THE NERBC 
 
 1980 CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN PLAN 
 
 NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 
 FINDINGS 
 AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 
 
 COMPREHENSIVE 
 WATER AND RELATED LAND 
 RESOURCES INVESTIGATION 
 
NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 ON THE 
 CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 
 COMPREHENSIVE WATER AND RELATED LAND 
 RESOURCES INVESTIGATION 
 
 New England River Basins Commission 
 Boston, Massachusetts 
 January 1, 1972 
 
n 
 
 ii 
 
 n 
 ti 
 
 ii 
 n 
 i 
 i 
 
NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 
 55 COURT STREET • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 
 PHONE: (617) 223-6244 
 
 NERBC 
 
 January 1, 1972 
 
 TO: The Chairman, Water Resources Council; 
 
 The Governors and Legislatures of Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
 New Hampshire and Vermont 
 
 I am pleased to submit the New England River Basins Commission's 
 findings and recommendations on the Connecticut River Basin compre- 
 hensive water and related land resources investigation. The NERBC 
 1980 Connecticut River Basin plan has been adopted by the Commission 
 pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act, Public Law 89-80, 
 section 204(3), as an increment of a comprehensive, coordinated joint 
 plan for the water and related land resources of New England. 
 
 The field level investigation was conducted by a joint Federal-State 
 Coordinating Committee chaired by the New England Division, Corps of 
 Engineers, under authority of U. S. Senate resolution, May 11, 1962. 
 The Commission participated in the study and prepared its findings and 
 recommendations under authority of the Water Resources Planning Act. 
 
 The Commission's report is based on the Coordinating Committee 
 report and on the response to the Coordinating Committee and draft 
 Commission reports. These inputs to the 1980 NERBC Basin plan are 
 summarized in this report. 
 
 Accompanying this report and appended to it by reference are the 
 reports of the Connecticut River Basin Coordinating Committee; 
 comments on the Coordinating Committee report, including the report 
 of the Citizens Review Committee; a draft environmental impact state- 
 ment prepared by the Coordinating Committee pursuant to the National 
 Environmental Policy Act; and comments on the draft Commission 
 report. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee report contained recommendations 
 for the conservation and development of the Basin's water and related 
 land resources. The response to the report reflected a predominant 
 concern with environmental implications particularly of major structural 
 alterations. 
 
The Commission's response is to initiate with this report a 
 proposal to conduct a Basinwide environmental reconnaissance and 
 restudy of flood management alternatives, as part of a study designed 
 to supplement the field level investigation. A flood management plan 
 for the Basin will be prepared under the overall management of the 
 Commission's Connecticut River Basin Program, and will be considered 
 for adoption as part of the 1980 NERBC Basin plan. 
 
 The Commission is mindful that in postponing decisions concerning 
 alternative flood management measures a potential risk is incurred of 
 exposure to flood hazard in major flood damage centers in the Basin. 
 At the same time, the Commission accepts the Coordinating Committee's 
 findings that there are unmet needs that call for major actions now. 
 
 I am hopeful that the Congress and the Basin States will prompt 
 action to meet these needs and will work closely with the Commission 
 in the supplemental study. 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 Chairman 
 
The undersigned, members of the New England River Basins Commission, 
 recommend adoption of the NERBC 1980 Connecticut River Basin Plan 
 as part of the Commission's comprehensive coordinated joint plan for 
 the water and related land resources of New England, pursuant to the 
 Water Resources Planning Act. The undersigned further recommend 
 that the plan be transmitted, together with the Coordinating Committee 
 report, comments on the Coordinating Committee and draft Commission 
 reports and other documents appended by reference, to the Water 
 Resources Council and to the Governors and Legislatures of Connecticut, 
 Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. 
 
 Dan W. Lufki/ 
 Commissioner 
 
 State of Connecticut 
 Dept. of Environmental 
 Protection 
 
 » i rector 
 
 Maine State Planning Office 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signature 
 
 and 
 State/Agency 
 
 Chairman Merrimack River 
 
 Valley Flood Control Commission 
 
 Signature R « w « Pedersen 
 New York State Department of 
 
 EnvirnmngrH-al rnnaaruaHnn 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signature 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signature Robert B. Williams 
 Vermont 
 
 State 
 
 ire . * 1 
 
 Donald G. Burbank 
 
 State Conservationist 
 
 State/Agency f fcPa* United States Department 
 
 of Agriculture 
 
FRANK P. BANE. Colonel 
 
 Signature 
 
 NED, Corps of Engineers 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signature / 
 Noil) , P*yn £ 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signa^ 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signature 
 
 Department of Coonerce 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 State/Agency J^j^Ut^ 
 </ John H.^Spellman 
 
 Signature 
 
 Federal Power Commission 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 State /Agency 
 
 ncy 
 
 Signature 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 Si gnat 
 
 U. S. Department of Transportation 
 Federal Highway Administration. Region 
 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signature 
 
 Interstate Sanitation Comm ission 
 State/Agency 
 
 Signature 
 
 Executive Secretary 
 State/Agency 
 
 New England Interstate Water 
 Pollution Control Commission 
 
 Signature 
 State/Agency 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Letter of transmittal 
 
 Summary of the NERBC 1980 Basin plan S-l 
 
 Introduction i 
 
 Inputs to the 1980 Basin plan recommended by the Commission 1 
 
 The Coordinating Committee report 1 
 
 Response to the New England River Basins Commission 41 
 on the Coordinating Committee report 
 
 Response to the draft findings and recommendations of 50 
 the New England River Basins Commission 
 
 New England River Basins Commission findings and 65 
 recommendations 
 
 A. Interpretation of needs and strategy for meeting needs 65 
 
 B. Findings and recommendations on the 1980 Early Action 73 
 Plan by study element 
 
 C. Recommendations for implementation 101 
 
 D. Findings and recommendations on the Z020 long-range 107 
 plan 
 
 E. Supplemental study program 108 
 
 Appendices 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/newenglandriverbOOnewe 
 
SUMMARY 
 OF 
 
 THE NERBC 1980 BASIN PLAN 
 
II 
 
 i 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
SUMMARY: NERBC 1980 CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN PLAN* 
 
 The New England River Basins Commission recommends 
 that the water and related land resources of the Connecticut River 
 Basin be managed in accordance with the 1980 Connecticut River 
 Basin plan. In this plan the Commission presents its findings and 
 recommendations based upon: (1) the Connecticut River Basin 
 comprehensive water and related land resources investigation 
 conducted by a Federal-State Coordinating Committee; (2) the response 
 to the report of the Coordinating Committee; and (3) the response to 
 the draft findings and recommendations of the Commission. 
 
 The principal motive of the plan is the development of 
 natural resources in the Basin to meet economic and environmental 
 needs -- including the need for jobs, housing, protection from 
 natural catastrophes, and other human essentials -- where develop- 
 ment is reconcilable with preservation and enhancement of the Basin 
 environment. The premise that the Basin's environmental quality 
 is its primary economic asset underlies every recommendation for 
 resource development. It is emphasized that implementation of the 
 plan cannot be achieved without sound management of population and 
 economic growth throughout New England, to provide balanced 
 distribution of demands upon natural resources in accordance with 
 their character and availability. 
 
 The Commission adopts the plan as an increment of a 
 comprehensive, coordinated joint plan for the water and related land 
 resources of New England. 
 
 The 1980 Basin plan contains the following principal 
 recommendations in order of priority. All recommendations involving 
 major environmental alterations are subject to satisfactory completion 
 of environmental impact evaluations pursuant to the National Environ- 
 mental Policy Act. Other important qualifying recommendations are 
 set forth in the report. 
 
 *This is a shorthand reference to the 1980 Basin plan. It should not 
 be considered a substitute for the full report or for any part of the 
 report. Those concerned with the implications of the plan for Basin 
 resource management are referred to the full report. 
 
 t 
 
 S-1 
 
Estimated Public 
 Priority Cos t 
 
 1. SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY PROGRAM $700,000 
 
 Recommendation : a two and one-half year study consisting 
 of five interrelated tasks to supplement the field level 
 investigation: 
 
 environmental reconnaissance of the Basin; 
 
 evaluation of the degree of additional flood 
 protection needed; 
 
 assessment of legal, institutional and finan- 
 cial arrangements for flood protection and 
 flood plain management; 
 
 evaluation of flood management alternatives, 
 with environmental and economic impact 
 evaluations; and 
 
 formulation of a Basin flood management plan. 
 Objective: 
 
 to develop environmental information generally 
 useful for Basin resource management and 
 applied specifically in a reexamination of flood 
 management alternatives in the supplemental 
 study program; 
 
 to formulate a Basin flood management plan 
 for incorporation in the 1980 Basin plan. 
 
 Responsibility : New England River Basins Commission. 
 
 S-2 
 
2. LAND ACQUISITION/ CONTROLS 
 
 (a) Nonstructural flood plain management $100 million 
 
 Recommendation : 
 
 flood plain zoning along over 200 miles of the 
 Connecticut River from Saybrook, Connecticut, 
 to above White River Junction, Vermont; 
 
 preservation and controlled use of the undeveloped 
 or sparsely settled flood plains, with particular 
 reference to flood plains now in agricultural, 
 recreational or other open space uses; 
 
 acquisition or zoning of presently unprotected 
 wetland and upland areas within the flood plain; 
 
 public information programs on the availability 
 of flood plain insurance and flood fighting; 
 
 improved operation of flood control reservoirs, 
 through expansion of a Corps of Engineers 
 computerized network of remote river stage 
 data stations; and 
 
 improvement and expansion of flood forecasting 
 service provided by the National Weather 
 Service forecast center. 
 
 Obj ective : 
 
 to preserve the undeveloped flood plain as a 
 unique and irreplaceable environmental resource 
 for open space recreational and other uses 
 compatible with its preservation; 
 
 to prevent further encroachment of the flood 
 plain and reduce future flood damage. 
 
 Responsibility ; shared responsibility among Federal, State 
 and local governments, including counties and regional 
 planning agencies, for flood plain management, with emphasis 
 on Federal-State financial and administrative responsibility 
 for flood plain delineation, zoning and acquisition. 
 
 S-3 
 
(b) Reservoir site acquisition $30 million 
 
 Recommendation : preservation and controlled use of 
 proposed sites of large flood control and multiple 
 purpose reservoirs and Public Law 566 small watershed 
 impoundments included within the scope of the supple- 
 mental study program, with provision for interim 
 outdoor recreational use pending commitments on 
 development and for permanent outdoor recreational 
 use in the case of sites abandoned for reservoir use. 
 
 Qualification : provided that such use is compatible 
 with soil suitability and neighboring land uses. 
 
 Obj ective : to preserve options for appropriate use 
 of unique natural environments pending commitments 
 on reservoir development or alternative uses. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local, and appropriate 
 private organizations. 
 
 (c) Streambank acquisition $25 million 
 
 Recommendation : streambank acquisition. 
 Objective: 
 
 to provide public access to fishery resources; 
 
 (coordinated with other measures) to protect 
 the flood plains from further encroachment 
 and to preserve reaches of river identified 
 as wild, scenic or recreational. 
 
 Responsibility: Federal, State, local and appropriate 
 private organizations. 
 
 (d) Estuary land zoning /acquisition * $10 million 
 
 R e commendation : preservation of the remaining 
 undeveloped portions of the estuary. 
 
 Objective : to preserve the undeveloped estuary for 
 uses compatible with preservation of its unique and 
 irreplaceable environmental resources. 
 
 Responsibility: Federal, State, local and appropriate 
 private organizations. 
 
 *The Connecticut River estuary is included within the scope of the 
 Commission's study of the water and related land resources of 
 Long Island Sound. Estuarine effects of flood management alter- 
 natives will be assessed in the supplemental study program. 
 
 S-4 
 
(e) National Recreation Area land acquisition/zoning $ 40 million 
 
 Recommendation : acquisition or zoning of sites 
 included as Federal and State elements of the 
 proposed Connecticut River National Recreation 
 Area/Historic Riverway. 
 
 Responsibility: Federal, State, local and appro- 
 priate private organizations. 
 
 3. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT $260 million* 
 
 Recommendation : 
 
 (a) Secondary waste treatment : adoption by all 
 pollution sources of at least secondary water 
 pollution control treatment facilities, with mini- 
 mum 85 percent removal of biochemical oxygen 
 demand (BOD); 
 
 (b) Advanced waste treatment : development and 
 application of advanced waste treatment on a 
 selective basis where needed, along the lines 
 of an investigation of advanced waste treatment 
 concepts by the Environmental Protection Agency 
 and the Corps of Engineers in the Merrimack 
 River Basin; 
 
 (c) Monitoring : expanded water quality monitoring 
 
 to evaluate the impact of recommended improve- 
 ments; 
 
 (d) Research : additional research on low flow augmen- 
 tation; combined sewer discharge; rural and urban 
 pollutants; sewage diversions; sludge deposits; 
 bank erosion; and multiple thermal discharges. 
 
 Objective: 
 
 (a) to attain joint State-Federal water quality standards 
 established under the Water Quality Act of 1965; 
 
 ^Principally for secondary waste treatment. See p. 33. 
 
 S-5 
 
(b) to prevent major and moderate deficiencies in the 
 dissolved oxygen level of certain presently degraded 
 reaches of the Upper Connecticut, Otter, North, 
 Quaboag, Ware, Little Pequabuck and Hockanum 
 Rivers; 
 
 (c) to provide broader, more effective surveillance of 
 the Basin's water quality. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local and appropriate 
 private organizations. 
 
 4. RESOURCE PLANNING ASSISTANCE, SOIL SURVEYS 
 
 AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
 PROJECTS $27 million 
 
 Recommendation : 
 
 Accelerated planning assistance to 180 towns in 
 the preparation of resource inventories, town 
 soil reports and interpretations, flood plain 
 information studies and soil surveys involving 
 1. 5 million acres of non-Federal lands; 
 
 soil surveys and watershed analyses on approxi- 
 mately 306, 000 acres and fish and wildlife sur- 
 veys and watershed analyses on 30, 500 acres of 
 National forest land; 
 
 initiation of four additional resource, conserva- 
 tion and development projects under Public Law 
 89-796 and continuation of assistance on four 
 existing resource conservation and development 
 projects: North Country (1. 2 million acres in 
 New Hampshire); East Central Vermont (23 towns 
 in Vermont); Berkshire -Franklin (600, 000 acres 
 in Massachusetts); and Eastern Connecticut 
 (26, 000 acres). 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State. 
 
 S-6 
 
. SINGLE AND MULTIPLE PURPOSE FLOOD CONTROL 
 
 STRUCTURES $70 million 
 
 (a) Large flood control and multiple purpose reservoirs* 
 
 Recommendation : Beaver Brook reservoir, as authorized 
 by the Flood Control Act of 1968, on the Ashuelot River, 
 New Hampshire, subject only to further legislative or 
 executive action. The Commission recommends continual 
 evaluation for adverse environmental effects throughout 
 project planning, development and operation, with mitiga- 
 tion of environmental damage or repair by removal of the 
 cause. 
 
 Objective : to provide flood protection, water supply and 
 recreation principally for Keene, New Hampshire. 
 
 Responsibility: Federal. 
 
 (b) Existing reservoirs 
 
 (1 ) Recommendation : modification of three existing Corps of 
 Engineers flood control reservoirs to include uses for 
 recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement and water supply: 
 
 Union Village, on the Ompompanoosuc River 
 in Vermont (recreation), subject to improve- 
 ment of water quality on the West Branch; 
 
 Tully, on the Millars River in Massachusetts 
 (recreation and water diversion by flood skimming 
 to Quabbin reservoir), subject to recognition of 
 riparian rights of Basin interests, and condi- 
 tioned on creation of a regional mechanism 
 for allocating water, if feasible; on prior 
 measurement of impacts used in measuring 
 "excess flows, " and on prior determination 
 and protection of alternative groundwater 
 sources See Water Supply, below); and 
 Knightville, on the Westfield River in Massa- 
 chusetts (recreation and low flow augmentation 
 for fisheries enhancement), subject to the 
 Commission's investigation of the replacement 
 of lost wildlife habitat. 
 
 *Eight projects recommended by the Coordinating Committee have 
 been withdrawn from the NERBC 1980 Basin plan at this time and 
 are included within the scope of the supplemental study. These 
 include two recommended for State implementation, Blackledge 
 and Cold Brook (Connecticut), and six Corps projects: Meadow 
 (Massachusetts); Bethlehem Junction, Claremont and Honey 
 Hill (New Hampshire); and Gaysville and Victory (Vermont). 
 
 S-7 
 
Qualifications : subject to satisfactory completion of environ- 
 mental impact evaluations and appropriate remedies should 
 ongoing studies reveal a risk of significant adverse impact. 
 
 Responsibility: Federal. 
 
 (2) Recommendation : additional research; 
 
 continuing evaluation in the supplemental study 
 program of the possibility of reregulating total 
 Basin-wide existing power storage capacity for 
 flood protection, recreation and other purposes. 
 
 Responsibility: New England River Basins 
 Commis sion. 
 
 continuing studies to improve utilization of 
 existing dry-bed flood control reservoirs for 
 possible agricultural, recreational or other 
 use during periods when they are normally 
 dry. 
 
 R esponsibility : Federal, 
 (c) Local flood protection works 
 
 (1) Recommendation: local flood protection works on the West- 
 field and Little Rivers in Westfield, Massachusetts, sub- 
 stantially as authorized by Congress and by the Massachusetts 
 Legislature, subject only to further legislative or executive 
 action. The Commission recommends continual evaluation 
 for adverse environmental effects throughout project planning, 
 development and operation, with mitigation Q f environmental 
 damage or repair by removal of the cause. 
 
 Res ponsibility: Federal, State, local. 
 
 (2) Recommendation : three local protection projects considered 
 necessary to complement other flood control measures: 
 
 Lancaster, New Hampshire (small ice retention 
 
 dam and channel improvement); *k 
 
 St. Johnsbury, Vermont (dike and pumping station); and 
 
 Hartford, Connecticut (conduit with headwall and 
 pumping structure). 
 
 S-8 
 
Qualifications : subject to satisfactory completion of environ- 
 mental impact evaluations. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 (d) Upstream watershed projects 
 
 (1 ) Recommendation : three currently planned Public Law 566 
 upstream watershed projects for which State executive 
 approvals have been obtained, subject only to further legis- 
 lative or executive action: 
 
 West Branch, Westfield River, Massachusetts 
 (flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife); 
 
 Upper Quaboag River, Massachusetts (flood 
 prevention, recreation, water quality and 
 water supply); and 
 
 Sugar River, New Hampshire (flood prevention 
 and recreation). 
 
 The Commission recommends continual evaluation for 
 adverse environmental effects throughout project planning, 
 development and operation, with mitigation of environ- 
 mental damage or repair by removal of the cause. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 (2) Recommendation : two upstream watershed projects 
 currently being planned under Public Law 566: 
 
 Indian - Mascoma River, New Hampshire 
 (flood prevention and possibly recreation); and 
 
 Indian Brook, New Hampshire (flood prevention 
 and possibly recreation). 
 
 Qualifications : subject to satisfactory completion of environ^ 
 mental impact evaluations. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 S-9 
 
(3) Recommendation: seven potential Public Law 566 upstream 
 watershed projects: 
 
 Mill River, Massachusetts (flood prevention, 
 recreation and water supply); 
 
 Mohawk River, New Hampshire (flood preven- 
 tion and recreation); 
 
 East Branch, North River, Vermont (flood 
 prevention, recreation and fish and wildlife); 
 
 North Branch, Deerfield River, Vermont 
 (flood prevention, recreation and fish and 
 wildlife); 
 
 Whetstone project, Vermont (flood preven- 
 tion, recreation and fish and wildlife); 
 
 Ball Mountain Brook, Vermont (flood 
 prevention, recreation and fish and wildlife); 
 and 
 
 Passumpsic-Moose Rivers, Vermont (flood 
 prevention, recreation and fish and wildlife). 
 
 Qualifications : subject to local sponsorship and satisfactory- 
 completion of environmental impact evaluations. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 (4) Recommendation : further in-depth evaluation of five additional 
 Public Law 566 upstream watershed projects to determine 
 economic feasibility: 
 
 Upper Ammonoosuc River, New Hampshire (flood 
 prevention, recreation, water quality and water 
 supply); 
 
 Gale River, New Hampshire (flood prevention 
 and possibly recreation); 
 
 Blow-Me-Down Brook, New Hampshire (flood 
 prevention and possibly recreation); 
 
 Black River, Vermont (flood prevention); and 
 
 Wells River, Vermont (flood prevention and 
 possibly recreation). 
 
 s-io 
 
Qualifications : subject to local sponsorship and satisfactory- 
 completion of environmental as well as economic evaluations. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 6. WATER SUPPLY $185 million 
 
 (1 ) Recommendation : diversion of Connecticut River water by 
 flood skimming into Quabbin reservoir from the Northfield 
 Mountain (Massachusetts) pumped storage power project, as 
 authorized by the Massachusetts Legislature, ( Modification of 
 Tully reservoir for water diversion into Quabbin reservoir is 
 recommended under Single and Multiple Purpose Flood Control 
 Structures, (b) Existing reservoirs, above. ). 
 
 Objective : to meet short term water supply needs of the 
 Metropolitan District Commission service area by adding 72 mgd 
 to the capacity of Quabbin reservoir (Tully would add 55 mgd). 
 
 Qualifications : The Northfield Mountain diversion project has 
 been authorized by Massachusetts law and its inclusion in 
 the 1980 Basin plan is subject only to further legislative or 
 executive action. The Commission recommends continual 
 evaluation for adverse environmental effects throughout 
 project planning, development and operation, with mitigation 
 of environmental damage or repair by removal of the cause. 
 
 The Commission recommends that all proposed 
 diversions of Connecticut River water below the newly con- 
 structed nuclear power plant at Vernon, Vermont, including 
 Northfield Mountain, be conditioned on satisfactory completion 
 of environmental impact evaluations of the power plant. It is 
 recommended that these evaluations include careful investiga- 
 tion of the possibility of radioactive contamination of Connecticut 
 River water and its implications for the diversion of Connecticut 
 River water into Quabbin reservoir. It is further recommended 
 that proposed diversions be conditioned on adequate measures 
 to prevent radioactive contamination of diverted water, 
 including water quality monitoring.* 
 
 *The Corps of Engineers and the Massachusetts Department of Public 
 Health are monitoring the Connecticut River below Vernon and into 
 Quabbin reservoir for levels of natural and artificially caused radio- 
 active contamination. 
 
 S-ll 
 
The amount of water that may be diverted at 
 Northfield Mountain is limited by Massachusetts law over a 
 three consecutive year period to 375 mgd for each day 
 that river flow exceeds 17, 000 cfs at Montague City. Diversio 
 is prohibited by law on any day when flow is less than 17, 000 
 cfs at Montague City. 
 
 Diversions at Tully and any diversions at 
 Northfield Mountain above amounts presently authorized by 
 law are subject to recognition of riparian rights and condi- 
 tioned on creation of a regional mechanism for allocating 
 water in which downstream States have a voice, if feasible; 
 on prior measurement of impacts used in measuring "excess 
 flows;" and on prior determination and protection of alterna- 
 tive groundwater sources. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, regional, and appropriate 
 private organizations. 
 
 ) Recommendation ; expansion of municipal and industrial water 
 supplies by proper development of available surface and 
 groundwater supplies. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local and appropriate private 
 organizations . 
 
 Recommendation : continued environmental studies of the 
 feasibility of using water supply impoundments to meet 
 recreational needs. The Commission recommends that 
 specific consideration be given to expanded recreational 
 development of Quabbin reservoir, in part for the benefit of 
 Lower Basin metropolitan area residents in return for the 
 allocation of Lower Basin water supply to meet out-of-Basin 
 needs. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, state, local. 
 
 S-12 
 
10. RECREATION 
 
 (a) National Recreation Area/ Connecticut Historic $80 million 
 
 Riverway 
 
 (1 ) Recommendation : establishment of a 56,700 acre Connecticut 
 River National Recreation Area consisting of the following 
 Federal elements: 23, 500 acre Coos Scenic River unit in 
 northern New Hampshire and Vermont; 12, 000 acre Mount 
 Holyoke unit in Massachusetts; 21, 200 acre Gateway unit 
 
 in Connecticut; and a 280-mile Connecticut Valley Trail and 
 a Connecticut Valley Tourway. 
 
 Qualifications : subject to the approval of each unit by local 
 citizens advisory committees and, in the case of the Coos 
 unit, to the appointment and approval of an officially 
 established advisory committee similar to the ones 
 existing in Massachusetts and Connecticut; subject also 
 to the understanding that the National Recreation Area 
 concept is being modified by the Department of the Interior 
 and,as the proposed Connecticut Historic Riverway. now 
 emphasizes preservation of the Basin's existing landscape 
 and cultural pattern in place of active outdoor recreational 
 use. 
 
 (2) Recommendation : establishment of a 56, 700 acre Connecticut 
 River National Recreation Area consisting of the following 
 State elements: 18,300 acre Cockaponset State Forest, 
 
 4, 400 acre Glastonbury Meadows State Park and 250 acre 
 Windsor Locks -Kings Island State Park, in Connecticut; 
 4, 800 acre Mount Tom State Park and 31, 000 acre Northfield 
 Mountain State Park in Massachusetts; and 14, 000 acre 
 Connecticut Lakes State Park, 15,400 acre Moore-Comerford 
 Interstate Park, and a 27, 500 acre Rogers Rangers Historic 
 Riverway, in New Hampshire and Vermont. 
 
 Qualifications : subject to State or local approval. 
 
 (3) Recommendation : Federal consideration of a sliding scale 
 of Federal support for State and local actions based upon 
 the degree of national and regional interests. 
 
 (4) Recommendation: authorization and funding of Bureau of 
 Outdoor Recreation staff assistance to the Basin States in 
 organizing State and local responses to the Bureau's "New 
 England Heritage' 1 report. 
 
 S-13 
 
(b) Urban recreational development 
 
 $ 10 million 
 
 (5) Recommendation : high priority for water based recreational 
 development within the urban environment. 
 
 Qbj ective : to bring recreational opportunities close to heavy- 
 Lower Basin urban recreational demand centers. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 (c) Anadromous fisheries restoration $ 20 million 
 
 (6) Recommendation : erection of fish passage facilities at 
 the Vernon, Turners Falls, Wilder and Bellows Falls 
 main stem power dams and improvement or replacement 
 of the fish passage facility at Holyoke dam, to accommo- 
 date increased numbers of fish expected to be passed 
 through new facilities at other dams. 
 
 Objective : to increase the number of shad entering the 
 river to two million annually and to permit Atlantic salmon 
 to reach the Westfield and Deerfield Rivers in Massachusetts; 
 the White and West Rivers in Vermont; and the Cold and 
 Ammonoosuc Rivers in New Hampshire by 1980. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, and appropriate private 
 organizations. 
 
 (7) Recommendation : installation of fish hatchery facilities to 
 provide one million smolt (two-year-old salmon) annually. 
 
 Qbj ective : environmental quality and partial satisfaction 
 of fishing demand. 
 
 (8) Recommendation : minimum flow releases of 0. 2 cfsm at 
 four main stem power projects up for relicensing -- 
 Wilder, Bellows Falls, Vernon and Turners Falls -- and 
 study of minimum flow releases below all dams in the 
 Basin to determine the desirability and feasibility of a 0. 2 
 cfsm release rate to assist in the assimilation of treated 
 effluent. 
 
 (d) Recreational navigation improvements $ 10 million 
 
 (9) Recommendation : construction of a 32-mile recreational 
 navigation channel between Hartford and Holyoke. 
 
 S-14 
 
Objective : to accommodate an additional 4, 000 boats and 
 partially meet recreational boating demand. 
 
 Qualifications : provided that proposed alterations of the 
 Windsor Locks Canal are acceptable to the State of Connecticut, 
 and subject to satisfactory completion of environmental 
 impact evaluations. 
 
 R esponsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 (1 0) Recommendation : dredging for recreational navigation in 
 
 the 14-mile reach between Holyoke dam and the Northampton- 
 Hatfield line. 
 
 Qualifications : subject to satisfactory completion of environ- 
 mental impact evaluations. 
 
 Res ponsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 (11 ) Recommendation : recreational navigation improvements 
 on the main stem behind the Holyoke, Turners Falls, 
 Vernon and Bellows Falls power dams, consisting of the 
 removal of shoals, navigation aids and bypass trailer 
 service. 
 
 Responsibility: Federal, State, local, 
 (e) National Forest improvements $ 25 million 
 
 (12) Recommendation : structural improvements on National 
 Forest lands, including recreational facilities on 555 acres; 
 three recreational impoundments which would provide 310 
 surface water acres; 225 miles of roads and trails; 37 fire 
 control heliports; and 37 acres of fish and wildlife improve- 
 ments . 
 
 Responsibility: Federal. 
 
 (13) Recommendation : continued efforts to consolidate patterns 
 of ownership within the National Forests to secure effective 
 forest land management. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal. 
 
 S-15 
 
LAND TREATMENT 
 
 $ 33 million 
 
 Recommendation : land treatment measures on 64, 000 acres 
 of National Forest land and on over 1. 2 million acres of 
 non-Federal land, including 204, 000 acres of agricultural 
 land, 150, 000 acres of urban land and 8Z3, 000 acres of 
 private, non-industrial forest land. 
 
 Objective : reduction of runoff, erosion and sediment, 
 soil conservation, and water quality improvement. 
 
 R es ponsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 
 
 $ 25 million 
 
 R e commendation : a Basinwide wild and scenic river program 
 to preserve and enhance reaches of river identified in 
 Appendix H of the Coordinating Committee report as wild, 
 scenic or recreational, including all or part of the following: 
 
 Ammonoosuc River, N. H. 
 Ashuelot River N. H. 
 Clam River, Mass. 
 Cold River, N. H. 
 Deerfield River, Mass/Vt. 
 Dickinson Creek, Ct. 
 Farmington River, Ct. 
 Fawn Brook, Ct. 
 Hockanum River, Ct. 
 Indian Stream, N. H. 
 Ketch Brook , Ct. 
 Millers River, Mass. 
 Moose River, Vt. 
 Nash Stream, Vt. 
 Nulhegan River , Vt. 
 Ompompanoosuc River, Vt 
 Ottauquechee River, Vt. 
 Park River, Ct. 
 
 Paul Stream, Vt. 
 
 Phillips Brook, N. H. 
 
 Podunk River, Ct. 
 
 Salmon River, Ct. 
 
 Sandy Brook, Ct. 
 
 Sawmill River, Mass. 
 
 Scantic River, Ct. 
 
 Swift River (Chicopee), Mass. 
 
 Tully River, Mass. 
 
 Upper Ammonoosuc River , N. H. 
 
 Waits River, Vt. 
 
 Ware River, Mass. 
 
 Wells River, Vt. 
 
 West River, Vt. 
 
 Westfield River, Mass. 
 
 White River, Vt. 
 
 Williams River, Vt. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal, State, local. 
 
 S-16 
 
10. COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 $ 5 million 
 
 Recommendation: enlargement of the present commercial 
 navigation project from Saybrook Light to Hartford to a 
 depth of 1 6 feet and to a width of 250 feet. 
 
 Qualifications : provided that suitable spoil areas are 
 located for the placement of dredged material and subject 
 to satisfactory completion of environmental impact 
 evaluations. 
 
 Responsibility : Federal. 
 
 11. 118 IDENTIFIED UPSTREAM RESERVOIR SITES $ 25 million 
 
 Recommendation : continuing consideration of 1 1 8 upstream 
 impoundment sites with a total storage capacity of 463, 000 
 acre-feet for possible development. 
 
 Objective flood water and sediment, recreation, fish and 
 wildlife, low flow augmentation, and public water supply. 
 
 Qualifications: subject to State or local approval and 
 conditioned on evaluation of individual and collective 
 regional impacts. 
 
 Responsibility : State and local. 
 
 TOTAL COST $980 million 
 
 S-17 
 
The plan contains the following principal recommendations 
 for which estimates of costs and priorities are not possible or appro- 
 priate. 
 
 POWER 
 
 Recommendation ; development of power generating and 
 transmission facilities to meet projected 1980 power needs 
 in the Basin. 
 
 Qualifications: as warranted by the results of a two-year 
 
 comprehensive study of electric bulk power facility siting in 
 New England. 
 
 Objective of study : consideration of environmental and 
 other factors in New England regionwide bulk power system 
 planning. 
 
 Responsibility for study : Committee on Power and Environ- 
 ment of the New England River Basins Commission, New 
 England Energy Policy Staff of the New England Regional 
 Commission, and the electric power industry of New England. 
 
 PRESERVATION OF SITES 
 
 Recommendation : preservation of nearly 600 ar cheological 
 and over 250 natural and historical sites in the Basin. 
 
 Objective : protection of priceless environmental assets 
 from increasing pressures of urbanization, highway 
 construction and recreational development. 
 
 Res ponsibility : Federal, State, local and appropriate private 
 organizations . 
 
 S-18 
 
IMPLEMENTA TION 
 
 (1 ) Recommendation : Federal- and State-supported 
 Connecticut River Basin Program within the Commission. 
 
 Objectives : continuing, cooperative Basin planning under 
 the auspices of the Commission; overall management 
 and coordination of the supplemental study program; public 
 information and education; and program evaluation. 
 
 (2) Recommendation : Federal and State authorization of the 
 1980 Basin plan with adequate financial, legal and institu- 
 tional arrangements for implementation. 
 
 (3) Recommendation : organization within each Basin State of 
 governmental powers and responsibilities to coordinate 
 State, community and private resource planning for the 
 portion of the Basin within each state, to provide for 
 increased area representation in the planning process, and 
 to participate in the allocation of Basin water and related 
 land resources to meet in- and out-of-Basin needs. 
 
 S-19 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 This report has been prepared in compliance with 
 section 204 (3) of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, Public 
 Law 89-80, which provides for the review, revision and transmittal 
 of comprehensive, coordinated joint plans for the water and related 
 land resources of river basins. It presents to the President, to the 
 Congress, to the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hamp- 
 shire and Vermont, and to the people of the Connecticut River Basin 
 and other affected areas within the New England region, findings and 
 recommendations of the New England River Basins Commission 
 based upon the Coordinating Committee report, Connecticut River 
 Basin Comprehensive Water and Related Land Resources Investiga- 
 tion (October 1970), and on the response to the Coordinating Committee 
 and draft Commission reports. 
 
 The management of the Basin's natural resources is of 
 intense concern to a wide range of often conflicting interests. The 
 primary purpose of the Basin planning process is to make possible 
 informed and acceptable judgments among conflicting interests and 
 thereby to provide sound and lasting guidance -- to State, Federal 
 and local governments and to private interests -- for the future 
 management of the Basin's resources. 
 
 This document, referred to as the 1980 Basin plan, has 
 been adopted by the Commission, and is recommended for accep- 
 tance by the people of the Basin and other affected areas within New 
 England, as an element of the Commission's comprehensive, coordi- 
 nated joint plan for water and related land resources in New England, 
 pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act. It is also recommended 
 for adoption by Basin States as an increment of statewide water and 
 related land resource plans. 
 
 The Basin plan transmitted to the Water Resources Council 
 and to the Governors and Legislatures of the Basin States is accompanied 
 by the Coordinating Committee report and by comments by the Basin 
 Governors, by heads of interested Federal agencies, by the Citizens 
 Review Committee and by other affected interests on the Coordinating 
 Committee and draft Commission reports. It is also accompanied by a 
 draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Coordinating 
 Committee in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 
 Texts of the comments and the report of the Citizens Review Committee 
 are transmitted as separate documents and are incorporated by 
 
 i 
 
reference as appendices to this report. 
 
 When it is transmitted to the Congress, the plan will 
 consist of recommendations of the President. The President's 
 recommendations concerning Federal action programs will be 
 made either directly or by reference to recommendations of the 
 Water Resources Council. The views of the Water Resources 
 Council will in turn be referenced to findings and recommendations 
 of the New England River Basins Commission. 
 
 A primary legislative function of the Basin plan is to 
 serve as a supporting document, or information base, for project 
 authorization and funding requests by Federal and State agencies. 
 With reference to Federal actions, the Water Resources Planning 
 Act governing the preparation and evaluation of river basin plans 
 provides that nothing in the Act ''shall be construed ... to limit the 
 authority of Congress to authorize and fund projects. " Congression- 
 al authorization of Federal projects may be obtained without refer- 
 ence to the Basin plan. The President, the Water Resources 
 Council and the Congress retain the prerogative of drawing upon the 
 Coordinating Committee report, the views of individual departments 
 and agencies, the comments of the Governors, the Citizens Review 
 Committee and other sources. 
 
 Administrative authorizations of recommended Federal 
 projects not already authorized by Congress are subject to evaluation 
 by the Water Resources Council within the context of the Basin plan. 
 Recommended Federal projects, for which Congressional and adminis- 
 trative authorizations have already been obtained or are being sought, 
 may be reevaluated in the normal course of project authorization and 
 funding apart from the disposition of the Basin plan. Similarly, the 
 Basin plan does not bind State governments to any action recommended, 
 nor does it impose any restriction on State actions not contemplated 
 by the study. 
 
 The 1980 Basin plan recommended by the Commission 
 was prepared in three phases over a period of approximately nine 
 months: first, preparation of a staff draft (February - May); second, 
 preparation of a draft approved by the Commission for public comment 
 (June - July); and third, preparation of a final draft for Commission 
 approval in response to the comments (October). 
 
 The first phase began at the conclusion of the 90-day 
 review of the Coordinating Committee report February 1, with a com- 
 pilation of findings and recommendations taken from the nine volume 
 
 ii 
 
Coordinating Committee report together with relevant comments. 
 Recommendations and comments organized in the following 
 categories for each of the 10 plan elements provided a logical 
 foundation for related recommendations of the Commission: 
 
 existing resource development in the Basin: 
 
 Basin resource needs and/or projected demands: 
 
 recommended measures to meet needs: and 
 
 beneficial and adverse impacts of recommended 
 measures . 
 
 Additional categories were established for planning objectives 
 and assumptions: plan implementation- costs: and priorities. 
 When the basic inputs to the Commission's report had been 
 compiled, and recommendations for the Commission's considera- 
 tion had been prepared and reviewed at the staff level, a first 
 draft of the Basin plan was prepared in a format suitable for 
 editing by Commission members. 
 
 A committee of the Commis sion, compos ed of 
 member States and agencies that participated in the field level 
 investigation, was organized at the Commission's quarterly 
 meeting June 16 to review the staff draft for technical errors 
 and omissions and for its responsiveness to Governors' and 
 department heads' comments on the Coordinating Committee 
 report. Comments of the Commission Review Committee were 
 taken into account in a revised draft released for public 
 comment July 12, 
 
 Preparation of the final draft for Commission 
 approval began in late September at the conclusion of a 60-day 
 review period. Comments were received from the Basin 
 Governors, from an interim Citizens Advisory Board, and from 
 a representative range of Basin communities and other affected 
 interests. A new section was added to the report summarizing 
 the comments received and the Commission's response. The 
 final draft was approved by the Commission, with modifications 
 suggested by the Commission Review Committee, following the 
 Commission's quarterly meeting October 18. 
 
 Because the field level investigation provided the 
 supporting analysis for the 1980 Basin plan, the Commission's 
 
 iii 
 
findings and recommendations and the comments on the Coordinating 
 Committee report are presented with reference to the findings and 
 recommendations of the Coordinating Committee. Commission 
 recommendations concerning resource management projects and 
 programs are made with reference to each of the ten study elements 
 included within the scope of the field level investigation: water 
 quality: power: outdoor recreation; pres ervation of sites: anadro- 
 mous fisheries restoration; fish and wildlife: water supply; navi- 
 gation: upstream water and related land resources management: 
 and flood control and multiple purpose reservoirs. The plan 
 recommended by the Commission also contains recommendations 
 concerning the estuary. 
 
 Resource management projects and programs 
 recommended in the 1980 Basin plan fall into four categories: 
 (1) recommendations of the Coordinating Committee that are 
 approved essentially without qualification or (2) approved with 
 qualifications; (3) recommendations on which no decision will be 
 taken pending completion of additional studies; and (4) additional 
 recommendations of the Commission, including a restudy of flood 
 management alternatives. Approved recommendations of the 
 Coordinating Committee are further distinguished according to 
 whether they have already received legislative or executive 
 authorization at the State or Federal level or are subject solely 
 to State or local authorization. 
 
 Water and related land resources planning in the 
 Connecticut River Basin has been a complex process. A consi- 
 derable burden has been placed upon the public to make judgments 
 on environmental and other tradeoffs within the context of 
 Basinwide resource management, based on an understanding of 
 the content, scope and status of each phase of the process. Com- 
 plicating factors were the enactment of the Water Resources 
 Planning Act and the creation of the New England River Basins 
 Commission mid-way through the field level investigation. A 
 short time later, long overdue public recognition of the importance 
 of environmental quality to human wellbeing resulted in the enact- 
 ment of the National Environmental Policy Act and a generally 
 accepted, if not formalized, realignment of resource management 
 objectives. 
 
 iv 
 
Inevitably the prescribed procedure for obtaining a 
 representative, informed public response to the content of the 
 Basin plan took on the additional purpose of informing the public 
 of the role and nature of the plan at each point in its evolution. 
 The Commission has emphasized that its findings and recommen- 
 dations, based on the Coordinating Committee report and the 
 response to the report, differ in important respects from the 
 findings and recommendations of the Coordinating Committee 
 based on the field level investigation. Moreover, it has been 
 emphasized that the Basin plan will include recommendations of 
 the Water Resources Council and the President when it is ulti- 
 mately transmitted to the Congress. 
 
 The relationship of Basin planning to the political pro- 
 cess has also needed clarification, because of a strongly felt 
 concern that the existence of a Basin plan would supersede or 
 otherwise weaken existing procedures for continuing expression 
 and protection of the public interest in Basin resource manage- 
 ment. It has been pointed out that protection of the public 
 interest is provided within the larger political process, of which 
 comprehensive water and related land resource planning is a 
 supporting part. Legislative judgments affecting specific communi- 
 ties and other interests are made with agency project planning 
 support, and these are accompanied by opportunities normally 
 provided for public discussion and for appropriate legislative 
 response. Whether the Commission's findings and recommenda- 
 tions adequately serve the public interest in Basin resource 
 management therefore remains a matter for the people to decide, 
 taking into account each phase of the planning process and the 
 larger political process of which it is a part. 
 
 Resolutions have been received from the Massachusetts 
 House of Representatives, the City of Springfield and several 
 other communities in the Massachusetts portion of the Basin, 
 urging the Commission to defer further review and implementation 
 of the Basin plan until substantial conformance with the National 
 Environmental Policy Act can be assured. The Commission's 
 response is set forth in the report. Although it is felt that an 
 indefinite deferral of the plan pending completion of additional 
 research would not serve the public interest as effectively as the 
 procedure that has been adopted, the Commission nevertheless 
 considers these resolutions a welcome measure of genuine, con- 
 structive public concern for the quality of the environment, and 
 expresses the hope that the adopted procedure will in the long run 
 encourage the environmental vigilance of their sponsors. 
 
 v 
 
The Water Resources Council has established a 
 procedure for the submission of proposed revisions of completed 
 river basin plans to river basin commissions and for related 
 commission and Council action. Interested agencies and individuals 
 may submit requests for revision of the 1980 Basin plan to the 
 Commission after the plan has been transmitted to the Congress, 
 where revision may be warranted to reflect changes in economic and 
 social goals or to accommodate technological advances or other 
 circumstances that affect both problems and their solutions. The 
 prescribed procedure requires a detailed rationale for requested 
 revisions, setting forth their relationship to the completed plan, to 
 other plan elements and Basin needs, and their regional environ- 
 mental and other impacts. Requests for revision will be subject to 
 review by Commission member States and agencies in accordance 
 with the Water Resources Planning Act, and may be accompanied 
 by Commission recommendations when transmitted to the Water 
 Resources Council. 
 
 Member States and agencies of the Commission Review 
 Committee worked conscientiously with the Commission staff to 
 consider carefully the Commission's response to the comments. 
 Without their experience and judgment, the preparation of this 
 report would have been an immensely more difficult task. 
 
 Preparation of the Commission's findings and recom- 
 mendations has been largely an exercise in public participation in 
 resource management. Of those whose thoughtful suggestions are 
 a part of the plan, the Commission relied principally upon the 
 Basin Governors and interim Citizens Advisory Board for expressions 
 of public concerns. The Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc. , 
 and the League of Women Voters Inter-League Committee on the 
 Connecticut River Basin performed an important public service in 
 jointly organizing a public presentation and discussion of the draft 
 Commission report. 
 
 The degree to which the NERBC 1980 Basin plan proves 
 responsive to public needs and preferences will ultimately convey 
 the Commission's appreciation for the contributions of these and 
 other individuals and organizations too numerous to mention. 
 
 Boston, Massachusetts 
 November 1, 1971 
 
 vi 
 
INPUTS 
 TO THE 
 1980 BASIN PLAN 
 RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION 
 
THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE REPORT 
 
I 
 I 
 I 
 I 
 I 
 I 
 I 
 
A. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Purpose and scope o f study 
 
 The Connecticut River Basin Comprehensive Water and 
 Related Land Resources Investigation is one of the original six- 
 teen Type 2 river basin studies* selected by the Interdepartmental 
 Staff Committee of the ad hoc Water Resources Council for com- 
 pletion by 1970. Authorization was provided by U. S. Senate 
 Public Works Committee resolution, May 1 1, 1962. The Type 2 
 Connecticut river basin plan identifies water and related land 
 resource needs and recommends measures to meet these needs, 
 in sufficient detail to provide a basis for authorization of projects 
 in which there is a Federal interest and for which starts are 
 required within a ten to fifteen year period. It is intended to be a 
 general appraisal of needs and a flexible guide to the development 
 and beneficial use of the Basin's water and related land resources. 
 
 The investigation was a cooperative effort of Federal 
 Agencies, the Basin States and the New England River Basins 
 Commission, accomplished under the general guidance of the 
 Connecticut River Basin Coordinating Committee. The Coordi- 
 nating Committee was composed of representatives of the U. S. 
 Departments of Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Health, Education 
 and Welfare, and Interior; the Federal Power Commission; the 
 States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont; 
 and the New England River Basins Commission (after June, 1968), 
 and was chaired by the Division Engineer, New England Division, 
 Corps of Engineers. 
 
 *Type 2 studies, defined by the Water Resources Council, are 
 studies of feasibility or survey scope for individual river basins, 
 tributary basins or subregions. They are undertaken for areas 
 with complex problems needing concerted multiagency actions, 
 Federal and non-Federal, for their solution. In addition to deve- 
 loping a water and related land resources plan to meet needs to 
 1980, these studies define and evaluate projects and programs in 
 sufficient detail to comprise a basis for authorization or imple- 
 mentation of those projects that should be initiated in the next ten 
 to fifteen years to satisfy urgent needs. 
 
 1 
 
The Coordinating Committee report consists of an Early 
 Action Plan considered necessary to meet water and related land 
 resource needs by 1980 and a Long Range Plan identifying poten- 
 tial measures to meet needs through 2020. The Committee con- 
 sidered all beneficial water and related land uses in the Basin, 
 including water quality, hydroelectric power, recreation, preser- 
 vation, fish and wildlife, water supply, navigation, flood control 
 and related land uses. 
 
 Description of the Basin 
 
 Physiography . The Connecticut River Basin is located 
 within the Appalachian highlands of North America and is 
 entirely within the New England physiographic province. There 
 are approximately 11, 000 square miles, or 170, 000 acres of 
 water and almost 7 million acres of land, along the 400-mile 
 United States portion of the river; 35 percent of the Basin's land 
 is in Vermont, 28 percent in New Hampshire, 24 percent in 
 Massachusetts and 13 percent in Connecticut. Seventy-nine per- 
 cent of the land is forested, 13 percent is agricultural, four per- 
 cent is urban, and the remaining four percent is in other uses. 
 Elevations range from sea level at Hartford and Middletown, 
 Connecticut, in the Connecticut Valley lowland, to 6, 000 feet 
 above sea level in the northeastern mountains, which include the 
 White Mountains and Green Mountians. 
 
 The 15 largest tributaries having watersheds larger than 
 200 square miles comprise an aggregate of 6, 517 square miles 
 or 58 percent of the Basin. Mean annual precipitation in the form 
 of rain and snow averages 43 inches and ranges in extremes from 
 36 to 74 inches. Runoff annually averages about 23 inches, and 
 provides for an average yield of more than 12 billion gallons per 
 day. Average annual flow is 1 . 6 cubic feet per second per square 
 mile of drainage area (cfsm). Minimum flows of below . 1 cfsm 
 have occurred during low flow periods in August and September. 
 Serious floods and droughts have occurred. A maximum flow of 
 282, 000 cubic feet per second recorded at Thompsonville, Connec- 
 ticut, during the flood of March, 1936, contrasts with a minimum 
 flow of 970 cubic feet per second during the drought of 1961-1966. 
 
 The Basin has 35 water bodies of over 500 acres and 172 
 ranging from 100 to 499 acres. It is a migratory route for a con- 
 siderable number of waterfowl. Wide and extensive flood plains 
 
 2 
 
at various reaches along the main stem become inundated to 
 varying depths of 10 to 20 feet during major floods, and act as 
 large detention reservoirs which significantly reduce peak dis- 
 charges downstream. Available groundwater is perhaps more 
 than one billion gallons per day, principally in the Upper Basin. 
 
 Population. Nearly 84 percent of the 1970 Basin popu- 
 lation of 1 . 9 million reside south of Massachusetts' northern 
 border in approximately four percent of the Basin area; this 
 concentration is expected to increase to 89 percent of the pro- 
 jected total 2020 population of 3. 1 million and to 12 1/2 percent 
 of the land area. During 1950-1960, 86 percent of the Basin's 
 population growth occurred in the adjoining Standard Metro- 
 politan Statistical Areas of Springfield- Chicopee-Holyoke, Massa- 
 chusetts, and Hartford, Connecticut. Little or no growth 
 occurred in the same period from Franklin County, Massachusetts, 
 northward. The Basin population density of about 160 people per 
 square mile compares with a New England average of 170 and a 
 national average of 50 people per square mile. 
 
 Economy. The Basin economy is described as stable and 
 prosperous. Based on a diverse mixture of manufacturing, trade, 
 finance, agriculture, tourism and higher education, it has com- 
 pleted a transition from an extractive to a processing economy 
 and is currently proceeding toward a non-manufacturing service- 
 oriented economy. Employment in the services, including recre- 
 ation/tourism, medical/health, business, education, finance, 
 insurance, real estate and other non-commodity categories, com- 
 prised 59 percent of the Basin's total employment, and is pro- 
 jected to increase threefold by 2020, faster than any other sector 
 and enough to more than offset employment declines in agricul- 
 ture and manufacturing. Total expenditures on recreation and 
 tourism were over $115 million in 1967. The Basin economy is 
 more dependent on manufacturing than is the national economy 
 and is projected to remain so. Manufacturing employment, how- 
 ever, is expected to decline from 40 percent of the total Basin 
 force in I960 to 33 percent by 1980 and 24 percent by 2020. While 
 the Basin as a whole has a higher per capita personal income than 
 the nation and is expected to rise over fivefold by 2020, only a 
 few areas within the Basin exceed the national or New England 
 average. The Upper Basin lies below both the regional and the 
 national averages, while the Lower Basin lies at or above both. 
 
 3 
 
Land use. The Basin's flood plains have long been the 
 scene of the most concentrated economic growth. Projected flood 
 plain development is explained mainly by the ease of development 
 made possible by existing municipal services, highways, utilities, 
 schools, hospitals, commercial and financial centers and other 
 community facilities. Most of the readily usable land for building 
 is in the Basin's flood plains, and it is in the flood plains that the 
 main population centers and the industrial and commercial plants 
 that support them have grown and will continue to grow. 
 
 Pres e nt water and related land resource development 
 
 By far the largest investment in water resource develop- 
 ment in the Basin is hydroelectric power generation. There are 
 more than 50 power installations of all types in the Basin with 
 installed capacities greater than 1, 000 kilowatts. Existing con- 
 ventional hydroelectric developments include 47 utility plants 
 with a generating capacity of about 620 megawatts and 28 indus- 
 trial plants with a generating capacity of 24 mw. Two nuclear 
 units are in operation with a total capacity of 785, 000 kw-- 
 Yankee Atomic (185, 000 kw) and Connecticut Yankee (600, 000 kw). 
 
 Eighty-six percent of the Basin's population is served by 
 municipal water supplies, compared to a national average of 75 
 percent. Metropolitan Hartford and Springfield account for 56 
 percent of the population served by municipal systems and utilize 
 approximately 107 million gallons per day (mgd), which repre- 
 sents about 60 percent of the total Basin demand. There is very 
 limited irrigation of field crops; about 95 percent of the total 
 14, 000 irrigated acres of land in 1964 was in Massachusetts and 
 Connecticut. 
 
 A 52-mile commercial navigation channel has been developed 
 from the mouth of the river to Hartford, 15 feet deep at mean low 
 water, 300 feet wide at the mouth of the river to the Lyme rail- 
 road bridge, and 150 feet wide to Hartford. 
 
 Eleven projects comprising 222, 800 acres, or about three 
 percent of the Basin's drainage area, have been completed or 
 are under construction under the authority of Public Law 83-566 
 (1954), which authorizes the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
 jointly with State and local agencies, to check soil erosion and 
 excessive runoff on rural land , stop destructive floods, improve 
 
 4 
 
drainage conditions on agricultural land, and develop multiple 
 purpose small watershed projects. 
 
 Structural measures consist of 34 single- and multiple- 
 purpose floodwater retarding structures with 33, 000 acre-feet 
 of floodwater and sediment storage and 2, 000 acre-feet of addi- 
 tional storage for water supply, recreation and fish and wildlife 
 uses, and approximately 30 miles of channel improvement. 
 
 Less then 15 percent of the Basin's total water and land 
 area is publicly held, but of the total of 733, 600 public acres, 
 306, 600 acres, or 42 percent, is National forest. The largest 
 public holdings in the Basin are the White and Green Mountain 
 National Forests, in New Hampshire and Vermont, respectively. 
 State, county and municipal forests account for 410, 000 acres, 
 or 56 percent of the public holdings. 
 
 Two hundred and seven water impoundments greater 
 than 100 acres in size and totalling 103, 480 acres have been 
 inventoried in the Basin. These are composed of existing 
 natural and man-made impoundments, and are utilized for 
 power production, recreation, municipal and industrial water 
 supply and flood control. There are more than 200 dams in 
 the Basin that have a minimum of 50 square miles of drainage 
 area apiece; existing storage totals approximately 2. 6 million 
 acre-feet. Sixteen Corps of Engineers flood control and 
 multiple -purpose reservoirs with approximately 531, 000 acre- 
 feet of storage have been constructed under the authority of the 
 1936 and subsequent flood control acts, at a cost of approxi- 
 mately $120 million. Three of these are in Connecticut, six 
 in Massachusetts, two in New Hampshire and five in Vermont. 
 The Flood Control Act of 1968 authorized planning for construc- 
 tion of Beaver Brook reservoir on the Ashuelot River in Keene, 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 The Corps of Engineers has constructed 15 local flood 
 protection works at a cost of $30 million along the main stem 
 and principal tributaries. The Flood Control Act of I960 
 authorized planning for local protection works on the Westfield 
 River in Massachusetts. Planning for local protection works 
 in Park River, Connecticut, was authorized by the Flood Control 
 Act of 1968. 
 
 The State of Connecticut enacted a statewide stream 
 
 5 
 
encroachment law in 1955 to preserve natural flood storage 
 by keeping designated flood plains free of obstructions. Massa- 
 chusetts has enacted legislation to control development of 
 coastal and inland wetlands. 
 
 6 
 
B. INTERPRETATION OF PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 
 
 Assumptions. The utilization of demographic and economic 
 projections to develop estimates of future water and related land 
 resource needs was guided by the following assumptions derived 
 from Senate Document 97, published in 1962: 
 
 - the timely availability of water in sufficient quantity 
 and quality to support the projected economy; 
 
 - a high or present level of national employment and 
 activity; 
 
 - no major depressions or wars; and 
 
 - a continuation of the current relative needs of the 
 civilian economy and the national defense. 
 
 General conclusions. The investigation concluded that 
 the Basin's water and related land resources are generally ade- 
 quate to meet the needs projected to 1980 and 2020 and to permit 
 the preservation of sites and open spaces needed to balance new 
 areas of growth. 
 
 Water quality. Basin residents and industries generated 
 a total liquid raw wasteload in I960 equivalent to 482, 000 pounds 
 per day of five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD ). Approxi- 
 mately 63 percent was contributed by industrial plants discharging 
 wastes directly into the waterways. Municipalities and industries 
 discharging wastes through municipal sewerage systems contributed 
 the remaining 37 percent. Future untreated wasteloads are projected 
 
 to increase to 1 . 6 million pounds per day of BOD by 2020, with 
 
 5 
 
 further concentration in the urban portions of the Basin. Approx- 
 imately one percent of the Basin's wasteload is presently removed 
 by secondary treatment. An additional 11 percent is removed by 
 primary treatment. 
 
 Rapidly increasing uncontrolled use of fertilizer, pesti- 
 cides and herbicides with resulting danger to water bodies is 
 noted as a cause for alarm. Additional solid waste problems 
 include surface runoff of farm animal and other wastes from 
 
 7 
 
rural and urban watersheds; streambank erosion; and sludge 
 deposits on reservoir bottoms. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee found that the present 
 quality of the Basin's waterways precludes or impairs their use 
 for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, public water supply, 
 and aesthetic enjoyment. The most immediate and pressing 
 need is for the construction of adequate waste treatment faci- 
 lities at all municipal and industrial waste sources. 
 
 Daily and hourly fluctuations in stream flow are caused 
 by the operation of 1 5 major power, industrial and water supply 
 impoundments on the main stem and by dams on many of the 
 tributaries, in addition to natural causes. Because of the rela- 
 tionship of stream flow to water quality, the Committee found that 
 low-flow augmentation may be considered as an alternative or 
 complementary measure to advanced treatment after construction 
 and evaluation of secondary treatment facilities in order to meet 
 water quality standards. 
 
 Power. The Basin's energy needs in 1967 were about 
 10 billion kilowatt-hours, with a peak demand of about two 
 million kilowatts. Corresponding figures for 1980 and 2020 are 
 expected to be 23 billion and 200 billion kilowatt-hours with 
 corresponding peaks of about five million kilowatts and 40 
 million kilowatts, respectively. In the New England power 
 market area, projected 2020 power needs are more than 11 
 times 1967 capacity. 
 
 The operation of hydroelectric power stations for maxi- 
 mum peaking power production greatly alters natural stream 
 flows. Response to power demands of the working day and into 
 the early evening allows for hourly flow variations, while little 
 or no flow is released throughout the balance of the day. Gene- 
 rally no flow is released over weekends when the demand for 
 recreational water use is at its peak. 
 
 Recreation. Unsatisfied recreation demand, in terms 
 of recreation days and required land and water acreage, is 
 expected to increase substantially because of increasing popu- 
 lation growth, per capita income, leisure time and mobility. 
 The unsatisfied demand for recreational land and water acreage 
 by 2020 is projected in Connecticut from 44, 000 and 22, 000 
 acres respectively to 140, 000 and 69, 000 acres; in Massachu- 
 setts from 56, 000 and 25, 000 acres to 173, 000 and 80, 000 
 
 8 
 
acres; in Vermont from 37, 000 and 13, 000 acres to 159, 000 
 and 57, 000 acres, and in New Hampshire from 42, 000 and 15, 000 
 acres to 260, 000 and 99, 000 acres respectively. Demand- supply- 
 relationships for I960, 1980, 2000 and 2020 in terms of activity 
 days per summer season are projected by sub-basin in Appendix 
 H of the Coordinating Committee report, Table H-19. 
 
 Less than four percent of Basin land is currently public- 
 ly owned. Although the Basin contains about 175 water bodies 
 of 100 to 500 acres in size, nearly two-thirds of these are 
 unavailable for recreational use because of insufficient access 
 or legislative constraints. Only 6l have public access for a 
 broad range of outdoor recreational activities. 
 
 Recreational use is permitted at certain Upper Basin 
 water supply bodies, but is extremely limited in Massachusetts 
 and Connecticut. 
 
 State parks and forests and Federal recreation areas are 
 fairly well distributed but are some distances from heavy 
 southern Basin demand centers. A large percentage of urban 
 inhabitants cannot obtain adequate transportation to outdoor 
 recreation facilities. 
 
 Preservation of sites . Outstanding ar cheological, histo- 
 rical and natural sites throughout the Basin are in danger of 
 being lost without a concerted effort to provide for their identi- 
 fication and preservation. 
 
 Anadromous and resident fisheries and wildlife. Fishing 
 and hunting demand is rapidly increasing. Projected fishing 
 demand in the Basin will equal 396, 200 fishermen and 6. 52 million 
 fisherman days by 1980, up from 1962 levels of 218, 000 fishermen 
 and 2. 63 million fisherman days. By 2020, the figures will be 
 740, 300 fishermen and 12. 62 million fisherman days. Projected 
 fishing opportunities show a major deficiency in the Middle and 
 Lower Basin. 
 
 Projected 1980 hunting demand will have increased from 
 1. 77 million man-days in I960 to 3. 1 million man-days, including 
 871, 200 man-days of latent demand in Connecticut and Massachu- 
 setts. By 2020, total man-days will reach 4. 74 million, including 
 1. 5 million man-days of latent hunting demand. If, as trends 
 
 9 
 
indicate, urban and other built-up land occupy 18 percent of the 
 Basin's land in Z020, there will be less than 1. 2 acres per man- 
 day of hunting; making no allowance for unproductive wildlife land, 
 the ratio of acres per hunter in 2020 will be 20 to 1, compared 
 with a ratio of over 53 to 1 in I960. The Committee found that 
 there is little opportunity to create more wildlife habitat. 
 
 Atlantic salmon have nearly disappeared from the Basin 
 with the loss of access to spawning grounds and severe pollution. 
 
 "Water supply. The Coordinating Committee found that 
 the Basin's water resources would be sufficient to meet the 
 foreseeable in-Basin demands for domestic and industrial water 
 supply. Municipal water supply requirements will almost quad- 
 ruple during the period 1960-2020, from 178. 6 mgd to 663. 9 rngd. 
 The 1980 projection is over half again as much as I960 consump- 
 tion. Per capita consumption is projected to increase 1. 1 gallons 
 per year through 1980 and . 9 gallons per year to 2020. Data are 
 not available which reflect the present safe yield of many muni- 
 cipal systems or a safe yield after ultimate development of the 
 existing source. A comparison of the estimated safe yields of 
 the municipal water systems and future demand in Table D~l6, 
 Appendix D, indicates that Basin municipal water systems in the 
 aggregate will be inadequate to meet future demands. 
 
 Industrial water requirements, excluding the mineral and 
 electrical industries, will rise by about 44 mgd by 1980, an 1 1 
 percent increase over I960 requirements, and by 175 mgd or 44 
 percent, over I960 requirements by 2020. The largest increase 
 in industrial demand will occur in the Lower Basin, with increases 
 in Massachusetts and Connecticut of 11.6 and 20.4 mgd respec- 
 tively. Cooling water requirements for thermal electric gene- 
 ration- -the largest but non-consumptive industrial water demand 
 in the Basin--are projected to increase from 1050 mgd in I960 to 
 6500 mgd in 2020. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee concluded that historic modes 
 of developing local water supplies would be rendered inadequate 
 in the future by the increased scale and cost of conveyance 
 required and by competitive land use pressures. In most instances, 
 Basin communities can meet anticipated demands without creation 
 of regional water supply systems. 
 
 10 
 
Navigation. Over 3. 6 million tons of waterborne commerce 
 were received between Middletown and Hartford in 1968, approx- 
 imately 99 percent of which was petroleum products. The pro- 
 jected 2020 tonnage is 11. 5 million tons. The existing commer- 
 cial navigation channel below Hartford can handle barges of 3, 000 
 tons capacity. Barges of 4, 000 tons capacity considered more 
 economical by the operators would require a channel depth of 16 
 feet with a maximum width of 250 feet between Hartford and Long 
 Island Sound. Channel excavation and maintenance would substan- 
 tially increase the average annual spoil volume of 140, 000 cubic yar 
 
 Boating activity between Long Island Sound and Hartford 
 has doubled in the past 15 years; existing peak day traffic of 
 700 boats between Old Saybrook and Hartford is expected to 
 increase to 20, 000 by 2020. In the Hartford to Holyoke area, 
 the existing peak day use of 800 boats is expected to increase to 
 2, 400 by 2020. Almost no boating development has occurred in 
 the free-flowing reaches, particularly in the Hartford to Windsor 
 Locks Canal reach, because passage generally is precluded 
 during summer weekends by low flows resulting from power dam 
 shut-downs. Navigation locks and boating passage around 
 several of the great falls above Holyoke are no longer operable. 
 
 Upstream water and related land resources management. 
 Total upstream watershed flood plain acreage is estimated at 
 59, 000 acres, of which 26, 000 are in agricultural uses; 1, 900 
 are urban; and the remaining 31, 000 acres are either in forest 
 or miscellaneous use. Average annual flood damages sustained 
 in the 141 upstream watersheds are estimated at $2. 1 million, 
 broken down between the four Basin States as follows: Vermont — 
 $0. 8 million; New Hampshire- -$0. 7 million; Mas sachusetts - -$0 . 5 
 million; and Connecticut- -$0 . 1 million. By 2020 seven watersheds 
 are anticipated to have flood problems. 
 
 Heavy demands for productive crop and pasture land by 
 other competing uses threaten the loss of desirable landscape pat- 
 terns. Crop and pasture land is projected to decline from a 
 total of 938, 000 acres in 1965 to 400, 000 acres by 1980 and 
 138, 000 acres by 2020. A total of 204, 000 acres of crop and pas- 
 ture land need land treatment measures, including measures for 
 erosion control, drainage, irrigation, and vegetation fertility 
 management. 
 
 Considerable erosion occurs on intensively cultivated soils 
 
 1 1 
 
in the Basin lowland and on steeper upland regions that are 
 not permanently" protected. Flood plain zoning and land 
 treatment measures are needed to control the effects of 
 flooding and urban expansion in the flood plains, including 
 erosion and sedimentation control, and adequate vegetation 
 cover and waterways. 
 
 Sixty-five percent of the Basin's forest land is in 
 average or better-than-average hydrologic condition, but over 
 one-third of the privately owned non-industrial forest land is 
 in poor to very poor hydrologic condition. Municipal water- 
 shed management is complicated by pressures for multiple 
 uses and by non-municipal controls over adjacent lands and 
 waters, and in some instances is non-existent. 
 
 The proclamation boundaries of the Green and White 
 Mountain National Forests encompass 445, 000 acres within 
 the Basin. Federal ownership within these boundaries is 
 over 306,000 acres, leaving 139,000 acres which have not 
 been acquired. Approximately 125, 000 acres of National 
 Forest and 110, 000 acres of State forest lands produce timber 
 below their capability because of low timber growth and 
 quality. 
 
 Flood control and flood plain management. The existing 
 natural average annual flood loss in the Basin estimated at $23. 5 
 million ($15. 9 million main stem plus $7. 6 million tributaries), 
 is projected to reach $25. 8 million by 1980. The projected 1980 
 value of the natural average annual flood loss for the 100-year 
 period 1980-2080 is $36. 1 million. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee used a hypothetical "Standard 
 Project Flood" (SPF), derived from a combination of severe 
 meteorological and hydrological conditions considered reasonably 
 characteristic of the region, to measure the Basin's flood damage 
 potential and consequent need for added protection. The possibi- 
 lity of overtopping existing protective works was found to be 
 remote. However, because the consequences of overtopping 
 would be catastrophic, the Coordinating Committee felt that the 
 lower portion or economic heart of the Basin needs additional 
 flood protection designed to SPF levels. 
 
 The first comprehensive flood damage reduction plan for 
 the Basin, approved by Congress in 1938, consisted of a system 
 
 12 
 
of 20 flood storage reservoirs with 10 alternative sites to be sup- 
 plemented by local protection works at the most important damage 
 centers. The plan provided for strategic control of the tributary- 
 drainage area of the Connecticut River above Hartford, Connecti- 
 cut, corresponding to approximately 25 percent of the watershed 
 above Hartford. This criterion was used in the design of the local 
 dikes and walls. Fourteen and eight-tenths percent of the water- 
 shed above Hartford, or ten percent less than the objective esta- 
 blished in 1938, is considered controlled by existing reservoirs. 
 The Coordinating Committee found that unless the remaining 
 strategic control (approximately an additional 10 percent of the 
 watershed above Hartford) is obtained by reservoirs, floods of 
 lesser magnitude than a SPF could overtop existing dikes and 
 walls and produce enormous damages and loss of life. 
 
 The principal flood damage centers on the main stem are 
 the Hartford-Springfield metropolitan areas. Flood problems 
 occur in communities on the tributary Passumpsic, White, Ammo- 
 noosuc, and Ashuelot river basins in New Hampshire and Vermont. 
 
 In a SPF, existing flood storage in natural flood plains 
 along the lower main stem, principally in the reaches from Middle- 
 town to the dam at Enfield, Connecticut, and from Holyoke to 
 Montague, Massachusetts, would amount to almost 800, 000 acre- 
 feet- -a volume that is almost half again as great as the total flood 
 control storage capacity of 532, 120 acre-feet available in the 
 existing Corps of Engineers flood control reservoirs. The Com- 
 mittee found that indiscriminate flood plain encroachment would 
 increase the need for artificial storage to beyond 10 percent 
 additional control of the drainage area above Hartford and would 
 more than offset protection gained by reservoirs and local 
 protection works. 
 
 Estuary. The loss of Basin coastal wetlands acreage to 
 residential, recreational and other development is reflected in 
 the decline of Connecticut's total coastal wetlands acreage from 
 23, 360 acres in 1914 to 14, 839 acres in 1964. In ten years, about 
 13 percent of the 1954 acreage was destroyed or altered so as to 
 be no longer of value as an important element in the food chain for 
 fish and wildlife. The estuary is closed to shellfish harvesting 
 because the bacteriological quality of the overlying waters exceed 
 the allowable limit. 
 
 13 
 
C. PLANNING CONCEPTS AND STRATEGY 
 
 Planning objectives. The broad planning objectives set 
 forth in Senate Document 97 have served as the basis of plan 
 formulation for the Connecticut River investigation since its author- 
 ization in May, 1962, when Senate Document 97 was adopted. The 
 basic objective is to provide the best use, or combination of uses, 
 of water and related land resources to meet all foreseeable short- 
 and long-term needs. Subsidiary multiple objectives were refined 
 during the course of this and the concurrent North Atlantic Regional 
 water resources study. These were national efficiency, regional 
 development, and environmental quality. National objectives to be 
 considered in water and related land use planning were broadened 
 by the enactment of several new measures since 1962, principally 
 the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 and the 
 Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. 
 
 Strategy. The Coordinating Committee report notes that 
 the Basin economy is not dependent on water and other natural 
 resources to the same degree that it once was and that other regions 
 are now. Rather, a sampling of Basin residents revealed that its 
 high quality environment attracts them to the Basin. The report 
 also notes that any improvement in the quality of the Basin environ- 
 ment would make the Basin more attractive to important industrial 
 and commercial activities; the location of a national firm in any of 
 the Basin's smaller towns would have a far more pronounced im- 
 pact on the area's economy than, for example, a new water body 
 for recreation. A third factor noted is increasing pressure on 
 existing public land holdings in the Upper Basin, resulting from 
 increasing per capita recreation participation. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee's strategy for achieving the 
 multiple objectives consists of the following three elements: 
 
 - provision of additional opportunities for resource 
 utilization by an expanding population; 
 
 - provision of incentives for private investments; and 
 
 - provision of additional public lands, improved public 
 access and new reservoirs for recreation to strengthen 
 the economic base in the Upper Basin. 
 
 14 
 
Evaluation of alternatives: benefit-cost analysis. An 
 evaluation was made of the contribution of each Early Action Plan 
 component to the Plan's net benefits. Benefits were defined, in 
 accordance with Senate Document 97, as net gains in the value of 
 goods and services resulting from conditions with the project 
 compared with conditions without the project. Benefits were 
 measured from 1980 throughout the life of the project. Future 
 benefits were reduced to present worth and converted to an 
 annual value at a discount of 4 7/8 percent. * Evaluations incor- 
 porated tangible and intangible costs. Emphasis was placed on 
 quantitatively meeting 1980 needs. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee noted that in view of changing 
 public attitudes toward the objectives of economic development 
 and environmental quality, programs will have to be broadened 
 and financial obligations reassessed, with less reliance given 
 to benefit-cost ratios. 
 
 *Recomputations of reservoir and local flood protection works 
 benefits at an adjusted discount rate for fiscal year 1972 are 
 contained in Appendix A. 
 
 15 
 
D. 1980 EARLY ACTION PLAN 
 
 The following pages 17-30 contain a reproduction of chapter 
 VIII, pages 1-14, of the Coordinating Committee Main Report 
 summarizing the Coordinating Committee's 1980 Early Action Plan. 
 
 16 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 COORDINATED BASIN PLAN 
 
 Section I - The 1980 Early Action Plan 
 
 The 1980 Early-Action Plan has given much attention to a balance 
 of projects that adress themselves to five principal programs and as 
 follows : 
 
 I Restoration 
 
 II Preservation 
 
 III Conservation Management 
 
 IV Development and Management 
 
 V Utilization and Management 
 
 The basin plan also presents a balance between programs that 
 are structural in character, such as dams, treatment plants, walls, 
 sewer lines, etc. , and elements that are non- structural in character, 
 such as land acquisition, easements, purchase of open space for aes- 
 thetic reasons, trails and other controls to assist in the management 
 of water uses. The basin plan includes elements that would be accom- 
 plished through on-going Federal agency programs as well as State 
 agency programs, together with projects that could be accomplished by 
 the individual local municipality. 
 
 This Section presents a summary of the Early-Action Plan. It 
 also presents a summary of the Long Range Plan which would address 
 itself to meeting needs through the end of the projection period year 
 2020. Emphasis was placed on quantitatively meeting the needs and 
 goals of the 1980 time frame. These can be accomplished by the intro- 
 duction of non- structural measures, principally in the areas of preser- 
 vation and by areas where management or reallocation of resources 
 would obtain for us greater utilization of those existing projects cur- 
 rently in the basin, be they Federal, State or other. Structural 
 measures for all areas of the water resource categories are also pro- 
 vided. 
 
 THE 1980 EARLY - ACTION PLAN 
 
 1. Non- structural Measures 
 
 A. Areas of Preservation, Conservation and Utilization 
 
 (1) Nearly 600 sites of ar cheological importance and more 
 than 250 sites of either natural resource or historical importance have 
 
 17 
 
been referenced in Appendix O. The Committee recommends that local 
 interests, working closely with the State, and with assistance of on-going 
 Federal programs take the initiative in preserving these areas for future 
 generations . 
 
 (2) The acquisition of 69,300 acres of land within the National 
 Forest proclamation boundaries, 4,300 acres in the White Mountain 
 National Forest, and 65,000 acres in the Green Mountain National 
 Forest is recommended for Federal action as delineated in Appendix 
 F. 
 
 (3) To prevent further encroachment and reduce future damage 
 zoning of flood plains along over 200 miles of the main stem of the Con- 
 necticut River from Saybrook, Connecticut to above White River Junc- 
 tion, Vermont is recommended and this action is to be coordinated with 
 (4) and (5) below and is referenced in Appendix M. 
 
 (4) Creation of a basin wide scenic river program to preserve, 
 protect and enhance those reaches of river identified as Wild, Scenic 
 or Recreational is recommended. Statewide action programs will be 
 required to implement this scenic river proposal; and in this regard, 
 priorities for stream acquisition and management consideration by 
 sub-basin include all or part of the following tributaries: 
 
 Sub -basin I 
 
 Sub-basin III 
 
 1 . Indian Stream 
 
 2. Upper Ammonoosuc River 
 3 . Nash Stream 
 
 4. Phillips Brook 
 
 5 . Ammonoosuc River 
 
 Sub -basin II 
 
 1 . Nulhegan River 
 
 2 . Paul Stream 
 3 . Moose River 
 
 4. Wells River 
 
 5. Waits River 
 
 6. Ompompanoosuc River 
 
 1 . Cold River 
 
 2. Ashuelot River 
 
 Sub -basin IV 
 
 1. White River 
 
 2. Ottauquechee River 
 
 3. Williams River 
 
 4. West River 
 
 Sub-basin V 
 
 1 . Millers River 
 
 2 . Tully River 
 
 3. Deerfield River 
 
 18 
 
Sub-basin V (cont'd) 
 
 Sub-basin VI 
 
 4. Sawmill River 
 
 5 . Ware River 
 
 6. Swift River (Chicopee) 
 
 7. Westfield River 
 
 8. Clam River 
 
 1 . Scantic River 
 
 2. Farmington River 
 
 3 . Sandy Brook 
 
 4. Podunk River 
 
 5 . Park River 
 
 6 . Hockanum River 
 
 7. Ketch Brook 
 
 8. Salmon River 
 
 9. Dickinson Creek 
 10. Fawn Brook 
 
 Details concerning the above 35 tributaries may be found in Appen- 
 dix H, and are shown on Plate K-17. 
 
 (5) The Committee recommends that streambank acquisition 
 necessary to assure public access to basin fishery resources should be 
 coordinated with items (3) and (4) above. 
 
 (6) To maintain aesthetic quality and to provide access and uti- 
 
 lization, the establishment of a three -unit National Recreation Area in 
 the Connecticut River Basin generally as described in the recommenda- 
 tions of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's "New England Heritage" is 
 recommended and reported as follows: 
 
 (a) Federal action is required for the establishment of a three- 
 unit National Recreation Area of 56,700 acres providing for: 
 
 - Gateway Unit, Connecticut, 23,500 acres 
 
 - Mount Holyoke Unit, Massachusetts, 12,000 acres 
 
 - Coos Scenic River Unit, New Hampshire and Vermont 
 21,200 acres 
 
 In addition, a 300 -mile long Connecticut Valley Trail and a Con- 
 
 necticut Valley Tourway designed about existing roads to historic, scenic 
 educational, industrial, archeologic and geologic points of interest, and 
 to be a Federal-State-local cooperative effort. 
 
 19 
 
(b) State action is required to complement the three-unit 
 National Recreation Area by accomplishing the following: 
 
 - Gateway Unit: Cockaponset State Forest - 
 expand existing holdings to form a contigu- 
 ous 18,300-acre State forest. 
 
 - Mount Holyoke Unit: Mount Tom State Park - 
 expand existing Mount Tom State Reservation 
 adjacent to Mount Holyoke Unit to form a 
 4,800-acre State park. 
 
 - Coos Scenic River Unit: Connecticut Lakes 
 State Park - enlarge existing holdings to 
 create a 14,000-acre State Park at the north- 
 ern end of the Coos Scenic River Unit. 
 
 - Moore -Comerford Interstate Park - joint 
 development with private power company 
 of lands surrounding Moore and Comerford 
 Reservoirs to form a 15,400-acre Interstate 
 Park. 
 
 (c) In addition, other State action is suggested for the es- 
 tablishment of 
 
 - Glastonbury Meadow State Park - 4,400 acres, 
 and Windsor Locks-King's Island State Park - 
 250 acres, all in Connecticut 
 
 - Turners Falls - Northfield Mountain State Park - 
 31,000 acres, joint State -private power de- 
 velopment, utilizing existing State lands and 
 acquisition in Massachusetts 
 
 - Rogers' Rangers Historic Riverway - 27,500 
 seres in New Hampshire and Vermont. 
 
 Further details of the above program may be found in Appendix 
 H and are depicted on Plate 1, Corr prehensive Plan of Development. 
 
 20 
 
B . Areas Where Improved Management of Existing Re- 
 
 sources Can Help Meet 1980 Need s 
 
 The following items lie largely in the local-State areas 
 of responsibility and interest except for the instances of Federal 
 regulatory controls as exercised by licenses. 
 
 (1) Re - regulation of flows at existing impoundments to 
 provide adequate minimum releases. At four power projects on the 
 main stem of the Connecticut River, namely Wilder, Bellows Falls, 
 Vernon, and Turners Falls, which are currently up for relicense, a 
 minimum release of 0 . 2 cubic feet per second per square mile of 
 drainage area is required. (Reference Appendix Q, Report of Sub- 
 committee on Stream Regulation.) 
 
 (2) Continued environmental studies into the feasibility 
 of using water supply impoundments to assist in meeting large re- 
 creational and fisheries needs as referenced in Appendix D, G, and 
 H. The public health consequences of such action are discussed in 
 Appendix R . 
 
 (3) Water quality studies are needed in the areas of 
 storm and sanitary sewer separation; control or elimination of 
 sludge deposits in reservoirs; and excessive run-off and sediment 
 from agricultural and urban areas. Details on this requirement are 
 referenced in Appendix Q, Report of Water Quality Subcommittee. 
 
 (4) Land treatment measures on 204,000 acres of crop 
 and pasture land, 823,000 acres of private non-industrial forest 
 
 land, 64,000 acres of National Forest lands, and watershed analysis on 
 306,600 acres of National Forest land and fish and wildlife surveys 
 and analysis on 30,500 acres of National Forest land, as referenced 
 in Appendix F . 
 
 (5) Acceleration of planning assistance to 180 towns in 
 preparation of resource inventories, town soil reports and interpre- 
 tations, and flood plain information studies. In addition, soil survey 
 programs, involving 1.5 million acres of non-Federal lands, as 
 referenced in Appendix F. 
 
 (6) Improved operation of flood control reservoirs. In 
 this regard the New England Division, Corps of Engineers has estab- 
 lished a computerized network of remote river stage data stations . 
 These are mainly composed of river gaging stations operated and 
 maintained by the United .States Geologic Survey in cooperation 
 
 with varopis States, and in some cases with the Corps of Engineers. 
 This computerized network has been established in five major New 
 
 21 
 
England river basins, one of which is the Connecticut. This network 
 reports hydrologic data such as rainfall, river stages and tidal ele- 
 vations from index locations on important rivers and streams, and 
 in the tidal areas for a more timely and efficient operation of exist- 
 ing flood control reservoirs. The automatic hydrologic radio re- 
 porting network consists of 41 remote reporting stations, 5 record- 
 ing stations, and a central control station at Division Headauarters 
 plus 12 repeater and 4 relay sites. 
 
 The network, under computer program control, will immediate- 
 ly provide read-out information which is essential for flood regu- 
 lation, to the Reservoir Control Center at Waltham. The report- 
 ing stations are radio-operated with principal power source supplied 
 by batteries. The recording stations can receive data from the cen- 
 tral control station, or individual reporting stations. The central 
 control station at Waltham consists of an interface between the radio 
 equipment and the computer. It will automatically interrogate the en- 
 tire network or individual stations at selected time intervals and pro- 
 vide a complete print-out in three minutes. The hydrologic network 
 has a capability of receiving technical data required for operation of 
 other water resource purposes, such as low flow augmentation, re- 
 creation, water supply, navigation, and fishery enhancement. The 
 network can be expanded to 100 stations. 
 
 Although the hydro-net system will operate continuously, its 
 prime mission will be to focus on actual or expected flood situations. 
 Data received is closely scrutinized and added to information received 
 from the Corps' flood control reservoirs and other sources, such as 
 the Weather Bureau at Boston and the River Forecasting Center at 
 Hartford. Decisions are then made for operation of dams and instruc- 
 tions are radioed to operating field personnel. 
 
 (7) The Weather Bureau River Forecast Center at Hart- 
 ford now provides flood forecasting service for the Connecticut River 
 Basin. This service consists of stage and flow forecasts for the 
 principal points along the main stem and its tributaries. Improve- 
 ment and expansion of this system will be required in order to meet 
 the needs for more detailed and accurate forecasts. Although fore- 
 casts are indispensable in saving lives and reducing property damage 
 during floods, it is quite likely that detailed, continuous flow forecasts 
 will prove to be even more valuable. All of the water resources 
 management programs planned for the Connecticut River Basin - flood 
 control, navigation, water supply, power, fish and wildlife , and even 
 
 22 
 
recreation - will be more effective and more efficient when the de- 
 cision makers have at their disposal a complete and accurate pre- 
 diction of the behavior of the streams . 
 
 In order to achieve this degree of sophistication in streamflow 
 forecasting, automated, detailed, real-time data on precipitation and 
 river stages and current, and predicted reservoir releases must be 
 available as input parameters. The Corps of Engineers network des- 
 cribed above, as well as information from satellites and radars will 
 be utilized in the complex reporting network. In addition, the fore- 
 casting computations will be made by computer programs. It is also 
 anticipated that the dissemination of the forecasts to the users will 
 be by means of data-links or other high-speed devices. 
 
 (8) Programs to inform the public of the availability of 
 flood plain insurance and flood fighting. 
 
 (9) There is need to greatly expand current water 
 quality monitoring and particularly at a time when so much interest 
 and concern are being evidenced by the public for environmental 
 quality. In order to know the effect which new improvements will 
 have, one must have proper knowledge of what is available currently 
 and, in many cases, gage control stations are not broad enough to 
 deliver the types of data that are necessary to construct a basic pro- 
 file of the river's environment. 
 
 The use of more sophisticated monitoring equipment at those 
 sampling stations maintained by Federal and State agencies as 
 well as at the additional stations proposed by the Subcommittee 
 on Water Quality will allow for broader surveillance of the rivers' 
 environmental condition. On going programs of many of the Feder- 
 al agencies include water quality monitoring at resource facilities. 
 For example, the Corps of Engineers regularly samples the inflows, 
 outflows and the ponded water at its water storage projects. These 
 samples are analyzed at its Barre Falls Dam field laboratory and 
 the collected data are used to improve reservoir regulation for the 
 enhancement of water quality both in the reservoir and in down- 
 stream reaches. 
 
 2 . Structural Measures 
 
 In order to meet the needs determined as part of the compre- 
 hensive study it will be necessary to install considerable structural 
 measures. A summary of these more important structural measures 
 is detailed as follows: 
 
 23 
 
(a) Public and private construction of those waste treat- 
 ment facilities required to meet approved State water quality stand- 
 ards in the basin as delineated in Appendix O. The estimated cost 
 of providing secondary treatment to point source pollution loadings 
 in the basin, by State, is shown in Figure VTH-1 both for the 1980 
 Early Action Plan and to fulfill the potential 2020 needs. 
 
 (b) Expansion of the existing basin power supply system by 
 private or municipal utilities to meet those power demands which will 
 be allocated to the Connecticut River Basin, as discussed in Appendix L 
 
 (c) Construction of seven major reservoirs in which flood 
 control is a prime purpose. Included is one project currently in the 
 design stage, Beaver Brook on the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. 
 Of the remaining six reservoirs, two, Victory on the Moose River 
 and Gaysville on the White River, are in Vermont; three, Bethlehem, 
 Claremont and Honey Hill on the Ashuelot River, are in New Hamp- 
 shire; and Meadow is in Massachusetts on the Deerfield River. Per- 
 tinent data on these projects are reported in Table K-40 and their loca- 
 tions are shown on Plate K-2. 
 
 (d) Three other major reservoirs are included in the Early 
 Action Plan. They are Gardner on the Otter River in the Millers River 
 Basin, Massachusetts; Blackledge in the Salmon River Basin and Cole- 
 brook in the Roaring Brook Basin, Connecticut. Even though they 
 would be constructed for purposes other than flood control, they would 
 have some effect in reducing run-off s . Generally, pool levels would 
 
 be lowered somewhat during or after late fall to allow heavy spring 
 rains to be controlled and stored. Essentially, two of the projects, 
 namely Colebrook'and Blackledge are required for the enhancement 
 of fisheries and the restoration of the anadromous program in both of 
 the tributaries where these structures are located. In the instance 
 of the Gardner project, this particular proposal is necessary as an 
 alternate means of meeting established State standards. The Gard- 
 ner project was found to be more economical than advanced or ter- 
 tiary treatment. In addition, it would provide for other multiple use 
 purposes . 
 
 (e) Included in the plan are the modification of four exist- 
 ing Corps of Engineers' flood control dams by the incorporation 
 through modification and reservoir regulation of permanent pools to 
 include allied purposes of recreation, fish and wildlife, and water 
 supply. The projects are discussed in detail in Appendix M. 
 *Also referred to in this report as "Cold Brook". 
 
 24 
 
- Knightville Dam on the Westfield River in Massachusetts, 
 modifications to include a conservation pool for recreation 
 and low flow augmentation to enhance fisheries. 
 
 - Union Village Dam on the Ompompanoosuc River in Vermont 
 and contingent upon the solution to an existing water quality 
 problem on the West Branch of the river would be operated 
 to provide a conservation pool for recreation. 
 
 - Tully Dam on the Millers River in Massachusetts, modifi- 
 cations to divert water supply as part of a flood skimming 
 operation and to establish a conservation pool for recrea- 
 tion . 
 
 - Barre Falls Dam and Reservoir on the Ware River in Massa- 
 chusetts, contingent on solution to current water quality prob- 
 lem, could be operated to provide low flow augmentation dur- 
 ing the summer months . 
 
 (f) Local flood protection projects at five locations in the 
 basin are referenced in Appendix M, and were found necessary to com- 
 plement other flood control measures in the basin plan. These are as 
 follows: 
 
 (1) Westfield, Massachusetts - improvements to provide 
 for 45,000 linear feet of earth dikes, about 1,500 feet of concrete 
 floodwalls, two pumping stations, and 16,000 linear feet of channel 
 improvement on the Little and Westfield Rivers . 
 
 (2) Lancaster, New Hampshire - a small ice retention 
 dam and reservoir on the Israel River about one and one-half miles 
 upstream of its mouth, together with 2,800 linear feet of channel 
 improvement . 
 
 (3) Hartford, Vermont - improvements of ice jam flood- 
 ing by excavation of reach for 3,000 linear feet of the White River 
 from the vicinity of Hartford Bridge to the mouth. 
 
 (4) St. Johnsbury, Vermont - flood control improve- 
 ments provide for 1,200 linear feet of protective earth dike and con- 
 crete floodwall, a railroad gate structure, and a pumping station 
 located along the Passumpsic River. 
 
 (5) Park River, Connecticut - flood control improve- 
 ments provide for 12,816 linear feet of conduit with headwall and 
 pumping structure along the Park River in Hartford, Connecticut. 
 
 26 
 
(g) Seventeen upstream watershed projects as referenced 
 in Appendix F. These local projects would include 78 floodwater 
 retarding structures of which 60 would be multiple -purpose . Eight 
 projects, currently authorized for planning under Public Law 83- 
 566, as amended, are as follows: 
 
 (1) West Branch, Westfield River Project, Massachu- 
 setts, comprised of 95 square miles of drainage area with 11 storage 
 sites retained for flood prevention. Approximately 10,150 acre-feet 
 of storage are being considered for recreation and fish and wildlife. 
 
 (2) Upper Quaboag River (supplement project) , Massa- 
 chusetts, comprised of 147.4 square miles of drainage area with 5 
 storage sites planned for flood prevention. Also being considered 
 as part of the project are 3,900 acre-feet of storage for recreation, 
 water quality and water supply. 
 
 (3) Wells River Project, Vermont, comprised of 99.7 
 square miles of drainage area with 6 storage sites planned for flood 
 prevention. Approximately 7,300 acre-feet of storage for recreation 
 is also being considered as part of the project. 
 
 (4) Sugar River Project, New Hampshire, comprised of 
 275 square miles of drainage area with 10 storage sites planned for 
 flood prevention. Also being considered as part of the project for re- 
 creational use are 15,400 acre-feet of storage. 
 
 (5) Blow-Me-Down Brook Project, New Hampshire , com- 
 prised of 28.3 square miles of drainage area with 4 storage sites 
 planned for flood prevention. Approximately 700 acre-feet for recrea- 
 tion is also to be considered a part of the project. 
 
 (6) Indian-Mascoma River Project, New Hampshire, com- 
 prised of 133.6 square miles of drainage area with 7 storage sites 
 planned for flood prevention. About 23,000 acre-feet of storage for 
 recreational use is also being considered a part of the project. 
 
 (7) Gale River Project, New Hampshire, comprised of 
 91 square miles of drainage area with 2 storage sites planned for 
 flood prevention. Also being considered are 660 acre-feet of stor- 
 age for recreational use. 
 
 27 
 
(8) Indian Brook Project, New Hampshire , comprised 
 of 2 . 2 square miles of drainage area with 1 storage site for flood 
 prevention. Also 780 acre-feet of storage for recreational use is 
 being considered. 
 
 Nine potential watershed projects are: 
 
 (1) Mill River Project, Massachusetts, comprised of 
 59 square miles of drainage area with 3 storage sites for flood pre- 
 vention. Included is 3,800 acre-feet of storage for recreation and 
 water supply. 
 
 (2) East Branch, North River Project, Vermont, com- 
 prised of 39 square miles of drainage area with 1 flood prevention 
 site which include 1,600 acre-feet of storage for recreation and 
 fish and wildlife use. 
 
 (3) North Branch, Deerfield River Project, Vermont, 
 comprised of 50 square miles of drainage area with 5 storage sites 
 for flood prevention. Included are 2,700 acre-feet of storage for 
 recreation and fish and wildlife. 
 
 (4) Whetstone Project, Vermont, comprised of 28 
 square miles of drainage area with 5 storage sites for flood preven- 
 tion. Included are 5,600 acre-feet of storage for recreation and 
 fish and wildlife. 
 
 (5) Bali Mountain Brook Project, Vermont comprised 
 of 35 square miles of drainage area with 2 sites for flood preven- 
 tion. Included are 4,000 acre-feet of storage for recreation and 
 fish and wildlife. 
 
 (6) Black River Project, Vermont, comprised of 195 
 square miles of drainage area with 3 sites for flood prevention. 
 
 (7) Pas sumpsic -Moose Rivers Project, Vermont, com- 
 prised of 374 square miles of drainage area with 8 sites for flood 
 prevention. Included are 13,300 acre-feet of storage for recrea- 
 tion and fish and wildlife. 
 
 (8) Upper Ammonoosuc River Project, New Hampshire 
 comprised of 254 square miles of drainage area with 3 sites for 
 flood prevention. Included are 43,200 acre-feet of storage for re- 
 creation, water quality and water supply. 
 
 28 
 
(9) Mohawk River Project, New Hampshire, comprised 
 of 56 square miles of drainage area with 2 sites for flood prevention. 
 Included are 10,000 acre-feet of storage for recreation. 
 
 (h) Completion under Public Law 89-796 of four resource 
 conservation and development projects having substantial land areas 
 within the basin (referenced in Appendix F), as follows:* 
 
 (1) North Country Resource, Conservation and Develop- 
 ment Project comprised 1,201,700 acres in Coos, Grafton, and 
 Carroll Counties of New Hampshire. 
 
 (2) East Central Vermont Resource, Conservation, and 
 Development Project encompassing 23 towns in parts of Orange, Wind- 
 sor, Rutland, and Addison Counties. 
 
 (3) Berkshire-Franklin Resource, Conservation and De- 
 velopment Project, with some 600,000 acres included in the basin in 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 (4) Eastern Connecticut Resource , Conservation, and De- 
 velopment Project including 26,000 acres in Tolland and New London 
 Counties. 
 
 (i) Other select upstream impoundments, for purposes other 
 than flood control; 118 dam sites in total as referenced in Appendix 
 F. 
 
 These 118 sites would have a total storage capacity of 
 463,000 acre-feet, of which 68,000 acre-feet would be for floodwater 
 and sediment, 156,000 acre-feet for recreation, 111,000 acre-feet 
 for fish and wildlife, 108,000 acre-feet for low flow augmentation, 
 and 20,000 acre-feet for public water supply. A total of 18,200 
 acres of water surface area and flow augmentation benefiting 467 
 miles of downstream fishery would result from these impoundments. 
 
 (j) Structural developments on National Forests lands (ref- 
 erenced in Appendix F), as follows: recreation facilities on 555 
 acres; recreational impoundments amounting to 310 surface acres; 
 255 miles of roads and trails; 37 fire control heliports; 37 acres 
 of fish and wildlife improvements . 
 
 (k) Navigation improvements are needed and are described 
 in Appendix L. They provide for: 
 
 *See page S-6 for a statement of this recommendation corrected by the 
 U. S. Soil Conservation Service.,,^ 
 
(1) Deepening and widening the present commercial 
 navigation project from Saybrook Light to Hartford, Connecticut. 
 
 (2) Construction of a 32 -mile recreational navigation 
 project from Hartford, Connecticut to the vicinity of the Williman- 
 sett Highway Bridge below Holyoke , Massachusetts. 
 
 (3) Recreational navigation improvements on the main 
 stem of the Connecticut River behind the Holyoke, Turners Falls, 
 Vernon, and Bellows Falls power dams. 
 
 (1) Construction of fish hatcheries, as well as fish ladders 
 to meet requirements of resident and anadromous restoration pro- 
 grams . 
 
 SUMMARY 
 THE 1980 EARLY ACTION PLAN 
 1. Non-Structural Category 2. Structural Category 
 
 Preservation, Conservation 
 
 (a) 
 
 Waste ireatment Plants 
 
 and 
 
 Utilization 
 
 (b) 
 
 Expand Existing Power 
 
 (1) 
 
 Historical and Archeolo- 
 
 (c) 
 
 Construct 7 Major 
 
 
 gical 
 
 
 Dams (F . C . ) 
 
 (2) 
 
 Forested Land 
 
 (d) 
 
 3 Other Large Dams 
 
 (3) 
 
 Flood Plain Zoning 
 
 (e) 
 
 Modification at 4 Corps 
 
 (4) 
 
 Scenic River (35) 
 
 
 Dams 
 
 (5) 
 
 Streambank Acquisition 
 
 (f) 
 
 Local Protection at 5 
 
 (6) 
 
 BOR Plan, Fed -State 
 
 
 Areas 
 
 
 
 (g) 
 
 17 Upstream Watershed 
 
 Improved Management 
 
 
 Proj ects 
 
 
 
 (h) 
 
 4 RC & D Projects (see p. 29) 
 
 (1) 
 
 Re - regulation 
 
 (i) 
 
 118 Upstream Sites 
 
 (2) 
 
 Use of Water Supply Bodies 
 
 (j) 
 
 Improvements on National 
 
 
 for Recreation 
 
 
 Forest Lands 
 
 (3) 
 
 Water Quality - 5 Areas 
 
 (k) 
 
 Navigation - 3 Projects 
 
 (4) 
 
 Land Treatment Measures 
 
 (1) 
 
 Fish Hatcheries and 
 
 (5) 
 
 Technical Planning 
 
 
 Ladders 
 
 
 Assistance 
 
 
 
 (6) 
 
 Improvement and Expansion 
 
 
 
 
 of Flood Warning System 
 
 
 
 (7) 
 
 Flood Plain Insurance and 
 
 
 
 
 Flood Fighting 
 
 
 
 (8) 
 
 Water Quality Monitoring 
 
 
 
 
 Programs 
 
 
 
 30 
 
Costs. The total cost of the Early Action Plan including 
 private investment in power production is estimated at $1.8 
 billion, allocated by purpose as follows: 
 
 water quality 
 
 power 
 
 recreation 
 
 preservation of sites 
 anadromous fisheries 
 
 $259 million 
 $700 million 
 $253 million 
 
 (estimate not possible) 
 
 restoration 
 resident fish and wildlife 
 water supply 
 navigation 
 
 upstream watershed and 
 
 $29 million 
 $ 65 million 
 $207 million 
 $ 12 million 
 
 related land management 
 flood control 
 
 $ 84 million 
 $173 million 
 $1. 8 billion 
 
 Implementation . The Coordinating Committee recom 
 
 mended: 
 
 - that the Early Action Plan be accepted and used as a 
 guide for the development and beneficial use of the 
 water and related land resources of the Connecticut 
 River Basin; 
 
 - that its report be used as a supporting document for 
 the individual agency reports which would be the basis 
 for authorization of the various parts of the plan, with 
 particular reference to areas where Federal cost 
 sharing requires Congressional authorization; 
 
 - that there be established within the New England River 
 Basins Commis sion aConnecticut River Basin Program 
 to coordinate planning in the interest of a balanced 
 management of water and related land resources; and 
 
 - that a program be initiated to make the public more 
 effective participants in the planning process. 
 
 Ear l y Action Plan p riorities and schedule. The Coordi- 
 
 nating Committee recommended as a minimum that all current 
 needs be met and at least 50 percent of all 1980 projected needs. 
 Emphasis was placed on investments intended to restore severely 
 
 31 
 
violated natural resources and on land acquisition intended to 
 prevent competing uses from precluding needed future develop- 
 ment. It was recommended that the following measures be 
 undertaken first: water quality improvement; land acquisition-- 
 particularly acquisition of proposed reservoir sites; flood 
 control; emergency flood control planning; and flood plain 
 zoning. 
 
 32 
 
33 
 
E. 2020 LONG RANGE PLAN 
 
 The following pages 35-40 contain a reproduction of chapter 
 VIII, pages 40-45, of the Coordinating Committee Main Report 
 summarizing the Coordinating Committee's 2020 Long Range Plan. 
 
 34 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 Section 4 - The 2020 Long Range Plan 
 
 The "Long-Range Plan" presents an identification of potential 
 means for meeting needs of the 2020 time period. These potentials 
 ■would be studied in more detail and brought to the attention of local 
 interests some time after 1980 or as the long-range needs appear to 
 materialize. Future studies or technological innovations may indicate 
 needs other than those identified below that would warrant consider- 
 ations. 
 
 Several of the elements in the 2020 Plan are extension or expan- 
 sions of those found in the Early Action 1980 Plan. 
 
 1. Non- structural Measures 
 
 A. Areas of Preservation, Conservation and Utilization 
 
 (1) As population expands a more concerted government 
 and private effort will be needed to preserve sites of archeological, 
 historical or natural importance. 
 
 (2) There should be a continuing expansion of flood plain 
 management programs particularly on tributaries to the Connecticut 
 River, to prevent further encroachment on flood prone areas and reduce 
 future damage. 
 
 (3) As programs are established in regard to early 
 action recommendations for recreation resources, and as other pub- 
 lic and private actions develop, basin's resources and the region's 
 socio-economic characteristics will change. A continual program 
 should be established to facilitate early action recommendations to 
 monitor basin resources and socio-economic characteristics and to 
 establish new priorities. 
 
 (4) The Streambank acquisition program necessary to 
 assure increased public access to the basin's fishery and recreation- 
 al resources, will need to be expanded to other tributary areas as 
 determined by future studies. 
 
 B. Areas Where Improved Management of Existing Resources 
 Can Help Meet 2020 Needs 
 
 (1) Re-regulation - All power of each utility in the Basin 
 should be included under a single license. A minimum flow formula, 
 
 35 
 
such as the 0. 20 cfs per square miles of drainage recommended in 
 the Early Action Plan, should be applied through appropriate proced- 
 ures to all power storage and generation projects in the Connecticut 
 Fiver, with provisions of periodic review and adjustment. Under 
 this review procedure, the advisability of reallocation of existing 
 storage to other purposes should be considered. This is particularly 
 relevant to existing power storage reservoirs if conventional hydro- 
 electric generation becomes outmoded or otherwise discontinued. 
 (Reference Appendix Q - Report of the Stream Regulation Subcommittee) 
 
 (2) Land Treatment and Management - Land treatment 
 for target year 2020 will be needed on an additional 3. 6 million acres 
 composed of 50, 000 acres of crop and pasture; 3. 4 million acres of 
 private, non- industrial forest land; and 150, 000 acres of urban and 
 other land. (Reference Appendix F. ) 
 
 (3) Land Resource Planning - By target year 2020, soil 
 surveys need to be completed on an additional 3 million acres and an 
 additional 188 towns in the basin will need assistance in resource 
 planning (Reference Appendix F. ) 
 
 (4) Water Quality - Additional and continuing assess- 
 ments are needed in the areas of combined sewer and storm water 
 overflows, as well as eutrophication, sludge deposits, pesticides, land 
 drainage and erosion. 
 
 Incentives and regulations should be initiated to encour- 
 age redesign of present plant processes, recovery processes, pre- 
 treatment measures and land use practices that could substantially 
 reduce the volume of effluent and the effect of discharged wastes. 
 
 (5) Water Quality Monitoring Programs - As the popu- 
 lation and need for water supply increases, there will be a continuing 
 need to expand water quality monitoring programs, particularly as 
 less desirable watersheds are utilized. Ideally, cooperative monitor- 
 ing programs including local, State, academic and Federal agencies 
 involved in water quality monitoring should be undertaken in order to 
 minimize duplication of effort, to take advantage of special capabilities, 
 and to reduce cost. 
 
 2. Structural Measures 
 
 A. Water Quality 
 
 Under the presures of future population and industrial 
 expansion, abatement of pollution and the control of its effects must 
 
 36 
 
receive continuing evaluation. Facilities will have to be enlarged and 
 controls above basic secondary treatment will likely be required in 
 certain areas of the basin if water quality standards are to be main- 
 tained. Regional treatment facilities should also be considered. As 
 noted in Appendix D, the capital cost of providing basic minimum sec- 
 ondary water pollution control facilities sized to meet the 2020 pro- 
 jected waste load is estimated at $321 million and does not include 
 operation and maintenance charges, nor the construction cost of in- 
 terceptors, pumping stations and collection systems. 
 
 Controls above secondary treatment, through complementary 
 actions, including advanced waste treatment and/ or flow augmentation, 
 are available and could be provided to assure desirable basin develop- 
 ment. In the absence of other supplemental measures, the capital cost 
 of providing advanced waste treatment for the year 2020 is estimated at 
 slightly over $54 million. Of particular note is that the present worth 
 of operation and maintenance for advanced waste treatment computed 
 on a 25-year life of project would cost $111 million. 
 
 As the total impact of the planned treatment program on water 
 quality is felt, problem areas that may emerge will be corrected in the 
 light of future growth patterns and technology on a case by case basis. 
 In addition, new water quality advances will be initiated. The process 
 is likely to be a continuing one requiring periodic re-evaluation of the 
 standards; further technical investigations on such matters as combined 
 sewers, overland drainage controls and further treatment arrangements; 
 and a constant awareness of the close relationship between water quality, 
 water use and land use. 
 
 B. Power 
 
 Assuming a similar rate of growth as the New England 
 power market, basin energy requirements may be expected to climb 
 from 23 billion kilowatt hours in 1980, to 200 billion kilowatt hours in 
 2020. Corresponding capacity needs would increase from 5 million kilo- 
 watts in 1980 to 42 million kilowatts in 2020. On this basis, it is esti- 
 mated that Basin demands in 2020 will be more than the basin available 
 economic supply. 
 
 If present trends continue then 2020 power needs will likely 
 be met, in large part, by nuclear-fueled base load plants and pumped 
 storage peaking plants. Fossil-steam output would decline until the 
 turn of the century, while conventional hydroelectric generation 
 
 37 
 
would increase moderately. While the general location of fossil and 
 nuclear steam units is fairly well defined in the basin through 1990, 
 beyond that time siting becomes very speculative. At this time, how - 
 ever, it seems that the larger baseload plants of the future will most 
 likely be developed on the main stem of major waterways, the estuary 
 reaches of major streams, on the shores of large inland water bodies 
 or along the coast. 
 
 Appendix I lists 25 conventional hydroelectric units which 
 have potential for future development, as well as 10 pumped storage 
 sites which could be used to meet future peak power demands. 
 
 C. Water Supply 
 
 Future demands will likely necessitate the development and 
 use of water supply resources not hitherto utilized. Because of the 
 generous yield from the basin's streams and aquifers, no serious prob- 
 lems with respect to future demand are anticipated. Direct stream 
 withdrawal with necessary treatment, may be used in areas where 
 groundwater or reservoir sources are not competitive or available. 
 
 In some cases, the growth of certain municipalities may 
 be curtailed where the pattern of local water supply systems continues 
 and the locality is in a tributary headwater reach. These problems 
 could, however, be surmounted by adequate regional planning. One 
 factor which may have a bearing on future water supply demands is 
 the interrelationship between costs of waste treatment and use of water. 
 For example, industries may reduce their use of process water to 
 keep down the cost of waste treatment. (Reference Appendix D. ) 
 
 D. Flood Control and Allied Purposes 
 
 (1) Potential Upstream Watershed Projects - By the year 
 2020 seven watersheds comprising 667, 000 acres in the basin are anti- 
 cipated to have flood problems and other water resources needs. To 
 meet this requirement, seven Public Law 566 projects, containing 38 
 structures have been identified as having a capability of 217, 000 acre- 
 feet of water storage potential available for multiple -purpose use. The 
 seven projects which are described in Appendix F and shown on Plate 
 K-16 would be located as follows 
 
 a. Ottauquechee River, Vermont 
 
 b. Williams River, Vermont 
 
 c. Saxtons River, Vermont 
 
 38 
 
d. West River, Vermont 
 
 e. South Fiver, Massachusetts 
 
 f. Scantic River, Massachusetts & Connecticut 
 
 g. Coginchaug River, Connecticut 
 
 (2) Local Protection Projects - Appendix M states that 
 "No need is foreseen for major structural flood control measures be- 
 yond what has been recommended in the 1980 plan. However, as 
 population increased and urban centers become more concentrated, 
 communities which continue to build in the flood plain are likely to 
 need local protection. Out of the many local protection sites investi- 
 gated by the study, 7 are considered as potentials for target year 2020." 
 
 2020 LOCAL PROTECTION POTENTIALS 
 
 a. Groveton, New Hampshire (Connecticut River) 
 
 b. Lebanon, New Hampshire (Mascoma River) 
 
 c. East St. Johnsbury (Moose River) 
 
 d. Ludlow, Vermont (Black River) 
 
 e. Windsor, Vermont (Connecticut River) 
 
 f. Bellows Falls, Vermont (Connecticut River) 
 
 g. Brattleboro, Vermont (Connecticut River) 
 
 F. Navigation 
 
 In 1968 nearly 3. 7 million tons of commerce were 
 handled by the existing Long Island Sound to Hartford navigation im- 
 provement. Projecting the trend of the most recent 10 year's period 
 indicated that by the year 2020 facilities will be needed to handle 1 1. 5 
 million tons of cargo. In addition to commercial requirements, at 
 present, approximately 3, 500 boats make up the recreational boating 
 fleet moored or berthed on the river below Hartford. Considerable 
 growth is anticipated in recreational boating and provisions will be 
 needed from both private and public sectors for handling a greatly en- 
 larged fleet in future years. 
 
 The boating pressures above Hartford will likely accelerate 
 particularly with the effective implementation of the pollution abate- 
 ment and improved flow regulation and flow augmentation programs 
 recommended in the 1980 Basin Plan. Boating passage may be required 
 at main stem dams up to and including Bellows Falls. Passage could 
 be accomplished by either marine railway or navigation locks depending 
 on traffic density. Aids to navigation will be needed to identify safe 
 channel sections in the pools associated with the Holyoke, Turners Falls, 
 Vernon and Bellows Falls power dams. 
 
 39 
 
G. Fish Hatcheries and Ladders 
 
 By 2020 recreationaul use of the Basin's resources for 
 fishing could increase to over 12 million fisherman days or almost 
 five times the present demand. This need could be met by a continua- 
 tion of the following: 
 
 (1) Creation of new reservoir fisheries 
 
 (2) Restoration and expansion of anadromous fishieries 
 
 (3) Enhancement of stream fisheries 
 
 (4) Abatement of pollution 
 
 (5) Provision of access 
 
 (6) Establishment of low flow augmentation schedules 
 
 H. Multiple -purpose Reservoirs 
 
 The Coordinating Committee has identified nine multiple- 
 purpose large category reservoirs which could be utilized to alleviate 
 an array of 2020 water resource needs. These are reported in Appen- 
 dix K and are shown on Plate 1 of this report include the following: 
 
 Site 
 
 Tributary Basin 
 
 1. 
 
 Indian Stream 
 
 Indian Stream, New Hampshire 
 
 2. 
 
 Upper Jefferson 
 
 Israel River, New Hampshire 
 
 3. 
 
 Hammond Hollow 
 
 Ashuelot River, New Hampshire 
 
 4. 
 
 Falls River 
 
 Falls River, Massachusetts 
 
 5. 
 
 Fort Morrison 
 
 Deerfield R iver, Massachusetts 
 
 6. 
 
 Natty Pond Brook 
 
 Chicopee River, Massachusetts 
 
 7. 
 
 Prince River 
 
 Chicopee River, Massachusetts 
 
 8. 
 
 Lower Bis bee 
 
 Westfield R iver, Massachusetts 
 
 9. 
 
 Sandy Brook 
 
 Farmington R iver, Massachusetts 
 
 
 In addition there are 
 
 a number of small upstream water im- 
 
 poundments sites which do not conform tc the requisites of Public Law 
 566. Sixty-three in this category were identified for their potential 
 to meet future storage needs, although allocation of specific storage 
 purposes was not made. These are also described in Appendix F and 
 show on Plate K-16. 
 
 40 
 
RESPONSE 
 TO 
 
 THE NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 
 ON 
 
 THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE REPORT 
 
Synopsis 
 
 The Coordinating Committee report was generally 
 accepted as a flexible guide for future Basin planning. Where 
 opposition was expressed to specific recommendations, these were 
 usually recommendations for structural measures having an as yet 
 undetermined environmental impact. Proposals for which there was 
 general support had important environmental benefits or acceptable 
 environmental costs. This input to the Commission's report there- 
 fore consisted of a set of proposals considered environmentally 
 essential, or at least safe, by the reviewers, such as waste treat- 
 ment plants, preservation of sites and flood plain zoning, and a 
 set of proposals, such as power plants and impoundments, 
 accompanied by important environmental cautions. 
 
 The principal criticisms were that the report inade- 
 quately evaluated alternative measures and understressed environ- 
 mental quality in relation to economic development planning 
 objectives; that too much emphasis was given to structural as 
 opposed to nonstructural solutions; that insufficient evidence was 
 presented supporting the need for new reservoir development to 
 meet a broad range of upstream and downstream resource needs; 
 and that primary attention in future Basin planning should focus on 
 nonstructural methods of flood plain management, such as flood 
 plain acquisition and zoning, with substantial Federal assistance. 
 
 Review procedure 
 
 The 90-day review of the Coordinating Committee 
 report was carried out in compliance with section 204 of the Water 
 Resources Planning Act of 1965, which governs the preparation, 
 adoption and transmittal of comprehensive, coordinated joint plans 
 for the water and related land resources of river basins by river 
 basins commissions. The Water Resources Council established 
 November 1, 1970 - January 31, 1971, as the prescribed 90-day 
 review period. 
 
 The review procedure served three basic purposes: 
 it complemented technical judgments of the Coordinating Committee 
 with political and social concerns of the Basin States; it incorporated 
 public judgments in the evaluation of resource management alter- 
 natives recommended by the Commission; and it provided for a 
 
 41 
 
departmental level critique of the Coordinating Committee's 
 recommendations which were made at field level. 
 
 Participants in the political process, by which the 
 Basin's resources are allocated to different uses, have had an 
 opportunity to participate in the Basin planning process by com- 
 menting on the Coordinating Committee and draft Commission 
 reports. Comments on the Coordinating Committee report, which 
 are summarized below, were addressed to the Commission by the 
 Basin Governors; by heads of Federal departments and agencies 
 and interstate agencies represented on the Commission; by the 
 International Joint Commission; by a Citizens Review Committee 
 (CRC) organized by the Commission; and by the public at large. 
 The Commission's response to all comments is described in the 
 following section. 
 
 The findings and recommendations of official and 
 unofficial reviewers accompany the 1980 Basin plan transmitted 
 to the Water Resources Council and to the Basin States. 
 These are arranged in the order in which they were received 
 and are transmitted as a separate document, appended to the plan 
 by reference. The CRC report has been published and distributed 
 as a separate document and is also appended by reference. 
 
 Comments on the environmental impact statement 
 prepared by the Coordinating Committee are not included in the 
 following summary. The statement and the comments have been 
 taken into account and are appended by reference to the 1980 
 Basin plan. 
 
 42 
 
Comments on study purpose, scope and_ organization 
 
 The report was generally accepted as a flexible guide to 
 future resource planning and development in the Basin. The 
 Basinwide scope of study was accepted as logical and necessary. 
 However, Governor Davis of Vermont cautioned that "to extend 
 this concern and propose that the resources of the Upper Basin 
 must be manipulated to satisfy all social desires of the Lower 
 Basin residents ignores political, social and financial realities. " 
 The study's contribution to coordination among the many resource 
 planning and development interests in the Basin was recognized, 
 but it was noted that coordination among study participants had 
 been impeded by several factors, including uneven levels of 
 Federal agency and State funding. 
 
 Comments on the interpretation of problems and needs 
 
 Guiding assumptions for future Basin development were 
 said to be based solely on population data rather than on consi- 
 derations of environmental quality. 
 
 Comments on planni ng co ncepts and strategy 
 
 It was commonly found that environmental quality was 
 understressed among the multiple planning objectives, and that 
 nonstructural measures and qualitative benefits and costs were 
 understressed in the evaluation of alternatives, which had a 
 heavy economic orientation. It was acknowledged that the inves- 
 tigation had been conducted under planning objectives that were 
 applicable at the time; nevertheless, Governor Sargent, for 
 example, indicated that further implementation of the report in 
 Massachusetts would be guided by increased concern for the 
 preservation of the environment, as expressed in the National 
 Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 
 
 Comments on wa t er quality 
 
 The recommended achievement of State- Federal water 
 quality standards was strongly supported. Low flow augmen- 
 tation was strongly opposed where waste treatment methods might 
 prove feasible. The Environmental Protection Agency and CRC 
 agreed on the preliminary nature of the evaluation of flow aug- 
 mentation requirements for water quality control and on the need 
 for further assessment before commitments are made. 
 
 43 
 
Comments on power 
 
 Recommendations for power development and minimum 
 flow releases received general support. Governor Sargent 
 expressed concern with the environmental impact of steam elec- 
 tric and pumped storage plants "wherever they may be located, " 
 and specifically opposed freshwater siting of nuclear plants. The 
 Federal Power Commission encouraged consideration of power 
 generating opportunities in project planning for a variety of 
 purposes. 
 
 Comments on outdoor recreation 
 
 The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's plan for a Connecticut 
 River National Recreation Area was generally given high priority. 
 Several other elements of the outdoor recreation portion of the 
 Early Action Plan were questioned. Governor Sargent considered 
 it unrealistic to attempt to accomodate projected boating demand 
 to any great extent by the creation of several new impoundments. 
 Governor Davis questioned the need for "irreversible actions" to 
 meet recreational needs, which he preferred to look upon as 
 "desires" rather than "needs. 11 There was support for the Coor- 
 dinating Committee's recommendation for further study of the 
 feasibility of using water supply reservoirs for recreational pur- 
 poses. CRC found that "the recreational values that can and 
 should be realized in the Basin go well beyond those recognized 
 by the Plan." The report was criticized for failing to treat urban 
 recreational needs. 
 
 Comments on preservation of sites 
 
 The Coordinating Committee's recommendations concerning 
 the preservation of archaeological, historical and natural resource 
 sites in the Basin received strong support. 
 
 Comments on the restoration of anadromous fisheries 
 
 This program was supported, although Governor Davis 
 preferred to see it presented "more in light of restoration of a 
 resource, rather than justified in terms of economic exploitation. " 
 The Federal Power Commission indicated that recommendations 
 concerning fish passage facilities at licensed main stem power 
 dams were being considered by Commission staff. 
 
 44 
 
Comments on fish and wildlife 
 
 Governor Davis and CRC recommended further research 
 on the effects of impoundments on fish and wildlife habitat. 
 
 Comments on wat er supply 
 
 The Bureau of Domestic Commerce questioned the Commi- 
 tee's methodology for projecting municipal and industrial water 
 supply needs on several points, among these the assumed portion 
 of total water demand that would be satisfied through development 
 of groundwater supplies. CRC recommended accelerated efforts 
 to locate, evaluate and protect groundwater sources. Some 
 concern was expressed with the legal implications of water supply 
 diversions, or "flood skimming. " CRC recommended that diver- 
 sion out -of -the -Basin be conditioned upon: a regional mechanism 
 for allocation of water; proper monitoring of diversion volumes 
 and reporting to an independent authority such as the Commission; 
 also the possibility of establishing a quid pro quo such as expan- 
 ding recreation on Quabbin reservoir in return for that reservoir's 
 receiving surplus Connecticut River waters. CRC also urged study 
 of the desirability of using part of any such "excess" water for flow 
 augmentation within the Basin and for water supply to downstream 
 metropolitan areas in the Lower Basin. 
 
 Comments on navigation 
 
 The Department of Transportation expressed general satis- 
 faction with the plan for navigation improvements. CRC opposed 
 commercial navigation channel enlargement below Hartford until 
 its environmental impact could be evaluated. Governor Dempsey 
 expressed reservations about the impact of recommended recre- 
 ational boating improvements above Hartford on the Windsor Locks 
 Canal, which, he said, "must be recognized as one of the unusual 
 sites for preservation as recommended by Element 4 of the study. " 
 
 Comments on upstream water and related land resources management 
 
 Several reviewers questioned the justification and overall 
 ecological impact of small upstream impoundments. CRC 
 expressed uncertainty on how these projects fit into the overall 
 Basinwide flood control program. CRC strongly supported imple- 
 mentation of the Coordinating Committee's recommendations for 
 accelerated conservation education, in the belief that implemen- 
 tation of the Basin plan depends on public understanding of natural 
 resources management. 
 
 45 
 
Comments on flood control and multiple purpose re servoirs 
 
 The bulk of the comments received concerned the Coordi- 
 nating Committee's proposals for construction of large multiple 
 purpose reservoirs. CRC provided a close analysis of the Com- 
 mittee's overall rationale and recommendations for specific 
 reservoir development. For the most part, the Governors com- 
 mented on reservoirs that would be located in their states. 
 
 CRC found that the reservoir proposals were based on in- 
 adequate evaluation of alternative — principally nonstructural- - 
 measures and inadequate consideration of environmental impact. 
 CRC and others questioned the report's evaluation of flood 
 damage risk; the probabilities and impact of major storms; the 
 concept of a Standard Project Flood; and the objective of con- 
 trolling 25 percent of the watershed above Hartford. CRC 
 recommended "as a matter of immediate priority'' that NERBC 
 restudy the need for new flood control reservoirs and long-term 
 benefits and costs of alternative means of flood protection. 
 
 Victory and Gaysville reservoirs in Vermont were opposed 
 by Governor Davis. Governor Peterson of New Hampshire with- 
 held comment on the Early Action Plan until New Hampshire's 
 priorities could be assessed. The Department of the Army 
 recommended that, in light of Congressional deauthorization of 
 Claremont reservoir in New Hampshire, alternative measures 
 be more fully discussed. Governor Sargent opposed authori- 
 zation of Meadow dam 'unless a very thorough and unbiased eco- 
 logical impact study was conducted. " The Environmental Pro- 
 tection Agency stressed that a decision has not been made that 
 flow augmentation is needed for water quality control purposes 
 "in certain new reservoirs, e. g. , the Gardner project on the 
 Otter River, " and recommended more detailed analysis of alter- 
 natives for meeting water quality standards "in such instances 
 where the preliminary analysis has indicated that flow augmen- 
 tation may be warranted. 11 Governor Dempsey and his successor. 
 Governor Meskill, indicated that Connecticut would give the 
 proposed Blackledge and Cold Brook reservoirs in Connecticut 
 "grave and careful consideration. CRC strongly supported the 
 Coordinating Committee's recommendation that proposed reser- 
 voir sites be acquired, "with a total prohibition of any develop- 
 ment that could inhibit future implementation of river basin study 
 proposals. " 
 
 46 
 
The compatibility of proposed reservoirs' multiple benefits 
 was questioned. CRC, for example, felt that flood control, 
 water supply, flow augmentation and recreation within a single 
 reservoir "are all competing and probably in the long run 
 mutually exclusive uses. 11 Participants in a symposium of con- 
 cerned scientists, organized for CRC, and several town conser- 
 vation commissions in Massachusetts opposed reservoir construc- 
 tion; it was principally argued that the reservoirs' main purpose 
 would be flow augmentation, which would cause serious problems 
 of erosion and sedimentation and otherwise seriously damage the 
 "riparian eco-system". Governor Davis agreed that assumed 
 low flow augmentation benefits of new impoundments need careful 
 study to evaluate ecologic effects. 
 
 Governors Dempsey and Davis disagreed on the need for 
 new large flood control reservoirs to protect downstream deve- 
 lopment in the flood plain. While Governor Dempsey hoped that 
 the report would "allow our upstream neighbors to approve such 
 projects as have mutual benefits, " Governor Davis found that 
 
 No other area of activity raises more concern 
 today than. . . the impoundment of waters. . ..A 
 fundamental issue to be resolved is the wisdom 
 of additional construction of flood control struc- 
 tures without adequate control over continued 
 development of the flood plain. 
 
 Governor Davis and CRC pointed out that Federal flood 
 control policy, in an apparent inconsistency, declares flood pro- 
 tection to be primarily a Federal responsibility while leaving pri- 
 mary responsibility for flood plain management to the States and 
 municipalities. According to CRC, 
 
 This is in effect a subsidy, an increase in 
 value to individuals and local communities 
 because the Federal government seemingly 
 underwrites risks of flooding at little or no 
 cost to the beneficiaries. The result is that 
 the Federal government is subsidizing and 
 encouraging flood plain development. . . CRC 
 fears that 'flood control' as now practiced, 
 without effective flood plain management, 
 tends to be self-perpetuating and self- 
 expanding. 
 
 47 
 
Some reviewers felt strongly that the Federal government 
 should assume a broader responsibility for flood plain management, 
 rather than limit itself to the more narrowly construed concept of 
 "flood control. " Governor Davis, for example, suggested Federally- 
 assisted flood plain acquisition where a dual purpose of recreational 
 use and flood protection is achieved. CRC agreed on the need to 
 modify existing Federal programs to permit Federal acquisition of 
 flood plains, especially where recreational opportunities and open 
 space could be provided near urban areas. 
 
 It was felt that the report provided insufficient information 
 to permit an evaluation of nonstructural flood control alternatives. 
 The Department of Housing and Urban Development devoted the 
 body of its review to a proposed outline for an additional study of 
 nonstructural measures. CRC argued that 'any rational Basin 
 plan must provide for effective flood plain management as an 
 integral part of the plan, and any construction of dams large or 
 small should be based on the need with reference to and in con- 
 junction with accomplished flood plain zoning." 
 
 Comments on the estuary 
 
 The Department of the Interior felt that the report should 
 have addressed problems and needs in the estuary in greater 
 depth. 
 
 Comments on the Connecticut River Basin Program 
 
 The Coordinating Committee's recommendation for a 
 Connecticut River Basin Program received a positive response. 
 Some concern was expressed with prospects for program funding, 
 and the Commission was urged by CRC to seek "really adequate 
 financial resources for the Connecticut River Basin Program. " 
 CRC stressed the importance of the Coordinating Committee's 
 recommendation to create a Citizens Advisory Board as part of 
 the Program. 
 
 Comments on priorities 
 
 Because of the magnitude of present needs, particularly 
 water quality, the Department of the Army recommended that the 
 Commission present 1980 program priorities or schedules in its 
 report. CRC gave highest priority to flood plain management 
 
 48 
 
"for effective long-term flood damage control, " and recommende 
 a restudy of flood management alternatives as its second priority- 
 Other items to which CRC gave highest priority were, in order: 
 acquisition of lands which will be utilized in the Basin plan; eco- 
 logical impact analyses; development of waste treatment systems 
 minimum flow releases; and the establishment of the Connecticut 
 River Basin Program. Governor Davis emphasized that although 
 planning needs were considered in overall Basinwide context, 
 evaluation, priorities and implementation at the State level must 
 be in terms of total State needs and priorities. 
 
 49 
 
RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 
Synopsis 
 
 Comments ; The consequences of major environmental 
 alterations were a predominant concern in the response to the 
 draft 1980 Basin plan recommended by the Commission. It was 
 generally agreed that such alterations should be conditioned upon 
 satisfactory completion of environmental impact evaluations. 
 However, a central issue was whether the necessary evaluations 
 would require the development of a detailed ecological inventory 
 and predictive model pertinent to all resource decisions for the 
 entire Basin. The Commission was urged to pursue the objectives 
 of the proposed Basinwide environmental reconnaissance beyond 
 the scope, authority and funding limits established in task one of 
 the supplemental study program. Some felt that without a de- 
 tailed Basinwide ecological model, there are inadequate grounds 
 for recommendation of the plan in part or in its entirety. 
 Suggested modifications of the plan included further environmental 
 impact evaluations of power, water diversion, navigation and 
 flood management projects. Lower Basin communities expressed 
 particular concern for the protection of riparian rights in the 
 implementation of projects to divert water from the Basin to meet 
 out-of-Basin water supply needs. 
 
 Commission response: The Commission has signifi- 
 cantly modified the draft 1980 Basin plan in response to the comments 
 received. It is emphasized, however, that the plan in final form 
 represents the Commission's judgment concerning resource manage- 
 ment needs of the Basin as a whole, rather than the individual or 
 combined judgment of participants in the field level investigation, 
 in the review of the Coordinating Committee report or in the review 
 of the Commission's draft report. 
 
 All major environmental alterations are conditioned on 
 "satisfactory completion" of environmental impact evaluations. The 
 Commission now stipulates that environmental evaluations will be 
 considered "satisfactorily completed" if: 
 
 (1) the capability has been developed and used to 
 form a reasonable assessment of regional environ- 
 mental consequences; 
 
 (2) environmental consequences have been assessed 
 by the Commission in the case of projects having 
 regional impacts; and 
 
 50 
 
(3) it is shown that environmental consequences 
 will be acceptable. 
 
 The Commission acknowledges that the development 
 of a detailed ecological model of the Basin would be desirable and 
 that a strong case has been made for such a study by several Basin 
 interests; the Commission expresses its willingness to cooperate 
 with research institutions and scientists in exploring alternative 
 sources of funding and in developing suitable study proposals in 
 addition to the supplemental study program. Estimated costs for 
 the study as a whole and for task one are not suggested as measures 
 of the total investment in environmental research needed in the 
 Basin, but rather as a reflection, first, of levels of investment 
 that are both necessary and appropriate to accomplish the specific 
 study objectives, and, second, of the limit of Federal expenditures 
 for specific study tasks that can realistically be expected under the 
 Water Resources Planning Act in fiscal 1972-1974. Moreover, the 
 environmental reconnaissance is to be accomplished in coordination 
 with related studies that are separately managed and funded, whose 
 total cost will substantially exceed the cost of this task. 
 
 The draft Basin plan has been modified in response 
 to the comments principally as follows: 
 
 The Commission now acknowledges that decisions concern- 
 ing optimum flow release rates require further study and 
 accordingly combines its acceptance of a release rate of 
 . 2 cfsm with its recommendation that the desirability and 
 feasibility of this release rate be studied for main stem 
 and tributary reservoirs. While the supplemental study 
 will not provide a basis for predicting the ecological con- 
 sequences of every alteration of river flow, the Commission 
 will cooperate with member States and agencies and with 
 the scientific community in developing this capability 
 to the extent possible. 
 
 The proposed New England regional bulk power facility 
 siting study will include an analysis of the environ- 
 mental implications of alternative measures for meeting 
 need. The Commission recommends therefore that 
 major power generating and transmission facilities be 
 developed in the Basin as warranted by the results of 
 the two year study. 
 
 51 
 
The Commission now recommends that all proposed 
 diversions of Connecticut River water below the newly 
 constructed nuclear power plant at Vernon, Vermont, 
 including Northfield Mountain, be conditioned on satis- 
 factory completion of environmental impact evaluations 
 of the power plant. It is recommended that these 
 evaluations include careful investigation of the possibility 
 of radioactive contamination of Connecticut River water 
 and its implications for the diversion of Connecticut 
 River water into Quabbin reservoir. It is further 
 recommended that proposed diversions be conditioned 
 on adequate measures to prevent radioactive contamina- 
 tion of diverted water, including water quality monitoring. 
 Diversions at Tully and any diversions at Northfield 
 Mountain above amounts presently authorized by law are 
 now subject to recognition of riparian rights and condi- 
 tioned on creation, if feasible, of a regional mechanism 
 for allocating water in which downstream States have a 
 voice; on prior measurement of impacts used in measuring 
 "excess flows;" and on prior determination and protection 
 of alternative groundwater sources. 
 
 The Commission has modified its recommendation 
 concerning 118 upstream reservoirs to avoid any impli- 
 cation that it supports development of these sites without 
 evaluation of their individual and collective regional 
 impacts. It is emphasized that these sites are suggested 
 for State or local consideration only, and are therefore 
 included in the Basin plan subject to State or local approval. 
 
 With the exception of Beaver Brook, all major flood control 
 and multiple purpose reservoirs have been withdrawn 
 from the 1980 Basin plan recommended by the Commission 
 at this time and are included within the scope of the supple- 
 mental study. 
 
 52 
 
Review procedure 
 
 The response to the Commission's draft findings and 
 recommendations constitutes the third major input to the 1980 
 Basin plan recommended by the Commission, in addition to the 
 field level investigation and the response to the Coordinating Com- 
 mittee report summarized in the preceding sections. The purpose 
 of this section is to illuminate the concerns expressed by affected 
 interests both within and outside of the Basin and the process by 
 which the Commission arrived at its judgments in response to 
 these concerns. 
 
 At the request of Senator Edward Brooke of Massachu- 
 setts, the period for comment was extended from 30 to 60 days, 
 running from mid-July to mid-September, following a light response 
 to the first draft dated July 12. A second draft, dated September 1, 
 was prepared in response to the Comments received, widely 
 distributed throughout the Basin, and discussed at a public meeting 
 September'14 in Springfield, cosponsored by the League of Women 
 Voters Inter -League Committee for the Connecticut River Basin 
 and the Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc. 
 
 The response to the Commission's draft report tended 
 to divide into two phases, in which first procedural and then sub- 
 stantive issues were addressed. Prior to the September 14 meet- 
 ing, public meetings were held with the Springfield City Council 
 and the Connecticut River Ecology Action Corporation (CREAC), 
 to discuss mainly the procedural question whether the Commission 
 would be responsive to expressed public concern with environmen- 
 tal quality in the Basin if it transmitted the Coordinating Committee 
 report along with recommended plan to the Water Resources 
 Council. This concern and these discussions were important 
 reasons for the 30-day extension of the review period. Its principal 
 purpose, however, was to permit thoughtful consideration by a 
 representative range of Basin interests of the content of the Basin 
 plan and in particular of the supplemental study proposal. 
 
 Participants included the Basin Governors; the interim 
 Connecticut River Basin Citizens Advisory Board, consisting of 
 members of CRC who volunteered for the task and chaired by 
 Professor Bernard Berger; cities and towns; counties; regional 
 planning agencies; members of the scientific community; watershed 
 associations, the League of Women Voters and other citizens 
 groups; local conservation commissions; industries; and interested 
 individuals. Public notification of the review and public discussion 
 
 53 
 
September 14 was given throughout the Basin. 
 
 Comments received during the 60 -day public review 
 of the Commission's draft report accompany the 1980 Basin plan 
 transmitted by the Commission to the Water Resources Council 
 and to the Basin States; these are arranged in the order in 
 which they were received and are transmitted as a separate docu- 
 ment. Comments received from the Basin Governors and others 
 after transmittal of the plan will be forwarded to the Water 
 Resources Council and to appropriate Commission member States 
 and agencies . 
 
 As noted in the introduction, the Water Resources 
 Council has established a procedure for the submission of proposed 
 revisions of completed river basin plans to river basins commis- 
 sions and for related commission and Council action. 
 
 Following is a summary of the comments and the 
 Commission's response.* 
 
 ^Quotations are taken from the text of comments appended by 
 reference to this report and from the transcript of the public 
 meeting September 14 co-sponsored by the Connecticut River 
 Watershed Council and the League of Women Voters. A copy of 
 the transcript is on file at the Court Street offices of the 
 Commission in Boston. 
 
 54 
 
Interpretation of needs and strategy for meeting needs 
 
 Comments on the adequacy of resources 
 
 CREAC urged the Commission to endorse a finding 
 by CRC's Subcommittee on Assumptions that "there is a strong 
 viewpoint both within the CRC and throughout the Connecticut River 
 Basin that there is an optimum level of population and industrial 
 development in the Valley beyond which environmental and general 
 social wellbeing for the Valley's inhabitants will be seriously 
 threatened. " 
 
 Governor Davis suggested another qualification of the 
 Commission's finding on the adequacy of resources to meet pro- 
 jected needs: 
 
 Unless society is willing to modify its unceasing demand 
 upon the natural resources and change its casual treatment 
 of the landscape, the resource may be adequate to meet 
 the needs, but the environmental quality will be impaired 
 by today's criteria. Specific areas of concern include 
 the insatiable demand for power to operate a host of 
 unessential gadgets that serve no critical need, the use 
 of highways and byways to dispose of trash, the continual 
 employment of the capability to cut, fill, dredge, level, 
 drain and otherwise alter the natural terrain to suit 
 man's purposes. 
 
 A similar concern was expressed by the Capitol Region 
 (Connecticut) Planning Agency to which the Commission has 
 responded under "Comments on recommendations for implemen- 
 tation" (p. 67). 
 
 Comments on strategy for achieving economic and environmental 
 obj ectives 
 
 Governor Davis disagreed with the Coordinating 
 Committee's finding, in which the Commission concurred, that 
 multiple purpose reservoirs would have "important economic and 
 ecological benefits, particularly in the Upper Basin, " on the 
 ground that such benefits have yet to be conclusively established. 
 
 55 
 
Comments on the evaluation of alternatives 
 
 Governor Meskill suggested that the Commission take 
 "much responsibility" in developing planning alternatives with 
 individual State and Federal agencies. 
 
 Findings and recommendations by study element 
 
 Comments on transmittal of the 1980 Basin plan 
 
 Several communities in the Massachusetts portion of 
 the Basin and the Massachusetts House of Representatives cited 
 "grave concern" in the Valley that many of the proposed programs 
 in the 1980 Basin plan "may result in significant and irreversible 
 environmental damage and that said plan has not given proper 
 consideration to such environmental consequences. " The Commis- 
 sion was urged to defer transmittal of the plan to the Water Re- 
 sources Council and to declare a "moratorium" on all structural 
 projects having a significant environmental impact until the plan is 
 "ecologically sound. " There is generally strong support in the 
 Basin for developing the capability to predict the ecological conse- 
 quences of all major alterations of the environment on sites where 
 such alterations occur and on the Basin as a whole. 
 
 Comments on flow regulation (water quality and power) 
 
 Governor Meskill pointed out that decisions on altera- 
 tions of river flow -- minimum instantaneous flow releases from 
 power dams as well as reservoir construction for low flow aug- 
 mentation -- should be conditioned on the capability to predict 
 ecological consequences within the Basin as a whole. The New 
 England Power Company cited data developed by the Coordinating 
 Committee's Subcommittee on Stream Flow Regulation to support 
 its argument that . 1 cfsm, "the weighted average of minimum 7- 
 day low flows from the Connecticut River's major unregulated tri- 
 butaries, ... is a more realistic approximation of a simulated in- 
 stantaneous flow (than . 2 cfsm), and one which might be sustained 
 from natural runoff without drawdown of upstream storage reser- 
 voirs. " CAB recommended further study of the adequacy of a 
 minimum flow release rate of . 2 cfsm "to protect ecologic and 
 environmental values in the Connecticut River" for main stem re- 
 servoirs, and of releases that would be "desirable or hydrologically 
 feasible" for tributary reservoirs. CAB also recommended a 
 benefit-cost analysis of flow releases above .2 cfsm and study of 
 equitable procedures for requiring power plants not up for reli- 
 censing to provide desired releases. 
 
 56 
 
Comments on power supply 
 
 Governor Meskill felt that the Commission's recom- 
 mendations for additional power supply should be conditioned on 
 the capability to predict ecological consequences within the Basin 
 as a whole. The Connecticut River Watershed Council suggested 
 that the Commission encourage a partnership of Federal agencies 
 and private industry as possibly the only means of accelerating 
 research and development of new generating technologies "which 
 could have less impact upon our natural resources. " The Coun- 
 cil felt that endorsement of "large thermal or nuclear plants with 
 reversible pump storage peaking power" would preclude such 
 action. The Capitol Region (Connecticut) Planning Agency felt 
 that the Commission's assessment of power needs should be 
 accompanied by a determination of "plant installation criteria 
 needed to insure protection of our streams and to measure or 
 monitor the detrimental effects on the environment near the plants. 
 The Massachusetts Audubon Society considered incapable of accom- 
 plishment the recommendation that existing power supply be more 
 than doubled by 1980 to meet projected demand, because it is based 
 on an "unrealistic figure that placed no curbs on the wildest 
 dreams of the utility industry. " 
 
 Comments on recreation 
 
 Governors Davis and Peterson have questioned 
 projected water -related recreation needs in the Upper Basin. 
 Governor Peterson felt that certain recommendations by the 
 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which require joint action by 
 Vermont and New Hampshire, "remain to be explored in greater 
 depth prior to any decision. 11 It is understood that Governor 
 Davis shares this view. 
 
 Comments on anadromous fisheries restoration 
 
 The New England Power Company suggested the modi- 
 fication described in the following paragraph of the Commission's 
 recommendation concerning fish passage facilities. Governors 
 Peterson and Meskill expressed opposition to three reservoirs -- 
 Honey Hill in New Hampshire and Blackledge and Cold Brook in 
 Connecticut -- that were intended to improve water quality for 
 anadromous fisheries restoration by means of flow augmentation 
 and minimum flow releases. Their views are given under com- 
 ments on flood control and multiple purpose reservoirs. 
 
 57 
 
Comments on fish and wildlife 
 
 Additional measures for wildlife management were 
 suggested by the Franklin County (Massachusetts) Planning Depart- 
 ment and by Professors of Biology at Holyoke Community College 
 and Mount Holyoke College. The professors felt that "wildlife 
 appears to be discussed solely in terms of recreation -- i. e. 
 hunting and fishing with essentially no concern for habitat pro- 
 tection or protection of endangered species. " They suggested 
 that substantial acreage be set aside as wildlife refuges. 
 
 Comments on water supply 
 
 Governor Peterson requested that Honey Hill reser- 
 voir, intended in part for industrial water supply storage, be 
 included within the scope of the supplemental study program. 
 CAB pointed out several CRC recommendations concerning water 
 supply that had not been adopted by the Commission in its July 12 
 draft report: The Commission was urged to recommend that "an 
 in-depth study of ecologic, economic and social implications" of 
 the proposed modification of Tully reservoir be made "before 
 further action is taken, " and that diversion out-of-the -Basin be 
 subject to certain conditions, including establishment of a region- 
 al mechanism for allocation of water; monitoring of diversion 
 volumes and reporting to an independent authority; and also the 
 possibility of expanding recreation on Quabbin reservoir in return 
 for the receipt of Connecticut River waters. The Connecticut 
 River Watershed Council stated its continued opposition to any 
 diversions until these conditions "are accepted as part of lawful 
 obligations of the water supply authorities involved. " The Capitol 
 Region (Connecticut) Planning Agency also expressed apprehension 
 about the lack of potable water "in the Hartford - Springfield urban 
 corridor if too much water is diverted. " CAB also urged study of 
 the future desirability of using "surplus" Connecticut River water 
 for low flow augmentation and water supply within the Basin. 
 
 Decisions concerning out-of-Basin water diversion 
 were considered premature on a number of grounds: 
 
 the capability needs to be developed to predict 
 the ecological consequences of flood skimming 
 on the Basin "as an interrelated whole" - 
 Governor Meskill; 
 
 58 
 
present and future water supply and demand 
 within the Basin need further study - Connec- 
 ticut River Watershed Council; Izaak Walton 
 League (Massachusetts); 
 
 provision should be made for the investigation, 
 protection and development of groundwater 
 supplies as a possible alternative to diversion - 
 Farmington River Watershed Association; 
 Massachusetts Association of Conservation 
 Commissions (Hampden County Division); 
 CREAC; 
 
 a major reduction in water usage by areas 
 requiring supplementary water ought to be 
 explored as an alternative solution -- 
 Capitol Region (Connecticut) Planning Agency; 
 
 water quality ought first to be improved to 
 develop the Basin's fishery resources - CREAC. 
 
 The Millers River Watershed Association urged that 
 funds for the modification of Tully reservoir be used instread to 
 finance development of new water supply sources for communities 
 that should be taken out of the overtaxed Quabbin reservoir ser- 
 vice area. CREAC argued that although it would be cheaper 
 economically to divert clean water from the Tully River into 
 Quabbin, the "proper route to take" environmentally would be to 
 divert water from the polluted Millers River after treatment since 
 "there is no technical problem of drinking polluted water if it is 
 properly treated. " If water supply is diverted, the Massachusetts 
 Association of Conservation Commissions (Hampden County Division) 
 argued that recipient communities should pay and receipts should 
 be used to finance a Connecticut River Authority. 
 
 The Franklin County (Massachusetts) Planning Depart- 
 ment pointed out that diversion would appear to conflict with the 
 Commission's strategy of satisfying resource needs through 
 "development of sound regional water and land use patterns, i. e. 
 (through) the distribution of resource needs according to resource 
 availability. " Biology Professors at Holyoke Community College 
 and Mt. Holyoke College pointed out that expanded recreational 
 development of Quabbin reservoir would have a "disastrous" effect 
 on the surrounding wildlife habitat. The Town of Russell, Massachu- 
 setts, opposed water diversion from Westfield Brook "for Pittsfield 
 or any other town in that area. " 
 
 59 
 
Comments on navigation 
 
 Governor Meskill recommended that before any deci- 
 sion is made to implement dredging proposals a study be made of 
 the Basin "as an interrelated whole" and, further, that the develop- 
 ment of "predictive, ecological models for the basin as a whole" 
 be included in the scope of task one of the supplemental study. 
 CREAC urged that a model be used to predict the effects on the 
 estuary of changed flows and siltation patterns from dredging. The 
 Franklin County (Massachusetts) Planning Department urged that 
 dredging for recreational navigation be undertaken only when 
 suitable levels of water quality and demand are reached. 
 
 Comments on upstream water and related land resources management 
 
 Governor Meskill felt that recommendations for up- 
 stream watershed reservoirs -- particularly Public Law 566 
 projects -- contradict the Commission's policy of discouraging 
 development in the flood plain and ought to be conditioned on 
 evaluation of environmental impact on the Basin as a whole. He 
 also joined with Governor Davis in expressing concern for the 
 effect of such projects on wild and scenic rivers. The Connecti- 
 cut River Watershed Council indicated that it will review Public 
 Law 566 watershed projects recommended by the Coordinating 
 Committee "as part of a separate analysis to be done by a commit- 
 tee of the Council. " The Farmington River Watershed Associa- 
 tion recommended that the development of groundwater supplies 
 be considered as an alternative to upstream water supply reser- 
 voirs. There is general concern about the status and impact of 
 118 upstream reservoirs suggested for State or local construction. 
 
 Comments on flood control and multiple purpose reservoirs 
 
 Governors Meskill and Peterson stated their opposi- 
 tion to multiple purpose reservoirs in their States: two State 
 projects in Connecticut, Blackledge and Cold Brook, and two 
 Corps of Engineers projects in New Hampshire, Bethlehem 
 Junction and Honey Hill. They were in substantial agreement that 
 each project should be reexamined in the supplemental study of 
 flood management alternatives, along with other reservoirs pre- 
 viously recommended for restudy -- Victory, Gaysville, Clare- 
 mont, and Meadow. Governor Meskill stated further that the 
 study needs to be expanded (task one) to include the development 
 of predictive ecological models for the Basin as a whole. 
 
 60 
 
CAB noted that the Commission's intent with respect 
 to Bethlehem Junction and Honey Hill reservoirs "does not emerge 
 as clearly" as in the case of the four reservoirs included within 
 the scope of the supplemental study, and requested that the Com- 
 mission's recommendation "be made as clear as possible to elimi- 
 nate ambiguity and avoid possible misunderstanding. " It was "dis- 
 turbing" to the Connecticut River Watershed Council: 
 
 to find the Commission's report giving almost 
 sure endorsement to certain multiple purpose 
 structural projects at this time while also 
 calling for studies of alternate management 
 methods and environmental impact. It would 
 certainly seem more appropriate to withhod 
 endorsements of any structural projects until 
 the additional studies requested are com- 
 pleted and available for review. 
 
 The Capitol Region (Connecticut) Planning Agency suggested that 
 dry flood control reservoirs be studied for possible agricultural 
 or recreational use "during the 300 or so days a year when they 
 are normally dry. " The Agency urged serious consideration of 
 the subsidized Flood Insurance Program of the Department of 
 Housing and Urban Development which, "if properly used, . . . 
 could be a major step in discouraging development of the flood 
 plains by making the property owner pay for the total monetary 
 measure of the flood loss on new construction. " 
 
 The Glastonbury (Connecticut) Conservation Commis- 
 sion emphasized the inadequacy of flood plain zoning to prevent 
 continued encroachment of the flood plain and its fringes, and, 
 along with the Great Meadows (Connecticut) Conservation Trust, 
 called for more effective measures. Governor Meskill noted that 
 projected inadequate flood storage would appear to contradict the 
 Commission's policy of discouraging further development of the 
 flood plain. 
 
 Comments on recommendations for implementation 
 
 Governor Davis suggested an evaluation of the adequacy 
 of present programs: 
 
 61 
 
especially" in the Federal sector, to meet the 
 critical needs of the basin. . . . The past inade- 
 quacies of federal funding, especially in regard 
 to the construction of sewerage treatment plants, 
 is well documented, and it is difficult to compre- 
 hend a planning effort that excludes any such 
 comment. 
 
 The Capitol Region (Connecticut) Planning Agency 
 felt that "perhaps the greatest need of all is to re-educate the 
 general public in order that we might reduce total demands on 
 our water supplies, preserve the flood plains, reduce both 
 sanitary and storm drain pollution and recycle refuse. " 
 
 The supplemental study program 
 
 Comments on study objectives and procedures 
 
 CAB urged that "great care be taken in the statement 
 of objectives and in specification of the procedures to be used in 
 the study, " and offered to participate "to the maximum feasible 
 extent" in these efforts. 
 
 Comments on study costs 
 
 Governor Meskill and the Massachusetts Audubon 
 Society felt that the total estimated cost of the supplemental study 
 ($700, 000) and the estimated cost of the environmental recon- 
 naissance (task one - $135,000) are inadequate. 
 
 Comments on coordination with other research 
 
 Governor Meskill recommended that the study be 
 coordinated with a U. S. Geological Survey "Connecticut Valley 
 Urban Pilot Project" through the integration of formats for land 
 use alternatives and their consequences. 
 
 Comments on task one, environmental reconnaissance 
 
 A principal thrust of the comments received on the 
 1980 Basin plan and supplemental study has been the need to be 
 able to predict ecological consequences of resource management 
 alternatives on the Basin as a whole before approval of individual 
 
 62 
 
projects having a significant environmental impact. In addition 
 to recommending that the Commission undertake a restudy of 
 flood management alternatives "as a matter of immediate priority, " 
 CRC assigned high priority to "studies to determine the ecologic 
 impact of proposed structures and land development plans as 
 soon as possible. " A substantial CRC minority felt that a model 
 capable of predicting the environmental consequences of all 
 resource management alternatives should be developed before 
 approval of any projects having a significant environmental 
 impact. This view has been reinforced more recently by comments 
 from Governor Meskill, CREAC, and the Massachusetts Associa- 
 tion of Conservation Commissions (Hampden County Division), who 
 took specific exception to the statement that "the development of a 
 detailed ecological inventory and predictive model pertinent to all 
 resource use decisions for the entire Basin is not included within 
 the scope of this task. " CREAC stated that "we cannot emphasize 
 strongly enough that [the Commission] reorganize [its] approach 
 to the Connecticut River Basin as a single major ecosystem and 
 bring to bear on the political process sound scientific documenta- 
 tion and systems analysis;" reference was made to a CREAC 
 Scientists Symposium (CREAC publication #1) "for precisely the 
 type of study we urge you to support. " A member of CREAC asked, 
 at a public meeting in Springfield September 14, that a study be 
 made of the whole river system 
 
 before funds are authorized for the con- 
 struction of any dam. This seems rea- 
 sonable at the present time. Twenty 
 years ago it was not reasonable because 
 the volumes of information that had to be 
 collected could not humanly be handled 
 after they were collected. It is now 
 feasible by using computer techniques and 
 systems analyses along the lines of the 
 International Biological Program, which 
 is supported by the National Science 
 Foundation and by allied support items 
 from Congress, in an almost emergency 
 atmosphere. 
 
 A number of suggestions have been received concern- 
 ing the proposed scope of task one, with particular reference to 
 siltation. 
 
 63 
 
Comments on CAB and S/RAC 
 
 Governor Sargent and several others felt that the 
 Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) and Science/Research Advisory- 
 Committee (S/RAC) should represent out-of- Basin as well as Basin 
 interests and capabilities, in recognition of the impact of Basin 
 resource management on other parts of the New England region. 
 Governor Sargent stated that if CAB and S/RAC were: 
 
 totally valley oriented, . . . their findings 
 would be criticized, rightly or wrongly, as 
 the representation of parochial views on a 
 subject of statewide and regional signifi- 
 cance. We must reach to all the valuable 
 expertise available throughout the entire 
 state and the New England region for mem- 
 bership in both of these regional citizen 
 groups. 
 
 CREAC urged the Commission to aim toward an optimum combina- 
 tion within S/RAC of research capabilities available nationally and 
 internationally. It was argued, at the September 14 public meeting, 
 that: 
 
 the primary priority is a large funding and 
 a large-scale study, interdisciplinary, done 
 by objective scientists selected throughout 
 the scientific community, not just from the 
 Basin, not just those who happen to have 
 expressed themselves and who are concerned, 
 but the best experts in the country, because 
 one can look upon the Connecticut River Basin 
 ... as an example -- the prime example in 
 North America -- of man living in harmony 
 with an eco-system, if it is handled properly. 
 
 64 
 
NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
A. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 NEEDS AND STRATEGY FOR MEETING NEEDS 
 
 The Connecticut River comprehensive investigation spanned 
 the larger part of a decade marked by profound changes in public atti- 
 tudes toward the conservation and development of natural resources. 
 Increased awareness of the economic causes and ecological effects of 
 pollution has produced vastly increased public concern with environ- 
 mental quality, a reexamination of accepted economic principles, grow- 
 ing public acceptance of resource planning by hydrological as well as 
 political boundaries, and a reordering of social, economic and environ- 
 mental priorities in resource management. 
 
 The subject of the Connecticut River investigation was 
 defined hydrologically rather than politically, and to a significant extent 
 the illumination of environmental choices and the protection of environ- 
 mental values have been facilitated in the Basin as a result. While much 
 has been learned and still more needs to be learned about the ecological 
 costs of structural measures proposed by the Coordinating Committee, 
 many proposals were intended to provide ecological benefits which must 
 also be taken into account and could on further examination outweigh 
 their costs. 
 
 The ways in which new emphases in resource management 
 depart from the old are not always obvious, and, like Senate Document 
 97, are subject to varying interpretations. During this Decade of the 
 Environment, the need for jobs, housing and other human essentials, 
 including protection from natural catastrophes, has been undiminished 
 by increased concern with the environment. The development of natural 
 resources in the Connecticut River Basin to meet these and environ- 
 mental needs, where development is reconcilable with preservation and 
 enhancement of the Basin environment, is the substance and quite 
 plainly the principal motive of the Basin plan to which the Commission 
 fully subscribes. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee report is both a product of 
 the investigation and a product of the times, and inevitably reflects assump- 
 tions and criteria that no longer respond fully to public preferences in 
 resource management.* The Commission's findings and recommendations 
 on the interpretation of needs and strategy for meeting needs are therefore 
 intended to provide the Basin plan with an underlying philosophy of resource 
 management that responds to the public's increased concern with environ- 
 mental quality, without compromising in essential respects the Coordi- 
 nating Committee's response to resource development needs. 
 
 ^Revised procedures for evaluation of water and related land resource 
 projects have been recommended by a special task force of the Water 
 Resources Council (July 1970) and are being reviewed by the Office of 
 Management and Budget. 
 
 65 
 
Findings and recommendations on the interpretation of needs 
 
 The Commission accepts the Coordinating Committee's 
 findings and recommendations relative to problems and needs with 
 certain modifications described in the following paragraphs. 
 
 Adequacy of resources 
 
 The Commission accepts the Coordinating Committee's 
 finding that the Basin's water and related land resources "are 
 adequate to meet the needs projected to 1980 and 2020 and to permit 
 the preservation of sites and open spaces needed to balance new areas 
 of growth, " with five significant qualifications based upon the 
 Committee's findings: 
 
 In general : Increasing concentration of population, 
 income and economic growth in portions of the Lower 
 Basin and in the flood plain threatens the adequacy of the 
 Basin's limited environmental resources to meet future 
 needs, and will continue to do so unless corrective 
 measures are taken. The Commission adopts the finding 
 of CRC that "there is a strong viewpoint . . . throughout 
 the Connecticut River Basin that there is an optimum 
 level of population and industrial development in the Valley 
 beyond which environmental quality and general social 
 wellbeing for the Valley's inhabitants will be seriously 
 threatened." The Commission is directed by the Water 
 Resources Planning Act to develop a "comprehensive, 
 coordinated joint plan for Federal, State, interstate, local 
 and nongovernmental development of water and related 
 resources" in its region. This plan, of which the Basin 
 plan is a part, will establish policies for balanced distri- 
 bution of ongoing and future resource needs, corresponding 
 in quantity and type to the available supply and unique 
 characteristics of resources in New England. Until 
 generally accepted levels of population and economic 
 development can be established, "beyond which environ- 
 mental quality and general wellbeing. . . will be seriously 
 threatened, " it is recommended that Basin resource 
 management programs be developed in accordance with the 
 strategy for achieving economic and environmental objectives 
 set forth below, and that they be based on careful considera- 
 tion of the implications of alternative population and economic 
 growth projections. 
 
 66 
 
For power : Unless major technological advance- 
 ments in power production permit more extensive use of 
 the Basin's coastal and fresh water resources for cooling 
 purposes without extensive environmental damage, the 
 Basin's resources are likely to be inadequate to meet the 
 Basin's own power needs by 2020. The Coordinating 
 Committee identified types of sites generally suitable 
 for future power plants in the Basin but on the whole 
 predicted that the Basin would need to import power by 
 2020. The adequacy of the Basin's resources to meet 
 power needs must therefore be viewed within a larger 
 New England regional context. 
 
 For recreation : If projected increases in 
 population and economic growth take place without careful 
 Basinwide land use planning, the Basin's available land 
 and water for a variety of recreational needs is likely to 
 prove inadequate by 2020. Even with implementation of 
 the Early Action Plan, the Coordinating Committee projects 
 significant deficiencies in water resources to meet fishing 
 and recreational boiting demand and in the supply of land 
 for wildlife habitat, particularly in the urbanized Lower 
 Basin. 
 
 For flood storage: Natural and artificial flood 
 storage will prove inadequate by 2020 if controls are not 
 exercised over patterns of population and economic growth 
 affecting the flood plains. Even with Federal assumption 
 of greatly expanded responsibility for flood plain manage- 
 ment, the magnitude of the task confronting all levels of 
 government in channeling population and economic growth, 
 and in delineating, zoning, acquiring and/or clearing the 
 flood plains, leaves little room for optimism that combined 
 natural valley and artifical storage in 2020 will be adequate 
 to protect both existing flood plain development and environ- 
 mental values associated with the flood plain itself. 
 
 For environmental quality : The Commission finds 
 that unless the public's sense of responsibility for maintain- 
 ing the quality of the environment continues to increase, and 
 results in improved attitudes and practices regarding power 
 consumption, waste disposal, excavations and other alterations 
 of the environment, the Basin's resources will be inadequate 
 to meet projected needs at present standards of environmental 
 quality by 1980. 
 
 67 
 
Economic needs 
 
 1) The Coordinating Committee anticipated that planning 
 criteria in effect at the time would be affected by changing public 
 attitudes toward environmental quality. The essential difference 
 between the Commission's and the Coordinating Committee's find- 
 ings and recommendations is that the Commission attempts - in 
 response to increased public awareness of environmental needs - 
 to address needs more broadly interpreted to include a balance 
 amoung economic development and environmental quality, quantita- 
 tive and qualitative needs. 
 
 Recommendation : The Commission recommends that 
 needs identified in the Coordinating Committee report be differen- 
 tiated between existing needs for which resource use is essential, 
 and existing and future needs which permit discretion in the manner 
 and extent to which they can or should be met. In general, the 
 Commission recommends that future needs be construed flexibly - 
 perhaps as projections of future resource uses or as "desires" 
 rather than "needs" - co permit the achievement of balanced conser- 
 vation and development objectives. 
 
 2) The Commission finds that substantially below-average 
 personal income levels and other indications of economic weakness 
 in the Upper Basin qualify the Coordinating Committee's general 
 conclusion that the Basin economy is "stable and prosperous. " The 
 Commission notes that the Coordinating Committee took account of 
 these qualifications in its Early Action Plan, particularly in its 
 recommendations for structural developments in the Upper Basin 
 which would have substantial regional economic benefits. 
 
 Recommendation ; The Commission recommends that, 
 where applicable, needs associated with economic development be 
 interpreted in Basin management programs to include expressly the 
 need to strengthen the Upper Basin economy. 
 
 b8 
 
Environmental needs 
 
 1) The Basin's environmental quality needs must receive 
 equal consideration with economic development in Basin planning as 
 a result of the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act 
 of 1969 and similar State measures, and the Water Resources 
 Council's proposed modification of planning principles, standards 
 and criteria for water and land resource planning. A conclusion 
 drawn by a number of the reviewers was that the Coordinating 
 Committee report seriously understressed environmental quality 
 among the planning objectives. 
 
 Recommendation : While the Coordinating Committee 
 recommended several measures to preserve and enhance the environ- 
 ment, the Commission recommends that, in keeping with the letter 
 and intent of recent legislation to protect the quality of the environ- 
 ment, Basin management programs articulate assumptions regard- 
 ing ecological characteristics of the Basin as well as population and 
 economic projections, identify environmental quality as a planning 
 objective, and expressly substantiate the need for recommended 
 actions in reference to requirements for the preservation of the 
 
 Basin's environmental resources as well as in terms of economic 
 return. 
 
 2) The Commission notes that environmental impact 
 evaluations of the Coordinating Committee's Early Action Plan and 
 several of its components have been prepared pursuant to the 
 National Environmental Policy Act, and that these are subject to 
 public review in accordance with procedures established by the 
 Council on Environmental Quality. The Commission also notes the 
 inadequacy of funding for environmental impact statements often 
 prepared at or near the completion of detailed project planning. The 
 Commission therefore initiates with this report a request for funding 
 for ecological investigations deemed necessary to permit responsible 
 decisions on major projects recommended by the Commission; 
 these are described in Section E, Supplemental Study Program. 
 
 Recommendation : The Commission recommends generally 
 that Early Action Plan elements having a significant environmental 
 impact be continually evaluated throughout their planning, develop- 
 ment and operation for environmental effects, and that environmental 
 damage where indicated be mitigated or repaired by removal of the 
 cause. 
 
 69 
 
Findings and recommendations on strategy for achieving economic 
 
 and environmental objectives 
 
 1) Recommendation : Since, as the Coordinating Committee 
 has found, the Basin's environmental quality is its primary economic 
 asset, the Commission recommends a long term strategy consisting 
 of that mix of resource management measures which, with due 
 consideration for economic efficiency, protects, enhances and 
 restores environmental quality, both as a social goal of prime 
 importance to the people of the region and as a prime basis for 
 achieving economic objectives. In view of the irreversible nature 
 
 of major structural programs and their indeterminate impacts on 
 the Basin environment and land use patterns, the Commission 
 recommends that the pace of implementation of major physi- 
 cal projects be geared to the availability of additional information 
 on alternative measures and their economic and environmental 
 impacts . 
 
 2) The means of achieving both economic and environmental 
 objectives while satisfying resource needs lies essentially in the 
 development of sound regional water and land use patterns, i. e. 
 
 in the distribution of resource needs according to resource availa- 
 bility. The Commission notes that the State of Vermont is develop- 
 ing a Statewide land use plan, and the State of Connecticut has 
 completed elements of a Statewide land use plan. Moreover, 
 Congress and the Administration are considering legislation which 
 would establish National land use policy and provide Federal assis- 
 tance to the States for the development of State land use plans. 
 
 Recommendation ; The Commission recommends the 
 development of Basin State land use plans and programs along the 
 lines of proposals now before Congress and use of the Commission's 
 proposed Connecticut River Basin Program as a vehicle for inter- 
 state cooperation on State land use plans as these apply to the Basin. 
 The Commission recommends further that State and Federal agency 
 Basin management proposals be continuously reevaluated on the 
 basis of their relationship to sound local, State and Basinwide land 
 use patterns. 
 
 3) The Coordinating Committee's strategy provides for 
 resource use to accommodate population growth, to stimulate 
 industrial expansion and to strengthen the recreational/service 
 economic base of the Upper Basin. The Commission concurs in the 
 Coordinating Committee's finding that reservoirs for recreational 
 and other uses would have both important economic and ecological 
 benefits, particularly in the Upper Basin. On the other hand, it 
 
 70 
 
has not been conclusively established that these benefits outweigh 
 the costs, and the Commission will therefore reevaluate flood 
 management alternatives -- including proposed major multiple 
 purpose reservoirs in the Upper Basin -- and seek to develop a basis for 
 better understanding of the environmental implications of Basin 
 resource management in its supplemental study program. 
 Recommendations for major structural measures, with secondary 
 consideration of qualitative benefits and costs and without provision 
 for management of future growth patterns, could produce maximum 
 environmental impact of indeterminate nature and extent and 
 possibly undermine long-term economic development objectives. 
 
 Recommendation : The Commission recommends care- 
 ful consideration of structural measures in the Upper Basin which, 
 while they would provide lasting regional recreational benefits, 
 would alter natural features now serving as recreational attrac- 
 tions without public investment. 
 
 71 
 
Findings and recommendations on the evaluation of resource 
 
 management alternatives 
 
 The evaluation of resource management alternatives 
 in the report is insufficiently documented to permit the exercise 
 of independent judgment, particularly with reference to reservoirs. 
 The Commission concurs in CRC's finding that "What is presented 
 is a plan, not alternative plans to which each of the criteria of 
 national efficiency, regional development and environmental 
 quality can be applied. " 
 
 Recommendation : The Commission recommends that 
 State and Federal agencies recommending authorization and 
 funding of Basin management programs consider without weighting 
 the multiple objectives; evaluate alternative measures in coopera- 
 tion with the Commission where such measures have significant 
 regional impacts; present alternative measures to meet the 
 objectives in sufficient detail to permit the exercise of independent 
 judgment and public participation in the evaluation; and respond to 
 expressed public preferences among the objectives. Reference 
 is made to related recommendations on the interpretation of needs 
 and on legal, institutional and financial arrangements for Basin 
 resource management. 
 
 72 
 
B. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 1980 EARLY 
 
 ACTION PLAN BY STUDY ELEMENT 
 
 This section presents the Commission's findings and 
 recommendations on the ten study elements of the 1980 Early- 
 Action Plan recommended by the Coordinating Committee in the 
 following order: water quality; power; outdoor recreation; 
 preservation of sites; anadromous fisheries restoration; resident 
 fish and wildlife; water supply; navigation; upstream water and 
 related land resources management; and flood control and multiple 
 purpose reservoirs. Additional recommendations are presented 
 with specific reference to the estuary. 
 
 Recommendations are presented in three basic 
 categories within each study element: 
 
 recommendations of the Coordinating Committee approved 
 essentially without qualification; 
 
 recommendations of the Coordinating Committee approved 
 with qualifications; and 
 
 additional recommendations of the Commission. 
 
 The Commission finds the field level investigation 
 adequate to support recommendations of projects having important 
 environmental benefits or acceptable environmental costs, and of 
 projects having a significant environmental impact where such 
 recommendations are conditioned on adequate environmental 
 safeguards. Recommendations of the Coordinating Committee that 
 are approved by the Commission without qualification are therefore 
 generally those characterized by important environmental benefits 
 or acceptable environmental costs. Where qualifications are 
 imposed, these take the form of additional studies or prior imple- 
 mentation of other measures, and are principally intended to main- 
 tain the adequacy of the Basin's resources to meet both in- and 
 out-of-Basin needs without unacceptable environmental costs. 
 
 Inclusion of all major environmental alterations in the 
 Basin plan -- except those for which executive and legislative 
 authorizations have been obtained -- is conditioned on one or more 
 of the following environmental safeguards: 
 
 Inclusion within the scope of the supplemental study pro- 
 gram. The study includes an evaluation of flood manage - 
 
 73 
 
ment alternatives, but a broader purpose is to furnish 
 information that will be useful in evaluating the environ- 
 mental impact of all structural projects, including power 
 generating and transmission facilities, recreational facili- 
 ties, navigation and other projects. This study will pro- 
 vide an additional environmental screening for structural 
 elements of the 1980 Basin plan taken as a whole, and is 
 also expected to provide a foundation for environmental 
 evaluations at the project authorization level. Its ultimate 
 purpose is to insure conformance of the 1980 Basin plan 
 to the letter and intent of the National Environmental 
 Policy Act. Flood management projects not expressly 
 included within the scope of the supplemental study are 
 subject to one or more of the remaining qualifications. 
 
 Satisfactory completion of environmental impact evaluations 
 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Environ- 
 mental impact evaluations will be considered satisfactorily 
 completed if: (1) the capability has been developed and used 
 to form a reasonable assessment of regional environmental 
 consequences; (2) environmental consequences have been 
 assessed by the Commission in the case of projects having 
 regional impacts; and (3) it is shown that environmental 
 consequences will be acceptable. 
 
 Continual evaluation for adverse environmental effects 
 throughout project planning, development and operation, 
 with mitigation of environmental damage or repair by 
 removal of the cause. This safeguard is applied in recog- 
 nition of the relatively undeveloped state of environmental 
 impact analysis, and of the need for effective remedial 
 action where serious and irreparable environmental damage 
 is indicated. 
 
 Prior implementation of environmentally protective or 
 less hazardous alternatives. 
 
 Where major environmental alterations have received 
 executive or legislative authorization, their inclusion in the plan 
 is subject only to further executive or legislative action for 
 which qualifying recommendations of the Commission may serve 
 as a guide. 
 
 The Commission is guided by the judgment of the Basin 
 Governors concerning projects within their own States. It is 
 
 74 
 
emphasized, however, that no project recommended by the 
 Coordinating Committee has been withdrawn from consideration: 
 every element of the 1980 Early Action Plan recommended by 
 the Coordinating Committee is recommended by the Commission 
 for inclusion in the 1980 Basin plan, subject in some cases to 
 qualifications, or for further consideration in the supplemental 
 restudy of flood management alternatives. 
 
 Projects endorsed by the Commission are in turn 
 subject to the endorsement of the Water Resources Council and 
 the President, before these are transmitted as part of the approved 
 1980 Basin plan to the Congress. Recommendations transmitted 
 by the President to the Congress, and by the Commission to the 
 Basin Governors, are subject to closer administrative and legis- 
 lative scrutiny in the normal course of project authorization and 
 funding. 
 
 75 
 
1. WATER QUALITY 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 following elements of the Coordinating Committee's Early Action 
 Plan for water quality: 
 
 adoption by all pollution sources of at least secon- 
 dary water pollution control treatment facilities 
 with minimum 85 percent removal of biochemical 
 oxygen demand (BOD), as an initial step toward 
 achieving State-Federal water quality standards 
 and reducing the projected untreated wasteload to 
 about 236, 000 pounds per day. Because only one 
 percent of the Basin's waste load is presently 
 removed by secondary treatment, the Coordinating 
 Committee found that the present quality of significant 
 portions of the Basin's waterways precludes or impairs 
 their use for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, 
 public water supply and aesthetic enjoyment. The 
 Commission concurs with the Committee's finding that 
 "the most immediate and pressing need is for the 
 construction of adequate waste treatment facilities 
 at all municipal and industrial waste sources; " 
 
 regulation of flows at existing impoundments to 
 provide adequate minimum releases; 
 
 greatly expanded water quality monitoring to evaluate 
 the impact of recommended improvements; 
 
 additional research: on the role of low flow augmentation, 
 after implementation of planned secondary treatment 
 facilities; on methods of controlling effects of combined 
 sewer discharge; on pollutants from rural and urban 
 watersheds; on sewage diversions to alternate water- 
 sheds; on sludge deposits created by long-term dis- 
 charge of wastes, particularly behind main stem power 
 dams; on bank erosion and its effects of aquatic life; 
 and on the impact of multiple thermal discharges on 
 receiving waters. The problem of sludge deposits will 
 be analyzed in the Commission's proposed supplemental 
 study program. 
 
 76 
 
Because certain presently degraded reaches are 
 projected to have major and moderate deficiencies in the 
 dissolved oxygen level, even assuming a minimum 85 percent 
 removal of BOD by secondary treatment, the Commission 
 recommends that highest priority be given to the development 
 of feasible methods of advanced waste treatment, or combina- 
 tions of advanced waste treatment methods and other alterna- 
 tives to achieve the adopted water quality standards. 
 
 In accordance with the Water Quality Act of 1965, 
 it is recommended that low flow augmentation not be provided 
 as a substitute for feasible waste treatment at the source. The 
 Commission recommends study of the role of low flow augmenta- 
 tion as a means of meeting water quality standards prior to 
 construction or alteration of reservoirs for that purpose. It is 
 proposed that environmental factors that should be considered 
 in planning alterations of river flows be identified in task one 
 of the supplemental study, and that environmental implications 
 of alternative flood management measures be evaluated in 
 subtask two of task four, with particular reference to the effects 
 of alterations of river flow. 
 
 Related recommendations concerning alterations 
 of river flow are presented under study element two, Power. 
 
 77 
 
2. POWER 
 
 The Commission will participate in a two-year 
 comprehensive study of electric bulk power facility siting in 
 New England, to be carried out in cooperation with the New 
 England Energy Policy Staff established by the New England 
 Regional Commission, with the Commission's Committee on Power 
 and the Environment and the electric power industry of New England. 
 Provision will be made for citizens participation in the study, which 
 will be completed June 30, 1974. This study proposal was developed 
 independently of the Connecticut River Basin comprehensive water 
 and related land resources investigation. It represents recognition 
 of the need for regionwide system planning in the development of 
 optimum bulk power systems to meet future power requirements 
 of the New England region. Among its principal objectives is the 
 development of means of assuring consideration of environmental 
 factors in power plant siting in New England. The environmental 
 implications of alternative technologies will be analyzed for their 
 effect on the selection of regional power plant sites. Criteria will 
 be developed for the installation of major power facilities that will 
 provide for the monitoring of environmental consequences and 
 restrict adverse environmental effects. 
 
 The Commission recommends that power generating 
 and transmission facilities be developed in the Basin as 
 warranted by the results of the two-year power plant siting study. 
 The Coordinating Committee's recommendation that existing private 
 and municipal utility system power supply more than double by 1980 
 to meet projected demand is therefore included within the scope 
 of the study, as is its recommendation that future thermal power 
 plant siting be confined to tidal sections of the river and to the main 
 portions of hydroelectric station ponds where circulating water 
 systems could be used. 
 
 Since specific power projects were not recommended in 
 the Coordinating Committee's Early Action Plan, no projects are 
 specifically included within the scope of the power plant siting 
 study in the same manner that flood control and multiple purpose 
 reservoirs are included within the scope of the restudy of flood 
 management alternatives. It is understood, however, that specific 
 project proposals will be subject to the findings and recommendations 
 of the power plant siting study. 
 
 78 
 
The Commission concurs with the Coordinating 
 Committee's expressed concern over the possible et ^logical 
 effects of thermal discharge; cooling water requirements for 
 thermal electric generation - the largest but nonconsumptive 
 industrial water demand in the Basin - are projected to increase 
 over sixfold between I960 and 2020. A study of the impact of 
 multiple thermal discharges on receiving waters is recommended 
 in study element 1, Water Quality. 
 
 The Commission recommends study of minimum 
 flow releases below all dams in the Basin, to determine: 
 
 the feasibility and desirability of a 0. 2 cfsm release 
 rate for main stem reservoirs; 
 
 the extent of releases that would be desirable and 
 feasible for dams on the tributaries; and 
 
 means of requiring power plants not up for relicensing 
 to provide desired releases. 
 
 Pending a study of the 0. 2 cfsm release rate for 
 main stem reservoirs, the Commission provisionally approves 
 the regulation of flows recommended by the Coordinating Committee 
 to provide minimum flow releases of 0. 2 cfsm at four main stem 
 power projects Wilder, Bellows Falls, Vernon and Turners 
 Falls. While the supplemental study will not provide a basis for 
 predicting the ecological consequences of every alteration of river 
 flow, the Commission will cooperate with member States and 
 agencies and with the scientific community in developing this 
 capability to the extent possible. 
 
 79 
 
3. OUTDOOR RECREATION 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 following elements of the Coordinating Committee's Early Action 
 Plan for outdoor recreation; 
 
 Establishment of a Connecticut River National Recreation 
 Area, generally as described in the Bureau of Outdoor 
 Recreation's 1968 report, "New England Heritage. " 
 This recommendation is subject to the understanding that 
 the National Recreation Area concept is being modified by 
 the Department of the Interior and, as the proposed Connecti- 
 cut Historic Riverway now emphasizes preservation of the 
 Basin's existing landscape and cultural pattern in place of 
 active outdoor recreational use. The original proposal con- 
 sists of the following Federal and State elements: 
 
 Federal : 23, 500-acre Coos Scenic River unit in 
 northern New Hampshire and Vermont; 12, 000-acre Mount 
 Holyoke unit in Massachusetts; 21, 200-acre Gateway unit 
 in Connecticut; and a 280-mile Connecticut Valley Trail 
 and a Connecticut Valley Tourway. The Commission 
 adopts a CRC recommendation (CRC report, page VI-2) 
 that implementation of the proposed Connecticut River 
 National Recreation Area be subject to the approval of 
 each unit by local advisory committees, and, in the case 
 of the Coos unit in northern New Hampshire and Vermont, 
 to the appointment and approval of "an officially established 
 advisory committee . . . similar to the ones existing in 
 Massachusetts and Connecticut. 11 
 
 State : 18,300-acre Cockaponset State Forest, 4,400- 
 acre Glastonbury Meadows State Park and 250-acre Windsor 
 Locks-Kings Island State Park, in Connecticut; 4, 800-acre 
 Mount Tom State Park and 31, 000-acre Northfield Mountain 
 State Park, in Massachusetts; and 14, 000-acre Connecticut 
 Lakes State Park, 15,400-acre Moore-Comerford Inter- 
 state Park, and a 27, 500-acre Rogers' Rangers Historic 
 Riverway, in New Hampshire and Vermont. Non-Federal 
 elements of the proposed Connecticut River National 
 Recreation Area, like non-Federal elements of the Basin 
 plan generally, are endorsed subject to State or local 
 approval. 
 
 80 
 
Streambank acquisition for public access to Basin fishery- 
 resources. Nearly two-thirds of the Basin's water bodies 
 of 100 to 500 acres in size are unavailable for recreational 
 use because of insufficient access. Only 61 have public 
 access for a broad range of outdoor recreational activities. 
 
 Basinwide wild and scenic river program. 
 
 Continued environmental studies of the feasibility of using 
 water supply impoundments to meet recreational needs. 
 
 Recommendations to meet recreational needs for 
 fishing and hunting, recreational boating and water and related land 
 recreational ne^ds are discussed under study element 4, Preser- 
 vation of Sites; study element 5, Anadromous Fisheries Restora- 
 tion; 6, Resident Fish and Wildlife; 9, Upstream Water and Related 
 Land Resources Management; and 10, Flood Control and Multiple 
 Purpose Reservoirs. The Commission adopts the Committee's 
 finding that Early Action Plan proposals for recreation and land 
 acquisition for National forests, the National Recreation Area, 
 streambank access, wild and scenic rivers and flood plain 
 management would meet almost all of the demand for recreational 
 land. 
 
 The Commission recommends in addition that the 
 Federal Government explore the modification of policy concerning 
 Federal financial contributions to the acquisition and protection of 
 open space for outdoor recreation, with a view toward providing a 
 sliding scale of Federal support for State and local actions based 
 upon the degree of national and regional interests. The Bureau of 
 Outdoor Recreation should be funded and authorized to provide 
 professional staff assistance for a period of two to three years to 
 assist the Basin States in organizing State and local responses to 
 the findings and recommendations of the Bureau's "New England 
 Heritage" report. 
 
 Because State and Federal recreation areas are some 
 distances away from heavy Lower Basin urban demand centers, 
 high priority should be given to water based recreational develop- 
 ment within the urban environment. 
 
 81 
 
Neither the Commission's nor the Coordinating 
 Committee's recommendations for outdoor recreation would meet 
 projected 1980 recreational water demand. The Commission 
 recommends that further environmental alterations for recreational 
 purposes be subject to: 
 
 satisfactory completion of environmental impact evaluations 
 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, based 
 in part on the Basinwide environmental reconnaissance in 
 the proposed supplemental stady program; 
 
 continual environmental evaluation throughout project plan- 
 ning, development and operation, with provision for project 
 modification to reduce or eliminate adverse effects; and 
 
 conformance with the recommended strategy for meeting 
 economic and environmental objectives in the Basin, 
 with consideration for the implications of alternative 
 population and economic growth projections. 
 
 82 
 
4. PRESERVATION OF SITES 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 Coordinating Committee's Early Action Plan for preservation of 
 nearly 600 archeological and over Z50 natural and historical sites. 
 
 The State of Vermont has expressed opposition to Victory 
 reservoir which is included within the scope of the Commission's 
 proposed restudy of flood management alternatives. It is there- 
 fore subject to a minimum delay of 30 months from the start of the 
 study, or to abandonment, depending on the results of the study. 
 In its place, the Commission adopts the statement in Figure 48, 
 Appendix O of the Coordinating Committee report, that "the Victory 
 wetlands, with a diversity of habitats and wildlife, must be regarded 
 as a unique and significant state resource and accordingly should be 
 given special protection. "* 
 
 Three general classifications of sites having unique 
 natural values are added to the list of sites for preservation and 
 controlled use: 
 
 proposed sites of large flood control and multiple purpose 
 reservoirs and Public Law 566 small watershed impound- 
 ments included within the scope of the supplemental study 
 program, with provision for interim outdoor recreational 
 use pending commitments on development and for perma- 
 nent outdoor recreational use in the case of sites abandoned 
 for reservoir use where such use is compatible with soil 
 suitability and neighboring land uses; 
 
 the undeveloped or sparsely settled flood plains, with 
 particular reference to flood plains now in agricultural, 
 recreational or other open spaces uses; and 
 
 the remaining undeveloped portions of the estuary, 
 possibly through expansion of the National Recreation Area 
 proposal to include marshland or upland areas. 
 
 *The 3600-acre Victory wetlands were purchased by the Vermont 
 Fish and Game Department December 30, 1969. 
 
 83 
 
5. ANADROMOUS FISHERIES RESTORATION 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 following elements of the Coordinating Committee's Early Action 
 Plan for anadromous fisheries restoration: 
 
 Erection of fish passage facilities at the Turners Falls, 
 Wilder and Bellows Falls main stem power dams. Con- 
 struction of fish passage facilities at a given dam will 
 be contingent upon completion and successful operation of 
 all downstream fish passage facilities, and, in the case of 
 a licensed hydroelectric project, a determination by the 
 Federal Power Commission that such a facility is in the 
 best public interest. 
 
 Improvement or replacement of the fish passage facility 
 at Holyoke dam, to accommodate increased numbers of 
 fish to be passed through new facilities at other dams. 
 
 Installation of fish hatchery facilities to provide one 
 million smolt (two-year-old salmon) annually. 
 
 Streambank acquisition for fishing, coordinated with stream- 
 bank acquisition for other uses. 
 
 Interstate cooperation in operation of fish hatcheries and 
 sharing of the fish harvest. 
 
 Minimum flow releases from existing dams (See study element 
 Power ). 
 
 Flow augmentation from three multiple purpose reser- 
 voirs - Honey Hill, Black Ledge and Cold Brook - had been 
 recommended by the Coordinating Committee for anadromous 
 fisheries restoration. These reservoirs are included within the 
 scope of the supplemental study program and are not included in the 
 1980 Basin plan recommended by the Commission at this time. 
 
 The Commission recommends in addition that public and 
 private interests sharing responsibility for the operation of power 
 and other reservoirs together develop an equitable method of sharing 
 the cost of recommended fish passage facilities. 
 
 84 
 
6. RESIDENT FISH AND WILDLIFE 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 following elements of the Coordinating Committee's Early Action 
 Plan for resident fish and wildlife: 
 
 streambank acquisition for public access to fishery re- 
 sources, coordinated with streambank acquisition for other 
 purposes; 
 
 construction of fish hatcheries and fish ladder sf and 
 
 acquisition or zoning of presently unprotected wetland and 
 upland areas. 
 
 The Commission recommends construction of small 
 upstream watershed projects to provide fish and waterfowl habitat, 
 flow augmentation benefits and shoreline acquisition, with qualifica- 
 tions discussed under study element 9, Upstream Water and Related 
 Land Resources Management. 
 
 The Commission recommends in addition that State 
 and Federal agencies responsible for the administration of open 
 space and recreational land acquisition programs develop, under 
 the auspices of the Commission's Connecticut River Basin Program, 
 a long-range Basinwide program for public streambank access and 
 use, which would recommend an appropriate and effective allocation 
 of financial and administrative responsibilities. The need for early 
 and coordinated action is accentuated by the rate of progress in 
 restoring water quality and escalating demands for shoreline land. 
 
 The Coordinating Committee report documents a con- 
 tinuing trend toward the disappearance of wildlife species and the 
 reduction of wildlife habitat in the Basin. Because a resource base 
 overburdened by population growth and economic development cannot 
 support wildlife -- because deterioration of the quantity and quality 
 of wildlife habitat is associated with deterioration of the human 
 environment -- the protection of remaining wildlife habitat is an 
 essential objective of the recommended strategy for meeting economic 
 and environmental needs. The Commission recommends that, until 
 policies are established governing population and economic growth patterns 
 in the New England region, Basin resource management programs 
 be developed that are compatible with the requirements of wildlife 
 management. Appropriate State and local agencies are particularly 
 urged to identify and utilize opportunities to improve wildlife 
 
 ^Already recommended on the main stem for anadromous fisheries 
 restoration. 
 
 85 
 
habitat and to encourage improved wildlife management practices 
 by private land owners. Additional land management measures 
 that will improve wildlife habitat are recommended under study- 
 element 9, Upstream Water and Related Land Resources Management 
 
 86 
 
7. WATER SUPPLY 
 
 The Commission endorses the Coordinating Committee's 
 recommendation for expansion of municipal and industrial water 
 supplies. 
 
 Congress has authorized and appropriated funds to 
 begin construction of Beaver Brook reservoir, on the Ashuelot 
 River, to provide water supply storage for Keene, New Hampshire. 
 It is included in the 1980 Basin plan, under study element 10, 
 flood control and multiple purpose reservoirs, with the approval 
 of Governor Peterson. Honey Hill reservoir was recommended 
 by the Coordinating Committee to provide storage for industrial 
 water supply; it has been withdrawn from the 1980 Basin plan 
 recommended by the Commission at this time, and is included with- 
 in the scope of the supplemental study program. 
 
 The Massachusetts Legislature has authorized diver- 
 sion of Connecticut River water into Quabbin reservoir by the 
 Northfield Mountain pumped storage project to meet water supply 
 needs of the Metropolitan DistrictCommis sion service area. The 
 inclusion of this project in the 1980 Basin plan is subject only to 
 further legislative or executive action, for which qualifying recom- 
 mendations of the Commission may serve as a guide. The 
 Commission recommends continual evaluation for adverse environ- 
 mental effects throughout project planning, development and 
 operation, with mitigation of environmental damage or repair by 
 removal of the cause. 
 
 The Commission notes that Quabbin reservoir, 
 Massachusetts' largest water supply serving nearly half the State's 
 population, has not recovered from the drought of the middle and 
 late 1960's. It has decreased more than five percent -- or four and 
 one-half feet -- in the past year and has exceeded its maximum safe 
 yield continuously for several years. Interbasin transfers from the 
 Merrimack River basin are considered appropriate and acceptable 
 long term solutions and are in the early stages of planning. Trans- 
 fer of excess flows from the Connecticut River Basin is considered 
 an essential short term solution, and is therefore not considered in- 
 consistent with a long term strategy of satisfying resource needs 
 through sound management of population and economic growth 
 patterns. 
 
 87 
 
The Commission recommends that all proposed diversion 
 of Connecticut River water below the newly constructed nuclear powex 
 plant at Vernon, Vermont, including Northfield Mountain, be condi- 
 tioned on satisfactory completion of environmental impact evaluations 
 of the power plant. It is recommended that these evaluations include 
 careful investigation of the possibility of radioactive contamination 
 of Connecticut River water and its implications for the diversion of 
 Connecticut River water into Quabbin reservoir. It is further 
 recommended that proposed diversions be conditioned on adequate 
 measures to prevent radioactive contamination of diverted water, 
 including water quality monitoring. 
 
 Diversion of surplus water from the Basin is 
 recommended subject to recognition of riparian rights, specifically, 
 the right of return of these waters when needed for water supply or 
 flow augmentation within the Basin. 
 
 The Commission recommends diversion of water 
 from the Millers River watershed into Quabbin reservoir, to meet 
 water supply needs of the Metropolitan District Commission ser- 
 vice area, by modification of the existing Tully reservoir to include 
 storage for flood skimming. Approval of Tully and any diversions 
 at Northfield Mountain above amounts presently authorized by law* 
 are conditioned on: 
 
 creation of a regional mechanism for allocating water 
 in which downstream States have a voice. In the event 
 that the creation of such a mechanism proves unfeasible, 
 it is recommended that its functions be performed by 
 existing institutions with appropriate regional resource 
 management capabilities; 
 
 prior measurement of the impacts -- environmental, social, 
 public health, economic and other -- used in determining 
 ''excess flows;" 
 
 *The amount of water that may be diverted at Northfield Mountain 
 is limited by Massachusetts law over a three consecutive year 
 period to 375 million mgd for each day that river flow exceeds 
 17, 000 cfs at Montaque City. Diversion is prohibited by law on 
 any day when flow is less than 17, 000 cfs at Montaque City. 
 Chapter 766, Acts of 1970, M. G. L. 
 
 88 
 
prior determination of the location and available yield of 
 alternative groundwater sources in the Basin and on 
 development of adequate measures for their protection, in 
 coordination with environmental and flood management 
 studies conducted as part of the supplemental study program. 
 
 Environmental, social and economic impact studies of 
 proposed water diversions from the Basin are being carried out as 
 part of the New England Water Supply (NEWS) study under the 
 direction of the Corps of Engineers.* These include a study by 
 Essex Marine Laboratory, Inc. , to predict the probable impact of 
 upstream freshwater diversion on the Connecticut River estuary, *# 
 and an assessment by Abt Associates, Inc. , of the socio-economic 
 effects of diversions out of the Millers River Watershed (Tully) 
 and out of the Connecticut River at Northfield, Massachusetts. 
 Both studies are being done under contract with the Corps of Engi- 
 neers and are scheduled for completion in December 1971, and 
 April 1972, respectively. The Commission recommends that 
 appropriate remedies be applied should these studies reveal a risk 
 of significant adverse impact from proposed diversions, including 
 Northfield and Tully. 
 
 The Commis sion has recommended continued environ- 
 mental studies of the feasibility of using water supply impoundments 
 to meet recreational needs, under study element 3, Outdoor 
 recreation. The Commission recommends that specific consideration 
 
 be given to expanded recreational development of Quabbin reservoir, 
 in part for the benefit of Lower Basin metropolitan area residents, 
 in return for the allocation of Lower Basin water supply to meet 
 out-of-Basin needs. Emphasis should be given to recreational 
 proposals that are compatible with continued maintenance of wildlife 
 habitat in surrounding areas. 
 
 The Commission's recommendations for power plant 
 cooling water supply are discussed under study element 2, Power. 
 
 # Described in Appendix C. 
 A draft report of the estuary impact study was submitted to the 
 New England Division, Corps of Engineers, in August 1971: Essex 
 Marine Laboratory, Possible Effects of Various Diversions from 
 the Connecticut River (draft) report to the U. S. Army Corps of 
 Engineers, Report No. 2, Essex, Connecticut. 
 
 89 
 
8. NAVIGATION 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 following elements of the Coordinating Committee's Early Action 
 Plan for navigation, subject to satisfactory completion of environ- 
 mental impact evaluations pursuant to the National Environmental 
 Policy Act, as defined in the introduction to this section. 
 
 Enlargement of the present commercial navigation project 
 from Saybrook Light to Hartford to a depth of 1 6 feet and 
 to a width of 250 feet, provided that suitable spoil areas 
 are located for the placement of dredged material. 
 
 Construction of a 32 -mile recreational navigation channel 
 between Hartford and Holyoke, provided that proposed 
 alterations of the Windsor Locks Canal, listed in Appendix 
 O of the Coordinating Committee report as an historic land- 
 mark, are acceptable to the State of Connecticut. 
 
 Dredging for recreational navigation in the 14-mile reach 
 between Holyoke dam and the Northampton-Hatfield line. 
 
 Recreational navigation improvements on the main stem 
 behind the Holyoke, Turners Falls, Vernon and Bellows 
 Falls power dams, consisting of the removal of shoals, 
 navigation aids and bypass trailer service.* 
 
 The Coordinating Committee found that the recommended 
 Hartford-to-Holyoke recreational boating project would accommodate 
 an additional 4, 000 boats and partially meet recreational boating 
 demand, which is projected to triple by 2020. The Commission 
 accepts this finding as a measure of the burden placed upon the 
 Lower Basin's environmental resources by the continuing concen- 
 tration in that region of population, income and economic growth. 
 The Commission recommends that measures to alleviate recrea- 
 tional boating pressures on the Lower Basin's water resources be 
 developed in accordance with the recommended strategy for meeting 
 economic and environmental needs and with sound management of 
 regional population and economic growth patterns. 
 
 *The Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation opposes 
 recommended navigation improvements behind Vernon and Bellows 
 Falls power dams and feels that, with the exception of the provision 
 for portage, these areas should be regarded as primarily canoeable 
 waters . 
 
 90 
 
9. 
 
 UPSTREAM WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES 
 
 MANAGEMENT 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 following elements of the Coordinating Committee's Early Action 
 Plan for upstream water and related land resources management: 
 
 Land treatment (e.g. erosion control) measures on over 
 1. 2 million acres of non-Federal land, including 204, 000 
 acres of agricultural land, 150, 000 acres of urban land 
 and 823, 000 acres of private, non-industrial forest land. 
 
 Land management measures for the Green and White 
 Mountain National Forests consisting of the following: 
 
 land treatment measures on 64, 000 acres; 
 soil surveys and watershed analyses on 
 approximately 306, 000 acres; and fish and 
 wildlife surveys and watershed analyses on 
 30, 500 acres; and 
 
 structural improvements, including 
 recreational facilities on 555 acres; three 
 recreational impoundments which would 
 provide 310 surface water acres; 225 miles of 
 roads and trails; 37 fire control heliports; 
 and 37 acres of fish and wildlife improvements. 
 
 Resource, conservation and development projects. 
 
 Accelerated planning assistance to 180 towns in the prepara- 
 tion of resource inventories, town soil reports and inter- 
 pretations, flood plain information studies and soil surveys 
 involving 1. 5 million acres of non- Federal lands. 
 
 Local land use regulations for environmental protection. 
 
 Protection of open spaces through sound resource manage- 
 ment practices. 
 
 Loans and grants for rural water supply and waste treatment. 
 Accelerated conservation education. 
 
 91 
 
Of 17 upstream watershed projects recommended in 
 the Coordinating Committee's Early Action Plan, including 78 
 floodwater retarding and multiple purpose structures, three are 
 currently planned Public Law 566 projects for which State executive 
 approvals have been obtained: 
 
 West Branch, Westfield River, Massachusetts; 
 
 Upper Quaboag River, Massachusetts; and 
 
 Sugar River, New Hampshire. 
 
 These are included in the 1980 Basin plan subject only to further 
 legislative or executive action. The Commission recommends con- 
 tinual evaluation of these projects for adverse environmental effects 
 throughout project planning, development and operation, with miti- 
 gation of environmental damage or repair by removal of the cause. 
 
 Upstream watershed projects including flood control 
 reservoirs are generally included within the scope of the Commis- 
 sion's proposed restudy of flood management alternatives; evalua- 
 tion of individual projects will be limited to major reservoirs that 
 would be constructed by the Corps of Engineers. Commission 
 approval of upstream watershed projects, individually and as a 
 system, is conditioned on satisfactory completion of environmental 
 impact evaluations pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
 Act, as defined in the introduction to this section. The 
 following nine projects are included in the 1980 Basin plan, subject 
 to the additional requirement that flood plain regulations be made 
 an integral part of Public Law 566 project planning: 
 
 Two upstream watershed projects currently being planned 
 under Public Law 566: 
 
 Indian - Mascoma River, New Hampshire. 
 
 Indian Brook, New Hampshire. 
 
 Seven potential Public Law 566 projects, subject to local 
 sponsor ship: 
 
 Mill River, Massachusetts. 
 
 Mohawk River, New Hampshire. 
 
 East Branch, North River, Vermont. 
 
 North Branch, Deerfield River, Vermont. 
 
 Whetstone project, Vermont. 
 
 Ball Mountain Brook, Vermont. 
 
 Pas sumpsic -Moos e Rivers, Vermont. 
 
 92 
 
The Commission recommends further in-depth 
 evaluation of five additional Public Law 566 small upstream water- 
 shed projects to determine economic feasibility: 
 
 Upper Ammonoosuc River, New Hampshire. 
 
 Gale River, New Hampshire. 
 
 Blow -Me -Down Brook, New Hampshire. 
 
 Black River, Vermont. 
 
 Wells River, Vermont. 
 
 An additional 118 upstream impoundment sites were 
 identified by the Coordinating Committee for possible development 
 by State and local interests for a variety of purposes. These are 
 recommended by the Commission for continuing State and local 
 consideration. Commission approval of reservoir construction 
 on any of these 118 sites is conditioned on evaluation of their indivi- 
 dual and collective regional impacts. Because these sites are 
 suggested for State or local consideration only, it is emphasized 
 that they are included in the Basin plan subject to State or local 
 approval. 
 
 The Commission recommends continued efforts to 
 consolidate patterns of ownership within the National forests 
 to secure effective forest land management. Combinations of new 
 land acquisition, as recommended by the Coordinating Committee, 
 and exchanges of land will probably be necessary tools. The 
 Commission notes that the question of achieving equity in the effect 
 of Federal land acquisition on local tax bases has been generally 
 reviewed by the Public Land Law Review Commission and is being 
 studied further within the Federal Government. 
 
 Land management measures generally imply long- 
 term decisions concerning Basinwide land use patterns. Although 
 the Coordinating Committee found that implementation of the Early 
 Action Plan would increase publicly available land from 10. 2 per- 
 cent of the total Basin land area in 1965 to 12. 6 percent in 1980, 
 and land available for intensive recreational use from one to almost 
 three percent, the Commission finds that the achievement of both 
 economic development and environmental quality objectives and the 
 implementation of a sound strategy for Basin resource management 
 require even greater emphasis on public land controls for a variety 
 of recreational and other economic and environmental purposes. The 
 Commission recommends that Basin land management measures be 
 developed in accordance with this objective, and generally in accord- 
 ance with sound management of regional population and economic 
 growth patterns. 
 
 93 
 
10. FLOOD CONTROL AND MULTIPLE PURPOSE RESERVOIRS 
 
 The Commission recommends a restudy of flood manage- 
 ment alternatives as part of the supplemental study program to meet 
 a comprehensive range of flood plain management needs, including 
 preservation of natural flood storage for protection and enhancement 
 of environmental values as well as for flood protection. This 
 study, described in section E, below, is intended to serve as the 
 basis for Congressional and State consideration of a Basin flood 
 management plan recommended by the Commission. It is needed to 
 permit informed judgment concerning regional impacts -- social, 
 economic and environmental -- associated with structural and non- 
 structural flood management alternatives. Although the development 
 of a detailed ecological model of the Basin is beyond its scope, 
 the study will be coordinated with other research efforts which 
 together will support reasonable assessments of regional environ- 
 mental consequences. 
 
 The product of the study will be a report or reports 
 recommended for adoption by the Commission and for transmittal 
 to the President, to the Congress and to the Basin Governors as 
 elements of the Commission's comprehensive, coordinated joint 
 plan for water and related land resources in New England. 
 
 The Commission recommends participation by Federal 
 agencies with primary responsibility and competence in relevant 
 fields, by consultants retained by the Water Resources Council 
 and/or by the Commission, by citizens' interests through the 
 Citizens Advisory Board, and by the scientific community 
 through a Science/Research Advisory Committee. The latter two 
 groups will be established by the Commission and made permanent 
 parts of the Commission's Connecticut River Basin Program. 
 
 A total appropriation of $700, 000 is requested for the 
 performance of the recommended two and one-half year study, 
 under joint State - Federal management and coordination through 
 the Commission's Connecticut River Basin Program. 
 
 With the exception of Beaver Brook, all major flood 
 control and multiple purpose reservoirs recommended by the 
 Coordinating Committee have been withdrawn from the 1980 Basin 
 plan and are included within the scope of the supplemental study. 
 These include two projects recommended for State implementation, 
 Blackledge and Cold Brook, in Connecticut, and six Corps of 
 Engineers projects: Meadow in Massachusetts; Bethlehem Junction, 
 Claremont and Honey Hill in New Hampshire; and Gaysville and 
 
Victory in Vermont. The need for additional analysis is considered 
 sufficient to warrant a minimum delay of 30 months from the start 
 of the supplemental study program to permit completion of the study. 
 Because of Congressional de-authorization of Claremont and State 
 opposition to the remaining reservoirs, these projects are included 
 within the scope of the supplemental study program for analytic 
 purposes only, and will be recommended for implementation only 
 if the study results warrant and State and Congressional opposition 
 has been withdrawn. These projects are not included in the 1980 
 Basin plan recommended and submitted by the Commission to the 
 Water Resources Council at this time. 
 
 Beaver Brook reservoir was authorized by the Flood 
 Control Act of 1968, and Congress has appropriated funds to begin 
 land acquisition in fiscal 1972. Its purposes are to provide flood 
 protection, water supply and recreation principally for Keene, New 
 Hampshire, on the Ashuelot River. Because it has been authorized 
 by Congress, Beaver Brook's inclusion in the Basin plan is subject 
 only to further legislative or executive action, for which qualifying 
 recommendations of the Commission may serve as a guide. The 
 Commission recommends continual evaluation for adverse environ- 
 mental effects throughout project planning, development and 
 operation, with mitigation of environmental damage or repair by 
 removal of the cause. 
 
 The Commission endorses the Coordinating Committee's 
 recommendation for modification of three* existing Corps of Engi- 
 neers flood control reservoirs to include uses for recreation, fish 
 and wildlife enhancement and water supply, subject to satisfactory 
 completion of environmental impact evaluations pursuant to the 
 National Environmental Policy Act, as defined in the introduction 
 to this section; 
 
 * Modification of Barre Falls reservoir was included in portions 
 of the Coordinating Committee report as an alternative to 
 advanced waste treatment. Relevant Massachusetts and Corps 
 of Engineers positions are stated in pages XI-4, 11-12, of the 
 Coordinating Committee Main Report. 
 
 95 
 
Union Village, on the Ompompanoosuc River in Vermont 
 (recreation), subject to improvement of water quality on 
 the West Branch; 
 
 Tully, on the Millers River in Massachusetts (recreation 
 and diversion of water supply to Quabbin reservoir), sub- 
 ject to conditions set forth under study element 7, Water 
 Supply; and 
 
 Knightville, on the Westfield River in Massachusetts 
 (recreation and low flow augmentation for fisheries 
 enhancement), subject to the Commission's investigation 
 of the replacement of wildlife habitat that would be lost 
 by creation of a recreation pool. 
 
 Although the Coordinating Committee found that 
 most main stem hydroelectric reservoirs have insufficient storage 
 capacity to effect any reduction in flood stages, the question is 
 raised whether reregulation of existing power reservoir flows 
 throughout the Basin would appreciably increase available flood 
 protection for the major main stem damage centers. The Commis- 
 sion recommends that the possibility of reregulating total Basin- 
 wide existing power storage capacity for flood protection be 
 evaluated in its proposed restudy of flood management alternatives, 
 and, if study results warrant, that this proposal be incorporated 
 in the 1980 Basin plan. 
 
 The Commission recommends in addition that 
 existing dry-bed flood control reservoirs be studied for possible 
 agricultural or recreational use during periods when they are 
 normally dry. 
 
 96 
 
The Coordinating Committee recommended local 
 flood protection works on the Little and Westfield Rivers in 
 Westfield, Massachusetts, substantially as authorized by Congress 
 in the Flood Control Act of I960 and by the Massachusetts 
 Legislature in 1962. * Inclusion of the recommended dikes, road- 
 walls, pumping stations and channel improvement in the 1980 
 Basin plan is therefore subject only to further legislative or 
 executive action, for which qualifying recommendations of the 
 Commission may serve as a guide. The Commission recommends 
 continual evaluation of this project for adverse environmental 
 effects throughout project planning, development and operation, 
 with mitigation of environmental damage or repair by removal 
 of the cause. 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of 
 three Coordinating Committee Early Action Plan recommendations 
 for local flood protection works, considered necessary to comple- 
 ment other flood control measures, conditioned upon satisfactory 
 completion of environmental impact evaluations based in part 
 on the proposed Basinwide environmental reconnaissance: 
 
 Lancaster, New Hampshire (small ice retention dam and 
 channel improvement); 
 
 St. Johnsbury, Vermont (dike and pumping station); and 
 
 Hartford, Connecticut (conduit with headwall and 
 pumping structure). 
 
 ^Chapter 638, Acts of 1962, M. G. L. Funds borrowed by the 
 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission to represent the 
 Commonwealth in project development were reallocated to 
 other purposes following withdrawal of local support. At the 
 request of U. S. Representative Edward Boland, of Springfield, 
 funds requested in 1971 by the New England Division, Corps of 
 Engineers, to prepare a survey report for Westfield River local 
 protection works and other projects were diverted to the Water 
 Resources Council for Basin environmental studies. The amount 
 requested - $110, 000 - is included in the supplemental study 
 budget for Fiscal Year 1972. 
 
 97 
 
A fifth local protection project recommended by the 
 Coordinating Committee at Hartford, Vermont (excavation to 
 alleviate risk of ice jam flooding), has been completed. 
 
 The adequacy of existing local protection works and 
 the desirability of expanding local protection needs clarification. 
 While criticism of the Coordinating Committee's flood control 
 plan focuses on the relative merits of reservoirs and flood plain 
 management, considerable public investment has already gone into 
 local protection devices for the major damage centers. The 
 Commission recommends in its proposed restudy of flood manage- 
 ment alternatives that the economic cost and engineering feasibility 
 of improving these works be assessed in greater detail, along with 
 the loss of natural Basin storage and concomitant increase in flood 
 stages and damages that result downstream from building new 
 dikes and walls in natural flood storage areas. 
 
 The Commission recommends implementation of the 
 following Coordinating Committee Early Action Plan recommenda- 
 tions for nonstructural flood protection measures: 
 
 flood plain zoning along over ZOO miles of the main stem 
 from Saybrook, Connecticut, to above White River Junction, 
 Vermont, shown on plates M-6 to M-28 of Appendix M of 
 the Coordinating Committee report; 
 
 public information programs on the availability of flood 
 plain insurance and flood fighting; 
 
 improved operation of flood control reservoirs, through 
 expansion of a Corps of Engineers computerized network 
 of remote river stage data stations; and 
 
 improvement and expansion of flood forecasting service 
 for the Basin provided by the National Weather Service 
 Forecast Center. 
 
 98 
 
It has been noted that unless controls are exercised 
 over patterns of population and economic growth affecting the flood 
 plains, natural and artificial flood storage will prove inadequate 
 by 2020. If so, substantial public investment in artificial flood 
 storage or other costly flood protection measures will be needed. 
 The Commission concurs in the Coordinating Committee's finding 
 that "indiscriminate flood plain encroachment . . . would more 
 than offset protection gained by reservoirs and local protection 
 works . ' ' 
 
 The Federal interest in flood plain management has 
 broadened since the Federal interest in flood control was established 
 by the Flood Control Act of 1936, but it must be broadened further. 
 The scope and impact of Federal structural flood protection mea- 
 sures contrast sharply with the minimal effect of nonstructural 
 measures administered by the States and localities. A comprehen- 
 sive approach is needed to the concept of flood plain management 
 rather than to the narrower concept of flood control. This approach 
 must be developed and coordinated, at the initiation of the Federal 
 government, among Federal and State agencies and local govern- 
 ments . 
 
 The Commission recommends shared responsibility 
 among the three levels of government for flood plain management, 
 with emphasis on Federal-State financial and administrative respon- 
 sibility for flood plain delineation, zoning and acquisition. A 
 principal objective of task three of the supplemental study is to 
 develop improved legal, institutional and financial arrangements for 
 preservation of the undeveloped flood plain. Pending completion 
 of the study, the Commission recommends Federal legislation that 
 would further broaden relevant National policy enunciated in the 
 1936 and subsequent flood control acts, and provide Federal 
 assistance to the Basin states and localities for flood plain manage- 
 ment. The Commission further recommends that such assistance 
 be conditioned upon implementation of nonstructural measures for 
 flood plain management, where feasible, prior to implementation 
 of structural measures. 
 
 Agencies responsible for flood protection projects 
 recommended in the Basin plan -- Beaver Brook, upstream watershed 
 reservoirs, and local protection works -- should further consider 
 the phasing of construction to permit any modification in project 
 design, supplementary or alternative structural or nonstructural 
 measures deemed necessary upon an evaluation of the project's role 
 in Basinwide flood plain management. 
 
 99 
 
ESTUARY 
 
 The Coordinating Committee report treats estuarine 
 resource needs in insufficient detail to permit its use as a 
 supporting document for individual agency project authorization 
 reports. The Commission recommends the preservation of un- 
 developed coastal wetlands under study element 4, preservation 
 of sites. The Commission recommends the preservation of salt 
 marshes identified as sites requiring preservation in Appendix O 
 of the Coordinating Committee report. The Commission further 
 recommends that Basin management programs with potential im- 
 pacts on estuarine resources -- including programs for water 
 quality improvement, power plant construction, implementation 
 of the proposed Connecticut River National Recreation Area, 
 anadromous fisheries restoration, fish and wildlife enhancement, 
 commercial navigation, flood plain zoning and other land use 
 planning and regulation -- be considered in light of their estuarine 
 benefits and costs. The estuarine effects of flood management 
 alternatives will be assessed in the supplemental study. 
 
 The Commission incorporates by reference relevant 
 findings and recommendations of the National Estuarine Pollution 
 Study and National Estuary Study published in 1970 by the Depart- 
 ment of the Interior. The Commission recommends that estuarine 
 and related Basin management programs conform with the findings 
 and recommendations of the Commission's current comprehensive 
 coordinated long-range study of the water and related land re- 
 sources of Long Island Sound. The Commission notes that the 
 estuary will be studied in some detail in the Long Island Sound 
 study. Relevant recommendations of State Coastal Management 
 Legislation , an NERBC staff report published in 1970, are also 
 incorporated by reference. 
 
 1 00 
 
C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 
 
 General recommendations 
 
 1. The Commission recommends that its findings and 
 recommendations be accepted as an element of the comprehensive, 
 coordinated joint plan for its region, and, as modified by additional 
 flood plain management and ecological studies in response to 
 changing needs, be used as a basis for implementing action by all 
 levels of government and by private individuals and institutions. 
 
 2. The Commission recommends that its findings and 
 recommendations be used as a flexible guide for the development 
 and evaluation of measures for management of the water and 
 related land resources in the Basin. The Commission finds that the 
 Basin plan is generally consistent with the findings of the North 
 Atlantic Regional (NAR) water resources Type 1 framework study 
 relative to resource needs in the Basin, and is also consistent 
 
 with tentative findings of the Northeastern Water Supply Study 
 (NEWS), with particular reference to proposed diversions of 
 Connecticut River water to meet out-of-Basin water supply needs. 
 
 3. The Commission recommends that this report of 
 its findings and recommendations be used as a supporting document 
 for individual State and Federal agency authorization reports for 
 Basin management projects. 
 
 4. The Commission recommends that its findings and 
 recommendations be considered for adoption by the Basin States 
 
 as an increment of Statewide water and related land resource plans. 
 
 101 
 
Legal, institutional and financial arrangements for Basin 
 resource management 
 
 1. The Commission endorses and urges full implemen- 
 tation of the Coordinating Committee's recommendation for 
 continuing, cooperative Basin planning under the auspices of the 
 Commission. The functions of the Commission's Connecticut River 
 Basin Program (CRBP) include; 
 
 Overall management and coordination of the supplemental 
 study program described in section E below; initiation, 
 ranagement and coordination of additional studies as needed. 
 
 Public information. The Commission will develop report- 
 ing mechanisms to enable Basin interests to take an in- 
 formed and effective part in Basin resource management 
 activities, including legislation and administrative actions 
 at all levels of government. 
 
 Public education, to encourage resource management 
 interests -- on their own initiative and out of a better under- 
 standing of the regional implications of individual decisions -- 
 to accommodate their demands and expectations to the require- 
 ments of sound resource management. 
 
 Ongoing evaluations of existing programs. Task three of 
 the supplemental study -- ' analysis of legal, institutional 
 and financial arrangements for flood protection and flood 
 plain management" -- identifies areas of inquiry considered 
 relevant to other resource management programs, including 
 water quality, anadromous fisheries restoration, outdoor 
 recreation and water supply. Special studies will be under- 
 taken as necessary and appropriate. 
 
 Adoption of the Coordinating Committee's recommen- 
 dation for the establishment of a Connecticut River Basin Program 
 and Connecticut River Citizens Advisory Board within the Commis- 
 sion constitutes the Commission's principal recommendation for 
 continuing the Commission's functions and for updating the Basin 
 plan in accordance with section 204(4) of the Water Resources 
 Planning Act. 
 
 102 
 
2. Because the authorization of public programs 
 without adequate financial, legal and institutional arrangements 
 for their implementation is misleading and ultimately self- 
 defeating, the Commission urges the Congress and the States 
 to provide for such arrangements when authorizing elements of 
 the 1980 Basin plan. Future Basin resource management plans 
 recommended by the Commission, including a 1980 flood manage- 
 ment plan, will recommend financial, legal and institutional 
 arrangements necessary for implementation. 
 
 3.. The Commission supports the organization within 
 each Basin State of governmental powers and responsibilities to 
 coordinate State, community and private resource planning for 
 the portion of the Basin within each State, to provide for increased 
 area representation in the planning process, and to participate in 
 the allocation of Basin water and related land resources to meet 
 both in- and out-of-Basin needs. Since the effectiveness of a 
 Basinwide resource planning program will not be any greater than 
 its effectiveness in any one State, such organizations - for 
 example the kind of structure being studied by a special legislative 
 commission in Massachusetts - are considered essential to 
 achievement of the objectives of the Commission's Connecticut 
 River Basin Program. 
 
 103 
 
1980 costs and priorities 
 
 The Commission notes the extreme difficulty of 
 assigning priorities among competing elements of the 1980 Basin 
 plan for which needs have been thoroughly documented and are in 
 almost all cases considered urgent. While the following table of 
 costs and priorities lists elements of the plan in descending order 
 of priority, all elements are assigned priority over proposals 
 which are not a part of the plan and for which comparable planning 
 support is lacking. 
 
 Resource management programs grouped under 
 "land acquisition/controls" are a prerequisite in many cases to 
 implementation of programs listed below and in part for this 
 reason are given high priority. Programs are otherwise not 
 conditioned upon prior implementation of programs listed above. 
 For example, implementation of wastewater management proposals 
 is not contingent upon completion of the supplemental study. 
 
 Plan elements are both broadly and narrowly 
 classified and do not correspond to the 10 study element classifica- 
 tions utilized throughout the remainder of the report. However, it 
 is intended that all study elements be included in the classifications 
 adopted. 
 
 Economic and environmental planning criteria were 
 a factor in the assessment of priorities. On the whole, however, 
 it is not the Commission's intention to express its judgments about 
 relative needs for environmental quality as opposed to economic 
 development principally in this list, but rather to respond broadly 
 to proposals, based on a mixture of economic and environmental 
 considerations, by all participants in the field level investigation 
 and its review. 
 
 The Basin's ar chcological, natural and historical sites 
 identified in Appendix O of the Coordinating Committee report and 
 recommended for preservation are considered priceless. A compari- 
 son of their worth with other elements of the plan is neither possible 
 nor appropriate, and the preservation of sites is therefore not 
 included in the Commission's assessment of priorities and costs. 
 
 A plan for meeting the Basin's future power needs 
 will be developed as part of a larger study of alternative power 
 generating technologies and sites in New England, and it is therefore 
 not possible to indicate a comparative need for power generating 
 facilities in the Basin at this time. 
 
 1 04 
 
The Coordinating Committee's cost estimates are 
 accepted as measures of the magnitude of the 1980 needs identified 
 in the report. It is recommended that these and the following 
 table of costs and priorities be utilized by public and private 
 interests, including Congress and the State legislatures, for 
 guidance in making investment decisions affecting Basin resource 
 management. 
 
 105 
 
Xew England River Basins Commission costs and priorities 
 
 for public investment - Connecticut River Basin 
 
 1980 Early Action Plan 
 
 Priority Cost ($ millions) 
 
 supplemental study program $ 1 
 
 land acquisition/controls 
 
 nonstructural flood plain management 100^ 
 
 reservoir site acquisition 30 
 
 streambank acquisition 25 
 
 estuary land zoning /acquisition 10 
 National Recreation Area land zoning/acquisition 40 
 
 wastewater management 260 
 
 resource planning assistance, soil surveys and 27 
 resource conservation and development 
 projects 
 
 single and multiple purpose flood control structures 70 
 
 water supply 185 
 recreation 
 
 National Recreation Area/Historic Riverway 80 
 
 urban recreational development 10 
 
 anadromous fisheries restoration 20 
 
 recreational navigation improvements 10 
 
 National Forest improvements 25 
 
 land treatment 33 
 
 wild and scenic rivers 25 
 
 commercial navigation improvements 5 
 
 118 identified upstream reservoir sites 25_ 
 
 Total (rounded) $ 980 
 
 Excluding the cost of the Commission's participation in 
 the New England power plant siting study. 
 
 Estimates are rounded, and are either based on or are 
 compatible with price levels utilized by the Coordinating 
 Committee. 
 
 Costs for nonstructural flood plain management are sub- 
 ject to reassessment in the Commission's proposed supple- 
 mental study program. 
 
 106 
 
D. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 2020 LONG- 
 
 RANGE PLAN 
 
 The Commission recommends that continuing 
 consideration be given to the findings of the Coordinating Committee 
 with regard to potential means for meeting 2020 needs. It is 
 emphasized that local flood protection measures ?,re suggested for 
 protection of existing developed areas within the flood plain, rather 
 than for developments that would otherwise be restricted by imple- 
 mentation of recommended nonstructural measures for flood plain 
 management. Implementation of potential measures to meet 2020 
 needs is subject to prior implementation of relevant Early Action 
 Plan recommendations and to further evaluations of social, economic, 
 environmental and other regional impacts. This applies with 
 particular reference to major environmental alterations such as 
 power plants, navigational improvements and reservoirs. 
 
 107 
 
E. SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY PROGRAM 
 
 The following pages describe a study program 
 for the Connecticut River Basin, to be carried out under the 
 direction of the New England River Basins Commission under the 
 authority of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. The pro- 
 posed study is a supplement to the field level investigation con- 
 ducted by the Coordinating Committee under authority of a Resolu- 
 tion of the Public Works Committee of the United States Senate 
 dated May 11, 1962. 
 
 The proposed study will begin in Fiscal Year 1972 as 
 quickly as study organization can be accomplished, and will be 
 completed June 30, 1974. Total cost in new funding is estimated 
 at $700, 000, including $110, 000 in FY 1972 funds which the U. S. 
 House of Representatives, in its Public Works Appropriations 
 bill for FY 1972, has appropriated for environmental studies of the 
 1980 Basin plan under the direction of the Water Resources 
 Council. 
 
 Estimated costs for the study as a whole and for 
 individual tasks are not suggested as measures of the total invest- 
 ment in environmental research needed in the Basin, but rather 
 as a reflection, first, of levels of investment that are both necessary 
 and appropriate to accomplish the specific study objectives, and, 
 second, of the limit of Federal expenditures for specific study 
 tasks that can realistically be expected under the Water Resources 
 Planning Act in fiscal 1972-1974. 
 
 Costs of overall study management and coordination 
 will be borne by the New England River Basins Commission out of 
 its operating budget. 
 
 108 
 
Plan of Study 
 
 Preparation of a plan of study will precede the study. 
 Citizens and science advisory groups will participate with Connecti- 
 cut River Basin Program (CRBP) staff and with study management 
 teams in the: 
 
 identification and assessment of problems and needs; 
 
 determination of study objectives and scope; and 
 
 development of a study management plan indicating task 
 assignments, costs and scheduling. 
 
 Study objectives and procedures will conform where 
 necessary and appropriate to planning objectives and procedures 
 adopted by the Commission for the preparation of a comprehensive, 
 coordinated joint plan for the New England region as a whole. Plans 
 of study adopted in 1971 for the Commission's Long Island Sound 
 and Southeastern New England studies will be utilized as source 
 materials . 
 
 Obj ectives 
 
 The study's primary objectives are: 
 
 To develop information on environmental-primarily ecological - 
 characteristics, processes and values which will be useful for 
 future decisionmaking in the Basin generally, and will be applied 
 specifically in a reexamination of flood management alternatives 
 (tasks one and four); 
 
 To formulate a flood management plan for the Basin, based on 
 reexamination of the need for additional flood protection, analysis 
 of legal, financial and institutional arrangements for plan imple- 
 mentation, and rigorous examination of the full range of environ- 
 mental, social economic, engineering and other factors. 
 
 The environmental reconnaissance (task one) will be 
 published for distribution to public and private agencies as a contri- 
 bution to knowledge of the Basin's resources. 
 
 109 
 
The recommended flood management plan, together 
 with evaluations of regional impacts, will be transmitted to the 
 Basin Governors, and through the Water Resources Council to the 
 President and to the Congress, as an element of the 1980 Basin plan. 
 It will be designed to assist the Congress, the Basin States, local 
 governments and private interests to make informed decisions on 
 flood management for the Basin, on the assumption that Federal and 
 State agencies will develop projects to implement the plan. 
 
 Need for Study 
 
 Serious reservations have been expressed about various 
 aspects of the Coordinating Committee report by individual citizens 
 and citizen groups, local governments, political leaders and members 
 of the scientific community. Prime areas of concern are: 1) that 
 environmental information and values were not adequately reflected 
 in developing resource management recommendations for the Basin; 
 2) that the report's conclusions and recommendations on flood 
 management, involving an extensive set of major physical works, 
 were not supported by adequately detailed analyses of flood risk, 
 alternatives, or environmental effects. 
 
 In the absence of a study clarifying these issues, there 
 is little prospect of consensus on the need for or preferred methods 
 of providing additional flood protection. Areas subject to flood 
 hazard will remain so. Potentially effective and acceptable flood 
 control programs will remain unexplored in sufficient detail to 
 permit informed judgment. In the event of serious flood conditions, 
 solutions will be sought in a crisis atmosphere, quite possibly 
 without opportunity for thoughtful consideration of environmental 
 effects . 
 
 Scope 
 
 The study will produce an environmental sensitivity 
 analysis or reconnaissance of the Basin's environmental character- 
 istics, values and processes, both in general terms and with 
 special reference to areas and values most likely to be affected by 
 flood management decisions. The problem of flooding in the Basin 
 will be reassessed, with particular reference to major potential 
 damage centers and the need for additional protection. The study 
 will consider alternative flood management methods and will produce 
 a recommended flood management plan, taking into account both 
 quantitative and qualitative, economic and environmental benefits 
 
 110 
 
and costs, as these affect both specific project sites and the Basin 
 as a whole. 
 
 Action recommendations will be presented on a level 
 of specificity comparable to Study Element 10 of the Coordinating 
 Committee report, "Flood Control and Multiple Purpose Reservoirs". 
 Supporting analysis of alternatives will be presented in sufficient 
 detail and in a format that will permit the exercise of independent 
 judgment. 
 
 The study is organized into five tasks which are 
 further broken down into appropriate subtasks. The five basic 
 tasks are: 
 
 environmental reconnaissance of the Basin; 
 
 evaluation of the degree of additional flood protection needed; 
 
 assessment of legal, institutional, and financial arrange- 
 ments for flood protection and flood plain management; 
 
 evaluation of flood management alternatives, with environ- 
 mental and economic impact evaluations; and 
 
 plan formulation. 
 
 Each task will be coordinated with related Basin resource manage- 
 ment research. 
 
 Management and organization 
 
 The study will be performed under the overall manage- 
 ment and coordination of the Commission through staff employed by 
 the Commission for its Connecticut River Basin Program. Appro- 
 priate Federal and State agencies will participate in their areas of 
 responsibility and expertise. In addition to study leadership, NERBC 
 will participate in all study phases through Commission staff and 
 through private consultants. Beyond public meetings and hearings, 
 direct public participation will be secured through a Citizen Advisory 
 Board to the NERBC Connecticut River Basin Program. The scien- 
 tific community will participate through a Science/Research Advisory 
 Committee. 
 
 Each task will be executed by a study team led by an 
 agency with appropriate responsibilities and expertise in the subject 
 
 111 
 
of investigation. Actual performance of work may be by agency 
 personnel, or by other agencies or private consultants, or a combi- 
 nation. Each team will receive policy guidance from the Commis- 
 sion. Personnel for performance of the study will be provided by 
 the Water Resources Council, by member States and agencies of 
 the Commission, by Commission staff, by consultants, by the 
 Citizens Advisory Board, and by the Science/Research Advisory 
 Committee, under the overall management and coordination of the 
 Commis sion. 
 
 All reports on individual tasks and subtasks are to 
 be prepared for the Commission as inputs to a plan ultimately to 
 be formulated by all member states and agencies of the Commission, 
 with the participation of the Citizens Advisory Board and the Science/ 
 Research Advisory Committee. 
 
 112 
 
Task 1. Environmental reconnaissance of the Basin 
 
 Schedule: nine months - January 1 -September 30, 1972. 
 Cost: $135,000. 
 
 Pes cription : A reconnaissance of environmental features 
 of the Basin, with particular reference to aquatic ecosystems. 
 Existing information will be assembled and evaluated and will be 
 supplemented by field investigation. The reconnaissance will be 
 directed at selected ecological characteristics, processes and values 
 of the river system as a whole, with special consideration of specific 
 river reaches and characteristics and processes most likely to be 
 affected by alterations in river flows. Attention will be given to 
 major ecosystems, life zones, special habitats, food chains, 
 patterns of sedimentation and other factors that should be considered 
 in planning alterations in river flows. Concentration on critical 
 factors and selected river reaches should generate information 
 useful to analysis of flood management alternatives within limits of 
 schedules and funding. 
 
 Information on scenic, scientific, ar cheological and 
 historic sites and recreation areas assembled by the Coordinating 
 Committee will also be summarized in this task. However, emphasis 
 is on ecological investigation. 
 
 Results will be used to assist in the evaluation of flood 
 management alternatives in task four, but will be published in a 
 format that will also permit their use in the evaluation of other 
 resource management projects. 
 
 The development of a detailed ecological inventory and 
 predictive model pertinent to all resource use decisions for the 
 entire Basin is not included within the scope of this task. While a 
 strong case has been made for the development of a detailed Basin- 
 wide ecological model, a study of this magnitude would exceed not 
 only the limits of the Water Resources Planning Act, as a vehicle 
 for the authorization and funding of environmental research by 
 river basins commissions, but also the objectives of the supplemen- 
 tal study. Techniques need to be developed and refined of predicting 
 project impacts -- environmental, social, economic and other -- 
 on the Basin as a whole. The Commission is therefore willing to 
 cooperate with and encourages cooperation among, research insti- 
 tutions and scientists in exploring alternative sources of funding and 
 in developing suitable proposals for major research efforts in 
 
 113 
 
addition to the supplemental study. The conduct of additional water 
 and related land resources research in the Basin will be a primary- 
 function of the Connecticut River Basin Program, It is further 
 emphasized that the environmental reconnaissance and other study- 
 tasks are to be coordinated with related studies that 
 are separately managed and funded, and that the cumulative inputs 
 and outputs of the total research effort will substantially exceed those 
 of individual studies and study tasks. 
 
 Study management and organization: Task one will 
 utilize the equivalent of six full time Federal agency and consulting 
 personnel, with additional personnel from participating State 
 agencies. The Department of the Interior will serve as lead agency, 
 executed through the Regional Coordinator, Office of the Secretary, 
 with policy guidance from the Commission. The Environmental 
 Protection Agency (EPA) will also have a major role. A study 
 management team will be assembled from qualified professional 
 staff from appropriate agencies of the Department of Interior and 
 of EPA, with emphasis on competence in aquatic ecosystems. The 
 Commission will participate on the study management team, which 
 will be advised throughout the conduct of this task by the Citizens 
 Advisory Board and the Science/Research Advisory Committee. 
 Illustrative areas of responsibility are as follows: 
 
 Organization of Task one results, preparation of report - 
 Department of the Interior. 
 
 Fish, wildlife and aquatic ecosystems; special environmen- 
 tal factors, unique natural scenic, historical and archeo- 
 logical features; outdoor recreation resources - Department 
 of the Interior. 
 
 Water quality and public health - Environmental Protection 
 Agency. 
 
 Special studies - New England River Basins Commission. 
 
 114 
 
Task 2. Evaluation of need for additional flood protection 
 
 Schedule: six months - April 1, 1 972 -Septembe r 30, 1972. 
 Cost : $90, 000. 
 
 Pes cription : An evaluation of the degree of additional 
 flood protection needed, particularly at major urban and community 
 damage centers. This task will include an examination of the 
 Standard Project Flood as a decisionmaking tool in other river 
 basins, with special attention to the Standard Project Flood on the 
 Connecticut*. An analysis will also be made of the degree and 
 effectiveness of existing flood protection systems in the Basin and 
 of needs for additional protection in view of the extent and risk of 
 potential loss of life and property and associated economic impair- 
 ment. The analysis will be presented in sufficient detail and in a 
 format that will permit the exercise of independent judgment. *# 
 
 Study management and organization: Task two will 
 utilize the equivalent of six full time professional positions, with 
 additional personnel from participating State agencies. As out- 
 lined, the study management team will consist of personnel of the 
 Water Resources Council, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 
 Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture, appro- 
 priate Basin State agencies, and the Commission, with the Water 
 Resources Council serving as lead agency. The Citizens Advisory 
 Board and the Science/Research Advisory Committee will 
 participate. 
 
 * The Standard Project Flood is not used in evaluating benefits of 
 flood control projects. 
 
 ** Funds allocated to this task include $10, 000 in each of the fiscal 
 years 1972 and 1973 to cover costs of the Corps of Engineers in 
 providing detailed information for a special study of flood plain 
 management on a reach of the river between Holyoke and 
 Hatfield. The special study, not a part of the supplemental 
 study program, is being carried out by a consultant to the 
 Corps of Engineers, Washington, as part of a research program 
 directed at developing a revised methodology for consideration 
 of flood plain management alternatives. The study will, in effect, 
 constitute a direct contribution to the Supplemental Study. 
 
 115 
 
This task is central to the supplemental study program, 
 and is difficult to organize in ways that will fully utilize the special 
 knowledge and competence of agencies which have intensively studied 
 flood management problems in the Basin, and will also be generally 
 accepted by Basin interests as objective. The organization proposed 
 assumes that professional staff of the Council can be made available 
 for leadership of this task. 
 
 An alternative approach would be to arrange for the 
 National Academy of Sciences either to conduct or formally review 
 and comment on this task. The NAS report on alternatives for 
 water management in the Colorado Basin is a useful precedent. 
 
 As presently outlined, areas of responsibility are: 
 
 Examination of the concept and use of the Standard Project 
 Flood generally and in the Connecticut Basin -- Water Re- 
 sources Council. 
 
 Analysis of the degree of flood damage protection afforded 
 in the Basin by natural storage, flood control structures, 
 storage built for other purposes, flood plain regulation, 
 flood proofing, flood warning and forecasting, etc. -- 
 Water Resources Council, with Corps of Engineers, Soil 
 Conservation Service, New England River Basins Commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Analysis of alternative levels of protection and risk as a 
 basis for formulation of flood management program, 
 organization of study results and preparation of report -- 
 Water Resources Council, with New England River Basins 
 Commis sion. 
 
 116 
 
Task 3. Analysis of legal, institutional and financial arrangements 
 for flood protection and flood plain management 
 
 Schedule: nine months - April 1, 1 972-December 31, 1972. 
 
 Cost : $50, 000. 
 
 Description : An assessment of the adequacy of existing 
 mechanisms for the administration and financing of flood hazard 
 area management and flood damage reduction in the Basin. The 
 objective of this task is to provide bases for assessing the feasibility 
 of implementing alternative flood management programs identified 
 in Task 4 and for recommending legal, institutional, and financial 
 changes necessary to implement the recommended plan in Task 5. 
 It will consist of: 
 
 a broad examination of existing Federal, State and local laws, 
 institutional arrangements and programs for flood protec- 
 tion and flood plain management, as these affect the range 
 of effective choice of flood management in the Basin; 
 
 a more detailed assessment of existing and desirable State 
 and local flood plain regulation authority and activities in 
 the Basin (a Commission study, Flood Hazard Area Manage - 
 ment for New England, * is relevant); and 
 
 a more detailed evaluation of Federal-State -local cost-sharing 
 arrangements for both structural and nonstructural programs 
 for flood protection and flood plain management in the Basin. 
 
 Study Management and organization: Task three will 
 be performed by a consultant or consultants to the Commission, with 
 the cooperation and assistance of agencies with relevant responsibi- 
 lities and functions. The Citizens Advisory Board and the Science/ 
 Research Advisory Committee will participate. 
 
 Prepared for the Commission by Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc. 
 (1970). 
 
 117 
 
Task 4. Evaluation of flood management alternatives 
 
 Schedule: 15 months - October 1, 1 972 -December 31, 1973. 
 Cost : $375, 000. 
 
 Pes cription: A simultaneous evaluation of structural 
 and nonstructural flood management alternatives designed to meet 
 flood protection needs established in Task two will be undertaken 
 from three perspectives: 
 
 a) from the standpoint of the minimization of flood losses, 
 in which engineering and hydrologic factors will be a prime 
 consideration; 
 
 b) from the standpoint of environmental factors, in which 
 ecological, eesthetic and recreational values and land use 
 patterns are a prime consideration; and 
 
 c) from the standpoint of economic factors, in which 
 economic impacts on communities and the region are a 
 prime consideration. 
 
 Both quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs of 
 alternatives will be evaluated. Results of Tasks one, two, and 
 three are basic inputs to all evaluations. The special Corps- 
 funded flood plain study in Massachusetts will be utilized. The 
 Citizens Advisory Board and the Science/Research Advisory 
 Committee will participate. Results will be utilized in the formula- 
 tion of a flood management plan in Task five, and will be presented 
 in sufficient detail and in a format that will permit the exercise of 
 informed independent judgment. 
 
 Alternatives will be evaluated with reference to major 
 damage centers with and without existing flood protection works, 
 and to major flood prone land areas presently undeveloped or 
 sparsely settled. 
 
 Because flood control and multiple purpose reservoirs 
 and upstream watershed flood control projects were the subject of 
 intensive analysis by the Coordinating Committee, this task will 
 focus on alternatives which received less intensive study, in order 
 to provide a uniform quality of analysis of the various alternatives. 
 
 118 
 
The following alternatives will receive intensive 
 analysis in combination as well as singly: 
 
 local protection works, including the possibility of raising 
 existing dikes and walls and constructing new works, and 
 an assessment of the loss of natural Basin storage and 
 concomitant increase in flood stages and damages that 
 result downstream from building new dikes and walls in 
 natural flood storage areas; 
 
 nonstructural measures, including flood plain regulation; 
 acquisition in fee or less than fee of certain flood hazard 
 areas; possible acquisition and removal of flood-threatened 
 structures from the flood plain; flood forecasting /warning; 
 and flood proofing. Serious consideration will also be 
 given to flood insurance programs among flood manage- 
 ment alternatives evaluated in task four; and 
 
 potential use of existing storage and storage sites, 
 especially private main stem power reservoirs whether 
 or not subject to imminent relicensing, including the 
 prospect of raising existing power dams or buying 
 storage from power companies. 
 
 Major flood control and multiple purpose reservoirs 
 recommended by the Coordinating Committee are specifically 
 included within the scope of this task. These include Blackledge 
 and Cold Brook, recommended for State implementation, in 
 Connecticut, and the following Corps projects: Meadow, in 
 Massachusetts; Bethlehem Junction, Claremont and Honey Hill, 
 in New Hampshire; and Gaysville and Victory, in Vermont. 
 Upstream watershed projects including flood control reservoirs 
 are generally included within the scope of this task; however, 
 reevaluation of individual projects will be limited to major reser- 
 voirs that would be constructed by the Corps of Engineers. An 
 evaluation of alternatives to individual upstream watershed projects 
 is proposed only where environmental factors are involved which 
 are of sufficient importance to warrant evaluation. 
 
 A first subtask will involve evaluation of alternatives 
 from the standpoint of minimizing potential flood losses -- to lives 
 and property, to property values, to community tax bases and 
 expansion opportunities, and related losses. Both quantitative and 
 qualitative factors will be taken into account, including engineering 
 and hydrologic constraints and feelings of security and well-being. 
 
 A second subtask will evaluate environmental implications 
 of alternative flood management measures singly and as a system for 
 project sites and for the Basin as a whole, as a basis for the selection 
 
 119 
 
of alternatives, with particular reference to the effects of altera- 
 tions of river flow. Ecological factors taken into account will 
 include indicator organisms, special habitats , stream siltation and 
 erosion patterns and ecologically sensitive areas. Other factors 
 include scenic, historic and recreational values, and community 
 and regional land use patterns. 
 
 A third subtask will consist of an evaluation of economic 
 impacts, including the relative effect of alternative flood manage- 
 ment measures on employment, personal income, private invest- 
 ment in new or expanding industrial development, and tax revenues. 
 
 It is emphasized that subtask three is to be distin- 
 guished from benefit-cost analysis to determine the dollar-value 
 return on investments in water resources projects. Benefits and 
 costs in all three evaluations will be assigned dollar or other 
 valuations considered necessary and appropriate to provide an 
 adequate basis for plan formulation. Citizens participation in the 
 identification and use of appropriate measurements of value will 
 be essential; the roles of citizens and science advisory groups are 
 described below. 
 
 The implications of alternative population and economic 
 growth projections will be considered in the evaluation of alternatives. 
 Specific consideration will be given to the OBERS^projections . 
 
 Economic Activity in the United States by Water Resource Regions 
 and Subareas, Historical and Projected, 1 929 -2020 f.BERS report) 
 (draft), prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of 
 Business Economics, Regional Resources Division, and the U. S. 
 Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National 
 Resource Economics Division, for the Water Resources Council, 
 four volumes (Washington, 1971). It is stated in the draft OBERS 
 report that: 
 
 The OBERS projections are presented as mean- 
 ingful baseline or reference series for the analysis of 
 resource demands, development requirements, and po- 
 tential costs and benefits. They in no way restrict 
 planning groups from full consideration of alternative 
 rates and patterns of economic growth. Actually, the 
 usefulness of planning endeavors would be enhanced 
 by an adequate consideration of alternative sets of 
 projections. The OBERS projection system is avail- 
 able for use by the Water Resources Council and its 
 member agencies in the development of alternative 
 projections. 
 
 120 
 
Alternatives will be evaluated within the context of 
 constraints imposed by the 1980 Basin plan, in the form of recom- 
 mendations concerning water quality, minimum flow releases from 
 existing dams, navigation and other related resource management 
 programs. 
 
 Study management and organization: The evaluation 
 of flood management alternatives will utilize the equivalent of 10 
 full time Federal agency and consulting personnel, with additional 
 personnel from participating State agencies. Task four will 
 require the performance of three separate subtasks concurrently 
 by separate but interacting task groups. Overall coordination and 
 policy guidance will be provided by the Commission. Task group 
 composition and principal areas of responsibility are preliminarily 
 identified in the following paragraphs. 
 
 Subtask one: Evaluation of alternatives from standpoint 
 of minimizing flood losses 
 
 This task will cost approximately $170, 000 and will 
 utilize the equivalent of five fulltime Federal agency and consulting 
 personnel, with additional personnel from participating State 
 agencies. The task group will consist of perconnel of the U. S. 
 Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service of the 
 Department of Agriculture, the Federal Power Commission, the 
 National Weather Service of the Department of Commerce, appro- 
 priate Basin State agencies, and the New England River Basins 
 Commission, as lead agency. Areas of responsibility are identified 
 as follows: 
 
 Organization of study results and report preparation -- 
 New England River Basins Commission. 
 
 Analysis of local flood protection works as an alternative 
 to flood storage including the possibility of raising existing 
 dikes and walls and of providing more extensive new local 
 protection works than recommended in the Coordinating 
 Committee report; organization of study results and report 
 preparation -- Corps of Engineers. 
 
 Analysis of nonstructural alternatives, including flood plain 
 regulation, acquisition, clearance, flood forecasting/ warn- 
 ing, insurance and flood proofing -- New England River 
 Basins Commission and Corps of Engineers. 
 
 121 
 
Analysis of the potential use of existing storage 
 sites -- Corps of Engineers and Federal Power 
 
 and storage 
 Commission. 
 
 Reanalysis of flood control and multiple purpose Corps of 
 Engineers and Public Law 566 upstream watershed reser- 
 voirs considered by the Coordinating Committee, in the 
 light of findings of Task two concerning need for additional 
 flood protection -- Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation 
 Service and National Weather Service. 
 
 Subtask two: Evaluation of alternatives from standpoint of 
 environmental effects 
 
 The evaluation of environmental impacts of alternative 
 flood control measures will cost approximately $170, 000 and will 
 utilize the equivalent of five full time Federal agency and consulting 
 personnel with additional personnel from participating State agencies. 
 The Department of the Interior will serve as lead agency, executed 
 through the Regional Coordinator, Office of the Secretary, with 
 policy guidance from the Commission. The task group will consist 
 of personnel from appropriate agencies of the Department, the 
 Environmental Protection Agency, appropriate Basin State agencies, 
 and the New England River Basins Commission. Assignments of 
 responsibility derive from those for the environmental reconnais- 
 sance (Task one) to insure continuity in environmental evaluations, 
 i. e. : 
 
 Organization of study and preparation of report -- Depart- 
 ment of the Interior, Office of the Regional Coordinator. 
 
 Analysis from standpoint of fish and wildlife and aquatic eco- 
 systems, natural, historical and ar cheological features, 
 maintenance of rural environmental setting, and outdoor 
 recreation resources -- Department of the Interior. 
 
 Analyses from standpoint of environmental pollution and 
 public health -- Environmental Protection Agency. 
 
 Analysis from standpoint of community and regional land 
 use patterns -- New England River Basins Commission. 
 
 122 
 
Sub task three: Evaluation of economic impact 
 
 The evaluation of economic impacts of alternative 
 flood control measures will cost approximately $30, 000 and will 
 utilize the equivalent of two full time Federal agency members. 
 The task group will consist of personnel of the Office of Business 
 Economics of the Department of Commerce and the Economic 
 Research Service of the Department of Agriculture. The Office 
 of Business Economics will serve as lead agency. 
 
 123 
 
Task 5. Plan formulation 
 
 Schedule: 6 months - January 1, 1974- June 30, 1974. 
 Cost: $50, 000. 
 
 Pes cription : Formulation of a plan for structural 
 and/or nonstructural flood protection measures especially for 
 major urban damage centers and major flood-prone areas presently 
 sparsely settled or undeveloped, with action recommendations at 
 a level of specificity comparable to the Coordinating Committee's 
 1980 Early Action Plan for reservoir construction. The recommended 
 plan will represent the judgment of the Commission concerning the 
 need for additional flood protection in the Basin and the development 
 of an optimum flood protection system through the most effective 
 and appropriate legal, institutional and financial means. It will be 
 based upon the results of the preceding four tasks, and upon the 
 individual and combined judgment of those participating in the study, 
 including the Commission, its member States and agencies, con- 
 sultants, the Citizens Advisory Board and the Science/Research 
 Advisory Committee. 
 
 The flood management plan will represent the final 
 product of the supplemental study program, for which the reports 
 of the preceding four tasks will serve as appendices. The report 
 with appendices, after review and evaluation by the Commission, the 
 Citizens Advisory Board and the Science/Research Advisory 
 Committee, and formal review prescribed by the Water Resources 
 Planning Act, will be transmitted to the Water Resources Council 
 as a supplement to the 1980 Basin Plan approved by the Commission, 
 and will serve as a flexible guide for future Basin flood management 
 and as a supporting document for agency authorization reports. 
 Follow-on recommendations for additional studies, review and 
 evaluation, and program priorities will be developed as necessary 
 by the Commission through the Connecticut River Basin Program. 
 
 Study management and organization: This task will 
 cost approximately $50, 000 and will utilize the equivalent of three 
 full time Federal agency and/or consulting personnel. The New 
 England River Basins Commission will perform this task with the 
 assistance of the agencies contributing to the preceding tasks and 
 of the Citizens Advisory Board and the Science/Research Advisory 
 Committee. Report preparation will be the responsibility of the 
 Commission staff. 
 
 124 
 
Parti cipation by citizens and the scientific community 
 
 The Commission will establish citizens and science 
 advisory groups for the Connecticut River Basin Program, in recog- 
 nition of the clear need for intensive involvement of citizens interests 
 and the scientific community in natural resource planning generally 
 and specifically in Connecticut River Basin planning. The first 
 assignment of these groups will be to participate in the supplemental 
 study program. 
 
 Considerations described in the following paragraphs 
 will guide the organization and use of the Connecticut River Basin 
 Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) and Science/Research Advisory 
 Committee (S/RAC). 
 
 Objectives 
 
 CAB : CAB's long-term objective will be to participate 
 with the Commission in the formulation of resource management 
 plans for the Basin that are responsive to public needs and prefer- 
 ences in affected areas both in and outside of the Basin. Its short- 
 term objective is to participate with the Commission in the formula- 
 tion of a flood management plan for the Basin that responds to 
 public needs and preferences among structural and nonstructural 
 flood management alternatives. 
 
 S/RAC : S/RAC's long-term objective will be to assist 
 the Commission in the development and use of advanced resource 
 planning methodologies and the organization for this purpose of 
 research capabilities from available sources both in and outside of 
 the Basin. Its short-term objective is to par ticipate -with the 
 Commission in the development and implementation of suitable 
 methodologies for the supplemental study as a whole and for each 
 study task. 
 
 Functions 
 
 CAB : CAB's advice will be sought in the development 
 and implementation of plans of study for the study as a whole and 
 for each task. CAB's primary function will be to participate in the 
 evaluation of flood management alternatives and in plan formulation 
 (tasks four and five), by expressing preferences among alternatives 
 according to their contribution to environmental, economic, public 
 
 125 
 
safety or other identified planning criteria. * CAB will review 
 interim and final reports for each task. 
 
 S/RAC : S/RAC's advice will be sought in the develop- 
 ment and implementation of plans of study for the study as a whole 
 and for each task, specifically in the refinement of task descriptions, 
 in the organization of study management teams or task groups, in 
 the identification of tasks requiring the assistance of independent 
 consultants, and in the development of procedures for the selection 
 of consultants. It will advise study management teams on procedural 
 matters, including information retrieval and analysis and techniques 
 for measuring beneficial and adverse impacts of flood management 
 alternatives. S/RAC will also assist in coordinating the study with 
 related research. The Commission, as noted, will cooperate with 
 the scientific community in efforts to organize and fund necessary 
 research for the development of a detailed ecological model of the 
 Basin. 
 
 S/RAC will provide an independent, professional forum 
 for discussion -- and, if possible, reconciliation -- of issues con- 
 cerning study methodology and results that may arise within the 
 scientific community. 
 
 Ge nerally: Ihv Commission will request CAB and 
 S/RAC comments on interim task reports identifying major issues 
 and relevant points of view on each task report. Lead agencies 
 will be instructed to give explicit consideration to these comments 
 in the preparation of task reports; comments will be. appended to 
 the final report for transmittal to the Water Resources Council 
 and to the Basin States. 
 
 The Commission will prepare guidelines for use by 
 lead agencies in securing CAB and S/RAC participation in each 
 task. Guidelines will be derived in part from relevant recommenda- 
 
 ; :"'The (Citizens Review) Committee should not be expected to under- 
 take technical analyses or to evaluate the technical accuracy of 
 staff reports. Perhaps the single most important function of the 
 Committee is to evaluate alternative measures for achieving desired 
 goals. " "Citizens Review Committee - An Evaluation, 11 CRC report, 
 A 1-3. 
 
 126 
 
tions of CRC. * 
 
 CAB and S/RAC will be encouraged to adopt operating 
 procedures best suited to their needs, in cooperation with one 
 another and with study management teams, and based in part on 
 experience with citizens and science advisory participation in the 
 field level investigation and in other Commission studies. 
 
 Membership 
 
 CAB: The appointment of CAB's membership will be 
 shared by the Basin Governors and the Commission Chairman, and 
 will be guided principally by these criteria:** 
 
 balanced representation of all participants in the allocation 
 of the Basin's resources for flood management, with empha- 
 sis on those concerned with the management of important 
 environmental resources (e. g. estuary, flood plain, etc. ) 
 and occupants of flood hazard areas, both protected and 
 unprotected; 
 
 balanced representation of citizens interests in conserva- 
 tion, development and public safety; related resource uses; 
 affected watersheds and political/planning subdivisions; 
 and affected social and economic interests, in part to 
 
 *CRC recommended that a citizens advisory group be launched 
 early "with a thorough briefing on the history of plan development 
 and related studies. The briefing should clarify the nature of 
 constraints imposed on the planners, the major issues confronted 
 (or not confronted) to date, and the decisions already made (or not 
 made). " CRC also recommended that progress reports "contain 
 an element responding specifically to the citizen review comments 
 elicited by the preceding report" and that they be released to CAB 
 "as they become available for review and comment. " (CRC report, 
 HI - 1-2; A I). 
 
 **CRC recommended that CAB "be large enough to provide reasonable 
 representation of geographic areas and of the major groups concerned 
 with the Basin's resources. In this connection, the two members per 
 State suggested for a Citizens Advisory Board in the Connecticut 
 River report appears to be inadequate. " (CRC report, A-l). 
 
 127 
 
assist in determining equitable distributions of flood manage- 
 ment benefits and costs; 
 
 equal representation of the Basin States; 
 
 out-of-Basin representation, large enough to provide strong 
 adversary discussions where interest conflicts exist in 
 order to insure that committee reports produce balanced 
 views; and 
 
 representation of governmental planning, conservation or 
 similar jurisdictions, provided that such organizations have 
 no project development responsibilities or other interests 
 that could conflict with an objective evaluation of flood 
 management proposals in the public interest. 
 
 Anticipating the Connecticut River Basin Program and 
 the need for continuity between citizens participation in the prepara- 
 tion of the 1980 Basin plan and the new program, the Commission 
 organized an interim CAB upon the completion of CRC's assign- 
 ment February 1, 1971. The interim CAB consisted of CRC mem- 
 bers who volunteered to comment on the Commission's draft 
 findings and recommendations on the Coordinating Committee 
 report and was chaired by Professor Bernard B. Berger, who 
 served as CRC Moderator. The interim CAB's statement on the 
 July 12 draft 1980 Basin plan recommended by the Commission, 
 dated September 8, is included in the text of comments appended by 
 reference to this report. 
 
 The Commission acknowledges the contributions of 
 CRC and its successor, the interim CAB, and also acknowledges some 
 members' offer to serve as needed in the future. The Commission 
 concurs in CRC's recommendation that, In the light of the growing 
 experience of CRC members with the CRBS (Connecticut River Basin 
 Study) proposals, and in the interests of continuity, " consideration 
 should be given to including some CRC members on CAB. 
 
 SRAC : S/RAC membership will be appointed by the 
 Commission Chairman in consultation with lead agencies of the 
 various study management teams. Lead agencies will in turn con- 
 sult team member agencies. Other sources will also be consulted, 
 including the Basin Governors, the Council of Water Resources 
 Research Centers, professional/academic associations, universities 
 and other research-related institutions. 
 
 128 
 
S/RAC membership will represent research capabili- 
 ties relevant to specific study tasks, with particular emphasis on 
 environmental evaluations of flood management alternatives. The 
 combination of skills will be reoriented according to the subject 
 of future studies conducted as part of the continuing Connecticut 
 River Basin Program. Membership will not be restricted to 
 Basin scientists, although it is anticipated that Basin academic and 
 other research-related institutions will be capable of supplying 
 many if not most S/RAC members. The Commission feels that the 
 concept of a "Basin scientific community" should complement 
 rather than substitute for the use of scientific expertise in a broader 
 sense, encompassing scientists and institutions whose voices and 
 capabilities have not yet been recognized as well as those that have. 
 CAB will be requested to submit nominations, to insure represen- 
 tation of scientific interpretations of resource management needs 
 that might be better recognized publicly than professionally or 
 officially. 
 
 Generally: CAB and S/RAC membership will generally 
 be coterminous with special studies such as the supplemental 
 study, with provision for replacement at the request of CAB and 
 S/RAC chairmen for cause. Consideration is being given to the 
 organization of citizens and science advisory committees to the 
 Commission as a whole, to which the chairmen of advisory committees 
 for each of the Commission's special studies would be appointed 
 ex officio. Staff support to all advisory committees will be provided 
 by the Commission. 
 
 Chairman 
 
 CAB: The Commission is mindful of CAB's special role 
 in the Basin planning process and the need to establish and maintain 
 a relationship between CAB and study management teams that will 
 protect CAB's freedom to express a range of citizens' interests. 
 Election of CAB's chairman by the membership -- after appropriate 
 consideration under the leadership of an interim chairman --is 
 considered a desirable and practicable means of meeting this need. 
 
 S/RAC: The Chairman of S/RAC will be appointed by 
 the Commission Chairman after consultation with the Basin Governors 
 and Commission member agencies. 
 
 129 
 
Coordinated Budget Estimates* 
 Supplemental Connecticut River Basin Studies 
 
 Task Agency 
 
 Table 1 . Funding by Task 
 Total 
 
 Estimated 
 
 Cost 1972 
 
 Fiscal Year 
 1973 
 
 Department of the Interior 85, 
 
 000 
 
 35, 000 
 
 nvir u 11 iiic ii tcLx r iulclliuii 
 
 ? 0 
 
 000 
 
 10, 000 
 
 Agency 
 
 
 
 
 NERBC- 
 
 30, 
 
 000 
 
 15, 000 
 
 Subtotal 
 
 135, 
 
 000 
 
 60, 000 
 
 Water Resources Council 
 
 25, 
 
 000 
 
 10, 000 
 
 Corps of Engineers 
 
 45, 
 
 000 
 
 20, 000 
 
 Soil Conservation Service 
 
 10, 
 
 000 
 
 5, 000 
 
 NERBC 
 
 10, 
 
 000 
 
 5, 000 
 
 Subtotal 
 
 90, 
 
 000 
 
 40, 000 
 
 NERBC— ^ 
 
 
 
 
 Sn"h td fa 1 
 
 \Jl L \J L- CX X 
 
 5 0, 
 
 000 
 
 10, 000 
 
 Sub task 1 
 
 
 
 
 kJ 1 LJ O \J ± J_- 11 iz. lllCCl D 
 
 70, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Soil Conservation Service 
 
 40, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Federal Power 
 
 15, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Commis sion 
 
 
 
 
 National Weather Service 
 
 20, 
 
 
 
 NERBC 
 
 30, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Subtotal 
 
 175, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Sub task 2 
 
 
 
 
 Department of the Inte- 
 
 110, 
 
 000 
 
 
 rior 
 
 
 
 
 Environmental Protection 
 
 40, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Agency 
 
 
 
 
 NERBC 
 
 20, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Subtotal 
 
 170, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Sub task 3 
 
 
 
 
 Office of Business 
 
 20, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Economics 
 
 
 
 
 Economic Research 
 
 10, 
 
 000 
 
 
 Service Subtotal 
 
 30, 
 
 000 
 
 
 50, 
 
 000 
 
 10, 
 
 000 
 
 15, 
 
 000 
 
 75, 
 
 000 
 
 15, 
 
 000 
 
 25, 
 
 000 
 
 5, 
 
 000 
 
 5, 
 
 000 
 
 50, 
 
 000 
 
 
 n n n 
 
 50, 
 
 000 
 
 30, 
 
 000 
 
 5, 
 
 000 
 
 15, 
 
 000 
 
 20, 
 
 000 
 
 120, 
 
 000 
 
 75, 
 
 000 
 
 30, 
 
 000 
 
 10, 
 
 000 
 
 115, 
 
 000 
 
 5, 
 
 000 
 
 5, 
 
 000 
 
 10, 
 
 000 
 
 1974 
 
 2/ 
 
 2/ 
 
 20, 000 
 10, 000 
 10, 000 
 
 5, 000 
 10, 000 
 55, 000 
 
 35, 000 
 
 10, 000 
 
 10, 000 
 55, 000 
 
 15, 000 
 
 5, 000 
 20, 000 
 
 130 
 
Table 1. Funding by Task (continued) 
 
 Task Agency 
 
 Total 
 
 Estimated 
 Cost 
 
 1972 
 
 Fiscal Year 
 1973 
 
 1974 
 
 NERBC 
 
 1/ 
 
 Subtotal 50, 000 
 
 3/ 
 
 50, 000 
 
 3/ 
 
 TOTAL PROGRAM 
 
 700,000 1 10,000 410,000 1 80,000 
 
 J_/ for NERBC participation in specific tasks. NERBC costs as study 
 leader borne by its operating budget. 
 
 2_/ includes $10, 000 each year for logistical support of a demonstration 
 floodplain study to be carried out by a private consultant under con- 
 tract to the New England Division, Corps of Engineers. 
 
 _3/ includes amounts for reimbursement to other agencies for 
 
 participation in plan formulation not realistically allocable at this 
 time. 
 
 * As included in the Commission's budget request for Fiscal Year 1972. 
 Following submission of these estimates to the Water Resources Council 
 September 2, it was understood that leadership of task two would not be 
 assumed by the Council. Approximately $20 thousand will be allocated 
 to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) out of funds 
 budgeted for the Commission to finance HUD's participation in the 
 evaluation of flood management alternatives. 
 
 131 
 
Coordinated Budget Estimates * 
 Supplemental Connecticut River Basin Studies 
 
 Table 2. Agency funding (in thousands of dollars) 
 
 Method Estimated 
 
 of Finan-Total Fiscal Year 
 Agency_ SlRg_ _ Cost _ 1972 1973 1Q74 
 
 Water Resources Council Direct 25 10 15 
 
 Department of Agriculture 60 
 
 Soil Conservation Service Trans- (50) 5 35 10 
 
 Economic Research Service fer from (10) --5 5 
 
 WRC 
 
 Corps of Engineers " 1 15 20 75 20 
 
 Department of Commerce 40 
 
 National Weather Service " (20) -- 15 5 
 
 Office of Business " (20) -- 5 15 
 Economics 
 
 Environmental Protection 60 10 40 10 
 Agency 
 
 Federal Power Commission 10 -- 5 1C 
 
 Department of the Interior 
 
 New England River Basins 
 Commis sion 
 
 TOTAL PROGRAM 
 
 195 35 125 35 
 
 195 30 90 70 
 
 700 110 410 180 
 
 * See footnote to Table 1. 
 
 132 
 
Coordinated Budget Estimates 
 Supplemental Connecticut River Basin Studies 
 
 Table 3. Funding by study functions (in thousands of dollars) 
 
 Estimated 
 
 Total Fiscal Year 
 
 Function Cost 1972 1973 1974 
 
 1. Management and Coordination NERBC OPERATING BUDGET 
 
 a. General management and coordina- 
 tion (meetings, travel, etc. ) 
 
 b. Scheduling and budgeting 
 
 c. Public involvement 
 
 2. Plan of Study NERBC OPERATING BUDGET 
 
 a. Identify and assess problems and 
 needs 
 
 b. Determine study objectives and 
 s cope. 
 
 c. Develop study management plan 
 indicating task as signments, costs 
 and scheduling. 
 
 3. Field Work 350 
 
 a. Further evaluation and delineation (50) 20 30 
 of problems, needs, goals 
 
 b. Evaluate resource capabilities (300) 90 210 
 
 4. Plan Formulation 250 
 
 a. Develop first cut of possible 
 alternative plans and projects for 
 all objectives. * 
 
 b. Analyze alternative plan relation- (200) 140 60 
 ships (augmenting, conflicting, 
 
 identifying trade-offs) 
 
 c. Review and select plan components (50) 50 
 for single or multiple objectives 
 
 (may be necessary to revise Plan 
 of Study and repeat 3 and 4 above) 
 
 133 
 
Table 3. Funding by study functions (in thousands of dollars ) - (cont. ) 
 
 Estimated Total Fiscal 
 
 Function Cost 1972 1973 1974 
 
 5. Report Preparation 70 
 
 a. Writing, illustrating, editing (30) 5 25 
 
 b. Printing (25) 5 20 
 
 c. Review (15) 5 10 
 
 6. Contingencies 30 20 10 
 
 TOTAL PROGRAM 700 110 410 180 
 
 ^Completed by the Connecticut River Basin Coordinating Committee. 
 
 134 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
 RECONNAISSANCE 
 
 FLOOD PROTECTION 
 NEED 
 
 REPORT 
 
 REPORT 
 
 LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL/ 
 FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS 
 
 REPORT 
 
 ■ 4. EVALUATION OF FLOOD MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 
 
 I 
 
 r f 1 
 
 A. ♦ B. | C. | 
 
 FLOOD LOSS ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC 
 IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT 
 
 
 
 REPORT 
 
 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 
 
 REPORT 
 
 PROPOSAL OUTLINE 
 CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY PROGRAM 
 NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 
SCHEDULE OF MILESTONES 
 CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY PROGRAM 
 NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 
 
 YEARS 
 1972 1973 
 
 1974 
 
 1. ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE 
 $135,000 1/1/72 - 9/30/72 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
 NERBC 
 
 2. FLOOD PROTECTION NEED 
 $90,000 4/1/72-9/30/72 
 
 WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL 
 
 CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
 
 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 
 
 NERBC 
 
 LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL/FINANCIAL 
 
 ARRANGEMENTS 
 
 $50,000 4/1/72 - 12/31/72 
 
 4. EVALUATION OF FLOOD 
 
 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 
 $375,000 10/1/72- 12/31/73 
 
 A. FLOOD LOSS IMPACT 
 
 $170,000 10/1/72 - 12/31/73 
 
 CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 
 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 
 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 
 NERBC 
 
 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
 $170,000 10/1/72- 12/31/73 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
 NERBC 
 
 C. ECONOMIC IMPACT 
 
 $30,000 10/1/72- 12/31/73 
 
 OFFICE OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS 
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE 
 
 5. PLAN FORMULATION 
 
 $50,000 1/1/74 - 6/30/74 
 
 NERBC 
 
APPENDICES 
 
RE COMPUTATIONS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 
 
 OF 
 
 MAJOR RESERVOIRS BASED ON 5 1/8 PERCENT INTEREST RATE* 
 
 Total Total Total Benefit 
 
 Projects First Costs Benefits Annual Charges Cost Ratio 
 
 ($1 ,000) 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE 
 
 Bethlehem Junction 16,000 1,301 995 1.3 
 
 Claremont ^. 20,910 1,429 1,294 1.1 
 
 Beaver Brook" 1,660 268.9 96.8 2.8 
 
 Honey Hill 11,100 2,302 713 3.2 
 
 VERMONT 
 
 Victory zj 6,600 561 456 1.2 
 
 Union Village- 1,300 233 86 2.7 
 
 Gaysville 31,600 2,649 1,942 1.4 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 Meadow 41,400 2,673 2,521 1.1 
 
 Tully- 18,700 2,071 1,508 1.4 
 
 Gardner 4,070 338 283 1.2 
 
 Knightville - 4,400 680 265 2.6 
 
 CONNECTICUT 
 
 Cold Brook 4,700 710 315 2.3 
 
 Blackledge 18,300 2,096 1,133 1.8 
 
 *By the New England Division, Corps of Engineers. This is a modifica- 
 tion of table "VTII-5 of the Coordinating Committee Main Report, 
 p. VIII-29. 
 
 _1/ Based on 4 7/8 percent interest rate. The modified interest rate 
 is not applicable to authorized projects currently under design. 
 
 2/ For modification of an existing Corps of Engineers reservoir. 
 
 A-l 
 
RE COMPUTATIONS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 
 
 OF 
 
 UPSTREAM WATERSHED PROJECTS 
 BASED ON 5 1/8 PERCENT INTEREST RATE* 
 
 ITEM 1 
 
 The Water Resources Council has advised that the interest rate to be used 
 in river basin evaluations for fiscal year 1971 is 5-1/8 percent. The 
 following shows the effect of this interest rate on evaluation of the early- 
 action program. 
 
 1. The eight watersheds currently being planned (described in Summary, 
 page F-9; Chapter VII, Table 66; and Chapter IX, page 286) will have 
 annual costs increased from $957,500 to $1,002,500. Annual benefits 
 will increase from about $1.1|3 million to about $l.lil| million. 
 
 2. The nine additional potential watershed projects (described in Summary, 
 page F-9j Chapter VII, Table 67 j and Chapter IX, page 287) will have 
 
 an increase in annual costs from $9U9,UOO to about $995*600. Annual 
 benefits will increase from about $973,700 to about $980,700. 
 
 3. The 118 sites outside of potential watershed projects will have 
 increases in total annual costs from about $3*7 million to $3«9 million. 
 Although not evaluated, redevelopment benefits will bring increases 
 
 in total annual benefits (Chapter IX, page 287). 
 
 k* Comparison of individual watersheds is made in the attached tables. 
 
 The amortization factor for 100 years at 5-1/8 percent is 1.01$ times that 
 for U-7/8 percent. With operation and maintenance costs remaining the same, 
 this adjustment in annual costs became 1.0U6 times the cost at U-7/8 percent. 
 
 Since redevelopment benefits are based on amortization of the portion of 
 installation costs allocated to local labor, these benefits increased. 
 
 The overall effect on benefit-cost ratios is minor. 
 
 ITEM 2 
 
 This revision also changes fish and wildlife benefits shown in Appendix F to 
 reflect as nearly as possible benefits based on data shown in Appendix G. 
 
 The changes shown below involve each of the following three categories included 
 in the USDA early action plan (needed within the next 10-15 years ) . 
 
 *By the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 
 Appendix F of the Coordinating Committee report is modified 
 accordingly. 
 
 A -2 
 
1. Upstream Watershed Projects Currently Being Planned Under Public Law 566 
 
 Fish and Wildlife Net Azsmal Benefits 
 
 
 Reservoir 
 
 Stream Fi 
 
 shing 
 
 
 Watershed 
 
 Fishing 
 
 Miles 
 
 T T J. O _ -1 
 
 Waterfowl 
 
 Name 
 
 ( ao liars ) 
 
 Benefit ted 
 
 Dollars 
 
 [ dollars ) 
 
 Sugar River 
 
 19,100 
 
 ** 
 
 
 — 
 
 Indian Brook 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 Gale River 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 Blow=Me-Down Brook 
 
 
 
 
 
 Indian-Ma s coma River 
 
 21,1*00 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 i,l*oo 
 
 Wells River 
 
 
 
 
 
 N. Br. Westfield R. 
 
 117,700 
 
 53.7 
 
 19,800 
 
 2,200 
 
 Upper Quaboag 
 
 
 
 17,1*00 
 
 
 (Work Plan Supp. #3) 
 
 2,000 
 
 21.1 
 
 
 Total* 
 
 160,200 
 
 7U-8 
 
 37,200 
 
 3,600 
 
 Potential Upstream Watershed Projects 
 
 Fish and Wildlife Net Annual Benefits 
 
 
 Reservoir 
 
 Stream Fi 
 
 shing 
 
 
 Watershed 
 Name 
 
 Fishing 
 (dollars ) 
 
 Miles 
 
 Benefitted 
 
 Dollars 
 
 Waterfowl 
 (dollars) 
 
 Mohawk River 
 
 Upper Ammonoosuc River 
 
 Passumpsic-Moose River 
 
 Black River 
 
 Ball Mountain Brook 
 
 Whetstone Brook 
 
 N. Br. Deerfield River 
 
 E. Br. North River 
 
 Mill River 
 
 17,600 
 2U,000 
 8,700 
 8,800 
 26 s 600 
 
 21,6 
 36*5 
 
 10.7 
 9.9 
 26o6 
 
 17.7 
 
 1,300 
 2,900 
 5,200 
 1,300 
 
 900 
 800 
 
 Total* 
 
 85,700 
 
 123 o0 
 
 10 , 700 
 
 1,700 
 
 -* Combined total fish and wildlife benefits = $98 
 
 ,100. 
 
 3 • Other Potential Water impoundments (118 sites) 
 
 a. Fish and wildlife net annual benefits 
 
 (1) Reservoir fishing 
 
 (2) Stream Fishing (675 miles benefitted) 
 
 (3) Waterfowl 
 
 $2,629,000 
 5U2,000 
 33,000 
 
 Combined total fish and wildlife benefits $3, 201^000 
 
 These adjustments in fish and wildlife benefits do not adversely effect the 
 feasibility of watershed projects or sites proposed in the USDA early action 
 plan. 
 
 A-3 
 
"LA 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CL 
 
 CC 
 
 I 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 On 
 
 cA 
 fA 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 fA 
 H 
 
 O 
 O 
 O 
 
 GO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 *\ 
 
 On 
 CM 
 
 O 
 O 
 O 
 
 O 
 <A 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ca 
 
 
 On 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On 
 
 
 H 
 
 On 
 
 O 
 
 1A 
 
 -3 
 
 H 
 
 NO 
 
 H 
 
 "LA 
 
 On 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 o 
 
 
 CD 
 
 o 
 
 
 f> 
 
 u 
 
 0) 
 
 
 pq 
 
 Riv 
 
 Sh 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 •H 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 cti 
 
 CO 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 PQ 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 0 
 
 CD 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 en; 
 co 
 
 o 
 o 
 to 
 
 •ri 
 
 '■d 
 
 M 
 
 in 
 <D 
 
 id 
 
 rH 
 
 NO 
 
 so 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 H H 
 
 3 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 EH 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 0 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 tin 
 
 
 p 
 
 i—l 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 r— | 
 
 H 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CD 
 
 43 
 
 ■H 
 
 V. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 53 
 
 CO 
 
 
 — 
 
 nO 
 
 ,— | 
 
 ON 
 
 f — 
 
 -f 
 
 
 CD 
 
 0 
 
 rr 
 
 c 
 
 • 
 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 pq 
 
 
 PC 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 ,—1 
 
 
 
 1 — | 
 
 
 1 — | 
 
 r— | 
 
 ■p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 CD 
 
 
 1— 1 
 
 
 0 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 . — | 
 
 CD 
 
 Qn 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 1A 
 
 e. 
 
 co 
 
 H 
 1— 1 
 
 _p 
 
 
 
 
 *\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 _p 
 
 
 03 
 
 T_r\ 
 
 _H- 
 
 
 r-| 
 
 MD 
 
 "LA 
 
 GO 
 
 CM 
 
 rv 
 Mh 
 
 Q 
 
 R 
 
 Q 
 
 
 , — | 
 
 On 
 
 
 (A 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 r— I 
 
 r— 1 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 t 
 
 
 
 -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "LTN 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 H 
 
 CO. 
 
 tin 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 cr\ 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 C — 
 
 ON 
 
 "LA 
 
 
 crj 
 
 pj 
 
 CD 
 
 
 c\ 
 
 c\ 
 
 
 o\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 >- 
 
 ■ J 
 
 
 C\l 
 
 
 C\J 
 
 
 — J 
 
 L*N 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 "LA 
 
 r— | 
 
 \Q 
 
 rH 
 
 "LA 
 
 0\ 
 
 <-r\ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 Eh 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 J- 
 
 
 
 l—l 
 
 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 
 J 
 
 -P 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 O 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 e 
 
 
 «H 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 1— 1 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 H 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CD 
 
 -p 
 
 
 o« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ©O 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 On 
 
 pry 
 
 O- 
 
 MO 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 0 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 pq 
 
 0 
 
 
 H 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 H 
 
 pq 
 
 CO 
 CD CO 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 -P rH 
 
 •H nj 
 
 '«H ^ 
 
 CD -H 
 
 a 'h 
 
 cti 
 co o 
 
 CD iH 
 
 -p p 
 
 •H -H 
 co tJ 
 T3 
 
 rH Tl 
 
 ft 
 crj 
 
 ri 
 
 -P 
 
 ■3 S 0 
 
 •Tl rH CD 
 
 co P-, -P 
 A3 ^ 'd 
 
 O in 
 •ri D 
 
 cci q 
 
 rH .ri 
 
 a, ho 
 
 «ri 
 
 iH O 
 
 -P -ri 
 
 CL> CO 
 
 O 
 
 <D 
 rH 
 
 ft oa 
 a 
 
 co cj) 
 -p 
 
 CO 
 
 0) "ri 
 •d o 
 
 H 
 
 o -p 
 C -ri 
 
 •ri O 
 
 _ * 
 
 Oh 
 
 CD <ti 
 ^ O 
 
 to 
 
 U CD 
 
 CD bo 
 ^- , c6 
 
 > o 
 
 -p 
 
 tU) CO 
 CO 
 
 o n 
 S ™ 
 
 6> CD 
 
 KQ 
 
 ?H O 
 CD Ph 
 
 ft g 
 t3 Ph 
 
 CD 
 rH 
 ^> 
 
 cti 
 E - ' 
 
 .3 
 
 S 
 
 o • 
 
 ^ CD 
 CO Tl 
 CO 
 
 CD g 
 
 CO 
 
 P CD 
 
 > P 1 
 
 CO 
 
 •ri 'A 
 
 > o 
 
 Ph CO 
 
 CD CD 
 H -P 
 
 <D -ri 
 
 •° g 
 
 rH CD 
 
 rH -P 
 
 •ri 0) 
 
 CO 
 0) 
 
 o 
 •ri 
 
 h 
 
 Ph 
 
 CD 
 N 
 
 •ri • 
 rH NO 
 Cg MD 
 
 1^ 
 S CD 
 rH 
 Tl £> 
 
 CD <0 
 -P E-i 
 
 CO 
 
 fJ S 
 
 •1-3 o 
 
 -d ^ 
 
 cmJc^I 
 
 A-4 
 
PL, 
 
 CO 
 
 "LA 
 
 CO 
 
 Eh 
 CO 
 
 H 
 
 to 
 
 PQ O 
 
 Os 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 nO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 e 
 
 H 
 
 6 
 
 CNJ 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 nO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 nO 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 ca 
 
 -=t 
 
 CA 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ■LA 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 CA 
 •\ 
 
 CA 
 1A 
 
 O 
 O 
 (A 
 ^\ 
 
 CA 
 
 On 
 
 O 
 O 
 (A 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 en 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CA 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 C\J 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 cm r— 
 
 CNJ 
 On 
 
 O 
 
 NO 
 
 r— I 
 
 O 
 NO 
 CNJ 
 
 On 
 
 CNJ 
 "LA 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 On 
 O 
 
 <A 
 
 O 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 CA 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 CNJ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 NO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CNJ 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 •\ 
 
 H 
 
 On 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 -=t 
 
 
 NO 
 
 CNJ 
 
 
 H 
 
 CNJ 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 CNJ 
 
 O 
 
 "LA 
 
 
 «\ 
 
 
 On 
 
 On 
 
 O 
 
 "LA 
 
 "LA 
 
 On 
 
 i— 1 
 
 CNJ 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 "LA 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 On 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 "LA 
 
 "LA 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 On 
 
 O 
 O 
 O 
 •\ 
 
 CNJ 
 "LA 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 <N 
 
 On 
 On 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 CO 
 O 
 rH 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 CNJ 
 
 CD 
 CO 
 
 a 1 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 <D 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 P^ 
 
 Ph- 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 p- 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 
 ! 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 £h 
 
 <D 
 
 Ph 
 
 CD 
 Ph 
 
 i ^ 
 
 ra O 
 ro co 
 H 
 
 Ph pq 
 
 O 
 o 
 u 
 
 PQ 
 
 CD 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 CO" 
 
 o 
 PQ 
 
 <D 
 
 O 
 P 
 
 ro 
 -P 
 
 <D 
 
 x( 
 
 rH 
 
 CD 
 •H 
 «H 
 
 !h 
 
 CD 
 CD 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 In 
 PQ 
 
 t 
 O 
 
 S3 
 
 > 
 •H 
 Ph" 
 
 -P 
 Jh 
 O 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 CD 
 
 *H 
 
 PQ 
 
 P 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 W 
 
 CNJ 
 
 3 
 
 ■LA 
 
 PQ 
 
 NO 
 
 Eh 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 "LA 
 
 H 
 
 On O 
 H CNJ 
 
 CNJ H 
 Eh p 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 NO 
 
 CO 
 On 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CA 
 
 On 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 r— 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 £h 
 CD 
 > 
 •H 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 NO 
 o> 
 
 "LA 
 On 
 On 
 
 O 
 O 
 r- 
 <^ 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 On 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 si 
 
 OnI 
 
 On 
 
 O 
 O 
 E*- 
 
 <*\ 
 CA 
 
 On 
 
 Fh 
 O 
 Eh 
 
 HjCNj( 
 
 A-5 
 
FACT SHEET FOR THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY 
 URBAN PILOT PROJECT* 
 
 10/22/71 
 
 The Connecticut Valley Urban Project is one of six urban pilot projects 
 undertaken by the Geological Survey in order to demonstrate the use of geology 
 and hydrology in the decision making process required in regional urban 
 development. All of these studies are being made on a regional basis. The 
 Connecticut Valley Urban Pilot Project area extends from latitude 43° in 
 the vicinity of Brattleboro, Vermont, and Keene, New Hampshire, southward 
 to Long Island Sound, between latitude 72° f 7%-rainutes, and 73°. This 
 encompasses approximately 5,000 square miles and includes about one hundred 
 7%-minute quadrangles. As part of this program, grants-in-aid are made to 
 state geologists to be matched in services directly related to the completion 
 of project objectives. The State Geologist is expected to coordinate his 
 activities with other state agencies, such as state, regional, and local 
 planning office, water resources commissions, etc., that are directly 
 involved in making decisions relative to land use and environmental problems. 
 In FY-1971 Connecticut Valley Urban Pilot Project was funded at a level of 
 $100,000, in FY-1972 at a level of approximately $200,000. The initial 
 funding has been for a feasibility study, using as a basis existing 
 geologic mapping prepared under State Cooperative and Survey programs, 
 as well as by State agencies. The project design calls for completion 
 of this study in about 5 years at a much greatly increased rating of 
 funding. 
 
 ^Supplied by the U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 
 80 Broad Street, Boston, Massachusetts 021 1 0. 
 
 B-1 
 
DESCRIPTION OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 
 WATER SUPPLY STUDY* 
 
 The Corps of Engineers North Atlantic Division is 
 conducting the Northeastern United States Water Supply (NEWS) 
 Study in conformance with Title I, Public Law 89-298 (October 1965). 
 The study area includes those river basins within the United States 
 which drain into Chesapeake Bay, into the Atlantic Ocean north of 
 Chesapeake Bay, into the St. Lawrence River, and into Lake 
 Ontario. The study area includes all or a portion of 1 3 states 
 including all six New England States. 
 
 The objective of the NEWS Study is the preparation 
 of a coordinated general plan for essential water supply development 
 in the Northeast which will recommend to the Congress an active 
 program for Federal, State, local and private organizations. Such 
 plans shall provide for appropriate financial participation by the 
 States, political subdivisions thereof, and other local interests. It 
 will thus provide a public forum where all concerned with the water 
 supply problems of the area can be heard in developing a plan to 
 resolve one of the major domestic problems now facing the United 
 States . 
 
 ^Source: "Announcement of formulation stage public meetings on 
 Northeastern United States Water Supply Study, Southeastern New 
 England area, " prepared by the New England Division, Corps of 
 Engineers, November 30, 1971. 
 
 C-l 
 
APPENDED BY REFERENCE 
 
 The following documents are appended by reference 
 to the 1980 Basin plan recommended by the Commission and are 
 transmitted with the plan to the Water Resources Council and 
 to the Basin Governors and Legislatures. 
 
 Connecticut River Basin Coordinating Committee, 
 Connecticut River Basin Comprehensive Water and Related 
 Land Resources Investigation (June 1970 - released 
 October 1970). 
 
 Connecticut River Basin Coordinating Committee, Draft 
 Environmental Statement for the Connecticut River Basin 
 Comprehensive Water and Related Land Resources Investi- 
 gation (with comments ) (August 1971). 
 
 Comments addressed to the New England River Basins 
 Commission on the Report of the Connecticut River Basin 
 Coordinating Committee (November 1970 - July 1971). 
 
 Report of the Citizens Review Committee on the Connecticut 
 River Basin Comprehensive Water and Related Land 
 Resources Investigation to the New England River Basins 
 Commis sion (February 1971). 
 
 The Connecticut River Ecology Action Corporation, 
 Proceedings of a Symposium, "Scientists' Views on the 
 Connecticut River Basin Plan , " Publication #1 (Hadley, 
 Massachusetts, June 1971). 
 
 Comments on the draft findings and recommendations of the 
 New England River Basins Commission on the Connecticut 
 River Basin Comprehensive Water and Related Land 
 Resources Investigation (July - November 1971). 
 
I 
 I 
 I 
 
 II 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
-»