NENYIAC study, these sites were considered to be economically infeasible. It should, however, be noted that the power values used in determining project benefits were predicated on the cost of the cheapest alternative source of pc)\ver, privately financecl steam generation. Today, such power generation would most likely rely on the use of high-cost fossil fuel, thereby possibly making proposed hydropower projects 1nore econon1ically desirable in comparison. A.11 a(idi tional factor favoring such development would he the improved hydro electric technolosiy now available (i.e., packaged plants). We suggest that the last sentence be changed to read: "In summary, the current records of the FERC do not indicate any new applications for development of con vc11tional or pumped storage hydroelectric facilities on the study segrncnt of the river". Page 3 1/29/79 Page 39 (~araqrapl.!_)_ - Th'' study report states that tech11ical assistance lvill be available fro1n the Bureatl of Outdoor Recreation (now reorganized as the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service)e In as much as the responsibility of comlucU.119 "Wild and Scenic ~iver Studies no\\' lies wi tl1 the U.S. Parl< Service, the text shot1lcl indicate this latter organization._ Sincerely, //'~ nuocl- J;, //d~"Q-o?\.._ {~/· James D. Hebson Regional Engineer 99 , JOO ELECTRICNORTHEAS~ACILITIES - OF THE UTILITIES SYSTEM gs "' June 30, 1976 FF.RC 12-F 1978 ELECTRIC SLlllSTATIOU THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER COMPANY ros~·L STATION 115kVLIH 0 HYDRO SUllON &9kVL1N[ IWCLEA~ STATIC'! ~mtH+ PIPE CAl'LE SCALE Of ~41210 P.\ILES )()()('!()( L SUOMARJNE CA<"Lr. --=-=- ==-- 5 __;.o I !l'l'ATE OF CONNECTICUT EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS HARTFORD EL LA GRAS SO GOVERNOR December 13, 1978 Honorable Cecil D. Andrus Secretary Department of the Interior Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Secretary: Thank you for sending me a copy of the 101 draft report on the study of the Housatonic River in Connecticut as a potential unit of the National Wild and scenic Rivers System. I have forwarded the material to Commissioner Stanley J. Pac of the Depart ment of Environmental Protection for his review and consideration. Your courtesy is appreciated. With best wishes, Cordially, HOUSATONIC VALLEY ASSOCIATION, INC. West Cornwall, Connecticut 06796 Telephone 203-672-6044 January 25, 1979 U. S, Dept. of the Interior National Park Service North Atlantic Region 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ATTN: Mr. J, E. Stark, Regional Director RE: A study entitled Rrrhe Housatonic in Connecticut, a Wild and Scenic River Study," u.lt. Dep1:. of Im:eruir: KlU!iOU•i llertc !tervice Draft Report August 1978 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the subject draft and consider it an excellent piece of work - well organized and well presented, comprehensive and easy to understand. 102 With regard to the recommendations in the top paragraph of page 4, we believe that primaty responsibility for implementing any management plan should be delegated to town governments. We recommend that the first sentence of the second colunm on page 28 of the draft be deleted. This sentence, which reads, "However, this is unlikely to be considered for development due to several reasons related to costs, prac ticality, and political feasibility," should be deleted for the following reasons: 1. The statement is misleading; such development has at various times been very seriously considered. 2. The statement is now irrelevant; through the recent conveyance of a 30-year conservation easement to the Housatonic Valley Association by The Stanley Works, the development of a hydro plant is impossible within the foreseeable future. We suggest that the following brief statement be substituted for the deleted sentence in the final report on the river: "A study completed in 1977 by Chas. T. Main, Inc. for The Stanley Works, owner of flowage rights and river frontage beginning at Kent Furnace and extending upstream approximately 5 miles to Swift's Bridge in Sharon-Cornwall, indicated that an BOO mega watt pumped storage installation at Kent was economically feas ible. However, the possibility of such installation becoming a reality has been eliminated for the foreseeable future through a ~n-v .. ar rnnRE>rvat:ion easement conveyed to the Housatonic Valley u.u. ucpL uL Ln~erior Page Two January 25, 1979 On page 33, the Housatonic Valley Association might be added to the conser vation organizations named in the first paragraph, as ours is the only organi zation specifically devoted by its charter and by-laws to protecting and pre serving the natural resources and beauties of the Housatonic watershed in its entirety. The Housatonic Valley Association might also be named in the first paragraph of page 40 as an information source. We have already provided a great deal of information on the river in connection with your Wild and Scenic River study. On page 71, please use the above address for our Association. Once again, congratulations on an L. Kuhn President JLK:kch 103 ass,-... NERBC 53 STATE STREET • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 a .u • PHONE (617) 223-6244 January 31, 1978 Mr. Robert Schenck Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service 600 Arch Street Philadelphia, Penn. 19106 Dear Bob: With regard to our telephone conversation yesterday, I am transmitting my comments on the draft wild and scenic river study, The Housatonic in Connecticut. In general, I found the report to be clearly written and well presented. There are a few areas, however, in which I would like to offer suggested changes or addi tions. First, I have attached copies of several pages for which I would recommend specific changes in the geologic or hydrologic terminology. "Precambrian" and "Cambrian" are the proper geologic eras; "gneiss" and "quartizite" are the proper rock types. Other 104 small technical changes are indicated on the attached sheets. Secondly, I have comments of a more general nature which I discussed over the phone with you yesterday, and which I hope could be considered as you redraft the report. There are three general areas of concern. Most important, perhaps, is the need for greater emphasis on the impact of activities outside the study area on the segment of the Housatonic under consideration in the report. Even though the Massachusetts portion of the Housatonic was not designated for study as a potentially wild and scenic river, any actions taking place upstream in the basin will inevitably affect the Housatonic in Connecticut. The same is true, of course, with regard to the Housatonic's tributaries in New York and in Connecticut itself. I am thinking here not only of the obvious water quality problems resulting from PCBs and other contaminants, but also of other aspects of upstream activities such as alterations in stream flow from potential hydropower or industrial facilities in Massachusetts, increased sediment load from upstream erosion, or increased flood heights from the loss of upstream natural valley storage. Thus, greater emphasis should be placed on these issues, and the report's management guidelines to Connecticut communities should include recommendations for increased coordination with aaencies and com- -L.- Next, it might be appropriate for the section on hydrology to contain a reference to the potential use of the Housatonic as a source of water supply for Connecticut, In its Summary Report of the Northeastern United States Water Supply (NEWS) Study (July 1977), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers discusses the potential for developing 100 million gallons of water supplies per day from the river's existing power impoundments, should Connecticut change its policy of developing supplies only from those sources which do not receive treated wastes. Finally, more detailed information should be developed in the report concerning the causes of water quality degradation, such as lake eutrophication and PCB contamination (p. 12) and to measures presently being undertaken to resolve these problems. Such a discussion, requiring a few sentences at most, would lend credi bility to the statement that " ..• by November 1979, the anticipated classification for the river ••. is Bsb •.. " (p. 12). Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on this study. As the report notes, NERBC plans to develop a Housatonic Basin Overview in the near future, and the findings of this effort will be of great use to us. I hope that local communities in the study area will continue to pursue a wild and scenic classification for the Housatonic as it offers a truly unique and valuable resource for the people of New England, 105 Sincerely yours, . ~{VkL 1- C~-.. · J~ne Fisher Carlson \,Jnior Planner JFC: j s Enclosures E~TA~LISHED 1924 TELEPHONE~ 4-4720 AREA 203 Architectural Service • Building Contractor NEW MILFORD, CONNECTICUT _,__ ESTABLISHED 1924 TELEPHONE Elgin 4-4720 AREA 203 Architectural Service • Building Contractor NEW MILFORD, CONNECTICUT ------11 -----· -~~-... Hon. Jack E. Stark, llegional Director National Park Service, North Atlantic Region Department of Interior 15 State Street, Boston 02109 Dear Mr. Regional Director: (He: Housatonic River Wild and Scenic River Study) Although during the study period I submitted both personal testimony and sub mitted material a number of times in behalf of Candlewood Lake Defense Associ ates, please regard my comments at this time as personal. This is because our interest as af)organization has been primarily with the lower part of the river not included in the proposal; because the issues in which we are involved are not yet fully resolved before the FERG and EPA and may require our further activity and statements of position; and because, since the issues of Wild and Scenic are now managerial, I believe formal organizational positions are best left primarily to those organizations based in the actual river towns physically. **i~r*'.. I'd like to cQnment on two matters in the rest of this letters 1) Lovers Leap, 2) Explanation of resistance to a river ordinance by some elements, and the mis understandings upon which such resistance is based. LOVERS LEAP I have not yet seen, either in the study itself or in proposals now pending at FERC, anything that deals with Lovers Leap satisfactorily. The present mainten ance, or lack of it, is deplorable. I walked the unimproved road from the old landmark iron bridge last summer. The precipitous side facing the river was littered with papers and beer cans and bottles and other appropriate debris left by those who take the name of the site literally, wherever a blanket could be spread. It is unrealistic to expect the state to maintain this site properly. It is in no sense of the word a recreation spot in the usual sense. State funds are limited, and the maintenance problems and deficiencies at heavily used state parks are great .. _ .z .L .z - reverence. Physically, it is very dangerous and quite tiny, The unimproved road has no winter maintenance. January 14, 1979, a car descending in low gear at 10 mph went out of control on the ice. The driver escaped, but the car careened through the trees, down the steep bank, and plunged through the ice of the river, Any attempt to make a picnic area along those banks will inevitably lead to deaths, especially of children. The promontory part is very small, and very soectacular. The half-polished tannish marble-appearing rocks at the edge are sheer beauty, The long viewsbetween mountains, and at the Y-shaped waters below are unforgettable and wild. I think the right way to handle Lovers Leap is as follows1 1.) Accord it, and the iron landmark old bridge (now closed to traffic) National Monument Status. 2.) Assign a National Park Service Ranger to duty, at least from Memorial Day to the third week of October, 3.) Limit vehicular traffic to those who require it for access. 109 4.) Since tourists and other visitors come in limited numbers, they can find their own parking places along the road outside the monument in the general traffic area, 5.) Have vistors sign a registry book, provide them with a brochure, bar picj(nicking, urge them to see, admire, and leave. Avoid such publicity that would attract large numbers. CAUSES OF RESISTANCE TO A RIVER ORDINANCE Probably most times where a wild and scenic river issue has existed, there were only two camps--those who favored it, and development interests which opposed, In the Housatonic River situation, there is a third element. It is a grouping which favors protection of the river, but is so mortally fearful that a river ordinance would bring federal or state interference With local zoning that'rplaces (incorrectly) the matter of local autonomy over river protection. A In my opinion, this is a false issue, but easily understandable, Our towns have been the object, for years, of some of the most unprincipled outside assaults any towns have had to withstand. Intertwined have been activities of developers, of a couple of federal agencies, of Tri-State Regional Planning Agency, and of the DEP of Connecticut that have been incessant. Especially noteworthy was the totally false, provocative assRult of March-April, 1972, instigated by the then Ihiladelphia BOR, under the authorship of Earl Nichols, under the leadership of Roland Handley, The memory of that period simply will not erase 00.:1-tJ(·: iic:la oy tn~ local. "LO•',ns ano ci"Ll~'.en:-_: nave oeen unheld, alue:i1. <"t· rr£~ cosc a110 disturbance of tranquili t;,·, This has taken its toll, however, in fear and suspicion, even when unwarranted, There has grown an illusion, for instance, that towns have full local control of the river right now, whereas in fact they do not, and never have. I studied your Wild and Scenic report especially in this regard. I sincerely feel that the study team has been very careful to stress the advisory nature of all their proposals. I think they took care at every turn to stress the desire that local peoole should do the administering, with state or federal particioation in the back seat, I believe that local control would really be augmented, because there would be a delegation of powers to a river body by federal and state agencies in which the powers to be delegated actually reside at present, All this is hard to get across, and for that reason I repeat the need that you cooperate to get as much time and/or time extension as is possible, I believe an added difficulty comes from the fact that the temporary river commis sion was not aware of the extent to which enabling legislative action by the legis lature would be needed, Therefore, members of the legislature from Western Connec ticut were not enlisted early enough to draft the required enabling legislation, Attorneys of several towns, which appear to be sympathetic to Wild and Scenic status,, have pointed out that the ordinance as first presented might be unenforce 110 able, in the absence of required state legislation. The probability that such legislation could be introduced in the 1979 session seems to me unlikely. Under the circumstances, in addition to gaining time for action, the most useful thing your agency can do is to do everything it can to @seure the public and the various town officials that you intend to delegate powers as much as possible to local townsJwhich they do not presently have, and that your policy is to stay away from administration, except, cooperatively, at Lovers Leap. Z~~t~:r Frederick Benedikt (copies: Congressman Toby Moffett Housatonic Valley Association Lake Lillinonah Authority) ,C,t(U(.ii=; M. l"'ULJt:!iWAT DIBBLE HILL ROAD WEST CORNWALL, CONN, 06796 ~.r. Jack E. Stark, National Park Servize, Jan. 6, 1~179 15 stat'~ ct., Boston, Mass. 88103 Dec..r Mr. Stark: I have found the Housatonic River Study most inter<10sting and feel sure it will be very useful to the citizenry of the area as the towns in general and the temvorary Housa tonic River Colliwiss ion in particular gra.pple with the best 1•:ay to vrotect the many outstoining values the Housatonic gives us in tne Northwest Corner. However, tiiere are two ,.oin ts that, in the interest of accuracy, I sh:_ulci 11.n:e to dra to your attention. One refers to the Appalachian Trail, which, of co·.;.rse, is no''' also under tne jurisdiction of the National Park Service. On page 61 it is described· as being in ''close vicinity to the Housatunic for 30 mi..Les 11 and 11 on tiie east bank in Cane.&n" and then on pages 36 and 42 the study says the l'T "parallels the Housatonic for approximately 00 miles". In actual fact 111 it only goes a~ong the Housatonic for several miles on the west banK in the nurth·orn sc:ction of Kent. Al..o on !Jage 42 under "Critical Recreational Areas"the study mentions the IL;usatonic River Road from Boardmans Bridge to Gaylordsville as a 11 dirt road parc.lleling a scenic stretch ofthe river". Surely the dirt road north from "'est Cornwall along the east tam,: to Falls Village tovm line would qualify equally well on all i·Oints for inclusion here. May I &lso ex_l,ress my SUlJi or·t of the need for coordination between the Northeast Utilities and the manage ment ,,lan being worked up by the i;emvor&ry Housatonic River Corrui.ission BMR b '