[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
C Oastal Zone /27// information Center bf I NO 0 NONE P MEMO 10 H@+H+FRFF STATE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN 9 7 8 CONNECTICUT L- 0 GV 191 .42 -cs . 42 c 7 -42 66 09 1979 The preparation of this plan was financed in part through a comprehensive planning assistance grant from the United States Department of Interior Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service under the provisions of the Land and Conservation Fund Act of 1965 IPublic Law 88-578). 12711 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER STATE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN 1978 - 1983 Property of CSC Library U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Stanley J. Pac Commissioner STATE OF CONNECTICUT ELLA GRASSO EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS GOVERNOR HARTFORD March 5, 1979 Dear Citizen: The 1978-1983 Connecticut State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) presents an evaluation of our state and municipal recreation needs and a program for future action. During the development of-this plan, our citizens and public representatives have made significant contributions to the identification of recreation needs and the formulation of recreation objectives for the future. The SCORP Advisory Board, comprised of private citizens who have donated their time and effort to provide an overview of this document, deserve special recognition for their outstanding efforts in this concern. The achievement of additional access to our coastal and inland waters continues to be a matter of particular importance in providing quality recreational.opportunities for our citizens. The state must also undertake programs which will improve recreation availability for urban residents, elderly and handicapped, many of whom do not have available transportation or cannot travel far from home. In addition, the state's program of acquiring open space and natural areas for preservation of unique or endangered species of wildlife and flora and securing areas of scenic values is vital to the protection of our state's natural resource heritage. In consideration of these objectives, I am therefore designating this third edition of Connecticut's Outdoor Recreation Plan as the state's official plan to be considered by the U.S. Department of Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service in determining Connecticut's eligibility for Land and Water Conservation Funds. With best wishes, Cordially, fLU 0 ELLA @RTS"O Governor PREFACE The Connecticut State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) for the 1978-1982 period is a guideline for the allocation of funds from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act (LWCA) of 1965. Over the next five years, approximately seven million dollars per annum will be available for land acquisition and development of facilities for outdoor recreational activities by the State and municipalities. These LWCA 50'/0' matching funds are suPplemented by tile State of Connecticut which provides up to 25 percent matching funds for municipal land acquisition and development projects. T112 1978 General Assembly has established a $4 million fund for meeting the State's share of municipal project costs and a $3 million fund for State acquisition and development. The 1978-1982 SCORP establishes as general priorities: 1. Increased public access to the state's water resources. 2. Support municipal acquisition and development based upon assessment of greatest needs, 3. Rehabilitation and development of State facilities. 4. Other State land acquisitions. 5. Conservation of natural areas. The preparation of this,document on outdoor recreation has relied upon surveys of Connecticut municipalities, public and private organizations, and the general public. In addition, public participation was solicited through meetings sponsored by Connecticut's Regional Planning Agencies and the Department of Environmental Protection. The SCORP Advisory Board members, representing a broad spectrum of public and private groups interested in Connecticut's outdoor recreational opportunities, have been instrumental in reviewing and contributing to the preparation of the plan. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been prepared by the Planning and Coordination Unit of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with the cooperation and advice of the Connecticut SCORP Advisory Board. Assistance was gratefully received from a number of State, Federal, regional, and local government agencies including the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management and Department of Health, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the 15 Connecticut Regional Planning Agencies, and the State's municipal parks and recreation departments and commissions. PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATORS: Dr. Joseph Laforte, Acting Director, Planning and Coordination, DEP Joseph Hickey, Planner, Planning and Coordination, DEP George Seel, Environmental Analyst, Planning and Coordination, DEP CONTRIBUTING INVESTIGATORS: Richard Wallace, Assistant Chief, Land Acquisition, DEP Alphonse Letendre, Land Agent, Land Acquisition, DEP Cheryl Gerstenlauer, Land Agent, Land Acquisition, DEP Brian Kerr, Recreation Resource Specialist, Parks and Recreation, DEP Brian Emerick, Senior Environmental Analyst, Planning & Coordination, DEP Frederick Riese', Environmental Analyst, Planning & Coordination, DEP Marketa 'Green, University of Connecticut Brad Hunt, Eastern Connecticut State College Robert Moulta, Eastern Connecticut State College Richard Will.is, Eastern Connecticut State College SCORP ADVISORY BOARD: John Hibbard, Chairman: Connecticut Forest & Park Association Richard Erickson, Southeastern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency Nancy London, Capitol Region Council of Governments Thomas McGowan, Northwestern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency Gene F. Marra, Connecticut Wildlife Association Milan J. Bull, Connecticut Waterfowlers Robert Dlugolenski, Connecticut Recreation and Parks Directors Council Dixon, Urban League of Greater Hartford Hugh Manke, Connecticut Conference of Municipalities David Russell, Council of Small Towns Evan Griswold, The Nature Conservancy Antoinette Bascetta, State of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management REVIEWERS: Theodore Bampton, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Conservation and Preservation, DEP George Russell, Director of Staff Services, DEP William Miller, Director of Parks and Recreation, DEP Robert Garrepy, Director of Forestry, DEP Dennis DeCarli, Director of Wildlife, DEP Cole Wilde, Director of Fish and Water Life, DEP Joseph Voboril, Director of Property Management, DEP Charles McKinney, Director of Coastal*Area Management, DEP William Burnham, Director of Land Acquisition, DEP SECRETARIAL STAFF: The efforts of the secretarial staff who provided invaluable assistance in the preparation of this document should especially be noted. Special thanks to Irene Warchol, Barbara Jurgelas, Linda Medbury, Linda Mrowka, and Ann Durand. v IN REMEMBRANCE William S. B*urnham, Chief of DEP's Open Space Acquisition Unit, died September 4, 1978 after a long illness. Bill was a Connecticut Yankee and a natural buyer and seller of land. Born and raised on a dairy farm in Mansfield, he had the countryman's love of the land and a deep feeling for our state's lovely countryside. Thus he was strongly motivated to maintain its green character through land acquisition and preservation, especially in his native hills of eastern Connecticut. He will be remembered for his dedication to his work with the fruition of those efforts remaining as a lasting tribute. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix Chapter I SUMMARY, A TIME FOR REASSESSMENT 1 Chapter II CONNECTICUT: ITS LAND AND PEOPLE 17 A. Physical Geography 18 B. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics 29 Chapter III RECREATION PLANNING IN CONNECTICUT 55 DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Government 56 B. Voluntary Associations 66 C. Individuals and Entrepreneurs 67 Chapter IV ASSESSMENT OF RECREATIONAL NEEDS 70 A. Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Needs 70 At The State and Regional Level Water Based Activity System 73 Swimming 75 Boating 88 Wildlife Sports 95 Fishing 95 Hunting 102 Shooting Sports 110 Camping ill Trail Oriented Activities 115 Walking and Hiking 115 Equestrian 117 Downhill and Cross-Country Skiing 119 Snowmobiling 122 Trailbike Riding 125 Bicycling 126 A Trail Policy for Connecticut 128 B. Outdoor Recreation At The Local Level 132 Adequacy of Local Recreational Opportunities 133 In Connecticut Recommended Actions 139 vi Page Chapter V MAJOR WATER AND LAND RECREATION RESOURCE ISSUES 143 A. Water Resources 143 B. The Coastal Region 154 C. Water Company Lands 159 D. Agriculture Lands 162 Chapter VI THE CONNECTICUT CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE 164 A. General Elements of the Connecticut Cultural Heritage 165 B. Natural Area Heritage 173 C. Conclusion 177 Chapter VII POPULATION SEGMENTS OF SPECIAL CONCERN 179 A. Methodology 179 B. Needs of Urban Areas 181 C. The Elderly 193 D. The Handicap ped 196 E. Economically Disadvantaged 200 Chapter VIII GOALS, POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEETING OUTDOOR RECREATION NEEDS 202 A. Goals 202 B. Policies and Recommendations 207 State Acquisition Policies and .Programs to Meet Recreation Deficiencies 207 Management and Development of State Facilities 214 Recommendations for Assistance in Development of Recreation Facilities 224 Land and Water Conservation Act 226 Recommendations for Municipal Recreation 229 Recommendation for Local Government Action to Meet Recreation Needs 230 C. Outdoor Recreation Priorities 234 vii Page CHAPTER IX CONNECTICUT FIVE YEAR ACTION PLAN 236 A. State Acquisition Action Plan 236 B. State Development Action Plan 239 C. Municipal Action Plan 241 D. Municipal Acquisition 245 E. Municipal Development 246 F. Budget for SCORP Planning 247 G. Outdoor Recreation Planning Program:1978 to 1983 250 H. Projected Five-Year Allocation Schedule of Acquisition and Development Funds 254 APPENDICES A. Outdoor Recreation Roles of Government 257 B. DEP Property Management Listing 284 C. Recreation Demand in Connecticut 316 D. Department of Community Affairs Recreation Survey 335 E. Municipal Needs and Preferences Survey 347 F. Public Attitudes and Preferences Survey 359 G. Population Segments of Special Concern/Supporting Data 370 H. Public Participation Element 379 1. Regional Needs 392 J. Allocations to Acquisition and Development 409 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE II-1. Population of Planning Regions ...... ;i ...................... 36 11-2. Connecticut Planning Regions: Popul ion in 1970 and Projection for the Year 2000 .......................... 53 11-3 Past and Projected Changes in the Age Distribution of the Connecticut Population ............................. 54 IV-1. Existing Instant Swimming Capacity ........................... 87 IV-2. Motor Boat Registrations in Connecticut, 1974-1977 ......................... * ....................... 88 IV-3. Major Connecticut Waterbodies Lacking Public Owned Access ....................................... 92 IV-4. Recommended Additional Public Boat Launching Sites ........................................... 93 IV-5 Trends in Connecticut Fishing License Sales .................. 97 IV-6. Trends in Sales of Hunting & Combination Hunting and Fishing Licenses in Connecticut ............... 104 V-1. Farmington River: Public Capital Costs for Water Pollution Control ............................... 149 V-2. Farmington River Stream Bed .................................. 151 V-3. Distribution of Sandy Beach .................................. 156 V-4. Ownership of Sandy Beaches ................................... 157 VII-1. Twelve Major Urban Cities and Their Populations ......................................... 183 VII-2. Total Acreage of Municipally Owned Outdoor Recreational Lands Within City Limits ..................... 184 VII-3. Per Capita Municipal Expenditures for Park and Recreation for Twelve Connecticut Cities, 1971-1977 ................................................. 186 VII-4. Real Per Capita Municipal Expenditures for Parks and Recreation for Twelve Connecticut Cities .............. 187 VII-5. Parks and Recreation Expenditures as a Percentage of Per Capita General Expenditures for Twelve Connecticut Cities, 1971-1977 ............................. -188 VII-6. The Proportion of the Connecticut Population 65 Years or Older, 1960-1985 .............................. 144 IX-1 Planning Work Schedule ....................................... 252 IX-2. Projected Five-Year Allocation Schedule of Acquisition and Development Funds ..................................... 255 C-1. Comparison of Socio-Economic Characteristics of Tri-State and 1970 Connecticut Census .................. 320 D-1. Outdoor Recreation Minimum Supply Standards .................. 336' E-1. Ranking of Outdoor Recreation Problems Confronting Towns by Priority ............................. 349 H-1. Private Organizations Contacted in Mail Survey ............................................... 380 H-2. Public Informational Meeting Schedule ........................ 385 H-3. Private Organizations of Statewide Representation Invited to Attend SCORP Public Information Meetings ............................... 386 H-4. Connecticut News Media in Which Notices of SCORP Public Information Meeting Schedules Were Posted ..................................... 388 H-5. Make-Up of the Connecticut SCORP Advisory Board ............................................ 391 i x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE II-I. Physiographic Regions of Connecticut .............. 19 11-2. Altitude Map of Connecticut ....................... 20 11-3. Normal Monthly Temperature Distribution ......................... 23 11-4. Average Monthly Precipitation .................................. 23 11-5. Mean Seasonal Snowfall ......................................... 24 11-6. Major Inland Waterbodies and Rivers ............................ 27 11-7. Population of Connecticut 1790 to 1970 ......................... 30 11-8. Absolute Population Growth From 1960 to 1970 ................... 33 11-9. Population Density by Towns ..................................... 34 II-10. Population of Planning Regions ................................. 37 II-11. Population by Age: 1975 ........................................ 39 11-12. Percent of Families within Various Income Groups in 1969 ..................................... 42 11-13. Percentage of Families Below Poverty Level ..................... 43 11-14. Percentage of Families with Incomes of $15,000 or More ........................................ 44 11-15. Persons 25 years and Older by Years of Education ........................................ 45 11-16. Percentage of Popu.lation 25 and Over with Four or More Years of College ........................ 46 11-17. Percentage of Employed Persons in Manufacturing ............................................. 49 11-18. Percentage of Employed Persons in White-Collar Occupations in Towns of 19,000 or More .................... 50 IV-1. Connecticut State Inland Swimming Areas ........................ 80 IV-2. Ratio of Swimming Beach Capacities to Population within 20 miles ............................. 85 IV-3. State Fishing Access Points ..................................... 100 IV-4. State Hunting Areas ............................................ 107 IV-5. State Areas Available for Horseback Riding ..................... 120 IV-6. Commercial Downhill Ski Areas .................................. 123 IV-7. Average Percentage of Facilities and Acreage that Meet or Exceed Minimum Recreation Supply Standards by Population Size Group .................................. 136 VI-1. Towns with Historic Districts .................................. 168 VI-2. Ecoregions of Connecticut ...................................... 175 A-1 DEP Organization Chart .......................................... 263 B-1 DEP Management Regions ......................................... 315 C-1 Tri-State Region of Connecticut .............. I .................. 319 D-1 Percentage of Towns with a Population Under 3500 Meeting or Exceeding Minimum Outdoor Recreation Supply Standards ............... . 338 D-2 Percentage of Towns with a Population of 3500-7999 Meeting or Exceeding Minimum Outdoor Recreation Supply Standards ............... 339 x FIGURE PAGE D-3. Percentage of Towns with a Population of 8,000-14,999 Meeting or Exceeding Minimum Outdoor Recreation Supply Standards ................... 340 D-4. Percentage of Towns with a Population of 15,000-24,999 Meeting or Exceeding Minimum Outdoor Recreation Supply Standards ................... 343 D-5. Percentage of Towns with a Population of 25,000-39,999 Meeting or Exceeding Minimum Outdoor Recreation Supply Standards ................... 344 D-6. Percentage of Towns with a Population of 40,000-74,999 Meeting or Exceeding Minimum Outdoor Recreation Supply Standards ................... 345 D-7. Percentage of Towns with a Population of 75,000 or Over.i ............. I.............................. 346 E-1. Municipal Questionnaire Returns ............... ................... 348 G-1. Average Annual Per Capita Expenditures For Parks and Recreation by Twelve Connecticut Cities, 1971-1977 ................................. 370 G-2. Current Use of CETA Manpower by Parks and Recreation Departments in Twelve Connecticut Cities ..................................... 371 G-3. The Number of Passenger Vehicles Registered Per Capita in 1976 ................................. 372 G-4. Average Total Number of Times Participating Per Capita in Summer Recreation Activities by Demographics ......................... 373 G-5. Percent Persons 65 and Older in 1970 For State of Connecticut and the Major Connecticut Cities ....... .................................... 374 G-6. Comparison of State of Conne ticut and Twelve Connecticut Cities by Per Capita Income in 1969 ................................................ 375 G-7. Average Monthly Welfare Roles.for State of Connecticut and Twelve Connecticut Cities in 1977 .................................... 376 G-8. Average Personal 1969 Income by Age Group for State of Connecticut ............................ 377 G-9. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Population Standards for Estimating Numbers of Handicapped ............................. 378 1-1. Connecticut Planning Regions ..................................... 394 c h a p 1 t e r Summary A Time For Reassessment SUMMARY: A TIME FOR REASSESSMENT Previous SCORP's and other state planning studies have well portrayed Connecticut and its expected future. All have agreed that Connecticut has a small but highly varied landbase, which in combination with a temperate, humid climate has given the state a green, well-watered aspect somewhat remini- scent of the ever-changing and visually pleasant landscapes of Western Europe. Upon this natural pattern has been imposed a dense population in excess of 600 people per square mile. The result of the Industrial Revolution and more than a century of urbanization, this population is concentrated largely in the urban corridor running along Long Island Sound from Greenwich to Greater New Haven and thence northerly through the Central Lowland to the Massachusetts state line. Thus roughly three-fourths of the population is found on one-fourth of the state's land area. In terms of its socio-economic characteristics, Connecticut's population has some rather striking features. First of all, it has until recently, customarily possessed the highest per capita income of any state in the coun- try and still substantially exceeds the national average. Furthermore, des- pite a tradition of being a state of skilled, blue collar wage earners, Connecticut in fact is increasingly a white collar state with a high average level of education. Recent analyses of the state's expected future mandate some revision in earlier projections. No longer is Connecticut's population expected to grow rapidly to over 5,000,000 by the end of the century. Instead, a greatly decreased birth rate and a lower level of immigration due to a likely slower 2 rate of economic growth should gi ve Connecticut a 2000 A.D. population of roughly 3,775,000. At the same time, the drop in the birth rate should cause a progressive aging in its population, as the Baby Boom wave of the 1950's passes through its demographic cycle and is replaced by far smaller lower age cohorts. The recreation planner in Connecticut must re-evaluate many of the past assumptions upon which he has based his estimation of demand and of needs requiring corrective action. Most specifically, action plan emphasis must be upon correcting existing and recognized shortcomings rather than on meeting demands from large population increases. Attention must be given to special groups such.as the poor, the aged, and the handicapped whose needs hitherto have not received sufficient concern. Additionally, the effect of the energy crisis remains an unanswered question for the recreation planner.' RECREATIONAL NEEDS Estimation of recreational needs bas,ically must involve a comparison of apparent demand and available supply,, although other factors such as the quality of the recreational experience also should be taken into consider- ation. Connecticut's 1978 SCORP takes thi's approach in providing the following conclusions on needs by major recreational activity of a regional or statewide character and for recreation at the local level. SWIMMING Presently there is a serious deficiency of public swimming opportunity in Connecticut, amounting to approximately 50,000 to 100,000 units of instant capacity. This 'is pafticular1y"serious in inland metropolitan areas such as the Capitol and Central Connecticut Regions. Conversely, communities located on Long Island Sound or in northwestern or northeastern Connecticut with 3 access to good quality waterbodies generally offer a satisfactory level of opportunity. Nevertheless, there remains a major statewide deficit in swim- ming supply which is expected to double by the end of the century. BOATING Although Connecticut possesses many waterbodies and substantial shore- line on Long Island Sound, motorized boating exhibits several major problems. First of all, a large share of the total supply of opportunity is commercial or privately restricted and therefore does not cater to the general public. Also, a large share of the municipal berths are restricted to resident use only. Thirdly, many major waterbodies currently lack any public access for boating. In addition, inland metropolitan areas such as central and north central Connecticut tend to be "have not" areas, for boating. Extreme com- petition for available shoreline access is a growing problem in southwestern Connecticut. Similarly, canoeing and kayaking opportunities in Connecticut are limited by continuing pollution in certain rivers, the generally small size and variable flow of many rivers following the spring freshet, and the effects of water supply diversion an d hydropower generation on stream flows. FISHING Fishing in Connecticut includes both fresh (cold and warmwater) and marine fisheries. Severe deficiencies of supply occur in the coldwater fishery, where both streams and waterbodies offering this opportunity are very heavily used. Although perhaps partially a natural and non-correctable condition caused by the limited size of the available resource, much of this deficiency is, also due to inadequate public access to suitable waters and to competing uses such as provision of domestic.water supply. Also, an.inade- quate supply of public shore and boat launching access is a growing problem. 4 On the other hand, many warmwater lakes and streams, including the Connecticut River, seem underfished. The recent successes in restoring anadromous fisheries for shad and Atlantic salmon, in particular on the Farmington and Salmon Rivers, hold forth promise for the future. The recreation potential for Atlantic salmon fisheries can only be attained if access over existing dams can be provided and water rights acquired to insure public access. HUNTING Although historically oriented to small game, hunting in Connecticut now includes deer hunting on state lands on a permit basis. Major hunting sub- types have included game-bird hunting on a "put-and-take" basis utilizing farmland, waterfowl hunting utilizing inland and coastal wetlands and waterbodies, and forest game hunting. Of these, a particularly serious deficiency exists with game-bird hunting because of its popularity and the limited habitat available in the state. A deficiency exists in waterfowl hunting to a lesser degree. Conversely, the forest game resource seems to be underutilized. In terms of needs, the major problem area relates to the farmland and mixed farm-forest habitat which is being threatened by a number of factors including (a) a rapid decrease in the amount of private property available for lease by the State, (b) land development plus agricultural land abandonment which reduce the extent of habitat, and (c) agricultural practices which reduce food supply and needed cover. CAMPING Connecticut presently contains nearly 7,800 campsites, over 80% of which are privately operated. These seem to meet approximately 50% of the demand gener ated by state residents, implying a very substantial net outflow of campers from Connecticut. Furthermore, the rapid growth in the private 5 camping industry also implies a large unmet local demand. In the absence of public moneys to substantially expand the existing supply of State campsites, responsibility for meeting much of this demand will necessarily continue to rest with private entrepeneurs. TRAIL-ORIENTED ACTIVITIES Summarized comments for each significant trail sport are as follows: Walking & Hiking - For this recreation activity there are indications of greatly increased participation which include wear-and-tear on trails and land- owner complaints on misuse of the trail and adjacent private property. These complaints are becoming more frequent. As a result, private trail groups main- taining the Connecticut Blue Trail System (largely located on private lands) are experiencing difficulties maintaining a threatened resource in the face of a growing public participation in hiking as well as backpacking. Horseback Riding - The present Connecticut horse population is estimated to be 64,000. Although largely a private sport utilizing private property, many horse people are increasingly interested in trail riding and therefore are making use of certain State lands where such use is unofficial yet sanctioned. Nevertheless there appears to be an insufficient supply of horse trails to meet the burgeoning demand. T hus there is a need for development of a number of regional trail networks, especially in the south- western and southeastern parts of the.state as well as for development of a State Equine Center as a site for horse shows now necessarily held out-of- state Skiing - Because of its relatively mild, marine-influenced winter climate, Connecticut is a marginal state for skiing and therefore is a.major net exporter of skiing demand. Furthermore, the private sector traditionally has taken the lead in supplying some in-state opportunity, with the State's role 6 to provide a land base for cross-country skiing as well as one downhill ski area leased to a private operator in Cornwall. Snowmobiling - This fast-growing sport faces the same marginal snow con- ditions affecting cross-country skiing. As a mechanized sport, snowmobiling tends to conflict with other land management goals and therefore is permitted on State lands only in authorized locations. Snowmobilers feel that the cur- rently available supply of state snowmobile trails is inadequate. Trailbike Riding - As with snowmobiling, trailbike riding as a mechanized sport is allowed by the State only in designated locations. Although three authorized trails now cross State lands, an expansion of trail mileage seems needed in locations where no conflict with other management goals or recre- ational uses would develop. Bicycling This popular activity is now involving up to one-third of Connecticut's residents. Despite this popularity, no bicycle paths physically separated from traffic have been built in this state. Therefore, a major deficiency of opportunity exists, with bicyclers forced to resort to use of public streets which frequently are very hazardous. OUTDOOR RECREATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL Traditionally, local recreation in Connecticut has consisted largely of sports and other playfield/playground activities and of provision of the oppor- tunity to enjoy swimming, tennis, and sometimes golf. As such, it has been facility-development and program-oriented and has tended to cater substan- tially to children and young adults. The state's communities fail to meet generally recognized outdoor recreation standards, with the greatest inadequacies tending to be found 7 in larger urban communities. Survey findings indicate that the five top municipal outdoor recreation problems by order are: (1) a lack of funds to develop facilities, (2) a lack of funds to maintain existing facilities, (3) a lack of neighborhood recreational facilities, (4) a lack of funds for recreational programs, and (5) a lack of funds for open space and outdoor recreational land acquisition. Municipalities also indicated a need for an increase in the following facility types by order or priority: (1) swimming, (2) tennis, (3) ballfields, (4) playgrounds and ice skating, and (5) specialized ballfields (soccer, softball, etc.) By general category of community, the following conclusions were reached: (a) Central City - Major problems often include inadequate recreational opportunities in inner city neighborhoods, a need to rehabilitate many older, 11worn out" facilities and a less-than-complete use for public purposes of recreational facilities at schools. (b) Large Suburb-Mode rate-Sized City - Often having undergone substan- tail growth since World War II, many of these communities lack the basic park system possessed by major cities and have a critical need to acquire and develop the areas needed to -provide such a basic park system. (c) Small Community - With a small and scattered population and often a weak tax base, many small towns lack the rudiments of a park system and have traditionally relied on individual or private group-provided recre- ational opportunity. Thus, their chief need is to provide the basic elements of a recreational program, including a swimming facility, a town-wide park and a playground-field sports area, utilizing available school facilities wherever possible. 8 SPECIAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS Another dimension to Connecticut's SCORP planning is posed by the presence of a number of key issues which must be addressed if outdoor recreation and related conservation opportunities are to be preserved. Chief among these is the issue of public access to the state's waterbodies and rivers and to Long Is land Sound. Both because of State law declaring waterbodies to be private property in nature and because of large-scale private permanent as well as seasonal development, the public's access to recreationally-usable water is severely limited and can be expanded only through expensive and often locally opposed land acquisition. This problem has become particularly acute on the state's rivers which, because of the 1967 Clean Water Act, are again becoming increasingly desirable for recreational activities. Despite the expenditure over the last fifteen years of up to $1,500,000,000 in public tax dollars in Connecticut for this purpose, the Connecticut public will not directly recapture the return from this investment unless a major companion program to buy public access to these cleansed rivers is carried out immediately. A second problem concerns the fate of privately-owned water utility lands which have formed the bulk of the permanent and semi-permanent open space in certain urbanized portions of southern and southwestern Connecticut, most notably the South Central, Greater Bridgeport, and Valley Regions. Although utilities have proposed to sell off large acreages, to partially offset the cost of new EPA mandates on water filtration, a moratorium has been placed on this action by the General Assembly until June of 1979. Public Act 77-606 of the.General Assembly established a land classification system which will regulate any disposal of such lands. Nevertheless, its potential for providing long term protection to the bulk of water utility lands remains 9 unproven, leaving open the possible need for large scale public acquisition to preserve these areas. Except for some limited acreage, the state and/or local governments will not be able to acquire these lands unless a new source of funds is establi shed. Still another problem concerns the future of agricultural land in Connecticut, long important in maintaining the quality of the State's land- scape, in providing game habitat often available for leasing for public hunting, and in serving as a source of food production. Steadily declining in extent, the rema ining half million acres in agricultural ownership have become the subject of great public conern culminating in the 1978 enactment by the General Assembly of a pilot agricultural land preservation program (P.A. 78-232) of $5,000,000 to acquire development rights on threatened farmland. This program cannot arrest the trend of farm sales for development but will provide a test of the concept of acquisition of development rights. A further concern regards the need to preserve the natural and cultural heritage of Connecticut, a goal long recognized in public and private preser- vation efforts in the state and now given impetus in President Carter's proposed national Heritage Program. Concerning natural heritage, primary emphasis must be given to perservation of outstanding and/or unique natural areas and those which represent "critical habitats" needed for the survival of rare or endangered plant and animal species. Connecticut's rich cultural heritage is well recgonized, consisting of literally thousands of sites and structures of historic or architectural value. More significant are the groupings of such sites and structures, especially in the many "traditional villages" which are a symbol of the New England countryside, plus certain cul,tural landscapes containing a concentration of sites, villages or groupings in a landscape setting such as portions of the 10 Litchfield Hills, the Connec ticut and Farmington River flood plains, and coastal southeastern Connecticut which retain a substantial degree of regional cultural flavor. The Connecticut Historical Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection will be assessing these areas for recreation and preservation requirements with a view to acquisitions necessary to retain their values. Yet another complex of problems involves the recreational needs of populationsegments of special concern. Amongst others, this category includes the population of certain cities whose increasing budgetary problems have caused a decrease in real spending for parks and recreation and a growing reliance on temporary Federally-funded (CETA) staff to carry out park and recreation programs. Therefore needed operation and maintenance as well as development and rehabilitation efforts have suffered. Inadequate use of public schools after hours for general public recreational purposes because of tight budgets and/or the lack of communication between education and recreation officials frequently exacerbates the lack of neighborhood recre- ational facilities in urban areas. A related problem is seen with the economically depr.ived sector of the population which lacks the disposable income and often the motor vehicle or mass transit systems needed to participate in certain outdoor recreational activities or to reach many recreational facilities. Although largely con- centrated in urban centers, many poor are also found scattered elsewhere throughout the state and typically form a recreationally "have not" element. Also deserving special consideration are the elderly and the handicapped,. whose recreational needs are only recently beginning to be seriously addressed. In the case of senior citizens, poverty and health or physical limitations frequently are factors preventing their participation-in outdoor recreation, as well as their common concentration in urban areas where fear of violence and resulting insecurity also tend to discourage their involvement. The problems of the handicapped are somewhat different. Particularly critical is the need to allow their use of existing recreational facilities not designed to allow ready access by the handicapped, a need which increasingly should be met by the implementation of the U.S. Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 4 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In addition, there is a growing realization of the need to provide some special facilities for the handicapped and also to integrate their needs into on-going municipal recreational programs. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Connecticut's 1978 SCORP projects a five year action plan totalling $74,000,000 to be spent by all levels of government in the state. This esti- mate is based upon receipt of an annual apportionment of $7,400,000 from the U.S. Land and Water Conser vation Fund, with a resulting Federal share of $37,000,000 over thi s.period to be matched by an equivalent share by state and local government. The division of this $74,000,000 Action Plan by sector of investment is necessarily somewhat imprecise, because changing opportunities, problems, and administrative priorities during this five year period are to be expected. Nonetheless,the General Statutes mandate an allocation of up to 30% of the annual Land and Water Fund apportionment for municipal development projects, indicating that $2,200,000 in Federal moneys annually will be earmarked for this purpose. These funds over the five year period will generate a $22,000,000 park development and rehabilitation program. 12 Based upon recent experience, the division of the remaining $5,200,000 annually in Federal moneys is likely to average roughly 60% for municipal acquisition and 40% for state acquisition and development, although perhaps varying considerably from year to year. Thus during this period roughly $30,000,000 may be spent on mun icipal park and open space acquisition, with a minimum of $20,000,000 invested in state land acquisition and development projects. With the previously stated needs and issues in mind, the following action recommendations by sector have been developed to guide the use of these outdoor recreation dollars, with the caveat that they should not be used to rule out other desirable types of projects which may be proposed during this five year period. STATE LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS Coastal area purchases for access and development of new facilities. Acquisition of stream and river corridors to preserve them from develop- ment and to realize their recreation potential. Acquisition of lands on large inland lakes and ponds which can accommodate recreational swimming and related facilities. Selection, acquisition and expansion of areas for new State parks in proximity to the state's population centers. Preservation of endangered natural areas and other critical habitats listed on the state's inventory of Natural Areas. Location of bicycling paths in metropolitan areas which are protected from traffic and which serve other trail purposes. Fishing and boating access points on bodies of water with recreational utility includes dams, flowage rights and bottom rights required for public access. Elimination of private inholdings and consolidation of existing State parks and forests. Acquisition of additional hunting, fishing, and wildlife management sites. 13 In conjunction with the Connecticut Historical Commission, assist in the acquistion of culturaland historic sites where recreation can be provided. Acquisition of lands which can integrate and complete the State's Blue Trails and Appalachian Trail systems. STATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS In addition to the basic and overriding need to rehabilitate and improve existing state recreational facilities and to provide an adequately funded operation and maintenance program to retain this improved level of facility quality, the following detailed recommendations have been rode: Develop additional coastal swimming capacity at Rocky Neck, Hammonass et, and Sherwood Island State Parks. Begin construction of Silver Sands State Park: the State's remaining presently unrealized major opportunity for new coastal swimming capacity. Siting of Olympic-size pools on lands near population centers together with day use support facilities. Complete the acquisition of Gardner Lake properties and begin development of its inland swimming potential. Develop and implement plans to upgrade, where possible, all existing inland parks for added swimming capacity and improved sanitary facilities. Develop 100 new natural resource based camp sites per year. Construct and operate interpretive centers associated with Dinosaur State Park, Fort Griswold, and Putnam Memorial. Construct additional trails to accommodate the desire for an inter- connected Blue Trails system with ready access to metropolitan areas. In conjunction with the Connecticut Department of Transportation, com- plete construction of one or more bikeways physically separated from automotive traffic. Expand segments of trail bike and snowmobile trails to allow greater travel distances. Construct a large bore rifle and pistol range capable of meeting Olympic competition standards and several smaller target shooting and sighting in ranges on State lands. 14 Complete plans for a state equine center and begin construction of support facilities and trails. Co nstruct new boat launch ramps on Long Island Sound and large water- bodies and upgrade existing facilities. MUNICIPAL ACgUISITION PROJECTS Purchase of access to rivers, shorefront areas, ponds, and other waterbodies for preservation and active recreation. Acquisition of five to ten acre tracts for use as neighborhood parks and active recreation sites. Selection of large tracts that have a potential for both passive and active recreational uses. Provide for large land areas that are selected primarily for use as conservation areas but have the capacity to provide selected active and passive opportunities in the future. Preservation of scenic vistas by purchase or easements, along ridgetops, waterbodies or natural areas. MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Sport and Playfields (ballfields, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.) Playground Areas Parking Facilities Lighting Projects (ballfields and tennis courts) Support Facilities (bathrooms, storage buildings, dams and control fencing) Picnic Areas Access Roads into Park Areas Trails (hiking, biking, bridle, snowmobile, and nature) Swimming Areas (natural site development and pools) Winter Sport Areas (skating and sledding) Fishing Area Access Fitness Trails Marinas 15 Nature Interpretive Centers Golf Course Development RECOMMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS Key recommendations for administrative action by sector of government include: Federal Government 1. Provide moneys for needed urban park rehabilitation from a new funding source other than the Land and Water Conservation Fund which already is inadequate to meet the many demands placed upon it. 2.. Utilize general federal tax revenues for funding alteration of faci- lities for use by the handicapped to preserve Land and Water Conservation moneys for existing program needs. State Government 1. Provide sufficient funding for an adequate operation and main- tenance program for existing and any new authorized facilities. 2. Establish a special project fund or emergency fund to allow the acquisition of large-scale projects beyond the fiscal capacity of the regular' state action program or the timely acquisition of desirable waterfront properties following natural disasters. 3. Maximize utilization of private land gifts as a source of state and local matching funds. 4. Expand the Title XX Program for transporting inner city youth to State parks. 5. Establish a recreation planning technical assistance program in DEP to assist municipalities. 16 6. Consider leasing certain State lands for municipal recreation pur- poses where appropriate and where compatible with DEP management objectives. 7. Encourage phasing of major municipal development projects to avoid disproportionate allocation of limited Federal funds in a given year. 8. Develop project priority evaluation system to assess the relative meri.ts of project proposals. 9. Maintain continuing SCORP planning program including update of th e State Natural Areas Inventory. Municipal Government 1. Establish cooperative prog rams between recreation and education departments to maximize recreational use of school facilities. 2. Provide sufficient park and recreational funding to permit main- tenance of permanent rather than temporary CETA staffing of key program functions. 3. Improve park security to increase facility utilization. 4. Update recreational facilities to al'low their use by the elderly and handicapped. 5. Provide for public participation in the recreational planning process. c h a p 2 t e r Land and People 17 CONNE CTICUT - ITS LAND AND PEOPLE The character of an area will,strongly influence its potential for a given use, for outdoor recreation as well as for economic development. One type of influence is exerted by its physical or natural characteristics. Thus a region's geologic history and the resultant landforms will signifi- cantly affect the types of recreation which may be feasible. However, even more significant will be the climatic factors of temperature and precipita- tion which control the vegetation, the water resources, and the wildlife which provide much of the resource base supporting outdoor recreation activ- ities. Another major i@nfluence is posed by the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of an area. For example, in planning for outdoor recreation, it is necessary to know how many people must be provided for and how these people are distributed. Similarly it is important to learn the socio-eco- nomic characteristics of the population to be served because outdoor recre- ation participation rates and activity preferences have long been recog- nized as being influenced b ge, ,nd to a certain extent by occu- y income, a a pation and level of education. Furthermore, knowledge of expected demographic trends in the subject population is also necessary in projecting expected future recreational investment needs. 18 PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY PHYSIOGRAPHY Connecticut's area is small, but its 5,000 square miles contain more variety of terrain'than many larger states. The State can be divided into four physiographic zones: the Coastal Lowlands, the Central Lowlands, the Western Uplands and the Eastern Uplands (Figure II-1). These zones or re- gions differ considerably in topographic features (Figure 11-2). Connecticut's southern boundary is formed by 253 miles of irregular shoreline on Long Island Sound. Along this shore stretches a narrow'strip of fairly level land geographically designated as the Coastal Lowlands. The coastline is characterized by alternating limited sections of sandy beach, rocky bluffs and saltwater marshes, indented with numerous small coves and inlets. A north-south strip of lowland bi-sected by the Connecticut River com- prises the Central Lowlands, which extend northerly from Long Island Sound into Massachusetts. Although broken with occasional traprock ridges, most of the land is gently to moderately sloping in character with fertile agri- cultural soils and fair to good drainage. With few exceptions, most urban- ization in Connecticut has occurred within the Coastal and Central Lowlands. The remaining areas of the state are largely hilly uplands which slope gradually toward the south and east. The Western Uplands are an extension of the Green Mountain Range to the north, with the general elevation in this region ranging from 200 feet in the south to over 2,000 feet in North- western Connecticut. Here in Salisbury is found the highest elevation in the state on Mt. Frissell (2,380 feet). This area is generally more rugged than the corresponding Eastern Uplands although in its southern part the 0 :71 0 Fl. (D 05 rt rvi D3 rt %.D 0 CONNECTICUT R. ZP z ch m m o M 0 c =woo z THAMES R. cn 0 U/ C184tj(; 6 L WIMI IWIM "so M IM mom M =1 mom WIWI M . . . . . . . . . . . .... ...... ... .............. ..... . ........ ..... . ............ ........ .. . ............ ......... ...... ........ .......... ..... ......... ... ............ FIGURE 11-2 ALTITUDE MAP OF CONNECTICUT LEGEND ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL .i UNDER 300 FEET 900 TO 1200 FEET Source: Connecticut Interregional Planning 300 TO 600 FEET ABOVE 1200 FEET Program, Physical_Geography, 1963. 600 TO 900 FEET 21 hills are gentle. The Eastern Uplands are continuous with the New England Highlands in Massachusetts. Elevations here range from 500 feet to 1,100 feet near the Massachusetts border, to about 200 to 500 feet in the Southeast. While both Eastern' and Western Uplands have scattered pockets of good croplands, especially on the clay ridges and on drumlins, they are largely unsuitable for extensive agriculture and are primarily in forest or pasture. CLIMATE Connecticut's coastal location has a moderating effect on the state's climate. Winters are moderate and summers warm. The mean annual tempera- ture for coastal Connecticut is 50 degrees and 49 degrees Fahrenheit for the Central Lowlands. On the other hand, the Eastern and Western Uplands have mean annual temperatures of 47 degrees and 46 degrees, respectiv ely. In January, the coldest month, the average statewide maximum temperature is 36 degrees and the average minimum is 18 degrees. In the warmest month, July, the average maximum is 83 degrees and t he average minimum is 60 degrees (Figure 11-3). The winters in Connecticut are not as long nor as severe as they are in the northern New England states. In the fall, freezing temperatures usually begin about the middle of November and end by the last week in March along the coast and early in April in the highlands. Sub-zero tempera- tures occur in practically every part of the State, but readings of -10 degrees or lower are unusual. Extreme heat in summer is usually rare. The average number of days per year with maximum temperatures of 90 degrees or above is eight in Hartford and four in New Haven. Summer temperatures on the southern coast of the State are modified by cooling sea breezes. 22 Precipitation is generous. The average statewide total is 45 inches with a range of 42 to 52 inches. Precipitation is distributed evenly through- out the year, ranging from three to four inches per month (Figure 11-4). Therefore, droughts are infrequent and usually short in duration. Flood- ing occurs in both spring and fall, and is a frequent problem in the state's river valleys. Snowfall varies throughout the state, lighter along the coast and heavier in the northwest (Figure 11-5). Near the Sound the average snowfall is less than 35 inches while the northwestern portion of the State receives over 100 inches. Long-term records indicate that there is considerable varia- tion in seasonal amounts of snowfall; in one location more than 130 inches fell in one year where only 37 inches had fallen several years previously. Generally, though, the northwest region receives enough snow to encourage winter sports with the ground being covered an average of 90 days a season. Winter Although Connecticut winters are generally cold enough to allow winter sports, occasionally mild winters offer less than ideal conditions for such activities. The Western Uplands, with its heavier snowfall, is best able to support winter sports activities such as alpine and cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, sledding, hockey, and ice skating. Elsewhere in Connecticut, conditions favoring such activities may be available for limited periods in the average winter, providing only marginal winter outdoor recreation opportunities. (7) OD .0 00 z z 0 Co m -n > o (D 13 > 0 z (D 0 In (t. -<> En @r (t (D 0) " (D (t "0 In (D W Z C- r@ -4 C) (D m np) (D rn 0 rZ @$ rt m m n 0 H @-h W F- @l 0 C) > ow 0 -4 r- r @ -9 c rt (D 0 -0 M cn m -4 0 0 <Oz c --q oma 0 z 24 FIGURE 11-4 5 - AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION 445 4,43 4- 408 97 404 326 &61 3,10 3- L H I FE 2 0 JAN F13 MM APR MAY ARE ALY AUG SEF`T OCT "OV DEC Source: Water, Connecticut Inter- regional Planning Program, 1962. FIGURE U-5 MEAN SEASONAL SNOWFALL (inches) 10090 go go 60 70 60 60 60 100 90 so 7 10 6 50 40 5cy 4 30 Source: Brumbach, Joseph J., The 30 Climate of ConnecticuF-, Connecticut Geo-16--g-1-ca-1 and Natural History Survey, 1965. 25 Spri ng Spring, although experiencing substantial variability of weather from year to year, is of approximately two months duration and provides aesthetic appeal with blooming dogwood and mountain laurel scattered throughout the state's extensively forested land. It is a time for fishing, pleasure walk- ing, and sightseeing. Other major activities engaged in are bicycling, jog- ging, nature study, hiking canoeing, kayaking, softball, badminton, volley- ball, track, tennis, golf, horsebac k riding, picnicking, soccer, and kite flying. Summer summer. lasts three months and is the prime period of the year for water- oriented activities such as swimming,,sailing and motor boating. People flock to the State forests and parks for picnicking and camping. Other out- door recreational activities enjoyed are day camps, nature study, hiking, rock and mountain climbing, golf, fishing, motor biking, bicycling, sight-, seeing and, of course, walking for pleasure. Fall During the 2-1/2 months of fall, thousands of people are attracted to Connecticut's rolling countryside by the spectacle of colorful autumn leaves. Activities enjoyed during this season are walking and driving for pleasure, S ightseeing, nature study, hunting, trapping, bicycling, football, soccer, golf and fishing. In sum, the variations in Connecticut's physiography and climate offer its residents opportunities for a wide variety of recreational activities in all seasons of the year. 26 WATER RESOURCES Connecticut has been blessed with ample inland and coastal water re- sources. These include numerous lakes and ponds, several major river systems, freshwater and saltwater marshes, and a shorel ine on the Long Island Sound. The state contains over 6000 lakes and ponds. Most are quite small and although well-suited for fishing, are less suitable for high speed boat- ing and water-skiing. The largest inland waterbodies are Lake Candlewood (5,420 acres), Barkhamsted Reservoir (2,330 acres), Lake Lillinonah (1,900 acres), Lake Gaillard (1,009 acres), and Lake Zoar (975 acres). Ten other lakes are between 500 to 1,000 acres, 14 more between 300 and 500 acres, and 81 between 100 and 300 acres in size. These waterbodies are fairly evenly distributed, with the exception of the northern Central Lowlands (Figure 11-6). The major river systems include the Connecticut River in the Central Lowlands, the Housatonic and the Naugatuck Rivers in the Western Uplands, and the Thames River in the Eastern Uplands (Figure 11-6). Altogether, Connecticut has 8,400 miles of rivers and streams. There are also 118,267 acres of freshwater marshes and in excess of 16,000 acres of tidal marshes in the state.1 The state's inland water resources have been greatly affected by pol- lution and development. Deteriorating water quality due to municipal and industrial pollution has greatly impacted opportunities for inland water based recreation. In the past 15 years, a major commitment has been made to clean Connecticut's waterways. Half of the state's rivers and streams State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection Water Resources Unit. Personal Communication. cc 0 LU I do > cc 2 cc lb z 0 ca IV tt... LLI -q cc It bw op 4A FIGURE I[E-6 MAJOR INLAND WATERBODIES AND RIVERS 28 are now fis hable and swimmable. With regard to-freshwater and tidal marshes, regulation by towns and the State have reduced the loss to development of those wetlands with significant wildlife habitat and fishery values. Such areas are important not only as wildlife and fish rearing and refuge areas, but as places to pursue wildlife and fishery related recreation activities. In addition to its other water.resources, Connecticut's coastal shore provides access to the Long Island Sound. The state's coast is a mixture of rocky shore, small coves and bays, saltwater marshes, and sandy beaches. There are 458 miles of coastal frontage on the Sound, of which 84.5 miles are sandy beach, as defined by Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program. This figure includes riverine frontage in the 36 coastal towns. 29 DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS This section contains an analysis of the deomgraphic and socio-economic characteristics of Connecticut, present and future., This information pro- vides a basis for assessing the magnitude of future recreation needs. The second part is a description of the socio-economic characteristics of the population: age structure, income, education, and occupation. These char- acteristics serve as'indicators to the kinds of recreation activities that will be sought. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Past Population Growth Since the first census in 1790, the population of Connecticut has grown, with occasional variation, exponentially. The first census recorded nearly a quarter of a million residents; the most recent, in 1970, counted over three million--nearly thirteen times as many (See Figure 11-7). The decen- nial rate of growth remained low (about five percent) until the 1840's and then rose sharply as a period of immigration began. The early immigrants were Europeans who, for the most part, settled in the cities to work in the state's newly developing industrial economy.. In the twentieth century, and especially in the period since World War II, the new immigrants have included blacks leaving the South seeking better job opportunities, Hispanics, and a large number of professionals and executives who work in the New York City area but reside in Connecticut. Most recently, attraction of corporate head- quarters, foreign businesses and commercial enterprises has created substantial growth in the Danbury-Brookfield-Bethel-Newtown area. The rate of population growth (See Figure 11-7) dropped during the 1920's, and plunged still further during the Depression, but recovered after World 0 r- 0 cn V "n V m ..........A En "n ... ... ... . ... ... .... . m .... .... .... A X.X CD ... ... .... CID ft4 CD . ... .... ee, ... ... ... .. POPULATION IN MILLIONS oc 31 War II and soared to its highest point of 26.3 percent from 1950 to 1960. During the last decade, the decennial growth rate dropped to 19.6 percent, a change which, in part, reflects the sharp decline in the birth rate since the early 1960's. As a result of this past population growth, Connecticut is now the fourth most densely populated state in the nation. Statewide population density averages 641 inhabitants per square mile. Population Distribution In 1800, the population of Connecticut, which numbered 251,000, was spread sparsely but evenly over the state's entire land area. At that time nearly all of the state's population could be regarded as rural. The state's largest cities, Hartford and New Haven, had on ly a little more than 5,000 people each. In the mid-nineteenth century, the state began a transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, thus beginning a period of rapid urbanization. By 1900, more than half of the state's population could be classified as urban. The population distribution in 1900 was sharply defined with high-density urban settlements and the remainder of the state's population at a very low density. By 1920, the population of the central cities (Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven) began to peak and level off, as buildable land within these communities was exhausted; and thereafter growth extended into the adjacent towns. In 1940 settlement patterns still retained a clear-cut distinction between high and low density areas. After the Second World War, however, the central cities ceased to grow; some actu- ally began a population decline: Hartford, from 177,397 in 1950 to 158,017 in 1970; New Haven from 164,443 in 1950 to 137,707 in 1970. Aided in part by the automobile and improved highway systems, a new process of suburbaniza- tion began as families and businesses in search of more generous space spilled 32 out of the cities and settled in lower density on the urban fringe. The old centers lost their cohesiveness as the population began to disperse to the outlying towns. By 1970, this new pattern of low density growth extended between old urban centers from Stamford in the southwest, to Springfield, Massachusetts. This process of urbanization followed by suburbanization has occurred all along the Atlantic Seaboard from Boston to Washington, creating an almost uninterrupted chain of development of which Connecticut is a part. Given improved accessibility, rural towns which were once fairly re- mote are now regarded as choice residential communities by commuting city workers. Figure 11-8 shows those towns which have experienced the great- est absolute growth during the decade from 1960 to 1970. Southwestern Con- necticut has grown most rapidly due to the attraction of corporate headquarters, foreign businesses and commercial enterprises. The Connecticut Department of Commerce reports that 26 new industrial and corporate employers have been located in the Danbury-Brookfield-Bethel-Newtown area. Their combined jobs impact is more than 7,900 jobs (4,800 direct employment and 2,900 sup- porting services). Substantial growth has also occurred in the towns along the Housatonic Valley and in the outer suburbs of New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, the New London-Groton-Norwich area and in Connecticut communities near Springfield, Massachusetts. It is in these areas where the increase in demand for local municipal recreational opportunities will be most severe. Figure 11-9 illustrates the present distribution of Connectic ut's pop- ulation, its urban corridor, and the density of the State's inhabitants. About 74 percent of the population is now contained in 50 of its 169 towns CA-IN V"Ve A-- c-mr ............. .. X .... ........ scvr@ ftr@ .............. . .. .. ... .. ... .............. .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . rlw r FIGURE 1[-8 ABSOLUTE POPULATION GROWTH FROM 1960 TO 1970 10,000 OR MORE 5,000 TO 9,999 L ESS THAN 5,000 SOURCE: 1970 U.S. CENSUS .. .. ..... ...... ... . ....... ........... .......... ........ ............ ............ .......... . . . . . ......... ........... :E ........... ........... .... ... WIN .... ..... '4bn IL . . ... .. . ............. . . .... .. . ..... 9 FIGURE POPULATION DENSITY BY TOWNS (PER SQUARE MILEI 1000 AND OVER 100-499 ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . 5oo- .999 11. _01-1110 UNDER 100 SOURCE: CONN. HEALTH DEPT. JULY 1974, EST. 35 on 26 percent of the total land area. The density of these 50 towns is 1,821 persons per square mile, while the remaining 119 towns have an average density of 229 persons per square mile. Population by Planning Region The population of Connecticut's 15 planning regions is shown in Figure II-10. Here also can be seen the urban corridor stretching from the New York City area to Springfield, Massachusetts. The Capitol, South Central, South Western, and Greater Bridgeport Re- gions are-the most populated (Table II-1). The Housatonic Valley Region has experienced the.greatest percentage population increase from 1960 to 1970 and since 1970. Due to the continued.tremendous population growth being experienced in the Housatonic Valley Region, demand for outdoor recre- ation is also greatly increasing. 36 TABLE II-1 POPULATION OF PLANNING REGIONS a b b c % Increase % Increase Region 1960 1970 1977 1960-1970 1970-1977 Capitol 546,545 669,900 684,272 23 2 Central Connecticut 186,667 215,200 217,700 15 1 Central Naugatuck 195,512 223,200 243,900 14 9 Connecticut River Estuary 26,733 43,000 48,400 61 12 Greater Bridgeport 278,131 311,100 312,497 12 0.5 Housatonic Valley 87,280 136,500 158$1408 56 16 Litchfield Hills 60,688 68,200 71,715 12 5 Mid-State 66,383 78,400 83,711 is 7 Northeastern 47,436 59,000 65,430 24 11 Northwestern 15,928 18,400 19,980 16 9 South Central 448,835 507,800 517,310 13 2 South Eastern 179,060 220,400 233,698 23 6 South Western 279,204 333,900 349,458 2.0 5 Valley 60,241 73,700 76,710 22 4 Windham 48,732 64,400 67,578 32 5 Non-Defined 7,859 9,100 10,650 16 17 TOTAL 2,535,23-4 3sO32,200 3,161,417 20 4 a Includes institutional populations. b Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960 and 1970. c Source: Connecticut Department of Health, 1977 estimates. d Includes towns of Stafford and Union. K. X . . .............. LITC @ILLS .... .. .......... .Q ........... NORTHEA N RTHW ------ X. CONNE ICUT R . . . . .. . . . . . M IDS IDS I.......... . . .... . . . CO RIV .. . .. ... .. . . . . . FIGURE 10 ...... ..... . . ....... POPULATION OF PLANNING REGIONS (1977) ........... . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ....... . ... .... .......................................................... N RTHEA N ONNEC UT YINDH M LESS THAN 100,000 100,000 TO 499,999 500,000 AND OVER Source; Connecticut Department of Health, 1977 estimates. 38 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Age Structure Empirical studies have shown that the variable of age is significantly related to the degree of participation in certain types of outdoor recre- ation. The very young and the very old aremore physically restricted in types and amounts of recreational activity. Persons over sixty participate in fewer outdoor recreational activities and prefer recreational settings which require a minimum of exertion and agility. They favor high-develop- ment recreational sites and engage mainly in passive urban activities, especially walking for pleasure and attending local parks. They seldom engage in winter outdoor recreational activities. The young have higher rates of participation in a wider variety of outdoor activities. They engage in more active out- door activities requiring high physical exertion, as in hiking, swimming, canoeing, bicycling, outdoor games and sports, and horseback riding. Thus, each age group has different recreational needs and must be provided with different recreational opportunities. Estimates fo r 105 show the following age distribution of the popula- tion of Connecticut: 1 Age Group Age Percent Pre-School chil'dren 0-4 6.3 Older children and adolescents@ 5-19 27.0 Young adults 20-29 15.8 Adults 30-64 40.0 Elderly adults 65 and older 10.9 1 Department of Planning and Energy Policy, State of Connecticut Connecticut Population Projection by Age and Sex 1975-2000. 1975. 75+ 70-74 S- >) o 65-69 a) fl@ -P o 60-64 a ro 0 0 a) 4J LO S- (0 0 55 59 (V a CA T--T- 50-54 S- a) r- S- .0 to 0 +-3 w ro (A CA 4-J CI 45-49 0) a) to a 4-) a) U 4--l 40-44 S- > a) 4-- 4-) CL 4-- U (A 35-39 4-) w -P C r_ w a 0 z cr. 0 S- 0 o 30-34 4-3 a) 4-- +_3 4- 4-3 0 (0 C 4- CL 3: a) 0 > 25-29 U U Ln a 4-3 CD 20-24 0 E -0 CL 0 c _r_ 4-3 U 0 0 S- 15-19 (0 4-) (1) U U cu 4-) 10-14 S- S- 0 "0 (0 U ec U 4-- 4-- 5-9 J 0 0 >) E S.- (A (A 0- a) (V E c SE 4-01 (0 0-4 LU _0 S- Ln CD Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln CD Ln 0 Ln C@ c ro r-- Ln cm 0 r.- Ln cm CD r-- Ln N cn rd > cl cm 04 N 04 cc in thousands) w 40 more often and longer distances. He is able to engage in those outdoor rec- reational activities which are relatively expensive, such as motor boating and water-skiing, and, in.most winter sports, he is.overrepresented. His income allows him to follow certain lines of "taste" in recreation. A person with a more limited income participates less often and in a narrower rangeo f outdoor activities. He travels less often and travels shorter distances. He prefers more developed recreational settings and engages to a lesser degree in hiking,.nature study and swimming than can his more comfortable counterpart. However, both levels of income partici- pate in walking for pleasure, hunting, fishing and attending local parks. A permanent change in the general level of family income oftenresults in different choices of recreational activities. Figure.II-12 gives the distribution of family income for the state in 1969. The median family income in Connecticut is $11,811 which is higher. than the national average and, more than 30 percent of Connecticut's families have incomes of over $15,000. 1 The statewide distribution of family income does not, of course, apply uniformly to all towns; considerable variation occurs. Figure 11-13 indicates those towns.where the percentage of families below the poverty level exceeds the statewi-de average. Theseare usually the central cities and also the rural towns in the northeastern corner of the state. Figure 11-14 identifies those towns with a high percentage of families earning $15,00O.or more an- nually. These towns are in the South Western Planni-ng Region and i.n the suburban areas around'Hartford, New Haven, and Springfield, Massachusetts. 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1970 U.S. Census Data. 41 These community income differentials can influence the availability of rec- reational services provided by local governments. National and regional studies indicate that education also affects the. types of recreational activity chosen and frequency of partic.ipation. The demand for recreational services can vary between communities and regions reflecting education as well as income and occupational characteristics. Figure 11-15 shows the educational attainment of males and females 25 years and older in Connecticut. There are significant geographic differ- ences in the educational backgrounds of the state's.citizens. Figure II- 16 shows those towns where the number of college-educated persons is more than 20 percent of the population age 25 and older. These towns are pri- marily in the South Western Planning Region and some suburbs surrounding the cities of Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford, as well as the town of Mansfield in which the University of Connecticut is located. It can be anticipated that only generalized change in the statewide level of educational attainment will be followed by associated changes in the types of recreational activities sought. While the choice of recreational activities is highly personal, some patterns of participation are evident based upon broad classifications of the population. Occupation, education, and income are socio-economic vari- ables which are significantly correlated with each other. Occupation, which is influenced by education and has a direct impact upon earnings, influences recreational choices. Those in the professional, technical and other high earnings occupations have the highest frequency of participatio'n rates in a variety of outdoor recreational activities. They often visit recreational settings which are more than 20 miles from home, and constitute a signifi- FAMILY INCOME -DOLLARS r* m -00 C"x (n I -00 jo P -4 ,'oP' to P -ro (A 0 "o -0 'o o 0 "o o "o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m I I I I I I I I I I I I z cn to 40 co 0 0 40 t 40 40 0 0 w 40 40 40 40 0 0 0 0 m 40 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 #a 40 40 (D F- CD (D @J 0 0 M 0 m 0 ch X m tot ........ ...... ......... FIGURE 11 -13 PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 10.0% OR MORE 5. 0 % TO 9.9 % LESS THAN 5.0% SOURCE: 1970 U.S. CENSUS .......... ........... ........ . .... . FIGURE JI -14 PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITH INCOMES OF 15,000 OR MORE . . . . . . . . . . ,.MIA 50.0 % OR MORE 33.3 % TO 49.9% LESS THAN 33.3% SOURCE:1970 U FIGURE 3:1-15 PERSONS 25 YEARS AND OLDER BY YEARS OF EDUCATION* None 1.5 None 2.0 28.1 % 25.3% 21.0 0/o 23.4% College Elementary College Elementary 4z:- HighSchool 45.1 % High School 53.6 % TOTAL 795,401 TOTAL 890,197 MALE FEMALE One or more years completed in category shown. (Source: 70 Ce nsus: An Abstract , Department of Finance and Control, 1972, p. 13) s r- . ........ ........... ........... ................ ........... ............. .................. . .. ........... ...... ....... FIGURE IL - 16 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION 25 AND OVER WITH FOUR OR MORE YEARS OF COLLEGE 20.0% OR MORE 10.0% TO 19.9% LESS THAN 10.0% SOURCE: 1970 U.S 47 cant segment of the recreationists pursuing hiking, natural areas studies, mountain climbing, as well as other activities. Those engaged in the service industries, generally categorized as "white collar" workers and whose earnings tend to be lower than the average of pro- fessional and technical groups, tend to utilize more developed recreational settings closer to their place of residence and tend to participate in recre- ational activities available in an urban setting. Manufacturing and trades workers have the highest representation in urban recreation activities of any occupational group and tend to utilize areas providing developed recreational facilities more frequently. Figure 11-17 indicates those towns in which a larger than average per- centage of the work force is engaged in manufacturing, with Figure 11-18 indicating towns in which a larger than average percentage of the work force is white collar workers. Each of these groups exerts an influence on the demand for all forms of outdoor recreation through their participation rates as well as in the composition of the total population. This is a variable of some signifi- cance whichImust be recognized in assessing recreational needs. THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHIC PICTURE Fifteen years ago, when state planning was in its infancy in Connecticut, considerable effort was devoted to developing future population projections. At the time, Connecticut was experiencing great prosperity, fueled by the rapid economic growth of the 1 960's. As a result, large numbers of immigrants running the full range of the socio-economic spectrum were flocking to Con- necticut. In addition, U.S. Census information indicated that the post World 48 War II period of high birth rates (the "Baby Boom") seemed likely to con- tinue indefinitely. With these apparently solid indicators in mind, continuation of the rapid rate of population growth experienced in the 1940's and.1950's seemed fully reasonable. Thus in 1965 the staff of the Connecticut Interregional Planning Program, predicted a state population of over 5,000,000 by the end of the century. All state planning in terms of the needs for land for com- mercial development, housing, highways, and outdoor recreation facilities alike, were tied to this population forecast. However, the last ten years, and particularly the last five years, have seen some very substantial changes which now mandate a reevaluation of the assumptions upon which estimates of Connecticut's future needs rest. First of all, widespread desire for a smaller family size coupled with the ready availability of birth control methods has resulted in a drastic de- crease in the national birth rate. This-trend has.been experienced most sharply in urban states such as Connecticut, where the annual number of births dro pped from a rate of 22.3 per thousand population in 1960 to 16.7 per thousand in 1970. During the early 1970's the birth rate has continued to decline, falling to an all time low of 11.5 per thousand population in 1975. At the same time, Connecticut experienced a serious post-Vietnam con- flict recession which was exacerbated by the energy crisis of 1973. As a result, the state's economic recovery has been slow with many questions re- maining regarding its future competitive position. Population-wise, the effect has been substantial, not only in terms of likely delays in starting of families but also in terms- of net migration. Available state information . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... .. . . ............ . ... ... . . . . ......... WIN- MW: .............. ...................... ................ .... ...... ........ FIGURE ]a -17 ... . . .... .XX: PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYED PERSO IS IN MANUFACTURING ......... 40.0% OR MORE 30.0% TO 39.9% LESS THAN 30.0% SOURCE: 1970 U.S. CENSUS .......... .... . ... ............ FIGURE H-18 PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYED PERSONS IN V OCCUPATIONS IN TOWNS OF 10,000 OR M 65.0 OR MORE 50.07. TO 64.9% LESS THAN 50.0% SOURCE:1970 51 indicated net.migration into the state has decreased significantly since the 1960's. It is estimated that net immigration approximates three to five thousand persons annually and is related primarily to changes in the state labor market. As a result of these changes, Connecticut should only experience an average net annual growth rate of 0.7 percent for the rest of the century, for a population in the year 2000 of 3,773,800 versus the five million plus figure predicted in the mid-1960's. In light of slowed population gro wth, current regional population estimates for the year 2000 are similarly more conservative. The greatest absolute population growth will occur in the Capitol Region (over 100,000) with gains of over 50,0000 occurring in the Housatonic Valley, Southeastern,.Central Naugatuck, Central Connecticut, South Western, and South Central Regions (Table 11-2). As the state population growth rate decreases, the population will @simultaneousl y get older. Current estimates project that the relative num- ber of children and teenagers (0-19 years) will decrease by one-third between 1970 and 2000 as seen in Table 11-3. Furthermore, although the young adult segment of the population (20-39 years) will not decrease between 1975 and 2000, this age cohort is expected to experience a relative decrease from 33 percent of the total population in 1990 to 28 percent in 2000. Whe n these two categories are grouped to encompass the bulk of the most active recreationalists (0-39 years), the basic long-term aging trend of Connecti- cut's population is clear: a ten (10) percent relative drop from 1975-2000, from 62 percent of the population to only 52 percent. Office of Policy and Management, State of Connecticut. Unpublished Data. June, 1978. 52 When these changing age cohorts are discussed in absolute rather than relative terms, the effect is still striking. In combination with the dra- matic slowing of Connecticut's birth rate, the result is that the 0-39 year age grouping will increase from 1,940,000 to 1,962,000 in the 1975-2000 period, a net increase of only 22,000. These figures indicate a sharp drop in the formerly expected increase in the younger elements of the population with their higher-than-average per capita participation rates in most forms of outdoor recreation. Even more importantly, they indicate the likelihood of the youthful component of the state's population peaking, followed by a reduction in both younger age groups. This trend will have a continuing impact on outdoor recreation needs in Connecticut as the 0-19 and 20-39 age cohorts progress through their expected demographic cycles. The effect of these changes in predicted population size on outdoor recreation planning will be substantial for three major reasons. First of all, the absolute size of the future population will be far less than previously expected, indicating a somewhat decreased need for expanded recre- ational opportunities. Secondly, the sharpest decrease in numbers will be felt in the 0-19 age group, which includes that sector of the population most in need of facilities for active recreational pursuits. Lastly, the changing though cyclical size of key age cohorts through time should have a decided impact on investment priorities, to avoid overdesign to satisfy needs which may be temporary in nature. In summary, recreational planning in late 20th century Connecticut must take into consideration a population which will increase at a very slow rate and which is likely even to decrease within certain key age cohorts. 53 TABLE 11-2 CONNECTICUT PLANNING REGIONS POPULATION IN 1970 AND PROJECTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2000 Region 1970 2000 Percent Increases Capitol 669,907 811,100 21 Central Connecticut 215,147 269,800 25 Central Naugatuck Valley 223,211 287'.000 29 Connecticut River Estuary 43,021 69,000 60 Greater Bridgeport 311,130 351,900 13 Housatonic Valley 1369462 201,900 48 Litchfield Hills 68,167 84,300 24 Midstate 78,445 123,,600 58 Northeastern Connecticut .58,961 86,150 46 Northwestern Connecticut 18.,393 25,100 40 South Central Connecticut 507,837 580,750 14 Southeastern Connecticut 2209402 296,800 35 South Western 333,935 387,000 16 Valley 73,700 102.,800 39 Windham 64,376 84,000 30 Non-defined (Stafford, Union) 9,123 12,000 32 TOTAL .3,032,217 3,773,800 24 Source: Connecticut Department of Planning and Energy Policy. Population Projections for Connecticut Planning Regions and Towns 1980-2000. 1976. 54 TABLE 11-3 PAST-AND PROJECTED CHANGES IN THE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CONNECTICUT POPULATION (PERCENT) Age Group 1960 a 19,70a 1975b 1980 b 1990b 2000b 0-19 36 36 34 29 24 24 20-39 26 25 28 31 33 28 40-64 28.5 '29.5 27 27 27 32 65 + 9.5 9.5 11 13 16' 16 a1970 and 1960 Census. Bureau of Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. bConnecticut Department of Planning and Energy Policy.. Connecticut Population Projection by Age and Sex 1975-2000. 1975. c h a p 3 t e r Recreation Planning In Connecticut 55 BECREATION PLANNING IN CONNECTICUT DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY To create proper "outdoor recreational opportunities" is to utilize our natural resources of land, water, air, plant and animal life for human recreation and enjoyment by good conservation, design, and management prac- tices. These opportun.ities do not happen by 'accident; someone must assume responsibility fo r their creation and management. In Connecticut this responsibility has been assumed by three major sectors: (1) Government - federal, state, regional, municipal; (2) Voluntary Associations, for the use of their members or others; (3) Individuals and families who create' opportunities for themselves and entrepreneurs who sell recreation opportunities as a commodity. The respective roles of these three sectors have grown out of historical circumstances and cont inually chang e in response to new conditions-. MALYSIS OF THE ROLES OF THE PARTICIPATING SECTORS Since the objective of this plan is to maximize recreational opportunities for all citizens within the range of available financial and natural resources, the roles and responsibilities that have been assumed by each of the three sectors must be examined. The ways in which responsibility is divided reflects criteria su ch as a *lable financial resources and opportunities legislative mandates, admin- val 9 istrative capacity, and technical expertise; these determine which sector can best perform a given role'. Where the public sector is involved, the role must conform to principles concerning the appropriate function of government embodied in our traditions and ideals. This role can only be 56 established after complete evaluation of the total system and the identification of the basic unfilled needs of the public necessary for the health and welfare of the community. GOVERNMENT The government or public sector strives to provide every citizen reason- able opportunity to participate with equal access to social benefits. The public sector must provide recreational opportunities which are accessible to all, and must preserve those resources of rare natural beauty and of scientific or historical significance as the rightful heritage of all citizens. On the other hand, those recreational opportunities which require a high capital investment per user and a large personal investment by the participants nor- mally can best be provided by private enterprise. Such facilities would incl ude private luxury campgrounds, resorts, and yacht clubs. 1. Federal The domain of federal involvement has traditionally been devoted to areas or resources of national or interstate significance. Although much federal attention has been centered upon the national parks and forests, most of which are located in sparsely populated Western states, in recent years there has been increasing recognition of the valuable role the federal government can play in establishing national recreation areas or national seashores near urban centers. There are many federal programs which provide needed assistance in the field of outdoor recreation to. states, municipalities and the private sector, as seen in detailed form in Appendix A. The major source of federal funding has been the U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service's (formerly the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) Land and 57 Water Conservation Act Fund (LWCF).l In Connecticut, moneys received from the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) are administered by the Department of Environmenta) Protection (DEP). Since 1965, the State of Connecticut and its municipalities have received approximately 25.8 million dollars from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, through its Fish Restoration (Dingell/Johnson) and Wildlife Restoration (Pittman/Robertson) programs, have also contributed significantly to the improvement of outdoor recreational opportunities. Connecticut's apportionment of Dingell/Johnson and Pittman/Robertson funds since 1965 has totalled approximately 7.1 million dollars. Both of these programs are 75 percent federal reimbursement. These moneys have been used to fund state fish and wildlife projects and have been the second most important source of federal funding assistance related to outdoor recreation. Another recreation-related program of the Department of the Interior is Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service's evaluation of surplus Federal real property for transfer to state and local governments for recreation use under the Legacy of Parks Program. However, no surplus lands to date have been transferred to the State of Connecticut or its towns under this program. The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service also does outdoor recreation research and provides technical assistance and program coordination to the states. The Department of Interior's Geological Survey and National Park Service also operate programs which indirectly add to state and local out- door recreation opportunities. Other federal agencies providing a supportive role are the United States IThe Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) was established as of January 25, 1978; and now has responsibility for the'programs formerly administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 58 Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the General Services Administration. Within the Department of Agriculture, the Soil Conservation Service ass ists in construction of recreation facilities through the Small Watershed and Flood Protection Program (PL 566). In cooperation with the State of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection, the Soil Conservation Service, as a member of the Resource Conservation and Development Project, provides plan- ning and technical assistance to local communities. The Forest Service, also within USDA, has supportive roles. The General Services Administration helps provide additional recreational lands thro ugh transfer of title of sur- plus-federal properties to interested state and local bodies. A listing of other.federal agencies which can provide financial or technical assistance in the outdoor recreation field includes Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Zone Management Program), Defense (Army Corps of Engineers), Housing and Urban Development (Community Planning and Management and Community Development), Labor (Man- power Administration), and Transportation (Highway Beautification and High- way Planning and Construction). Connecticut public agencies and many no-n-profit organizations are eligible for aid from these Federal sources. There are several specific federal laws which deserve special mention for the assistance which they provide to state, regional and local outdoor recreation programs': (a) Public Law 89-72, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act - provides for full consideration of opportunities for outdoor recreation,, fish,and wildlife enhancement on federal navigation,. flood control, reclama- tion, hydroelectric or multiple purpose water resource projects and for coordination with local recreation projects. It provides one-half of separable cost to-non-federal public bodies (primarily state and local governments). 59 (b) Public Law 89-80, the Water Resources Pl anning Act provides financial assistance to the states to increase participation in water resources councils and river basin commissions. Planning grant assistance is available to the states for comprehensive water and rela ted land resources planning programs including outdoor recreation under the Title III provisions. (c) Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by The Clean Water Act of 1977 - Public Law 95-217 The FWPCA Section 201(f) Grants for Construction of Treatment Works states: "The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment management which combines 'open space' and recreational considerations with such management." The establishment of water quality standards and goals for water quality enhancement connects.the concept of sewage treatment construction and recre- ation opportunities. In Connecticut, attainment of Class B quality standards, which allow for water contact recreation and fisheries maintenance, is the policy of the State for most waterways. Inclusion of recreation.in planning for treatment systems is specifically required: "Section 201(g) The'Admini- stration shall not make grants....unless the grant applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated to the Administrator that the ap plicant has analyzed the potential recreation and open space opportunities in the planning of the proposed treat- ment works." Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management requires that the plan- ning process shall include: !'an identification of open space and recreation opportunities that can be expected to result from improved water quality, including consideration of potential lands associated with treatment works and increased access to water based recreation." (d Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583) as amended by Public Law 94-370 60 Subsection 305(b)(7) of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act requires that: "The management program for each coastal state shall include... a defi- nition of the term 'beach' and a planning process for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and other public coastal-areas of environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological or cultural value." The Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce has provided under the pro- visions of the CZM Act funds to Connecticut's Coastal Area Management Program for such coastal recreation planning. Although Connecticut does not enjoy the recreational benefits of a national park or forest within its borders, the Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains recreation facilities at five of its 12 flood control projects within the state. These areas primarily accommodate passive forms of recre- ation such as picnicking, fishing and hunting. Several also provide boat launching and snomobiling opportunities. Army Corps-operated recreation facilities are located at Colebrook River Lake (Colebrook), Hop Brook Lake (N.augatuck), Northfield Brook Lake (Thomaston), Thomaston Dam (Thomaston), and West Thompson Lake (Thompson). In addition, seven other Army Corps owned areas have been leased to the,State of Connecticut for recreation management purposes, including Black Rock Lake (Watertown), East Branch and Hall Meadow Dams (Torrington), Hancock Brook Lake (Plymouth), Mad River Dam and Sucker Brook Lake (Winchester), and Mansfield Hollow Dam (Mansfield).*, 2. State The Siate has assumed responsibility for providing,those,rec'reation oppor- tunities which are largely natural resource-based. Although these res ources are not equally distributed throughout the state, access to such opportunities 61 should be av ail able to all citizens regardless of their place of residence. More specifically, the State's responsibility is to provide those recreational opportunities which require open space holding and natural settings appro- priate for such uses as trail activities, hunting, fishing, and backwoods camping. It must also assume most of the responsibility for providing regional opportunities for swimming, boating, and associated picnicking activity. Particular reference should be made to the State's responsibility for pro- viding public access for all water-based activities to the key recreational resource provided by Long Island Sound; The State also must provide for the preservation of those sites of unusual scenic beauty and educational or scientific interest as well as those sites which are significant in Connecticut's history and culture. As detailed in Appendix A, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has the primary responsibility for State recreation programs. The Department is divided into a Division of Conservation and Preservation, a Division of Environmental Quality and a Central.Services Section. The Divi- sion of Conservation and Preservation manages and operates the State park and forest systems, plans and designs new recreation facilities, and manages S tate lands under the Department's control includi*ng trails and public access lands. The Division of Conservation and Preservation is responsible for fresh and salt water fisheries, wildlife management, boating recreation management and administers Pittman/Robertson and Dingell/Johnson funds. The Division of Environmental Quality includes the State's coastal area management program and its environmental quality regulatory programs. The Coastal Area Management Unit within this Division is responsible for developing a coordinated management system for Con necticut's coastal land and water resources This planning program i ncludes identifying critical recreation 62 areas and developing a land and water use strategy. Part of these planning activities is the study of public accesss to the coast and Long Island Sound for outdoor recreation. Within the Central Services section of the Department, the Planning and Coordination Unit is responsible for long range recreation planning which has the objective of analyzing recreation demand and development of a plan to meet supply deficiencies. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) which results from this analysis is utilized to guide federal and state investments in acquisition of land and development of outdoor recreation facilities. Also in Central Services, the Land Acquisition Unit is responsible for acquiring land for recreation and natural and cultural heritage protection. The unit administers the U.S. Department of the Interior's Land and Water Conservation Act funds, and state and federal financial assistance to local governments for acquisition and development of outdoor recreation facilities. Other State of Connecticut agencies contribute to the enhancement of recreational opportunities through their professional planning functions. One of the most important is the Office of Policy and Management's planning program and its development of general state policies relating to outdoor recreation as presented in the 1974 Plan of Conservation & Development for Con necti cut. SCORP, as well as other state plans, must conform with these policies. This plan is presently being revised and will be presented in the 1979 session of the Connecticut legislature. Department of Transportation programs include planning of bikeways along the state highways. The Depart- ment of Commerce, as part of its tourism promotion, creates awareness of the state's recreational opportunities. This Department also provides funding 63 Program (Special Act No. 77-47). The Department of Social Services admin- isters an innovative program (Title 20) to provide transportation to state recreational areas for inner city youth, which has greatly enhanced their out- door recreational opportunities. The Connecticut Historic Commission's preserva- tion of significant'historic landmarks contributes to th e overall scenic and cultural enhancement of the State. The Commission administers the Federal Historic Pre servation Fund. A total of $468,898 was allocated in 1977 for historic preservation projpcts in Connecticut. Two quasi-state organizations associated with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Prot ection also have responsibilities.relating to outdoor recreation. The first is the Citizens' Advisory Council to the Division of Conservation and Preservation of the Department of Environmental Protection and is comprised of representatives of sportsmen clubs, camper associations, trail users, and natural resource interest groups. The Advisory Council reviews state programs and policies affecting recreation and lands, and makes recommendations to the Department on improvem6nts. The second is the Connecticut River Gateway Commission. Established in 1975, the Commission is made up of local representatives from the lower Connecticut valley towns of Old Saybrook, Essex, Deep River, Chester, Haddam, East Haddam, Lyme and Old Lyme, and representatives of the Mid-State and Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agencies. Within the conservation zone established, the Commission has responsibility to preserve the scenic, ecological, scientific, and historic values of the riverway through zoning and the purchase of ease- ments and development rights. To date, one conservation easement has been donated to the Department of Environmental Protection utilizing Land and Water Conservation Act funds. 3. Regional Outdoor recreation and open space planning is done at the regional level 64 by the 15 Regional Planning Agencies in Connecticut. Most of these multi- town regions,as part of their regional land use and development planning efforts, inventory existing recreational facilities and assess the recreation needs of the region. The Regional Planning Agencies have played an'active role in the public participation element and the needs assessment of this plan. In the greater Hartford area, the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), which provides water and sewer services to Hartford and most of its sur- rounding towns, also provides passive outdoor recreation where compatible with public water supply uses. On lands surrounding its reservoirs in West Hartford and Bloomfield, trail activities are accommodated including walking, bicycling, jogging, and cross-country skiing. In addition, the MDC maintains a swimming facility in Barkhamsted with picnicking and boat launching on Lake MacDonough (formerly Compensating Reservoir). The state is divided on the Pasis of counties into eight Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The role of the Soil and Water Conservation District Boards is to advise the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environ- mental Protection (DEP) on matters of soil and water conservation, erosion and sedimentation control. The Soil and Water Conservation Districts pro- vide technical assistance to towns, regional agencies, and landowners. The Districts have had, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service and DEP, a regional outdoor recreation planning role, including inventories and studies of regional outdoor recreation resource potentials. 4. Municipalities The appropriate area of responsibility for municipalities is to provide those desired recreation facilities which primarily serve local residents 65 either at the neighborhood level or the town as a whole. These include a broad range of facilities such as playgrounds, playfields, neighborhood parks, and community-wide parks offering oppo rtunity for formal and informal field and court games, swimming, and picnicking. Many towns also offer opportunity for boating access, fishing, walking, and various other active and passive recreational activities of a locally based nature. This historic limitation of concern does not, however, preclude the possibility of cooper- ative arrangements among adjoining communities for sharing recreational resources or combining financial resources for maximum effect. As in other New England states, Connecticut's 169 towns are bodies with wide powers of self government and with responsibility for providing a full range of services to their residents. Connecticut's communities vary widely in their response to the need for providing recreational services. Larger communities, including an increasing number of suburbs, can afford full-time professional direction and a broad range of programs for residents. On the other hand, many small.towns have to rely in large part upon boards or com- missions composed of public-spirited citizens to.perform this task, as detailed in the listing of conservation commissions, park and recreation commissions and parks and recreation directors by community in Appendix A. Connecticut's municipalities heavily rely on Land and Water Conservation Act funds (LWCF) for land acquisition-and development of outdoor recreation facilities. The state's towns have received almost 14 million dollars in LWCF moneys since 1965_@-,I @n addition to acquiring open space and recreational land, state enabling legislation allows towns in their regulations for su.b- divisions (Sec. 8-25) and for..p-lanned"unit developments (Sec. 8-13d) to' require the setting aside of public open space for parks and playgrounds. 66 Other local government organizations contribute to the development of recreation opportunities. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which represents the interests of Connecticut's larger communities, has recently cooperated in a private land gift training program sponsored by the Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Department of Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. The value of private donations of land may be utilized as the state or local communities' 50% share of the project costs for matching federal Land and Water Conservation Act funds. VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS The quasi-public sector, represented by various voluntary associations, meets needs which neither the public sector nor private enterprise have pro- vided. Thus, service organizations may provide badly needed recreation facilities for their communities, a local historical society may take action to save a threatened landmark, or a conservation group might acquire a wild- life area which is about to be sold for development. Because they are.goal rather than profit-oriented, voluntary associations can select their focus of involvement. In so doing, these organizations can serve a valuable role in providing recreational opportunities of a specialized nature often not provided by government or by private commercial enterprises. Connecticut is fortunate in'possessing many voluntary associations which collectively have made substantial contributions to the available supply of outdoor recreation opportunity in Connecticut. Some have been statewide in concern, while others have been more regional or even local in nature. Nevertheless, all have played a useful role in preserving open space, in developing and maintaining recreational facilities, in assisting the 'public sector in its land preservation and recreation programs, and in acting as a 67 watchdog for recreational and preservation interests. Several statewide organizations worthy of special recognition are: The Connecticut Forest.1 Park Association, which has coordinated the development and operation of Connecticut's excellent Blue Trails System and served as a spokesman for outdoor recreation, conservation, and wise natural resource utilization viewpoints. The Nature Conservancy (Connecticut Chapter), which has acquired approximately 8,000 acres to preserve ecological diversity through the protection of natural areas which are open to the public for passive recreation as well as for scientific and educational uses. Also, the Conservancy has assisted state and local governments in the acquisition of desirable properties. A partial listing of other organizations which have significantly contri- buted to the outdoor recreation opportunities in Connecticut is found in Appendix A. INDIVIDUALS AND ENTREPRENEURS Members of the private sector choose. roles and responsibilities accord- ing to their respective skills, opportunities, and fi nancial resources. Roles and responsibilities cannot be assigned to the private and quasi-public-sectors since they voluntarily define their own roles. Their overall objectives determine what accomplishments they may make. The degree of an entrepreneur's involvement depends on his ability to raise investment capital and the likelihood of such enterprise providing a satisfactory return on investment. The most suitable role for this sector 68 is, therefore, to provide recreation opportunities which can be used inten- sively, efficiently, and for which the consumer is willing to pay full costs. Marinas, ski areas, resorts, family campgrounds, tennis courts, golf courses, and riding stables are among the facilities this sector can provide. The individual has also played an important historic ro le in meeting recreational demands in Connecticut, as seen particularly in the common use of backyard pools of varying degrees of refinement as well as play and bar- becueing equipment. Many individuals also satisfy their own desire for hunting, fish ing, horseback riding, and snowmobiling on their own land. More significantly, organized or non-commercial individual action has resulted in a great deal of recreational opportunity, most notably the many .sportsmen's clubs, beach and lakefront associations, and swimming and golf clubs. Although basically limited to members, the facilities of such voluntary organizations are truly a majorasset to Connecticut in meeting the recreational demands of significant segments of its population. Activities of the private and quasi-public area are so important to the total outdoor recreation system that it is impossible to overemphasize their signficance. The future of recreation will increasingly depend on this sector as the government becomes less able to meet the rapidly-growing needs placed upon it. As leisure time increases, the demand for recreation oppor- tunities will increase concomitantly. The role of the private and quasi- public sectors will have to expand as the various levels of government which comprise the public sector fail to meet the full spectrum of the recreational needs of Connecticut citizens. Perhaps the most significant contribution by the private sector to Connecticut's outdoor recreation opportunities has been the willingness of private land owners to allow passive recreation on their properties. The 69 utilization of private lands for hunting, fishing, horseback riding, trail walking, cross-country skiing, bird watch ing and other pursuits has made it possible for state and local governments to concentrate their resources on more active intensive recreation demands. As a densely poulated state, Connecticut has most of the land use conflicts which arise from public use of private lands yet signficiant acreage at present continues to be open to the courteous sportspersons and recreationists. However, due to these land u'se conflicts and development pressures, the acreage of private lands avail- able is rapidly decreasing. As development pressures upon remaining lands continues to increase, government will be forced to purchase additional acreage and easements to meet these demands. Gifts of land or easements by individuals or businesses constitute an important addition to the land acquisition and development programs of government. Donations of land can reduce federal income taxes while pro- viding matching funds for state and local governments under the Land and Water Conservation Act. In the last three fiscal years (1975/76, 1976/77, and 1977/78), the State of Connecticut's open space acquisition program received 1,167 acres with an approximate market value of $858,283 in gifts. When matched with Land and Water Conservation Act funds, a total in excess of $1.7 million was added to the State's funds for outdoor recreation aquisi- tion and development. a, t e r Assessment: Of Recreational Needs. 70 ASSESSMENT OF RECREATIONAL NEEDS OUTDOOR RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND NEEDS AT THE.STATE AND REGIONAL LEVEL Outdoor recreation at the state and regional level encompasses all recreational activities in which most of the users must travel more than five to ten miles in order to participate. These activites are dependent upon the presence of a particular natural resource that is not commonly found at home or in the neighborhood, such as ocean beaches, forests, scenic land- scapes, or fishing streams. Because they involve some travel, they are activities which usually require at least a few hours of leisure time: the day outing, the overnight weekend trip, and the holiday vacation. Recre- ational activities generally found within this category are fishing, hunting, hiking, skiing, snowmobiling, canoeing, boating, camping, picnicking, swim- ming and sightsee ing. Most of these activities are accommodated on state lands, but some recre- ational facilities drawing attendance from beyond their immediate localities are municipally-operated (e.g. maj or swimming beaches and some major urban parks), and others are provided by commercial enterprises (marinas, camp- grounds, resorts). STATE FACILITIES In the 1974 SCORP, State holdings were categorized under a new land management classification system whose intent was to replace an increasingly obsolete system with one which more closely approximated both the physical character of specific properties and the planned use of them. Although budgetary and staffing limitations have not allowed its implementation, 71 the 1978 SCORP will again utilize this approach in classifying DEP lands becau se it offers considerable potential for an effective long-term land management system. As summarized below and as detailed in Appendix B, State properties comprise a very wide range of recreational facilities including: 1. State Forests - These are lands managed on a multiple-use basis for silviculture and harvesting of forest products, protection of watershed quality enhancing fisheries, wildlife habitat including game species harvest- ing, and natur'al resource protection. Extensive recreational activities allowed are fishing, hunting, trapping, hiking, snowmobiling and horseback riding. Portions of state forests may be utilized as state recreation areas. 2. State Parks - An area of sufficient distinction to attract visitors from all parts of the state and out-of-state for the purpose of participating in recreational, educational and/or cultural activities. These areas contain unique and outstanding scenic and/or natural qualities and are of sufficient -size to be used for recreational activities without impairing these qualities. State Parks vary in size from 72 acres to over 2,000 acres. Included in this category are the three state beaches: Rocky Neck, East Lyme; Hammon- asset, Madison; and Sherwood Island, Westport. Activities which are offered at State Parks include swimming, fishing, boating, canoeing, picnicking, hiking, camping and other extensive and intensive uses. The management of State Parks may incorporate silviculture activities and wildlife manage- ment. 3. -State Recreation Areas - These areas within the various state land categories are oriented toward intensive recreational activities such as swimming5 picnicking, camping, boating, ice skating and field sports. 4. State'Heritage Sites - The designation "State Heritage Site" applies 72 to sites possessing unique historical, cultural, geological, or archeological features. There are presently 18 heritage sites, including a number of monu- ments, an arboretum, three forts, and an archeological site featuring an excellent collection of dinosaur tracks. Some of these sites offer inter- pretive programs for visitors. 5. State Reserves - Under the new land classification system, State Reserves are land and water holdings which offer various options for future management as agency policy regarding optional use becomes developed and as development moneys become available. Among the site s included in this category are seashore tracts, lakes, islands, conservation and scenic areas, trails, and environmental corridors. 6. State Natural Area Preserve - An area of land and/or water con- taining unique plant or animal life or geological features so managed as to preserve them in their natural state consistent with their educational and scient ific values. 7. Fish and Wildlife Management Areas - Lands managed primarily for fish and wildlife habitat which support wildlife management and extensive recreation such as field trails, hunting, fishing, bird watching, and nature walk s. These areas may contain boat launching sites which provide access to inland lakes, rivers and streams, and the waters of Long Island Sound. OTHER FACILITIES OF STATE OR REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE In additio n, Connecticut contains a limi ted number of other public facilities of regional significance. Noteworthy among them are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Projects, which offer approximately 5,000 acres of open space and some developed recreational facilities. These 73 include the West Thompson, Hop Brook, Northfield Brook, Black Rock and Cole- brook River Lakes. Other facilities include opportunities for swimming, boating and fish- ing at the Metropolitan District Commission's (MDC) Compensating Reservoir. in Barkhamsted and for hiking, bicycling, jogging, and cross-country ski- ing in the large MDC watershed reservation in West Hartford. Also worthy of mention are power company properties. A number of power company properties currently offer fishing and casual uses at sites such as Haddam Neck and Mon tville. However, a much greater potential can be seen at other power facilities currently undergoing Federal Energy Regula- tory Commission licensing procedures. The major areas offering potential increased public accommodations are the Rocky River (Lake Candlewood), Shepaug (Lillinonah), Stevenson (Lake Zoar) and Bulls Bridge projects on or adjacent to the Housatonic River in western Connecticut. Also noteworthy are the 17 hiking trails comprising the "Blue Trails" System. These trails total 500 miles and are distributed throughout most of the state.. Although located in part upon holdings of various public and quasi-public.agencies and organizations, these trails consist largely of rights-of-way maintained on private property by private groups and through the cooperation of the landowners. WATER BASED ACTIVITY SYSTEM Water is the central attraction for most of the popular outdoor recre- ational activities. It contributes to the scenic beauty of hiking trails, camp sites and picnic areas as well as providing diversity to the recreational experiences of fishing, boating, swimming, canoeing, nature walks and hunting. 74 Lands along waterways are particularly valuable in providing diversity of habitat for wildlife and serve as flood plains retaining potentially destruc- tive runoff. Those recreation areas which have water access have the high- est recreational values. Water is a natural resource which has been much abused by human activi- ties which directly or,indirectly contribute pollutants, reducing the quality and value of water for biological communities and recreation. The recognition of water's importance has led to a concerted and coordinated effort to reduce pollution and restore its natural qualities. In Connecticut, more than one billion dollars has been invested in municipal waste treatment systems since 1965. 1 Private industry has made additional investments of more than $41 million in the period 1971-1976.2 These capital costs are reflected in federal, state and local governments' budget expenditures along with millions of dollars in annual operating and maintenance costs and in the price of goods and services paid by consumers to reduce the social costs of pollution. Improved control of sources of water pollution present an opportunity for state and local governments to increase their citizens' recreation potentials. Water's key link to recreation can be reflected through analysis of the public's demand for water-based recreational activities'and the availabil- ity of facilities, access ways and opportunities to participate in these activities. An analysis of supply and demand characteristics can contribute 1Water Compliance Unit of Connecticut DEP. 2Thomas S. Kuharski, A Study of State Tax Incent ives for Pollution Abatement Equipment, Conn. Dept. of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Conn., Dec. 14, 1976. 75 to an understanding of where deficiencies in the supply system exist or may be expected to develop over the next few years. Recreation demand is dynamic and subject to shifts in popularity of certain activities. Recent popularity of canoeing and kayaking are examples of rapidly increasing demands-on water resources. Therefore, studies of recreation demand have limitations imposed by shifting public interests as well as normal sampling difficulties. Similarly, measures of the supply or delivery capability which must reflect quality of. experience often require judgments on capacity standards such as number.of square feet of beach area per user. The following analysis of water-based recreational activities utilizes "best judgment" criteria for measuring adequacy of the available resources, resulting conclusions and recommendations. (See Appendix C.) SWIMMING Swimming is among the most popular.of recreational activities as detailed in the 1961 study by the fact-finding ORRRC (Outdoor Recreation Resources- Review Commission) Study and in many subsequent national and state level studies on outdoor recreation. Indeed, it frequently seems to be the dominant warm season sport, serving as a focal point around which a whole syndrome of other activities such as picnicking, sunbathing, camping and even fish- ing and boating tend to cluster. Furthermore, it may serve this role with the local, day use, weekend, or vacation recreational outing alike. Because of the complex and diverse nature of swimming as a recreational activity, it may occur at a range of sites, including the artificial pool, the semi-artific ial small impoundment or bypass pool,.the lakeside beach, or the saltwater beach of Long Island Sound. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages as follows: 76 1. Artificial pool The managing-agency has tight control over the quality of water and over the type and intensity of use. Furthermore, the indoor pool also can be used in periods of poor weather throughout the summer as well as throughout the year. On the other hand, such facilities usually are crowded, of necessity highly regimented in their management, and also lack any semblance of nature. However, they may offer the sole option for providing needed recreation in metropolitan areas and other sections of the state lacking adequate natural or seminatural swimming potentials. Hence they are commonly used by urban and suburban communities not located on Long Island Sound. 2. Semi-artifical impoundment or bypass pool A form sometimes tran- sitional'to the purely artificial pool. Subtypes may include the small impoundment on a stream, dugout bypass pool perhaps utilizing a combi.nation of stream and groundwater, or variants which have been at least partially concreted or asphalted or which have been converted to utilize-municipa,l' water with refiltering equipment. These have been commonly used in Connecti- cut's state parks (11 out of 19 existing inland state swimming facilities) and in many inland rural and suburban communities lacking a large water body suitable for swimming. Despite their frequent historic usage, these facili- ties possess many shortcomings to offset their more natural setting. These liabilities may include lack of control of water quality, a steadily degrad- ing water quality on urbanizing watersheds due to increased pollution and turbidity, an undependable supply of water to permit needed flushing, and weed and turbidity problems. Thus, there is growing pressure to close such facilities and to replace them with facilities more suitable to proper manage- ment. The semi-artificial impoundment is not a viable swimming facility 77 in Connecticut and has been excluded from all future plans for state swim- ming facilities. 3. Freshwater beach - Thanks to the Ice Age, Connecticut contains a number of good natural lakes as well as some man-made water bodies which have the physical character to support swimming on a substantial scale. In such cases, a quality recreational experience may be available,, enhanced by the largely natural setting. Therefore, such lakes are a major attrac- tion in those Connecticut communities, largely in the Eastern and Western Highlands, which are fortunate enough to have one within their boundaries. However, the natural process of eutrophication, hastened by man-caused"in- flows of nutrients from lake cottage septic tanks, lawns, and farms is in- creasingly causing undesired results such as weed growth, algae blooms, and greater turbidity and the inevitable degradation of the state's lake resources without the implementation of a Connecticut 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Program. 4. Saltwater beach - Perhaps the most popular form of swimming is that utilizing Connecticut's oceanside beaches on Long Island Sound. Al- though saltwater swimming has the potential for a high quality recreational experience, the extreme pressure of use on this limited resource base coupled with its limited geographical occurrence in the state, are serious problems. Nevertheless, the saltwater beach is frequently utilized as a municipal or stateswimming facility. Supply @ I As seen in Table IV-1, Connecticut contains 170 public swimming facili- ties, almost two-thirds of which are freshwater in character. The estimated instant capacity of these is nearly 265,000. 78 TABLE IV-1 EXISTING INSTANT SWIMMING CAPACITY Num ber of Number of Freshwater Estimated Saltwater Estimated Facilities Capacity Facilities Capacity Total State 19 34,600 3 60,500 95,100 Local 56 34.165 32 96,350 130,515 (Unrestricted) (47 towns) (12 towns) Local 30 8,520 30 30,350 38,770 (Restricted-Residents Only) 26 towns 13 towns Totals 105 77,285 65 187,200 264,385 The major categories within this total include: 1. Some 22 state facilities with a capacity of 95,100 people. These range greatly in scale from three large shoreline parks which alone have nearly two-thirds of this subtotal to a sizeable number of small to moderate sized inland parks with an average instant capacity of less than 2,000 people. 2. Eighty-eight mu nicipal facilities open to the general public with a capacity of some 130,000-odd people. Although the inland parks are smaller in average size than the saltwater parks, the shoreline beach size is distorted by Seaside Park in Bridgeport which alone contains one-third of the sub-cate- gory's total. 3. Sixty municipal facilities restricted to residents only with an instant capacity of less than 39,000. Although their restricted nature is a subject of considerable controversy, it is interesting to note their gener- ally small size (an average of less than 700 person capacity) and small pro- portion (less than 15 percent) of the total capacity of all public swimming areas in Connecticut. It should be similarly noted that most of the restricted local beaches are saltwater versus freshwater. Of the 24 towns on Long Island 79 Sound, 13 have restricted beaches with an estimated capacity of 30,350. This represents 16 percent of the total saltwater swimming capacity. To better understand the state's swimming supply, its limitations and potentials, requires, in addition to a quantification of instant capacity, an examination of the overall status of the state inland swimming areas which serve as regional facilities. Figure IV-1 "Connecticut State Inland Swimming Areas," offers an evaluation of the 19 existing state-owned inland swimming areas. These areas are characterized by an existing level of use resulting in beach loading (square feet of sandy beach per person) far in excess of the recommen ded standard, little or no opportunity for expansion of swimming facilities, and varying water quality problems as evaluated by the Department's Parks and Recreation Unit. Water quality in the small watershed typical of these state inland swimming areas is especially sensitive to urban activities and the intro- duction of any pollutant within the watershed. For example, excessively high coliform bacterial levels in swimming water has caused periodic closure of the swimming area at Mashamoquet Brook State Park in the interest of public health. Continuing acute deteriorating conditions may cause permanent closure of this swimming area in northeastern Connecticut. Similarly, water quality problems have caused temporary closures at Wharton Brook (Wallingford) and Stratton Brook State Parks (Simsbury). Demand As discussed in detail in Appendix C, various estimates of swimming demand have been made for Connecticut; neighboring states, Massachusetts and New York; and the regional andnational levels. Most analyses have been based on the estimation of the percent of the study population which M 0 0 k-4 04 P (D ?i C., 0 PC zu 0 (D fD 0 0 0 rt rt 0* n 0 0 Oil!) e e OC celeo!)Ce 0 a rt tj e 0!@ * @5 e @Doojoope.ooololo "Op.05000 0+ :3 m Cl. 0+ M 0 0 0 I-h eeieo@Dlolco@Deeoooejeeoo Z (D M 0 :j ceocoolo'@DCPOCODOCICCO n m rt .4 e I I Q: H. H. 0 t-t zi 0 ol I cy, ol z rt 0) clejoicccoloe o!) onjo!) o!) 000 F_ 0 @-A C 00 e e ol e 0 0 000 x C. C.' @cl x 1-1 V 0 a-a, Il -n t- n 2L w ta I.& . , (D 0 Ma. 0 - 0'Q 5c -0 00 :3 t. -1 0 *-@m (DOQ (D 0 m 93 * " 0 0 0-1 C. z w , C. 5-4 5 Ho 0 n g 0 :1 wal :3 g .1 CL go C.1 0 m ::r :r c 9 @_o 0 0 @z CD 6 (D to .1 0 M :s 04 1@0 :1 "0,4 P, Z 0 0 96 lo;s 1-cm el o 0, M 0 M ca to 0 0 .0 U 0 :1 1" (110 11 '.0 M .0c to -0 1 . <_ I F_ 5. . . :3 7a 11 0 tLI Q@@ 0 0 c 'I g@. wl. go 0 :ra :3..4 0 .1 0 0 :CAS (D :33 00 '-M -M ("D C-D 0- a, C-ta C- 0 1*. 0 0 N w 5 0 :s @-m CD 0 0 cop -9 10- (a op G. :rm to (D 0 - @- F- 51 :3 1 " o 05 0 tl 0 0. Z3 C. @zs 08 81 CONNECTICUT STATE'INLAND SWIMMING AREAS Definitions Overall Rating A subjective evaluation of the capability of a facility to provide a satisfying swimming ex- perience. Water Quality An evaluation of the suitability of water adjacent to the beach for swimming purposes based on factors of color, purity, etc. Flow Dilution The movement or flow of water through a swimming area related to the State Health Code. Coliform.- Swimming water quality evaluation based upon the persistent presence of potentially harmful bacteria during the past five years. Chemicals Presence of potentially harmful chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenols (PCB's) or chlorine (C12)' Color - The relative clarity of swimming water. Unflavored coloration is usually due to the presence of tannic',acid. Algae - The relative level of algae present causing turbidity and unsightliness. Beach Size The area at the water's edge covered by sand. Landscape Quality A subjective evaluation of the aesthetic qualities which make a beach attractive for public swimming activities. Expansion Capability An estimate of expansion potential related to such factors as topography, space for parking and related needs, water quality, and present and desirable beach loading level. Source: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Parks and Recreation Unit. 1978. 82 participates in an activity at least once during the year. Based upon such participation rates, an estimate of the instant resident demand can be de- rived. While the percent of the population participating in the activity is highest on certain key days such as the 4th of July and Labor Day, the planning for capacity is b ased upon the average peak demand as measured over the recreation swimming season primarily with weekend use the key in- dicator of facility adequacy. The 1968 Connecticut SCORP utilized data from a statewide telephone survey to determine parti cipation rates. This survey indicated an instant resident demand of 10-15 percent of the population. Statistical analysis of this survey predicted a 1975 instant swimming demand of 12.3 percent at "State Parks" and other public facilities. Efforts to refine this standard during preparation of the 1978 SCORP included review of a number of other studies, of which the related New York State and Tri-State Planning Region demand analyses seemed both most statistically reliable and comparable to the Connecticut situation. The swimming participation rate in Connecticut's portion of the Tri-State Planning Region was estimated to be 47 percent compared to 50.7 percent for New York State. New York State's "Design Day" estimate is for 12.5 percent of the total population to be using public. facilities.on an average peak weekend day. The general validity of Connecticut's 1968 SCORP estimate of "Instant Demand" being 10-15 percent of the Connecticut population seems to be borne out. Therefore, public swimming-facilities' instant demand can be estimated to be in the range of 310,000 to 375,000 persons in 1975 with instant demand increasing to 375,000 to 450,000 persons by the year 2000 based on forecasted population growth. 83 Needs The foregoing discussion indicates that public swimming facilities in Connecticut have an instant design capacity of roughly 265,000 people, al- though roughly 15 percent of this capacity is restricted to residents only (however, most of these restricted facilit ies also are heavily utilizied and have little unused capacity). Against this supply must be weighed an esti- mated instant demand in the range of 310,000 to 375,000 in 1975, a figure likely to jump to 375,000 to 450,000 by the end of the century. Therefore, the present scale of unmet needs is most likely in the magnitude of 50,000 to 100,000 and should jump to double that level by 2000 A.D. Although this analysis implies a major statewide deficiency of swimming opportunity, the picture differs somewhat from region to region as seen in Figure IV-2. Although we might expect that the entire urban spine of Connecti- cut would be a deficient area, the ready availability of Long Island Sound gives nearly all coastal communities a fair to good rating in terms of pro- viding swimming opportunity. Similarly,- municipalities in the Northeastern, Northwestern, and Litchfield Hills Planning Regions with access on larger water bodies generally also possess a satisfactory swimming capability. On the other hand, inland metropolitan areas such as the Capitol and Central, Connecticut Regions are seriously deficient in swimming opportunity and thereby pose the greatest challenge to state recreation decision-makers. Recommended Actions To correct,these shortcomings, a number of recommended actions should be undertaken by state and local government as follows: State Government-- In the absence of county government, the State.of Connecticut has the responsibility to.provide regional as well as statewide 84 swimming facilities. Key steps should include: 1. Improve the quality and expand the capacity of existing state parks wherever physically feasible and where serious environmental impact will not result. Top priority should be devoted to those saltwater beaches .where the largest increases in design capacity can be achieved. For example, the development of Silver Sands State Park could eventually increase instant capacity for saltwater swimming by 10,000 users. 2. Few, if any, shoreline beaches on Long Island Sound remain unde- velop ed. To expand opportunities for coastal water-based recreation will require a program of acquisition and development to provide increased public access and recreational facilities along Long Island Sound. Such a program of development should include (a) an inventory of all natural beaches, pub- licly and privately owned, and selection of those with the greatest recre- ation potential; and (b) establishment of a state first-option for purchase of identified key coastal resource lands combined with establishment of flexible contingency funds to assure timely exercise of that option in de- veloped areas when struck by major disaster (hurricane, flood, fire, etc.), causing key resource lands to suddenly become available for state purchase. 3. Existing state inland swimming areas, where possible, should be expanded to reduce present high beach loading to more desirable levels. Expansion of these facilities to recommended standards would improve signifi- cantly the quality of the swimming experience while increasing user capacity. Six existing inland swimming areas offer opportunity for expansion. Mt. Tom (Litchfield) is the prime area for expansion of a natural facility due to, its uniquely high level of water quality and terrain favorable to expansion. Hopeville Pond (Griswold), Indian Well (Shelton), Lake Waramaug (Kent), MMMM OEM MMMMMMMIMM MMIM M 0 0 -4 CO-A OmIll. _w,r --- In. 100 75 -60 00 75 AN `1 15 Ln PAIL. 00 100 40010" 125 HIGH CA FIGURE 2 RATIO OF SWIMMING BEACH CAPACITIES TO POPULATION WITHIN 20 MILES RATIO -lCapacity of all facilities within 20 milesl x 1000_ Population 86 Quaddick Pond (Thompson), and Squantz Pond (New Fairfield) State Parks off er limited opportunity for expansion. Expansion of these existing state park inland swimming areas will not, in itself, satisfy the present deficit of swimming facilities needed to meet present And projected instant demand. For example, Mt. Tom is a small pond. 4. Additional inland swimmingareas should be developed on inland lakes upon state acquisition of lands. Areas having potential for development of public natural swimming areas include Gardner Lake in Salem (especially prime site), Mashapaug Lake in Union, Mansfield Hollow Reservoir in Mansfield, Beach Pond in Voluntown, Twin Lakes in Salisbury, and Candlewood Lake in western Connecticut.. 5. Improvement and modernization of obsolete and/or deteriorating inland facilities should be carried out to permit their continued use and to improve the present marginal quality of the recreational facility. Such measures may include greater protection of the watershed supplying the park, use of ground instead of surface water in combination with filtration equip- ment, and replacement of inadequate facilities. 6. - Development of Olympic size pools in urban regions such as the Capital Region where no natural or semi-natural swimming potentials exist. A prime site in this region is at Gay City State Park in Hebron. In addi- tion, the State should encourage and support municipal pool development, including (a) the development of artificial Olympic size pools in seasonal use, open space park settings ' and year-round indoor/outdoor recreational structures serving family, individual, and school group use, and (b) inclusion of swimming withinthe physical educat ion and athletic programs of public schools. 87 7. Coordination with and, where applicable, pass-thru of grants-in-aid to other public bodies such as the Hartford area Metropolitan District Com- mission, and private bodies to foster the development and operation of swim- ing facilities open to the general public. 8. Acquisition by State and local governments of water bodies and surrounding land areas which are declared to be surplus water company lands by appropriate government agencies. Smaller impoundments whose water supply functions have terminated can provide quality swimming opportunities for the future. 9. Reevaluation of state policy on the utilization of municipal water supply reservoirs for recreational activities when mandated Federal Drinking Water Quality Act filtration systems are established. 10. Section 19-13-B33a of the State of Connecticut Public Health Code should be reevaluated and updated to accommodate large public, Olympic size pools, saltwater pools, variable depth pools, and slope-sided pools. Exist- ing outdated and inadequate regulations and policies dealing with these pool designs and their operation prevent advantageous use of these beneficial al- ternative types of construction, especially in regards to slope-sided pools. Local Government 1. Acquisition, development and/or expansion of sites offering potential for use as swimming facilities. 2. Utilization of the urban renewal process to provide additional salt and freshwater swimming facilities on Long Island Sound and on appro- priate inland water bodies. 3. Pools at public school facilities should be accessible to the 88 general public for use in the after-school hours. BOATING Due to its humid climate, glacial history, and geographic location, Connecticut for its small size possesses an abundant potential for boating on its many lakes and rivers, as well as its more than 250 miles of shore- line on Long Island Sound. Although a highly diversified recreational ac- tivity, boating in Connecticut can nevertheless be broken down into the two following major subcategories: 1. Motorized boating, utilizing craft ranging from small outboard- powered craft to large yachts. The smaller outboard-powered craft are frequently utilized for fish- ing and often utilize lakes and ponds less than one hundred acres in size. The larger outboard craft used for water-skiing and inboard crafts are gener- ally confined to Long Island Sound, large nav igable rivers such as the Con- necticut River below Hartford, tidal areas of the lower Housatonic and Thames Rivers, and those inland water bodies over 100 acres in size. TABLE IV-2 MOTOR BOAT REGISTRATIONS IN CONNECTICUT, 1974-1977 Number of Year Registered Motor Boats 1977 67,851 1976 68,799 1975 68,627 1974 62,003 ZSource: State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles 89 2. Non-motorized boating, consisting largely of canoeing/kayaking and sailing. Canoeing/kayaking is a fast-growing sport largely dependent on seasonal high water on a number of small to moderately sized streams offering either a "white water" or a pleasant flat-water experience. Sail- ing, on the other hand, is found in Long Island Sound as well as in some large and small inland water bodies where it must compete with motorized boating. Because of their varying requirements and clientele, few generaliza- tions can be made for boating as a whole. Instead, each major subtype will be discussed as follows: Motorized Boating Demand Indications of demand for power boating are less than fully discern- ible, as many surveys combine all boating into one category. Thus, the Tri-State Region survey indicates that nearly 24 percent of Connecticut residents in its sample participated in "Boating."i However, power boat registrations in Connecticut are approximately 70,000 and have not increased in the last few years (Table IV-2), contrary to the predictions of the last SCORP.2 Thus, families which either own a boat or have access to boating opportunity may total only some 10 to 15 percent of the total population. Using a New York State guideline that approxi mately one-eighth of the par- ticipating public will do so on a "design day" then gives an average peak day instant demand of some 40,000 to 60,000 people or some 10,000 to 15,000 boats. 1Includes motorized and non-motorized boating. 2 This is most likely due to out-of-state registering of boats to avoid property taxes. 90 Supply Concentrated on Long Island Sound, this activity utilizes a broad range of facilities, including 164 commercial marinas, 63 private.yacht clubs, 32 municipal boating faci lities, and a large number of state and public boat launching areas., Aside from the public state launching sites (parking. capacity approximately 5,000 cars and attached trailers), available slips and berths total roughly 25,000, of which some 5,000 or about 20 percent are at private clubs. Over three-quarters of the remainder are at commer- cial marinas, with the rest at municipal facilities for residents (largel y in Greenwich and Stamford). When the supply of motor boating is compared with the apparent demand, it is clear that there are certain deficiencies deserving correction. First of all, a very large share of the total supply is private-commercial or private-restricted in nature, thus catering only to more affluent sectors of the populations. Secondly, the great bulk of the municipal berths are not only restricted to residents but also highly localized in several com- munities with less than,five percent of the aggregate population of the state. Furthermore, inland metropolitan areas as in central and north cen- tral Connecticut (the Midstate, Central Connecticut, Central Naugatuck, and Capitol Planning Regions) tend to be "have not areas," with extreme compe- tition for available shoreline access, a growing problem in southwestern Connecticut as well. Recommended Actions Prompt action is needed to alleviate these supply deficiencies, espe- cially in providing relatively inexpensive public boating access and in expanding the capacity of private facilities through more efficient handling 91 and storage of boats. Several major recommended corrective actions include: 1. Implementation of the long-standing DEP policy to purchase a boat- ing access area on every major lake (+100 acres). Significant water bodies currently lacking such access and where such corrective action is recommended are listed in Table IV-3. 2. Implementation of the long-standing DEP policy to purchase a boat- ing access area on every town on the coast or on navigable rivers. Additional recommended areas are listed in Table IV-4. 3. Combining the goals of urban renewal and of environmental protection by concentrating new marina development in urban harbor areas, now often .occupied largely by old and decrepit structures. Such areas may include the harbors of such cities as New London, Norwich, Middletown,, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Norwalk. Non-Motorized Demand Canoeing and kayaking are two forms of non-motorized boating which have grown significantlynin the last decade. This activity is now broadening to include "tube floating." Canoeing is a natural recreational activity for this state because of numerous streams. Nevertheless, the generally small size of most of these streams and their limited volume of flow following the spring freshet pose serious limitations. Furthermore, serious historic pollution in many larger streams has sharply reduced their aesthetic appeal to the canoer. Canoeing in Connecticut has tended to be a highly seasonal sport, with many streams listed in the Appalachian Mountain Club's New England Canoeing Guide described as being usable only in periods of high water. This includes 92 TABLE IV-3 MAJOR CONNECTICUT WATER BODIES LACKING PUBLIC OWNED ACCESSa Aspinook Pond (Lisbon, Griswold) Candlewood Lake A second access needed. Crystal Pond (Eastford) Halls Pond (Eastford) Moosup Pond (Plainfield) Oxoboxo Lake (Montville) Lake Pocotopaug (East Hampton) Lake Quassapaug (Middlebury) Spectacle Ponds., North & South (Kent) Twin Lakes, East & West (Salisbury) Wappaquassett Pond (Woodstock) Williams Pond (Lebanon) Wonanpakook Lake (Salisbury) aThis listing does not include a number of large water bodies which are privately owned and where acquisition of shore property alone will not allow use of the waterbody itself. 93 TABLE IV-4 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCHING SITES Mystic Acquisition and development Groton (Thames River) Development Montville (Thames River) Development Chester-Lyme Area (Connecticut River) 3 areas needed: acquire & develop East Hampton (Connecticut River) Acquisition and development Portland (Connecticut River) Development Rocky Hill (Connecticut River) Acquisition and development Glastonbury (Connecticut River) Acquisition and development Clinton Acquisition and development Milford-West Haven Acquisition and development Bridgeport Development Westport Development Fairfield County Several new areas needed: acquire and develop 94 the spring, after major rain storms, or upon release of water from upstream impoundments. Furthermore, the challenge-seeking local participant will tend to seek out a certain quality of recreational experience or degree of canoeing difficulty wherever it may be found in southern New England. Hence, inter-state flows of users are quite typical. It is impossible to ascertain the locally-generated demand for canoe- ing, although the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service's.recent National Telephone Survey indicates a New England rate of participation in canoeing slightly above the national level. Recent estimates place total annual participation at 8.5 percent of the state's population with the serious canoers probably numbering no more than a few thousand. Nevertheless, those streams with good quality water and with sufficient flow to allow warm season canoeing are under increasingly heavy pressure of use, from patrons of outfitting companies, special wilderness schools or "Outward Bound" groups, and the ordinary canoe-owning citizen. This is especially true on the upper Housatonic and upper Farmington. Supply Four prime white water canoeing streams include the upper Housatonic, the Bantam-Shepaug, the upper Farmington, and the Salmon Rivers. Other recognized streams include the middle Farmington, the Willimantic-Shetucket, and the Scantic. In addition, a remarkable improvement in water quality should foster greatly increased usage of streams such as the Naugatuck (es- pecially above Waterbury), the Quinnipiac, and the Quinebaug Rivers. Recommended Actions With the increasing popularity of canoeing, a growing canoer-fisherman conflict is appearing, as the fishermen feel the steady passage.of often 95 noisy canoers scare the fish and thereby hurt their own recreational experi- ence. Unfortunately, the few prime canoeing streams often tend to comprise a major element of the also limited supply of good public coldwater stream fisheries. To correct these problems and to help handle the expected increase in canoeing participation, a number of actions must be undertaken including: 1. Completion of the ongoing water pollution control program to pro- vide canoeing on all streams with the hydrologic capability to support it. 2. Acquisition of water rights and/or agreements with owners of water rights, as on the Farmington and Housatonic Rivers, in an attempt to provide either minimum or periodic flows which will support canoeing. 3. Acquisition of stream banks to provide public access and protection- of scenic vistas as well as development of river access points including parking lots and support facilities where appropriate. 4. Regulation of new impoundments on remaining stretches of free- flowing rivers of recognized canoeing significan'ce. WILDLIFE SPORTS The wildlife sports system includes the age-old pursuits of hunting and fishing and their related offshoots. Despite our very urbanized and mechanized society, we still see the strong seasonal desire on the part of many people to engage in hunting and fishing. Sportsmen hav e been among our earliest conservationists and continue to be active supporters of efforts t.o preserve crucial habitats for both game and non-game wildife species. FISHING For hundreds of years Connecticut residents have engaged in fishing 96 as a source of food and sport and, in Long Island Sound, as a valuable in- dustry producing goods for trading purposes. Thanks to its humid climate and coastal location, Connecticut offers a substantial potential for fish- ing, a potential whose variety is enhanced by the presence of both coldwater and warmwater fisheries. Thus, its inland waters offer the fisherman a variety of warmwater, coldwater and anadromous species--rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, large and smallmouth bass, calico bass, kokanee salmon, white and yellow perch, chain pickerel, northern pike and shad. Also in and along Long Island Sound, striped bass, bluefish, lobster, winter flounder, summer flounder, Atlantic mackerel, tautog, and scaup are additional desirable species of available saltwater sport fish. Demand Estimates of demand for fishing opportunities must take into considera- tion both the number of fishermen and their fishing preferences. This second factor makes quantitative estimates of demand difficult because it is neces- sary to account for preferences between fly and bait fishing, trolling and still fishing, saltwater and freshwater fishing, coldwater and warmwater fishing. For some fishermen these may be interchangeable choices, but for others no substitute for their preference is acceptable. For example, there is a strong preference in Connecticut for coldwater stream trout fishing and this results in very intensive pressure on the limited available resource, especially during the first few weeks of the season. However, fall and winter trout fishing is becoming much more popular, with the Farmington River supporting an intensive fishery for nearly seven months, and trout fishing in lakes intensive for four months of the year. On the other hand, warmwater fishing opportunities, in general, experience comparatively light 97 pressure and are, in general, somewhat underutilized. The best concrete indicator of participation or at least of,trends in participation in fishing comes from license sales, as seen in the table be- low. TABLE IV-5 TRENDS IN CONNECTICUT FISHING LICENSE SALES Year Fishing & Combination Hunting-Fishing Licenses 1955 108,000 1960 110,000 1965 115,000 1970 163,581 1975 220,152 1976 214,855 1977 215,582 Although sales of licenses remained remarkably steady until the mid- 1960's, a large increase in participation began to occur at that time and is continuing. Whether because of heightened interest in fishing as a sport or because of the increased cost of non-resident licenses in surrounding states, this table nevertheless indicates a near doubling of resident demand to be met with in-state resources. 1 Nevertheless, the 220,000 licensed fishermen in Connecticut (7 percent Although many Connecticut fishermen still apparently do at least part of their fishing out-of-state, very few non-residents buy fishing licenses in this state. 98 of the total population) do not represent the total number of fishermen be- cause licenses are not required for fishing in the marine areas, nor are licenses needed by persons under sixteen years or sixty-five years and over, the blind, the mentally retarded, or by persons fishing on their own property. Considering these factors, state authorities conservatively estimate the total number of fishermen as at least 450,000 or about 15 percent of the population. 1 An interesting sidelight relates to lobster fishing which has also in- creased greatly in the last 15 years and has become more recreational as opposed to purely commercial in nature. Thus, during the period 195 8-1976, the total number of licensed lobstermen rose from 316 to 2,821 and the catch increased from 204,000 pounds to over 620,000. The proportion of lobstermen considered commercial dropped from 56 percent to 21 percent during this period, indicating the growth of the "weekend" or recreational lobsterman. Neverthe- less, the commercial sector had over 90 percent of the total catch. No accurate empirical estimates of instant fishing demand exist, although DEP staff have developed their own standards. Thus, it is estimated that the average summer weekend day will see roughly 60,000 to 70,000 anglers with about 60 percent in the mari ne area and 40 percent on inland waters. Also, opening day of trout season seems to attract approximately 100,000 anglers, with at least 20,000 participating on normal spring weekend days. Supply Although fishing traditionally has been done in an informal manner, oft en involving casual trespass on.private property, the pressure of popu-,, lation upon the resource and the increasing value of theresource itself Interestingly, other Northeastern surveys (New York, Massachusetts, Tri-State Region) all indicate a roughly 20% participation rate (23.7% for the Connecticut portion of the Tri-State Regionj, implying that the actual number of Connecticut residents who fish may well exceed 00,000. 99 have tended to cause a distinction between publicly owned or leased lands and waters, open to the public, and privately owned property often posted against public use. Therefore, this analysis will emphasize those areas which are legally open to the public. Not surprisingly, the state plays the major role in providing public access sites for both bank and boat fish- ing on inland waters, many of which are on lands owned and managed by the state. Within these holdings are 42 miles of streams and approximately 70 lakes or ponds. In addition, the state has acquired permanent fishing ease- ments to 10 streams totaling 134 miles in length, and short-term leases on 41 streams totaling 120 miles. Ninety-nine boat launching sites are pro- vided for fishing access on inland lakes, rivers, and Long Island Sound, as seen in Figure IV-3. Other fishing opportunities are provided at many municipal parks and open space properties, commercial campgrounds and resorts, fish and game clubs, and a few commercial trout ponds. Although the state provides 11 boat launching sites on the Sound, access to fishing in the marine sector has largely been a function of private enterprise, supplemented to some extent by town docks, many available to residents only. Thus, there are 44 commercial boat liveries, 38 charter boat services and 10 party boats presently in operation to serve saltwater fishermen. Needs and Recommended Actions Because of the difficulty of assigning an instant fishing use capacity for a stretch of stream or for a lake, it is impossible to undertake a reasonably precise supply-demand assessment. Therefore, adequacy is best assessed by identifying areas experiencing greatest pressure of use. These pressures are most acute on coldwater trout streams, especially close to the state's A A A A A A 'W -W A A IMI AWW@ A A A -400@ FIGURE IM-3 STATE FISHING ACCESS POINTS 0 Bank Fishing A Boat Launching Sites 101 metropolitan areas, and at certain public boat launching sites, particularly those in coastal locations and/or certain popular water bodies offering a coldwater fishery. On the other hand, many warmwater water bodies and streams seem underfished. A prime example is the Connecticut River which, except for the popular seasonal shad fishery, is largely underfished. The situation with Long Island Sound is less.clear, with the major problem seeming to be the insufficient supply both of shore and boat launching access for the general public. This is especially true for the Southwestern, Greater Bridge- port, and South Central Planning Regions. A number of overlapping actions to correct existing and anticipated limitations in fishin g opportunity are needed. These include: 1. Providing more public access to streams and wat er bodies offer- ing a coldwater fishery. This is particularly urgent in-view of the fact that the size of the coldwater fishery in Connecticut is: (a) limited in extent and under heavy use pressure and (b) that much of the present public opportunity consists of short-term leases. Special emphasis should be placed on appropriate stretches of larger.streams such as the Housatonic and Farming- ton which can handle a considerable volume of use. 2. Providing additional public fishing access to Long Island Sound, both in terms of boat launching and shore fishing access. Corrective measures should include both acquisition and development to make available boat launch- ing ramps (see specific recommendations for new Sound facilities under "Boating" above) and piers and groins to serve the shore fisherman. 3. Expanding anadromous fishery potential (including the Atlantic salmon, shad, sea-run brown trout) on suitable streams through removal of obsolete and unused dams and fishway construction combined, of course, with 102 stream access acquisition to ensure adequate public.access. A major recent improvement was the 1975 completion of the fishway at the Rainbow Dam in. Windsor which opened up a large stretch of the Farmington River. Neverthe- less, additional improvements are needed where deemed fiscally and biologi- cally feasible, especially in the following cases: (a) the two former Collins Company dams on the Farmington River in Collinsville, (b) the Leesville Dam on the lower Salmon River, and (c) the Greenville, tunnel, and Aspinook dams on the Quinebaug River. 4. Providing additional public access to other rivers with game fish potential which have been.or are being cleaned up through Connecticut's Clean Water Program. Thanks to this major public investment program, many such streams including the Connecticut, Naugatuck, and Quinnipiac Rivers increasingly will be able to offer considerable fishing opportunity in ur- banized parts of the state. 5. Providing additional public access to other warmwater lakes and ponds with significant fisheries potential. HUNTING Demand As a small, rather densely populated state, Connecticut lacks the space and wild character necessary to provide a broad range of hunting opportunity. Yet its wooded, diversified, and well-watered landbase does provide a sub- stantial volume of hunting potential for its residents. Hunting in Connect- icut is of three basic types: gamebird hunting utilizing open farmland basically on a "put-and-take" basis, waterfowl hunting utilizing inland and coastal wetlands and water bodies, and forest game hunting. Available game includes pheasant, quail, grouse, woodcock, duck, Canada goose, gray squirrel, 103 rabbit, fox, raccoon, and deer, with an effort presently underway to restore the wild turkey. Although mostof these species have long been available for public hunt- ing, deer hunting has until recently been available only for private land- owners, their friends and lessees of private property. Now., however, deer hunting is allowed on both private and State lands on a permit basis with a shotgun, archery or muzzleloader permit, opening up a new dimension in Connecticut hunting. More than 20,000 persons deer hunt in Connecticut and over 13,445 paid deer permits were issued in 1977. Connecticut, as part of the urbanized Boston-Washington corridor, has tended to have a lower hunting participation rate in comparison with more rural areas that have traditionally relied on hunting and fishing as the basis of outdoor recreation. Because of its urban ized character, Connect- icut has also tended toexport a great deal of its resident demand for hunt- ing, especially for deer, turkey and other big game species. Surveys conducted during the development of new SCORP's for New York State and Massach usetts indicate a likely*hunting participation rate of 8.1 percent to 3.8 percent respectively, with Connecticut's rate subjectively thought to fall within this range although probably closer to the Bay State's. State hunting license data seem to support this assumption. Presently about 117,000 hunting and combination hunting-fishing licenses are issued in Con- necticut. This is substantially less than the actual number of hunters because persons between the ages of 12 and 16 years do not need a license nor do people hunting on their own property. As the 1970 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting found that 21.4 percent of the hunters in its sample were un- licensed, the actual number of Connecticut hunters may approach 143,000 or 104 about 4.6 percent of the population. As seen in the table below, license sales in Connecticut have increased sharply in recent years. One reason undoubtedly involves the large increase in license fees in northern New England states, causing more Connecticut hunters to do their hunting at home. TABLE IV-6 TRENDS IN SALES OF HUNTING & COMBINATION HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES IN CONNECTICUT Year Number Licenses Sold 1967 68,335 1968 76,699 1969 79,707 1970 84,608 1971 84,958 1972 86,885 197 3 95,383 1974 103,234 1975 109,551 1976 103,685 1977 103,148 Converting these annual participation rates to daily participation is also necessary. It is estimated that opening day of the hunting season brings out 50,000 to 60,000 hunters, with a normal season weekend day dema nd of about 20,000 to 25,000. Sporting field dog trials constitute a growing related activity which evolved from hunting. Nearly 150 field trials are held annually, involving 10,000 people and up to 4,000 dogs. The majority of these 105 take place on private lands. However, there are also four state owned areas including the well-known Flaherty Field Trial area on which retriever, hound, and bird dog trials are regularly held throughout the year, with the bulk taking place in the spring and fall. Supply Lands available for public hunting consist basically of selected State owned and leased areas as seen in Figure IV-4 following. Available State properties include most of the State forests, an area of approximately 122,215 acres. There are 26 State-owned wildlife management and hunting areas totalling 10,761 acres. In addition, the State has a program of short-term leasing of hunting areas and a cooperative program whereby hunting rights on tracts of privately owned property are held by agreement for an indefinite period, and consideration for the landowner is provided in extra patrol service, protection of crops and limitation of the number of hunters using the area at any given time. At present 19,391 acres of hunting land are held by paid lease and 60,048 acres by short-term agreement, a total of less than 80,000 acres versus the 97,000 acres available in 1973. Other more restricted opportunities for hunting are provided by private sportsmen's clubs, commercial shooting preserves, and by farmers who grant sportsmen permission independently to hunt their land. More than 100 sports- men's clubs own or lease private reserves, and six commercial shooting pre- serves offer pheasant, mallard duck, quail and partridge. Commerc.ial shoot- ing preserves are privately owned and operated areas on which pen-raised game are released for hunt,ing. Fees are charged for use of-the preserve on a per bird harvested basis. A shooting preserve may have an extended 106 season, longer than regular statewide seasons, an'd no bag limit on released game. They are operated in accordance with state and local laws, rules and regulations. The supply of public hunting opportunity in Connecticut is not a secure one, being heavily reliant upon use of privately owned property. Additionally, a number of trends are having a serious negative impact. The most serious of these is the pressure of land development, and the diffusion of people via urban sprawl throughout the state. The resulting effect on hunting has been three-fold: (1) the destruction and degradation of wildlife habitat through the large scale urbanization of land, often farmland, of particular value as wildlife habitat, (2) the prohibition of hunting on even larger acreages of land surrounding the newly-developed areas, and (3) a decreasing willingness of urban-oriented landowners to lease land to the state (leased land has been decreasing at a rate of five to seven percent annually). Furthermore, on the farms that remain, some agricultural practices have seriously curtailed the food supply for wildlife, and the recent tendency to remove thickets, hedge and fence rows, removes food and cover, and ex- poses the animals to the attack of predators. Farms which have gone out of production are reverting to woodland, creating additional losses of suit- able small game habitat. In addition, destruction of tidal and inland marsh- lands over the years has resulted in a serious loss of habitat for migrating waterfowl along the Atlantic flyway. Hopefully, the wetland and regulatory programs established during the last decade will arrest historic trends. Needs Using a conservative standard of about twenty acres per hunter for pheasant and small game hunting, the minimum area required to accommodate x 0 x0 0 x x 0 x x x 0 0 0 ILI- 0 0 s- x 0 0 x 0 e-r X -0 Iff"OoO 0 0 x 0 x 0 ArMoM' PoWoO 0 0 A @ o x 0 x 0 0 0 0 1.ff@ s..m AIL- 0 0 .1.1 1AX I-lb 01w x 0 @to -mLo c-om 1@10 r1olo. Ir.11- FIGURE IV-4 STATE HUNTING AREAS mt-. x State Forests A Fish and Wildlife 0 Leased Hunting Areas 108 the projected level of hunting activity will be 200,000 to 300,000 acres. At the present, combined State and private State-leased holdings do not ap- proach this figure. A continued decline in the availability of privately owned agricultural land for leasing, coupled with continuation of the rise in the number of hunters, will result in an increasingly unfavorable ratio between supply and demand. Furthermore, the bulk of the existing State lands is forestland, not suitable as habitat for pheasant or waterfowl, the most popular game species. Therefore, the present severe deficiency of opportunity for both types of hunting will steadily worsen, while the less popular forest small game hunting opportunities available in the State forests remain underutilized. For hunting, the urbanized regions of the State, including the South- Western, Greater Bridgeport, Valley, South Central, Central Naugatuck, and Capitol Planning Regions lack the land base with which to meet regiohally generated demand. These regions are exporters of hunters to the more rural areas of the Northwestern, Litchfield Hills, Windham, Northeastern, and Southeastern Regions. In other states this trend toward imbalance in the supply and demand relationship for public hunting has resulted in a tendency of landowners to sell hunting privileges. Such a movement here could drive public hunt- ing out of economic reach through the increased competition for diminishing hunting opportunities. In Connecticut, hunting could become a sport avail- able only to the affluent, to the exclusion of the great many sportsmen of moderate means. Recommended Actions Although some of the resident-generated demand for hunting can be met 109 on private property or at private clubs and commercial preserves, in the end, the bulk of the burden for maintaining a diversified wildlife resource and for preserving public hunting opportunity must fall upon the state. To accomplish this, a number of actions are recommended including: 1. State policies which will encourage the preservation of key habitat types such as coastal and inland wetlands, floodplains, and agricultural lands. Although much of this can be accomplished through existing regula- tory programs, a continuing state program to preserve agricultural land is urgently needed, to ensure that essential wildlife habit at is maintained, as well as for food production and hunting purposes. Also, the state should more effectively manage the small amount of agricultural lands already in its ownership to serve a multiple-use function. 2. State acquisition action to make areas of prime wildlife habitat available to the public. Top priority must be given to expanding existing holdings and acquiring agricultural lands which are of sufficient size (100 acres minimum) for wildlife management purposes. Other areas which must be acquired include flood plains, especially of the major rivers such as the Connecticut, and lands in the eastern and western uplands of mixed farm- forest character to serve as a buffer to wetland holdings. Related to preser- vation of agricultural land as discussed in,(l) above, consideration also should be given to the buying of agricultural land and leasing it.back to farmers on the condition that wildlife habitat be maintained and that it be available for public hunting. 3. State acquisition and habita t improvement action to maintain the diversity of the wildlife resources of Connecticut and to restore ceftain game species to the state. Particular attention should be given to acquir- ing and managing several large tracts of land necessary.to provide at least 110 a minimal habitat for wide ranging species such as the wild turkey and the black bear. 4. State acquisition action to immediately acquire identified critical wildlife habitat areas such as traditional deer wintering areas, osprey or eagle nesting sites and heron rookeries, even if it requires the use of condemnation'rights when all'other alternatives have failed. SHOOTING SPORTS As indicated, Connecticut has over 100,000 licensed hunters. In addition, there are several thousand individuals who also utilize firearms in the recre- ational pursuits of skeet, trap, rifle and pistol shooting, many of whom do not participate in hunting. Competitive shooting sports are supported by private club facilities. While individuals are able to participate by join- ing such facilities, the majority are occasional shooters or those interested in practice and sighting in hunting weapons who must relay upon private lands. This use of private lands can present landowner conflicts and potential safety problems. Other firearms activities also require support facilities. Most notable are Olympic, international and national shooting teams, and hunter safety education programs. At present there are no facilities in the State adequate for big-bore rifle and international rifle or pistol practice. Conventional pistol facil- ities are limited and are declining. Suitable sites for military, police training, sighting in, and patterning facilities utilized by sportsmen, are available to only those who belong to clubs. There is a pressing need for a permanent State facility developed to serve these special needs which will not be eliminated by future residential or commercial development. The development of a State facility for large-bore rifle, pistol shoot- ing and firearms' sports will not be totally sufficient in providing for shooting activities. To insure public safety and limit landowner conflicts, the State should establish in each region one or more public shooting ranges which may serve as a sighting-in and patterning facility. These facilities might be located on existing State forest and reserve lands where noise and interference with other recreational activities may be minimized. CAMPING Although traditional camping has retained a strong element of "rough- ing it" in a wild and natural setting, the post World War II era has seen an explosion of camping on the part of those who wish to camp while retain- ing some modern conveniences. Much of this new wave of campers may repre- sent those who simply want a vacation or weekend which will be less expen- sive than that possible by the cottage or motel option. Nevertheless, most seem to want a social, comfortable camping experience where they can con- tinue to live much the same as at home; the type of experience which the typical commercial campground is apt to offer. A key issue in Connecticut camping has been to try to separate the proper roles of the public and the private sectors. Because camping is a relatively high capital investment per unit of capacity, and because government has many'recreational responsibilities to meet, the traditional State policy has been to provide a basic, nature-oriented camping experience with few, if any,.frills and one which will not compete with the private sector. State campgrounds are located and developed adjoining significant natu ral resources in order to accommodate visitors to those sites. On the 112 other hand, it has been felt that private entrepreneurs should provide, camping opportunity for those people who wish many of the services, activities, and comforts of an urban society. Demand As with other activities, accurate estimation of demand depends upon certain data which is not presently available in needed form. This is par- ticularly true of camping, which is a weekend or vacation outing as opposed to the day trip outing most typical of outdoor recreation in Connecticut. Therefore, an accurate estimate of in and out-of-state flows of camping demand are needed. For example, a mid-1960's survey declared that over 80 percent of Connecticut's residents who took a vacation did so out-of- state, implying a large outflow of vacationing campers to other locations, especially in the Northeast. Fortunately, a recent DEP State Park Origin and Destination Survey sheds some light on oot-of-state use of Connecticut campgrounds and on Connecticut resident use of State campgrounds. 1 In the former case, non-resident use of Connecticut facilities varies from less than 10 percent up to 29 percent and is concentrated in the western portion of the State. Also, Kettletown State Park in Southbury is unique in attract- ing a significant number of non-residents (23 percent) who are largely transient overnight campers passing through the state along nearby Interstate 84. With regard to the travel patterns of Connecticut resident campers, the same survey indicated that many campers seek out park destinations no more than an hour or even a half hour's drive from home. M ore specifi- cally, an average of 52 percent of the users of the sampled parks were state 1Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut. State Park Origin and Destination Survey. Unpublished data, 1976. 113 residents travelling less than 20 miles from home. This finding regarding the recreation travel parochialism of many residents is supported by a similar New York State study. In that state, despite the much larger size of the state and greater physical separation of population centers from "resource magnet" areas, 80 percent of resident campers travelled no more than 2 hours and 63 percent no more than an hour and a half to the facility used. From a statistical standpoint, several studies seem to confirm the fact that roughly 10-12 percent or 310,000-375,000 Connecticut residents engage in camping. Equating this to instant average peak day use, using New York State methodology, it seems likely that instant demand is a mini- mum of two percent of the state's population or over 60,000; a figure which will rise to approximately 75,000 minimum by the end of the century. Supply Because of the boom in camping, the available supply of facilities has grown substantially in recent years. Therefore, while the number of State- operated campsites has remained relatively static (1,400 in 1977 at 16 facil- ities), privately owned campsites have increased dramatically from 4,734 in 1973 to 6,326 in 1977. This growth is also clear in the rise in number of facilities from 25 in 1967 to 42 in 1973 to 48 at present. Most of these are found in rural eastern Connecticut where they Are less likely to be prohibited by zoning regulations and where they may indeed be welcomed as a boost to the local economy. Thus, 38 private campgrounds containing 78 percent of the total number of private campsites, are located in this por- tion of the state, with roughly 16 percent located in northwestern Connecti- cut and the remainder in the "Green Triangle" between Greater New -Haven and the Connecticut River. 114 In total terms, therefore, Connecticut presently contains 7,766 camp- sites, over 80 percent of which are privately operated. Assuming an average capacity of four people per campsite, some 31,000 people can be accommodated at a given time, of which capacity slightly more than 25,000 will be private sector. Needs When supply and demand are compared, it is also clear that demand far exceeds local facilities, even if one assumes that in-state campsites are utilized at least 90 percent by in-state residents. Indeed, it may be accurate to state that the current supply satisfies only 50 percent of.the current demand and will meet only 40 percent by 2000 A.D. These conclusions seem corroborated by the three following subjective indicators: (1) private in- vestors continue to enter the campground business, an unlikely move if the market was at or near the saturation point, (2) respondents to a recent DEP Public Attitudes and Preferences Survey (Appendix I) feel that camping is one of the fastest growing sports, and (3) similar survey respondents ex- pressed noteworthy concerns over the "inadequacy" of existing State camp- ing facilities. Recommended Actions Because of operational and maintenance funding constraints and other recreational investment priorities, state government cannot propose to ex- pand its current supply of campsites greatly. Indeed, its main role neces- sarily must be to provide the basic, nature-oriented camping experience. In doing this, capital investment moneys must go to rehabilitation of exist- ing facilities as well as to construction of a number of new campground areas in such locations (as at a state park on the ocean or on a major water body) 115 where a quality, multiple opportunity recreational experience can be pro- vided. Indirectly, however, state government can play a significant role through promoting the development of additional private campgrounds, through pricing practices which will avoid competition with the private sector, and through coordination with private campground operators to allow state parks to serve as the resource magnet encouraging development of nearby campgrounds. In this way, especially in a period when vacation travel is apt to be curtailed substantially by fuel costs, a larger share of Connecticut's home-generated camping demand could be met within the state. TRAIL-ORIENTED ACTIVITIES A great many sports can be grouped in this category insofar as they are at least partially linear or trail-oriented as opposed to being site- oriented. Chief examples in Connecticut include the varied forms of walk- ing (backpacking, hiking, nature and pleasure walks, snowshoeing, etc.), horseback riding, bicycling, skiing (especially in its cross-country variant), snowmobiling, and trailbiking. The current status of each in Connecticut is as follows: WALKING - HIKING Walking is an extremely varied activity which ranges from a noontime stroll through the downtown area of a city to the wilderness backpacking trip. In Connecticut, it is probably the intermediate variants which are most common; the nature walk or casual hike which may take one to three hours. In addition, youth groups, such as boy scout troops, and adults often take hikes one day in length. The purpose of these walks is mixed, but the 116 basis is generally the desire to recreate in a pleasant, nature-oriented environment and to get some exercise in a relaxed, non-stressful manner. Demand Because of the rather loosely defi ned character of this sport, it is impossible to develop reasonably precise estimates of demand. However, the Tri,-State survey implies a roughly 20 percent participation rate for Connecticut residents for hiking, nature walks, etc., with "pure" hiking perhaps comprising no more than 30-40 percent of this figure. Therefore, it is likely that a minimum of 600,000 state residents become involved in nature-oriented walking annually. Although conversion of this total to average peak day use involves considerable subjectivity, a peak day use range of 20,000-30,000 people seems a safe and reasonable estimate. As the bulk of such walking takes place on established trails such as the Bl ue Trails System, this points to an average use density of 40 to 60 people per mile per average peak day (Massachusetts' 1976 SCORP recommends a daily standard of approximately eight per mile for hiking and 45 per mile for pleasure walking). Therefore, the use pressure seems to be exceeding a desirable level, a problem seen especially in increasing evidence of wear and tear on certain popular trails. Supply The available resource base for walking is also difficult to quantify as it includes a vast mileage of sidewalks, country roads, and old wood roads which receive a great deal of casual use. Perhaps the best indicator of the available resource is seen in the Blue Trail System, which contains 17 major trails totalling some 375 miles (one of which is Connecticut's 56 mile stretch of the Appalachian Trail). Also, various trail networks within 117 state parks and private conservation areas, suc h as the McLean Game Refuge, are available, and bring the system total to approximately 500 miles. This privately developed and maintained network is indeed a major recreational asset to a small and densely populated state such as Connecticut. Recommended Actions Future recommendations to be carried out cooperatively by DEP and pri- vate trail interests, where appropriate, should includet 1. Maintenance of the existing Blue Trails System, including most specifically, the Appalachian Trail, through acquisition of interests in land and/or through agreements with private landowners. 2. Development and similar protection of new Blue Trails mileage needed to interconnect the existing trail system, to replace missing links of existing Blue Trails, to connect metropolitan areas with regional trail systems, and to provide additional primitive hiking opportunities. 3. Relocation and redesign of portions of Blue Trails to decrease and discourage use of hiking trails by other, incompatible trail uses. EQUESTRIAN Demand As discussed in the 1974 SCORP, Connecticut's horse population has dramatically increased in recent years. Now totalling about 64,000, a figure higher than in the days of subsistence agriculture, Connecticut's horses are utilized almost entirely for show and recreational riding purposes, especially the latter. Again, estimation of use is difficult. Perhaps as much as eight to 10 percent of the state's population participates in this sport annually, although the bulk of the total usage seems to consist of occasional patron- age of private commercial stables. Fifteen such commercial stables offer 118 access to trail riding. Thus, the scale of instant use on an average peak day is probably no more than 20,000-30.,000 people. Supply Although the Connecticut Horse Council is a large and influential state- wide organization, there is no State horse trails system, as such, at this time. Instead, many local clubs, especially in Fairfield County, (Southwestern and Housatonic Valley Regions), have developed their own trail network on land owned by sympathetic or group member landowners. In addition, there is much casual use of old or abandoned town roads, trails, and abandoned rights-of-way. Existing activity on State lands consists of unofficial, yet sanctioned, use of trails in a number of State forests plus on two DEP-owned aban doned railroad rights-of-way as seen in Figure IV-5. In addition, there are two official horse camping areas in the Natchaug and Pachaug State Forests. Assessment of needs is equally difficult, especially because of the largely private and/or informal nature of the activity. Nevertheless, it is clear that few options are open for the rider who does not own a large property or who does not belong to a horse club with its own trail system. Also, there are no long "through trails" available. Recommended Actions The Connecticut Horse Council should, in cooperation with the DEP, aim to develop several official equestrian trail networks in the state., utilizing state and other public and quasi-public holdings as the land basis for the network. Such public trail systems are especially needed in the Southeastern Region and the southwestern part of the State where the largest horse popula- tions reside. Similarly, efforts should be undertaken to develop several 119 through trails connecting regional systems, complete with horse camping facilities where appropriate. In addition to the need for public horseback trails, there is a great need for a State Equine Center in Connecticut. Such a facility could pro- vide both a variety of trails, as well as a facility to house the many horse shows now held out-of-state. At present, the seven Connecticut State Annual Breed Shows must be held in neighboring state equine facilities. This re- sults in a significant outflow of dollars from the State in the range of one to two hundred thousand dollars per show. Such shows are important participant, as well as spectator events. Currently, there are no show facilities for such user groups such as 4-H, the University of Connecticut College of Agriculture, and the many benefit horse shows for charity. The overall economic impact of such a facility will be studied. DOWNHILL AND CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING Demand Although skiing has long been thought of in terms of site-oriented "downhill" skiing, the more ancient form of cross-country skiing has had a major revival in the 1970's. Presently, seven percent of Connecticut's residents are involved in downhill skiing, with another two percent in cross-country skiing; the latter expected to rise sharply in the next few years. Utilizing New York State data, this indicates a likely instant average peak day demand for downhill skiing of one percent of the total population, 30,000-40,000 people. Assum- ing a similar peak day-total participation ratio for cross-country skiing gives a peak instant use, in Connecticut, of approximately 10,000 people. The lack of natural conditions for skiing results in a large, but presently HENIPSI PA G MOH K NA SAHE AN- A--- P-0 C0-A msroL PA HAUG LA TRA Vff. -K PON ZA 0000" r1sro* IrlAl- FIGURE 33E-5 STATE AREAS AVAILABLE FOR HORSEBACK RIDING 121 unquantifiable, outflow of skiing demand to other New England states in the north. Indeed, at least 60 to 80 percent of the total amount of resident- oriented downhill skiing may well take place out-of-state. Cross-country skiing, on the other hand, seems to be a more localized, informal sport, taking place either locally or wi thin the home region of the participant. However, there is again a tendency to utilize the better natural snow conditions in northwestern Connecticut or in "Snowbeit" areas to the north. Therefore, most commercial areas offering cross-country equipment, instruction, and trails, are located in the northwest region of the State. Supply in terms of supply of skiing opportunity, Connecticut has certain assets and liabilities. First of all, it has a climate which is somewhat maritime and is therefore on the snow-rain edge in many winter storms. Secondly, it lacks the rugged topography and great local elevation differentials neces- sary for high quality alpine or downhill skiing. Thus, its ski facilities tend to be concentrated in snowier, hillier areas, primarily in northwest Connecticut where natural conditions are most favorable (see Figure IV-6 showing distribution of Connecticut's commercial ski areas). Furthermore, snowmaking machines tend to be essential, either to counteract lack of snow or poor snow conditions (crusty, icy snow often typical in Connecticut's customary freeze-and-thaw weather patterns). Recommended Actions Traditionally, the demand for downhill skiing has been met by the pri-, vate sector, although, in one case, on a lease basis utilizing-State land (Mohawk State Forest, Cornwall). It is the State's position that,pri vate investment should continue to address this need, expanding facilities if 122 and as demand warrants such action. Therefore, State action should be limited to vacation-travel industry promotions by the Department-of Commerce. With regard to cross-country skiing, the state, through DEP, should develop trail networks, probably in large part utilizing existing trails and wood roads used for other purposes during the remainder of the year. Such cross-country trail systems should be located, where possible, in or in proximity to the metropolitan regions of the State where snow conditions are favorable, such as the Capitol, Central Connecticut, and Central Naugatuck Regions. SNOWMOBILING Snowmobiling has been a fast-growing sport since the 1950's in all states possessing an annual snow cover. However, because it is motorized and because it has permitted large scale use of areas hitherto isolated in the winter, it has attracted many.enemies as well as advocates. One issue in contention is that of noise, a problem which has been addressed in the last six to eight years to the extent that new machines are allowed to emit a noise level of only 78 to 80 dB, a significant improvement from earlier models whose noise output was 85-87 dB. Furthermore, studies of snowmobile impacts on wildlife populations seem to indicate that proper usage (opera- tion on designated trails) should involve no significant detrimental effects. In addition to these general problems, snowmobiling faces the same basic problem as skiing in Connecticut: a highly variable and undependable cover of snow. Thus, one or more winters offering good potential for recreational use may well be followed by several with littleor no snow. Hence, snowmobiling in much of the state must be considered a somewhat marginal activity since only in the Northwest Region is a minimum snow cover of one inch maintained from December through February.1 Brumboch, Joseph, The Climate of Connecticut, State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. 1965. Is- A '-As- H KI S 0 w- Poa-r MOH WK -1- A--- B OOK WA COL-A --- - -1mo lol.m- MT. A GTQN lmllf$m. WO DBU OWDER IQG L-A. AI' FIGURE IVA-6 COMMERCIAL DOWNHILL SKI AREAS 124 Demand Ten thousand snowmobiles are registered in Connecticut with an estimated 2,@00 to 3,000 in use within Connecticut on a peak use day. However, ownership of snowmobiles by Connecticut residents is considerably higher (private estimates indicate possibly 50,000), implying either: (1) use on own private property, where registration is not required, (2) illegal use without registration, or (3) very large scale out-of-state registration by Connecticut residents. Supply To meet these needs, DEP has designated eleven snowmobile trails from four to 17 miles long and with a total system length of 95 miles. In addi- tion, many local clubs have developed thei r own group facilities consisting of a site with a localized network somewhat comparable to the approach used by equestrian-groups in Fairfield County. Some of these club facilities are in-state, while others are out-of-state, in the Bershires and elsewhere. Recommended Actions The need for additional trails is implied by the large out-of-state registration of these vehicles and has been expressed by the Connecticut Snowmobile Association. It is suggested that development of snowmobile areas within public lands should consist of a core area with an open field and a localized trail network which tan handle large volumes of users, includ- ing group events. To improve the quality of the recreational experience, trails from 10-25 miles long, which are more isolated to provide a back-country recreational experience, are suggested for development. There are many limitations which impact upon development of snowmobile 125 trai 1 s: (1) lack of long-term snow cover, especially in the coastal areas; (2) conflicts in trails use with i-ncreasingly popular cross-country skiing and snowshoeing; (3) wildlife management requirements for undisturbed deer wintering areas; and (4) the basic difficulties of population density and urban sprawl. Snowmobile trails, as all recreational services, require super- vision, including operation and maintenance, adding to budgetary requirements of the Department. Within these limitations, planning attention should be devoted to increasing the length of trails and selection of one or two addi- tional sites for future development in areas receiving sufficient snow and which will not conflict with other recreational and management objectives. TRAILBIKE RIDING Demand Another motorized activity increasingly found in Connecticut is trail- bike riding. This activity is also rather controversial because of noise impacts and improper use of non-motorized activity trails. Increasingly, these public relation problems are being addressed by improved vehicle de- sign (noise levels on new machines are required to be less than 82 dB at a distance of 50 feet). Because of the overlap between trailbiking and motorcycling, it is dif- ficult to estimate the volume of usage. The best indicator is that there are approximately 7,500 trailbikes plus 20,000 combination road and trailbikes in Connecticut. Presently, 1,000 state residents belong to the New Englan d Trailriders Association (NETRA), which has an active Connecticut Chapter. NETRA spokesmen estimate peak day bike use to be in the range of 3,000 to 3,500 at this time; the best indication of instant demand available. Supply Trailbikers utilize a variety of wood roads, trails, and other rights- 126 of-way, sometimes with permission and often without. In recent years, in the face of increasing competition between land uses, competition between recreational uses, and the loss of areas formerly used informally without permission, trailbike interests have had to begin to carve out their own legitimate sphere of activity. The result has been the development of three major trail networks in eastern Connecticut which are partially on DEP lands (60.4 miles-Pachaug State Forest, 17.2 miles-Shenipsit State Forest, 11.5 miles-Meshomasic State Forest). Also, a large trail mileage in western Connecticut has been developed on private property with landowner permis- sion. Recommended Actions Regarding further development of trails on public lands, trailbikers should work with DEP to plan the development of facilities where they will not conflict with other recreational activities and management goals. There are two basic philosophies for accommodating these recreational needs. The first involves development of a core facility with a localized trail network as might be located in a flood control dry reservoir area. The second approach, which is presently followed in the New England States, is to disburse riders over longer routes which traverse a narrower band of land. In reality, the growth of mini-bike usage and trail ridership will require some combination of these two approaches. BICYCLING Demand In the last ten years, the sport of bicycling has exploded to become one of the leading recreational pastimes as well as a growing mode of trans- po rtation for other, non-recreational purposes. Although recent HCRS data 127 indicates that-up to half of the nation's people may now participate, a more conservative Tri-State survey implies that at least 30 percent or roughly 1,000,000 of Connecticut's residents bicycle. Many of these people are children who customarily have relied on the bike, but a very substantial number are adults. Although no quantitative balancing of supply and demand is possible because of the customary cycling reliance on public roads, it is clear that existing facilities statewide are inadequate to provide a safe, pleasant experience. Few bona fide bike trail.s have been developed, with occasional paint striping or laning on busy state and town roads--not a satisfactory answer. Therefore, DEP personnel note many park visitors bringing bikes to state parks attempting to find a safe place to ride. Supply In 1973 and 1974 a State Bicycle Plan was prepared by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT). Also, $400,000 in bonding authoriza- tion was given to DEP to build bike trails on DEP lands, and $2,000,000 to DOT for grants to encourage the building of bike trails. Unfortunately, none of this was ever spent due to fiscal problems, and no bike trails were built.. Recommended Actions Therefore, the State 'of Connecticut, acting through DEP and DOT, should, in cooperation with municipalities where appropriate, begin to construct a system of bike trails which can serve a multi-purpose role on both an int*ra-town and inter-town basis. Such trails should be located in proximity to population centers and connect recreation, school, residential, and com- mercial areas, as well as other bicycle trails. 128 TRAIL-ORIENTED ACTIVITIES SUMMARY The preceding discussion has indicated the growing popularity of recre- ational trail activities in general, as well as some of the unique needs of specific sports. One problem facing the trail sports is that, with the exception of hiking, they do not have a developed trail system adequate to their needs. Another is that development pressures on private land are tending to bisect or even destroy, the viability of existing trail networks. Yet another is that all, and particularly the motorized sports, are highly space consumptive. In other words, they require a great deal of area' in terms of the right-of-way corridor utilized. Lastly, and for some of the reasons listed above, some sports tend to conflict with others and have engendered bad feeling, especially when unauthorized use of hiking trails by incompatible uses has occurred. The resolution of these issues lies in the development of a State Trail Policy which plans for the various needs of each activity and directs the development of a trails system which will prevent conflict between various trail and other recreational activities. Such a policy was prepared as a proposal in the 1974 SCORP. Although not officially adopted nor pursued, it is still a valid and timely concept and is therefore included as follows: A STATE TRAIL POLICY FOR CONNECTICUT A. Introduction. Recreational trail-using activity has had a long history in Connecticut, beginning at first with hiking and horseback riding but now expanding greatly to include such sports as trailbike riding, snowmobiling, bicycling, and cross-country skiing or ski touring. In earlier days, when Connecticut was a semi-rural state, the main responsibility for providing such opportunity lay with private.trail groups which did an excellent job of developing and maintaining their trail systems with little or no assis- tance from government. However, the rapid urbanization of Connecticut and the consequent pressure for land development is posing a threat to existing privately maintained trail systems and also is causing competition for use 129 of public recreational land. As a result, the public sector has a growing responsibility to assure the continued availability of land for such recre- ational uses and to plan for their orderly location. Likewise, there is a continuing role for the private landowner in trails and other recreation. Prime responsibility for these functions must rest with the Department of Environmental Protection, working in cooperation with other state agencies, with municipal governments, with private trail organizations, and-with pri- vate landowners. It is therefore the intent of DEP to promulgate an official Trails Policy which will recognize the key recreational role played by trail activities and will spell out the specific elements governing the State's position vis-a-vis trails in Connecticut. B. Statutory Responsibility. Although specific mention of trails and trail use is not seen in early state enabling legislation, general references are seen in Section 23-4 of the General Statutes which states that: "The Commis- sioner of Environmental Protection may make regulations for the maintenance of order, safety and sanitation upon the lands in his control," and in Sec- tion 23-10 stating that "Said Commissioner may develop recreational areas or picnic areas for public use--in the state parks and forest." Within this broad enabling umbrella, various administrative decisions over the years allowing or encouraging trail use of state lands have given a more specific basis for legitimizing state involvement in such activities. C. General Elements of the State Trail Policy. To specify the division of responsibility for trail planning, development, protection, and opera- tion and to help coordinate such.activities, the following policy elements are hereby proclaimed and shall serve as guidelines for DEP involvement in recreational trail use issues. 1) DEP shall have theresponsibility to cooperate with private trail user interests and landowners in providing a general plan for trail-using activities in Connecticut. Said plan shall show a multimode system of trails and shall be in accordance with the State Plan.of Conservation and Develop- ment. It is recognized that a definitive approach to trail use for Connecti- cut will involve a reasonable use of both public and private lands and the cooperative effort of the state, landowners, and users. a. Trailbike trail Trailbike riding, with hiking also acceptable at hikers' own risk. In the winter, such ve- hicular trails may be used for snowmobiling. b. Snowmobile trail Snowmobiling, with other winter trail-using activities done at own risk. In the off seasons, such trails may be used for trailbike riding. C. Bicycle trails Bicycling, with hiking also allowable at hikers' own risk. 2) DEP Land Management Use Restrictions on Trail Development. Allow- able trail uses by management category are as follows: Trail Type Local Management Areas Where Allowable a. Hiking trail use Everywhere except in Natural Areas where re- striction of use may be desirable or in Fish and Wildlife Areas during the hunting season. 130 b. Horse trail use Everywhere except in areas of limited size where primary management goals of preserva- tion or of mass recreation may not be compat- ible with horse trail use. Such restricted properties may include Natural Areas, Heritage Areas, Recreation Areas, Parks, and Beaches and wetland portions of Fish and Wildlife Areas. In addition, seasonable restrictions on other Fish and Wildlife Areas may be ad- visable in the hunting season. C. Trailbike trail use Limited to designated State Forests unless otherwise specified by special permit. d. Snowmobile trail use Limited to designated State Forests unless otherwise specified by special permit. e. Bicycle trail use By the nature of the sport, use areas are limited largely to paved or packed earth rights- of-way typical of some park roads and town roads through state property. Bicycling should be allowed on such roads where traffic and safety issues do not pose serious problems. 3) DEP may continue to provide, under permit, lands under its juris- diction for development, and use by interested groups and organizations, for trial use by the general public. Said permittees shall have responsi- bility for maintenance and operation of such trails. 4 DEP may develop, maintain and operate certain trails on State lands. 5) DEP shall have the responsibility, in cooperation with private use groups, to protect the integrity of individual trail rights-of-way as specified in existing and subsequent State legislation, State plans, or other official state documents. Such mechanisms may include but not be limited to cooperative agreement, easement, gift, or acquisition. Specific examples of such trails shall include the Appalachian Trail and the Route Seven Linear Park (which shall be implemented by a cooperative effort of DEP, DOT, towns, and other interested bodies wherever applicable). 6) DEP has the responsibility to develop, operate, and maintain certain trails as specified in existing and subsequent State legislation. Specific examples may include more formally-developed rights-of-way such as linear bicycle trail facilities where a direct State role is essential. However, this shall not preclude DEP from entering into cooperative agreements with DOT, towns, and other public and private agencies and organizations wherever possible to have said operation and maintenance performed. 7) DEP may provide technical assistance to trail-using interests to help coordinate their activities in order to make maximum use of the trail 131 resources of Connecticut and to avoid possible areas of friction and contro- versy. D. Specific Elements of a State Trail Policy. 1) Types of Trails. It shall be the policy of the State of Connecticut to recommend single use trails wherever possible, although some multiple use may be acceptable in cases where different uses are compatible or in short connecting links in trail systems, as along park or town roads. Trail types along with permitted uses shall include: Trail Type Allowable Trail-Using Activities a. Hiking trail Hiking only--except where otherwise specified. Winter activities may include snowshoeing. b. Horse trail Horseback riding, with hiking also acceptable at hikers' own risk. Winter activities may include snowshoeing or ski-touring. 2) Administrative Responsibility for Trail Development, Operation, and Maintenance. Trail Type Administrative Responsibility a. Hiking trail Private trail-using groups except with specific trails or trail systems in State Parks, Recre- ation Areas, Heritage Areas, and Beaches where DEP shall have such responsibility. b. Horse trail Private trail-using groups except in specific cases where DEP formally assumes such responsi- bility- C. Trailbike trail Private trial-using groups except cases where DEP formally assumes such responsibility. d. Snowmobile trail Private trail-using groups except in specific cases where DEP formally assumes such responsi- bility. e. Bicycle trail Responsibility for any bicycle trail will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the parties involved, possibly including DEP, DOT, or various municipal or other public bodies. E. A Suggested Strategy for Achieving A State Trails System. A key aspect of implementing a State Trails policy will be to plan and develop a compre- hensive State Trails system. Although a great deal has already been done by 132 various public and private interests to date, there is an immediate need for a body representing all such points of view which can serve to coordinate these efforts effectively. This plan, therefore, recommends the establish- ment of a joint committee to assume this responsibility. Participants should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State, the Connecticut Trail Users Conference, and representatives of public utilities and.other major landowners. OUTDOOR RECREATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL A vital part of outdoor recreation is that portion which is carried out as a more or less regular element in one's daily routine. Of necessity, most such recreational activity is located in close proximity to the home and nearby surroundings within which the ordinary citiz en spends the bulk of at least his non-working hours. Some of this play may occur in the backyard, on neighboring streets, or at facilities provided as part of an apartment or condominium complex. Other activities may utilize private facilities, whether commercial or social in nature. Nevertheless, the bulk of local outdoor recreation in Connecticut is dependent upon municipal facilities and programs, especially those types utilized by school age children, young adults, the elderly, and the economi- cally disadvantaged. These may range in size and character from tot lots to neighborhood parks and playgrounds, to the large communitywide park or largely undeveloped open space. Nonetheless, they are all key elements in an outdoor recreation system which must service the daily needs of most of the municipality's population. Although it is impossible to clearly separate the roles of the local and the Statewide/Regional recreational systems, a general division of roles can be seen as described in Chapter III of this plan. Whereas the State- wide/Regional system has historically been largely nature or resource-based, 133 and generally the responsibility of state government, local recreation has been more program-oriented. More specifically, local recreation must provide developed facilities which are readily accessible by mass transportation, bicycling and walking. The basic ingredients often seem to be: (1) a landbase for activities, (2) site developments to allow certain activities to take place, and (3) programs to allow intensive use, often of a highly organized nature, to occur. Thus, local recreation frequently consists largely of sports and other playfield/playground activities. Historically these have served children and young adults, through municipal and quasi-public programs such as Little League Baseball. However, in recent years there has been a major increase in adult league sports, especially softball, for both men and women. Other activities commonly found in the local system are swimming, tennis, and golf. Towns often provide instructional programs for children in swimming and tennis. The private sector frequently -plays a significant role in pro- viding tennis and golf facilities. It is, however, the local. public sector which must provide the bulk of the intensive recreational opportunities sought by the general public. The responsibility to meet the needs of such special segments of the population as the handicapped and elderly is becoming recog- nized as well. ADEQUACY OF LOCAL RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN CONNECTICUT Measures of recreational adequacy are, as this plan has previously acknowledged, either objective, subjective, or sometimes a blend of the two. Objective evaluation ideally is the best approach wherever suitable data 134 exists. However, data on recreational opportunity is often missing or in- complete, or questionable in quality, or even non-comparable. Evaluations usually must rely on quantitative facility standards which, when examined closely, are often highly subjective in nature. Furthermore, quantitative standards do not allow consideration of qualitative factors affecting the recreational experience or.programming. Thus, Connecticut's SCORP process uses a pragmatic approach util.izing available data and insights which seem to provide a reasonable evaluation of recreational supply deficiencies, rec- ognizing that the available data does have some limitations. A number of tools were used in this SCORP update to assess adequacy of existing supply. The first was an independent assessment of adequacy of municipal recreational facilities done by the State of Connecticut Depart- ment of Community Affairs (DCA). A second was the Municipal Needs and Preferences Survey sent to recreation professionals and/or commissions in every municipality in the state to elicit local expert opinion on local recreational needs and issues (Appendix E). The third involved personal inter- views with the parks and recreation administr.ators in 12 of the state's major cities to obtain further insights into the special recreati,onal.needs of urban communit ies as discussed in detail in Chapter VII of this plan. The last source was the Public Attitudes and Preferences Survey (Appendix F). The findings of the DCA Survey have been utilized to assess the adequacy of local outdoor recreational facilities. 2 Of Connecticut's 169 municipalities, 1Department of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionnaire, August 1977. (Appendix _DT 2Detailed findings and minimum supply standards utilized are presented in Appendix D. 135 69 percent (116) responded to this survey. Survey responses were analyzed by individual recreational activities for seven population size classes. 1 Assessing existing municipal recreational supply in relation to recommended minimum standards, provided a number of insights with regard to the adequacy of existing local facilities and the opportunities they provide. 1. In general, the state's communities do not compare well to DCA standards in providing outdoor recreational facilities. For all towns report- ing in the DCA recreational survey, the overall percentage of facilities and acreages that met or exceeded the standards was only 32 percent. 2. The survey results generally show that towns and cities with the greatest population tend to compare relatively poorly to supply standards. As seen in Figure IV-7, the relative degree of adequacy for responding munic- ipalities with populations of 25,000 or under ranged from 33 to 35 percent. A perceptible drop in the average percentage of adequacy occurred in more populous communities, decreasing to approximately 20 percent for towns and cities with populations over 75,000. 3. As communities gain in population, they experience an increasing demand for outdoor recreational facilities other than basic field areas. In response to this,demand, towns with populations exceeding 8,000 tended to provide more facilities such as handball courts, boat launch areas, and golf courses. The municipal Needs and Preferences Survey included all of the state's 169 towns. Responses were received from 74 towns (44 percent). Cities personally interv iewed included Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, Meriden, Middletown, New Britain, New London, New Haven, Norwalk, Norwich, Stamford, I Natural swimming areas were not included in existing outdoor recreation facilities surveyed. 136 Figure IV-7 % 100 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES AND ACREAGE THAT MEET OR EXCEED MINIMUM RECREATION 90 SUPPLY STANDARDS BY POPULATION SIZE GROUPa 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A B C D E F G PoRldation Grouping LEGEND Group A - Under 3000 population Group E -252000 to 40,000 Group B - 3p5OO to 82000 population population Group C - 8,000 to 15.,000 population Group F -40..000 to 75,000 Group D -15,,000 to 25,000 population population Group G -Over 75)000 population aSee Appendix b, minimmim supply standards utilized. Source: Department of Commmity Affairs,, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreation Questionnaire, August 1977. 137 and Waterbury. The Public Attitude and Preferences Survey contacted 141 conservation, recreation user, civic, labor, business, minority, and com- munity groups. Twenty-two percent of these groups responded. Based on the findings of the Municipal Needs and Preferences Survey, the five top municipal outdoor recreation problems by order of priority are: (1) a lack of funds to develop facilities, (2) a lack of funds to maintain existing local outdoor recreational facilities, (3) the lack of neig h- borhood recreational facilities, (4) a lack of funds for recreational programs, and (5) a lack of funds for open space and outdoor recreational land acqui- sition. The expressed need for development funds is particularly outs tand- ing. Conversely, the lack of suitable land, pollution, the pressure of out-of-town users, and vandalism and crime, although perceived as problem areas, did not rank within the top five overall priorities. The order of priority of these needs varies somewhat for the different types (urban, sub- urban, and rural) and sizes of municipalities in the state. For example, Connecticut cities' greatest and most immediate need is funds for operations and maintenance. In light of the facility and program inadequacies, and perceptions of growth of participation expressed by the state's municipalities in the Munici- pal Needs and Preferences Survey, the'following additional general types of facilities by order of priority are deemed necessary: Ranking Recreational Facility I Swimming 2 Tennis 3 Ball fields 4 Playgrounds 4 Ice Skating 5 Specialized ball fields (soccer, softball) 138 These priorities vary somewhat by broad community type with major recom- mended additions including: Community Type Recommended Recreational Facilities 1. Rural Tennis Swimming Ball fields 2. Suburban Specialized Ball fields Swimming, Tennis Ball fields 3. Urban Ball fields In terms of short-range as opposed to long-range needs, the following recommendations were made by all respondent municipalities: Additional Facilities Needed Ranking in Next Twenty Years 1 Tennis 2 Swimming 3 Ball fields 4 Ice Skating 4 Bicycling Regardless of type of community or probable time frame for inv estment, local perceived needs do center around certain basic facilities needed for swimming, tennis, and field sports of various types, activities which involve large numbers of people both directly as participants and indirectly as specta- tors. Also noteworthy is the need for facilities for such activities as ice skating and bicycling which have increased dramatically in popularity. Many of the needs already identified above were reiterated in the results of t he Public Att itudes and Preferences Survey and personal interviews with parks and recreation administrators in some of Connecticut's cities. However, both indicated that the problems are generally more acute in urban communities. Seventy percent of the respondents to the Public Attitudes and Preferences Survey indicated that urban outdoor recreational facilities in Connecticut 139 are inadequate. As detailed in Chapter VII of this plan, severe shortcomings in recreational adequacy and opportunities occur in most urban communities, whether large or moderate-sized in terms of population. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The preceding discussion- has evaluated the status of municipal recre- ation in Connecticut. While differences exist between communities' abilities to serve their needs, municipal recreation presently has many shortcomings and inadequacies. These deficiencies are particularly severe in urban areas and their inner-city-neighborhoods. The provision of adequate capital investment and maintenance moneys to renovate deteriorated facilities would help considerably. However, the typical municipality under existing heavy reliance on the property tax is hard pressed to raise additional revenues for desirable public programs such as recreation. This problem is becoming increasingly severe as infla- tion reduces the recreational services from given dollar allocations. The failure of communities to budget adequate funds for operation and maintenance of recreational programs contributes to the failure to serve the public despite investment in land and facilities. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan cannot solve major fiscal or social issues. However, it can identify problems and make pragmatic recom- mendations within the existing economic, institutional, and social constraints. Recommendations by type of community are listed below: 1. Central City - Although rehabilitation of existing facilities fre- quently is needed as stated above, a special urban problem is the need to provide suitable outdoor recreational opportunities in inner city neighbor- hoods which often have a high resident population density, many social problems, 140 and inadequate park and recreational facilities. Furthermore, a goal of city government should be to ensure full cooperation betw een its park and recre- ation and education operations to maximize effective use of both outdoor and indoor recreational facilities available at educational facilities. 2. Large Suburb - Moderate-Sized City - Such communities, often having undergone substantial growth since World War II and lacking the basic park system possessed by major cities, must set a high priority on the acquisition and development of areas needed to provide the municipality with a basic park system which offers a full range of recreational opportunities. 3. Small Community - The rural town and the small, but often fast- growing, suburban town often lack the rudiments of a comprehensive park system and historically have relied heavily on recreation provided by pri- vate individuals and groups. Also, many of these communities lack the tax base to allow substantial investment in recreational development and opera- tions. Thus their prime need is to provide the basic elements of a recre- ational program, including a swimming facility, a town-wide park, and play- ground-fields sports, utilizing available school facilities wherever possible. The towns of the greater Danbury area, the state's fastest developing area, are in particular need of increasing their recreational services and facilities. Suggested specific actions to help address the general local outdoor recreational needs include: A. Provide needed moneys for capital spending, including land acqui- sition, development and rehabilitation (especially in urban communities). Suggested means of providing such funds include: (1) provision by the State of Connecticut of one-half of the non-federal share for open space land acquisitions and development costs as provided for in Sections 7-131c to 141 7-131k of the Connecticut General Statutes; (2) reassess existing enabling legislation (PA 77-548) mandating the Department of Environmental Protection to allocate 25 percent of the total Connecticut apportionment for municipal recreational development and (3) maximizing the potential for providing the local share of municipal projects through partial gifts, in-kind services, and use of the Community Development Act (CDA) moneys. In addition, the urban renewal process should be fully utilized as a means of providing recre- ation-areas in neighborhoods where they are presently lacking. B. Find sufficient needed moneys to adequately finance park and recre- ation operations and maintenance. Inadequate financing of outdoor recreation is a major problem in most Connecticut communities. This problem has reached relatively serious proportions in most urban communities where insufficient tax moneys combine with pressing social problems. Parks and recreation bud- gets are therefore generally a low priority item in the overall city or town budget. Under present conditions, towns and cities will continue to increas- ingly rely on federal funding sources for operations and maintenance. (1) Urban park departments as well as similar departments in some other commun- ities, presently rely heavily on operations and maintenance personnel paid with federal moneys under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Due to the very uncertain future of CETA, increasing dependence on CETA staff is a short-term remedy and it is recommended that municipalities maintain a core of permanent, locally fu nded, operations and maintenance personnel. (2) Another measure would be to establish a separate Federal Park Operation and Maintenance Grant-in-Aid Program which would parallel and complement the Land and Water Conservation Act Fund. C. Utilize existing municipal police powers and spending programs 142 to enhance local outdoor recreational resources, including (1) utilization of powers enabled by Sections 8-25 and 8-13d of the Connecticut General Statutes allowing municipal planning and zoning commissions in their regula- tions to require setting aside public open space for parks or playgrounds as part of a subdivision or planned unit development; and (2) inclusion of on-site outdoor recreation facilities as part of low income and elderly housing projects. c h a p 5 t e r Major Water and Land Recreation Resource Issues 143 MAJOR LAND AND WATER RECREATION RESOURCE ISSUES WATER RESOURCES "Water, water, everywhere, and all the boards did shrink; Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink." Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Samuel Coleridge The Rime of the Ancient Mariner expresses the dilemma of one man con- fronted with abundant water but inability to utilize it to meet his needs. Connect icut, with its relativel'y abundant rainfall contributing to lakes, rivers and streams and with its location on Long Island Sound, is fortunate compared to many areas of the United States. Yet, the mere abundance of water is not a sufficient criteria upon which to judge its availability and useful- ness in fulfilling the needs of our citizens. This fact became apparent with the awakening of our consciousness of the impact of pollution on the quality of our water bodies as algal blooms increased, productive fisheries were eli- minated, shellfish grounds were closed and swimming areas abandoned. In 1957, the Connecticut Water Resources Commission made its report to the General Ass umbly on "Water Resources in Connecticut." They set forth their view of the future in their observations regarding recreational waters: "Water for recreation and wildlife is necessary and vital to the well-being of the citizens of this State as well as drinking water, or water for power, agriculture, or industry. This is a great unrecog- hized fact in water use of the last two centuries, and is only now beginning to get its due share of attention as more and more waters are being made unavailable for recreation by such factors as pollution,, withdrawal for public water supplies, industry, and diversion for irrigation. 144 "The demand for recreational water exceeds the supply, and in the future the demand will accelerate faster than the demand for any other water use, while the supply will diminish, if the present trends con- tinue. Demand will increase, not only as population increases, but as people have more leisure, more mobility, and come more to feel the pressing need for the syiritual and physical regeneration and recreation in outdoor activities." The Commission concluded that: "Pollution abatement and multiple use are the principle means by which the sWpply of water for recreational uses can be appreciably increased."' As a state, we have reacted to the losses imposed by pollution and joined with the nation in passage of pollution control legislation and demonstrated a willingness to invest in pollution control technology. In Connecticut, the capital costs of municipal waste treatment systems over the past 15 years total more than $1 billion in federal funds and $250 million in state funds plus local government allocations for sewer construction and treatment plants. Private industrial and commercial construction investment in Connecticut from 1971-1976 for water pollution abatement has amounted to an estimated $40 million for which more than $2 million in credits against state corporate taxes were obtained. The funding of these capital investments and their associated operating and maintenance costs have made significant improvement in water quality restoration. All of our citizens contribute to preserving and enhancing water quality through their payment of federal, state and local taxes, a por- tion of which are used for pollution abatement. However, not only tax dollars" .are involved. When we require private industries to clean up, they pass a portion of the costs on to the consumers through higher prices. We all end up paying the cost. As preported by the U.S.-Environmental Protection Agency and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 51 percent,(207 miles) of I-Water-Resources Commission, Report to,the General Assembly, State of Connecticut, 1957. pg. III. 21bid. 145 Connecticut's 409 miles of main stem and major tributary rivers now meet Class "B" Fishable/Swimmable Classification standards. This reflects an 8 percent increase over 1976 (173 miles), with 352 miles expected to achieve the Class "B" standard by 1983. (The Housatonic River, from the Massachusetts border to the Shepaug Dam has recently been reclassified from Bs to D based on the discovery of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) in fish and bottom sediments. The State Health Department has warned against consumption of fish caught in this stretch of the river). Major improvements in water quality have contri- buted to the growth of water-oriented outdoor activities such as canoeing and boating (all forms) and enhanced these waterways' recreation and aesthetic values. The significance of the pollution abatement measures are amply demonstrated on the Willimantic River which has been sufficiently cleansed to allow stocking of trout. This restoration has not only added to recreational fisheries but has also attracted significant canoe activity. The Naugatuck River, long con- taminated by metal finishing waste waters and sewage and considered.in sections to be biologically incapable of supporting significant aquatic.life, has similarly undergone a metamorphosis. Fish have reestablished themselves and the river now has potential for contributing to the public well-being. Improvements in water quality have in turn contributed to rapidly increased land values of properties 6dj acent to waterways and conflicts betwee n the public's desire to recreate and landowners' concern over potential abuse from increased recreation pressures. Posting against trespassing has become a prime concern to recreation planners and user groups. A continuation of the trend to increased posting can have a major impact upon the available water resource base for recreation. While we have come to grips with the pollution issue, there has been 146 neglect of the multiple use concept and preserving for*the public the oppor- tunity to utilize the waterways and water bodies by providing public access. The issues of multiple use and public access are enmeshed in Connecticut s Water Law which has evolved over two hundred years and reflects numerous court rulings on specific aspects of water rights. There are important destinctions between the law as it pertains to public and private watercourses. "Public watercourses are those affected by the ocean or seas wherein the tide ebbs and flows; or where on factual navigation may be carried forth in the prosecution of some useful gain or occupation. Watercourses denominated private are generally neither navigable nor affected by the ebb and flow of the tide."l This distinction has major implications for the legal status of non- navigable (private) watercourses: "First, the ownership of subaqueous lands underlying nonnavigable waters is private. Second, a nonnavigable watercourse may be reasonably diverted or dammed for water supply purposes without interfering with the paramount public use of it for transportation, trade or commerce."2 In Connecticut, the landowners through whose property a private watercourse flows, can restrict access and use of the watercourse by their ownership of the subaqueous lands. Public use of private watercourses must rely on the consent of the landowners or some form of public ownership of properties or property rights such as a lease. As recreation activity increases, a definite trend of restriction of public access on private lands has been observed. In 1971, the State of Connecticut enacted P.A. 249, S. 2-4 to help main- tain public access across private property by restricting the landowners' liability for those utilizing the land for recreation purposes. The Connecticut General Statutes Sections 52-557f-i set forth the liability issue. Section 52-557g states: Sec. 52-557g. Owner of land available to public for recreation not liable, when. (a) Except as provide section 52-557h, an- owner of five or more acres of land who makes such land available to the public without charge, rent, fee or other commercial service for recre- Robert I. Weis, Connecticut Water Law & Oudicial Allocation of Water Resources, Institute of Water Resources, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 1967, pg. 17. - 21bid. 147 ational purposes owes no duty of care to keep such land safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes. (b) Except as provided in section 52-5.57h, an owner of five or more acres of land who, either directly or indirectly, invites or permits without charge, rent, fee or other commerical service any person to use such land for recreational pur- poses does not thereby: (1) Make any representation that the premises are safe for any purpose; (2) confer upon such person who enters or uses such land for such recreational purposes the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owned; (3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for an injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of such owner. (c) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of subsection (a) and (b) of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased to the state or any subdivision thereof for recreational purposes. (1971, P.A. 249, S. 2-4) The legislation does not restrict the owner's right to post his property. against trespass. Therefore, the only ways to ensure public access is through acquisition, easement or lease of lands. Connecticut's Water Law concerning lakes, ponds and marshes is denoted in terms of littoral rights to use water accorded the ownership of land surrounding or touching upon a lake or pond.1 "Bed ownership has been recognized in the Connecticut courts as being in: (1) The owner of "all" land around a lake or pond with clear title to the pond itself; 112 (2) The fee owner of lands held subject to a flowage easement. The ownership of the bed has been held by Connecticut courts to include exclusive control over surface water use. Where several littoral proprie tors exist; "....The right to the use of the surface of the lake for all necessary and proper purposes@ is.common to all littoral proprietors.,,3 To assure continued public asccess to lakes and ponds, the State must acquire littoral rights either through ownership of subaqueous lands, flowage rights, or adjacent lands. lIbid. p. 89. 21bid. @ 31bid., P. go. 148 Public access and the proper mix of public and private ownership often become very heated and emotional issues. Opposition of private owners to public acquistion of properties offered for sale on the market has created major difficulties for the State in providing Connecticut citizens access to major watercourses and water bodies which can accommodate recreational activities. There is a real need to open dialogue between citiz ens, private owners and public officials on the difficult issues of public access and management programs. The State of Connecticut's Conservation and Development Policies Plan Proposed Revision of 1979 suggests an avenue of approach for watercourses: "In some areas of the State, the dominant features of the land- scape are large-scale ridges and valleys. Some of these areas have remained relatively free of development and artificial impoundments. They represent outstanding examples of the state's natural heritage. it has long been advocated that certain stream segments be preserved in their free-flowing condition because their natural, scenic, scienti- fic, aesthetic and recreational values outweigh their value for other water and land development uses. The Connecticut River Gateway has been established as such a scenic river area. The Housatonic and Shepaug Rivers are currently being evaluated for potential management as wild, scenic or recreation rivers. Other segments (West Branch of Farmington, Scantic, Salmon-Blackledge, Eight Mile (East Haddam), Natchaug and Moosup-Quinebaug) have varying scenic, recreation or wildlife values which make them potential scenic or recreation stream management areas. The opportunity.to more thoroughly and individually investigate these segments by state agencies, municipalities and concerned citizens and to consider coordinated approaches to their preservation and use should be considered before other irreversible commitments are made. A state wild and scenic streambelt system, rhodeled after federal legislation, may be considered for streams not eligible for inclusion in the federal system and where state and local interest in such protection remains." The Farmington River can serve as a descriptive example of these types of issues. This river has received major public investments in water pollution abatement; $50 million over 1965-1977. 149 TABLE V-1 FARMINGTON RIVER PUBLIC CAPITAL COSTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL* 1965-1977 Federal' Grants $26,707,552 State Grants 6,466,632 Local Costs 16,525,067 TOTAL $49,699,251 *11 Communities on the River and Its Tributaries. Source: Richard Willis, Eastern Connecticut State College, Assessment of Public Investment in Water Pollution Abatement for the Farmington River System, Department of Environmental Protection, Planning and Coordination Unit, May 1978. The bonds for the construction costs computed at 5.5 percent annually require the public sector to annually expend $3.4 million. The annual operating and maintenance costs which are paid for by local taxpayers,.industrial, and commerical users, amounts to $1.1 million. Thus, taxpayer financed clean water expenditures are approximately $4.5 million per annum. Additional expenditures are made by industries located along the river which must maintain separate waste control systems. These expenditures are also partially.underwtitten by state and federal taxpayers through corporate tax writeoffs. This major commitment by the governmental sector has met with considerable success in maintaining Class "B" standards for the entire 54 miles and-has directly contributed to the river's recreation attractiveness. The' river is a favorite with fishermen and the Department's Fish and Water Life Unit operates a major trout stocking program for the Farmington River and its tributaries. In the 1976-77 season, 54,920 trout were stocked in the river 150 and provided fishing for an estimated 100,000 angler-days. Of equal signi- ficance is the potential for the Farmington River to be the first restored anadromous fishery in Connecticut. The Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have stocked some 84,736 salmon smolts in their restoration program. The Stanley Works Company, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department have invested $750,000 in construction of the Rainbow Falls fish ladder to allow anadromous fish to reach the upper reaches of the river and additional fish ladders at Collinsville are in the final planning stage. Already runs of shad have reached the spawning areas above the dam and in 1978 fifty-two salmon have been captured at Rainbow Falls. Other recreation opportunities are also available. Boaters using both canoes and inner tubes enjoy the alternate sparkling white water stretches and the clear, deep, slower runs of the river. The extensiveness of this type of activity on the river can only be roughly estimated. Surveys of two sporting good outfitters indicate yearly canoe rentals of approximately 2,000. The Appalachian Mountain Club sponsors races and canoe trips which result in an estimated 1,200 canoeist user-days. Simsbury High School, one of the few secondary schools to have a rowing club, reports its crew team members spend several thousand rower days on the river each season. Based on these partial reports, it is probable that more than 10,000 user-days of recre- ation are currently realized. The river also provides ample bird watching and wildlife observation opportunities. Sightings of various hawks, Canada geese, mallard ducks and other waterfowl, Baltimore orioles and numerous other bird species are common. In addition, migrating bald eagles are occasionally sighted along the river. Wildlife is particularly attracted to the river for the diversity of food supplies found in the river and along the banks. 151 The present total recreational use of the river is considerable and the demand for these types of water dependent recreational activities is expected to increase. The Farmington River in its proximity to the Greater Hartford Metropolitan area (population 700,000+) can be expected to receive additional recreation demand even without the restoration of the Atlantic salmon. Access to the river is an absolute necessity for these recreational activities, yet there is only limited public control of the access to the river. From Hogback Dam in Hartland to the junction with the Connecticut River, less than one- sixth of the total length is under public control. TABLE V-2 FA RMINGTON RIVER STREAM BED Total length 616,800 feet 116.8 miles State controlled 109,400 20.7 By lease or ownership Owned or abutted 48,700 9.2 Town controlled 1,700 .3 Electric Utility 91100 1.7 Private 507,200 96.1 Almost half of the state control is only temporary in the form of lease agree- ments, leaving few stretches of the river with guaranteed public access. It may be necessary to make major acquisitions or secure rights to control the Farmington River to properly maInage its Atlantic salmon fisheries. Signifi- cant problems of restricted access and illegal fishing have developed in Canadian rivers and elsewhere when public control is limited'. Recognition by Connecticut's citizens of the need to protect and pre- serve rivers is reflected in the actions of Citizens to Preserve the Scantic. The Scantic River, a tributary of the Connecticut, meanders through the towns 152 of Somers, Enfield, East Windsor, and South Windsor in the north central lowlands of the state. The undisturbed woodlands and balanced ecological environment of the area make it an attractive open space for preservation. State efforts to preserve the land began in 1967 when the legislature authorized $50,000 for a study for the State Park and Forest Commission. The consultants, Morton S. Fine and Associates, submitted a plan by which the state would acquire 3,760 acres in the four towns at an es timated cost of $1,284,000. Total cost for development of a state park, including a swimming pool accommodating 3,000 and an 18 hole golf course, was estimated to be just over $5 million. In 1969, the legislature authorized $650,000 to start land acquisition but state finances and town opposition to such a large-scale developed recreational site stalled the project. Meanwhile, a less ambitious proposal for a linear park with minimal development renewed the effort to save the valley from encroaching develop- ment. It was proposed that the state buy only the land in the floodplain and the area would be used for only those recreational activities compatible with a natural setting. Bills to authorize additional monies for acquisition were introduced in both the 1971 and 1973 sessions of the General Assembly. In May 1973, the Citizens to Preserve the Scantic presented a petition with signatures of 2,500 townspeople to Governor Meskill supporting the linear park concept and urging speedy acquisition. However, these plans fell victim to the State's au sterity program. The acquisition of the Scantic River Valley should have a high priority as the densely populated Capital Region has an increasing requirement for recreational open spaces and encroaching development continues to threaten the natural character of the valley. The scenic beauty and unspoiled quality of the land are its prime attractions. Several rare spedles of flora and 153 fauna can be found in the area. The river, presently a Class B waterway (Class A above the Somersville dam) supports a productive coldwater fishery and has stretches of rapids popular with white water canoeists. The historic Powder Hollow area in Enfield is the site of Connecticut's early powder industry of the 1800's. All of these recreational opportunities, available within 1/2 hour of the Greater Hartford metropolitan area via Interstate 91, are threatened unless prompt action is undertaken to acquire these lands and preserve them for future generations. However, preservation must be accom- plished without unnecessarily restricting recreational opportunities which must be provided in this urbanized area. Citizens to Preserve the Scantic have renewed their initiative to have the State acquire lands along the river corridor and meetings with the Department to pursue these goals have proved valuable. As with the Scantic River, citizen recognition of the scenic and recre- ational values of the upper Housatonic River, Shepaug River, and the lower Connecticut River has also resulted in local action. Recently the upper 41 miles of the Housatonic River and the Shepaug River along with a portion of the Bantam River have been studied by the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service. Both were determined to qualify for designation as National Wild and Scenic Rivers. The towns along these river segments, eight towns on the Housatonic River and five towns on the Shepaug River-Bantam River, have initiated action'to establish a local river management system. The lower Connecticut River and its adjoining estuarine environs is another waterway in the state of exceptional natural beauty as well as historical significance. In 1973, the Connecticut Legislature authorized 154 the establishment of a Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone encom- passing the riverside portions of Chester, Deep River, East Haddam, Essex, Haddam, Lyme, Old Lyme and Old Saybrook. State legislation provided for protection of the area through a regional conservation compact among the eight towns and through State purchase of scenic easements and development rights. The Connecticut River Gateway Commission of local and regional repre- sentatives has responsibility to recommend areas in which the State should acquire scenic easements and development rights. One easement has thus far been donated to DEP. THE COASTAL REGION The Connecticut Coastal Area Management (CAM) report "Coastal Recreation Demand, Opportunities and Limitations in Connecticut's Coastal Area" sets forth the key geological limitations of Connecticut's coastal resources: "Sandy beaches provide the most demanded coastal recreation oppor- tunities in Connecticut. This physical resource is, however, neither abundant nor evenly distributed.-Connecticut's coastal frontage amounts to 458 miles. Of this frontage 84.5 miles or 18 percent is sandy beach. This beach varies greatly in length, width and sand quality. Analysis of CAM coastal resource maps reveals that as much as one- third of the state's beaches are less than 1,500 feet in length. Because of their small size such beaches afford only limited public recreational opportunities.... Coastal frontage includes Long Island Sound frontage and riverine frontage in the 36 coastal towns.... Offshore islands which are not included in this figure provide an additional 90 miles of coast- I ine. "l (See Table V-3). The CAM report notes that beach associations own 28 percent of the state's sandy beaches. '"These association beaches provide recreational opportunities for many local residents. While these beaches have restricted access, they are generally heavily used. This appears particularly true of small association lCoastal Area ManagementI Coastal Recreational Demand, Opportunities, and Limitations in Connecticut's Coastal Area, Planning Report 25, 1978. 155 beaches found in high density residential areas.11 In 1975, the Governor's Task Force on State Beaches and Shoreline Parks evaluated short range opportunities to increase beach capacity. As a result of the study, expansion of facilities at Rocky Neck, Hammonasset and Sherwood Island State Parks was recommended. At Rocky Neck, enrichment of the beach th rough dredging of offshore sand deposits is expected to double the size of the existing beach and, coupled with additional parking for 1,300 vehicles, will increase user capacity by 5,000 per day. The improvements to existing State facilities are critical to providing coastal recreation opportunities. The CAM report notes that with respect to municipally-owned beaches and certain private beaches, they are generally at peak capacity during weekends and holidays and cannot accommodate significant additional users even if no barriers to access existed. Additionally, "many of these (private) 'beaches' are quite small (less than 1,500 feet in length) and are non-contiguous; hence they would be both costly to acquire and maintain." The ownership and use patterns of the sandy beach areas are indicated in Table V-4. Of unique and special interest for acquisition are offshore islands. For example, many of the larger island s in the Norwalk Island group have good quality sandy beaches and have been noted in studies as good selections for public recreation and conservation purposes. "Islands represent one of Connecticut's greatest unused coastal resources. The Connecticut coast is dotted with some 143 nearshore islands. Most Pf these islands have remained undeveloped largely as a result of the access difficulties. Islands constitute approxi- mately 90 miles of undeveloped coastline. Many of these islands support populations of flora and fauna which have all but disappeared from the mainland. These nearshore islands offer Con Yecticut a uni- que opportunity of both recreation and preservation." 1C oastal Area Management, Coastal Recreation Demand, Opportunities, and Limitations in ConnecticJ_@scoa`stal Area,- Planning Report 25, 1978. 156 TABLE V-3 DISTRIBUTION OF SANDY BEACH Coastal Frontage Sandy Beach Sandy Beach Town (miles) (miles) % frontage Greenwich 27.2 1.7 6.2 Stamford 15.0 3.4 23.3 Darien 16.5 .3 1.8 Norwalk 17.0 .6 3.5 Westport 18.9 5.9 31.2 Fairfield 10.4 3.2 30.8 Bridgeport 18.0 2.5 13.9 Stratford 13.2 4.9 37.1 Milford 19.3 8.7 45.1 West Haven 7.9 4.4 55.7 New Haven 18.0 1.3 7.2 East Haven 3.4 2.3 67.6 Branford 18.6 3.4 18.3 Guilford 14.8 1.4 9.4 Madison 8.5 6.1 71.8 Clinton 8.7 4.0 45.9 Westbrook 7.4 3.9 52.7 Old Saybrook 18.6 4.9 26.3 Old Lyme 17.1 4.3 25.1 East Lyme 19.9 6.3 31.7 Waterford 22.4 4.0 17.8 New London 9.1 2.1 23.1 Groton 26.9 3.8 14.1 Stonington 37.9 1.0 2.6 Source:- Coastal Area Management,.Coastal Recreational Demand, Opportunities, and Limitations in Connecticut's Coastal Area. 1978. Re: Report 25. 157 TABLE V-4 OWNERSHIP OF SANDY BEACHES Private Mileage Individuals 28.0 Associations 24.0 Conservation Groups 1.3 Commercial .7 TOTAL 54.0 Public State 7.0 Municipal 23.5 TOTAL 30.5 Source: Coastal Area Management, Coastal Recreational Demand, Opportunities, and Limitations in Connecticut's Coastal Area, 1978. 158 The demand for recreation boating has expanded rapidly over the past decade. The CAM report notes: "While the boating activity occurs on the water, boating requires special types of shore based support facilities such as boat launching ramps and marinas. The majority of boating support facilities are pro- vided by the commercial sector. These facilities are generally access- ible to the public within the economic constraints of the user. A 1976 survey of marinas in Connecticut conducted by Department of Commerce for CAM, identified 164 commercial marinas, 8 public marinas and 63 private yacht clubs.- In addition, there are 13 state boat launching ramps providing access to the Sound, and 10 ramps providing access to the Connecticut River. A listing of the marinas, clubs and boat launching facilities is provided in Appendix E. "The 164 commercial and 8 public marinas provide 16,485 slips and 3,108 mooring spaces. The number of spaces which the 63 private clubs provide is not known exactly. Based on earlier data, it can be esti- mated that these clubs provide in excess of 5,000 spaces. The number of opportunities which state boat launching ramps provide is not known, nor are reliable turnover rates for the use of these facilities available." The report concludes: "....In addition to power boats, sailboats account for much of the boating use of the Sound. Boats which are not powered need not be regis- tered making the numbers of such crafts difficult to determine; current estimates place the number of sailboats in Connecticut at 30,000. The. demand for recreational boating support facilities, based on boat regis- trations alone, currently exceeds the supply of these facilities. "Due to the problems associated with power boating, notably the safety factor and the potential for degradation of water quality, it is unlikely that new, large scale boating facilities will be provided by the public sector. Instead, emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of state boat launching sites." The CAM Coastal Recreation Study recommends as a "first priority action" that the State "prioritize existing recommendations for improving shorefront access..." The 1974 Connecticut Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) "encompasses the major elements which a shorefront enhancement process should entail." Existing policy recommendations outlined in the 1974 SCORP included the following: 1. Increase present swimming capacity to correct existing deficiencies 159 in supply and to insure an adequatesupply in the future to accommodate a growing population and expected increases in rates of participation. 2. Provide an additional 5,000 units of saltwater swimming capacity annually by a joint effort of state and local governments. Because of the .limited financial resources at the local level and because beaches need to serve all the state's citizens, the major part of this effort should be assumed by the State. 3. Develop Silver Sands State Park which would add an additional 10,000 swimming units. 4. Acquire new coastal beaches through State action when large, privately- owned beaches, providing ample space for parking and ancillary facilities, are available for purchase. Areas frequently flooded or storm damaged should be considered for condemnation and/or acquisition. 5. Acquire offshore islands. 6. Continue the State's role of providing s impler forms of boat launching access to significant fishing and boating waters both inland and on the Sound. WATER COMPANY LANDS Significant acreages of water company lands previously considered in town, regional and state land use and open space plans as permanent open space, are being jeopardized by proposed sales. This situation primarily involves the investor-owned water companies within the state which own approximately 61,000 acres of watershed land with the largest concentration of ownership held by four companies. Similar pressure for sale of municipally-owned watershed lands totaling 72,000 acres may at some future date also materialize. A principle reason which has created this situation was the passage of the Federal 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act. To meet impending standards, as well 160 as existing standards, companies anticipate the construction of treatment facilities and/or the abandonment of surface supplies in favor of increased groundwater use. Companies facing the impending prerequisite of treatment have challenged the requirement and need to maintain existing watershed owner- ship. Where yields from a reservoir system are low, coupled with the prospects of treatment, economics is dictating total abandonment in favor of groundwater use and subppquent sale of the reservoir and watershed lands. The State Legislature has taken several actions to allow for an assessment of this situation, placing a two year moratorium on the sale of watershed lands by investor-owned companies in-1975 and then extending the moratorium until June 1979. A c lassification system of watershed lands based on health criteria has been developed which would allow for the sale of certain lands while placing impact criteria on future uses of these lands. Currently a five and twenty year forecast of proposed sales is being-developed which will be evaluated against the objectives of programs of the Department of Environmental Protection to establish the desirability of any future purchases. The purchase of any lands strictly for the purpose of intensive water and/or land-based recreation is severely restricted by the existing interpre- tation of the impact.criteria. One potential for intensive water-based recre- ation does exist, however, where the abandonment of a reservefir is projected. This potential would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case ba sis considering such factors as location in relation to demand, accessibility, development costs, holding capacity, and water quality. Potential sale may complement the extensive types of Departmental programs but any large scale aquisition for this purpose is constra.ined by financial limitations. 161 The U.S. Department of Interior-National Urban Recreation Study's quote from John M. Burdick '@ "Recreation in the Cities: Who Gains From Federal Aid," sets forth a perspective of the open space problem likely to be triggered by divestiture of water company lands. ...the amount of money required to,protect needed but threatened open space through acquisition alone is staggering--beyond the reach of all levels of government. Land prices are particularly high in areas threatened by development, where the need for purchase is imminent. Second, the conversion of open land from private to public ownership often has serious liabilities. In public hands, land must be maintained at taxpayeris expense, a costly burden in many areas. Frequently, public ownership involves the loss of economically productive and increasingly valuable farmland. And finally in private hands, the land can continue to play many of the valuable roles of open space. Ideally, then open space in metropolitan areas would be both public and privately owned, with government protection used to insure that the privately owned land is not lost to excessive development.," "...In the absence of sound land use controls, public funds are used to purchase land of little public use simply to keep it from being sub- divided, and thus to protect it as open space. The availability of federal money through the (Land and Water Conservation) Fund for such purchases, encouraged by its genesis as a land banking fund, reduces the incentive of state and local governments to take on the politically sen- sitive issues of open space protection without acquisition." In Connecticut, water company lands at present often serve as open space buffers around,communities and have little utili zation for either passive or active recreational activities. Without definitive knowledge of the amount of land to be decldred-surplus,,it is impossible to estimate the cost of public acquisition. -The limited Land-and Water Conservation Act funds available to the State for acquisition and development (1978 estimated $4.9 million maximum ion municip state funds,, $2.1 milli i i al development) cannot meet the open space preservation goals of communities where land is placed on the market. There- fore, the State must carefully-assess each parcel to insure that only those with the highest conservation and recreation potentials are funded from the LWCA program..- 162 Communities should carefully establish policies which will ensure com- patibility of private development with the welfare of their citizens. The establishment of open space lands requirements associated with subdivision construction as set forth in building requirements by some communities and development of open space plans for qualifying parcels for P.A. 490 prefer- ential tax assessments are available tools. There is a pressing need to develop public policies relative to the acquisition or disposal for development of large acreages of water company lands. If large acreages are declared surplus, the Land and Water Conser vation Act funds will not be adequate to accommodate purchases by the State. Given the limited time to exercise first option, the State will not be able to purchase desired tracts unless special funding mechanisms are established. The State Legislature must institute programs for accommodating the purchase of suitable water company "surplus" lands. AGRICUL TURAL LANDS Agricultural ownership represents about one-sixth of the state's total acreage, approximately 520,000 acres. Connecticut has experienced a progressive decline in the number of farm operations in response to many causal factors. During the early reduction in the number of farm units, many times the land associated with these units was absorbed by other farms. The actual farm land acreage lost as compared to the reduction of farming units during this period did not correspond. This trend is no longer evident, such that today when a farm operation is terminated the land is also lost from production. Much recognition has been placed on the importance of protecting and pre- serving the state's agricultural lands in order to ensure a local base of food production, as an appropriate utilization of productive lands and the important 163 contribution these lands lend to the aesthetic appeal and landscape character of Connecticut. Historically, the most notable action of the state in assisti.ng the preservation of farm land was the passage of preferential farm land taxation legislation. The essence of Public Act 490 allows for the assessment and taxing of farm land based upon use value rather than actual market value of the land. In 1978 Public Act 78-232 was enacted which established a $5 million pilot program to purchase the development rights on agricultural lands. These lands are to be determined by reference "to soil types, existing and past uses of such land for agricultural purposes, and other relevant factors for the cultivation of plants for production of human food and fiber, or production of other useful and valuable plant products for the production of animals, livestock, and poultry useful to man and the environment, and land capable of providing economically profitable farm units, and may include adjacent pastures, wooded land, natural drainage areas and other adjacent open areas." The Department of Agriculture administers the program with the Department of Environmental Protection assisting in the appraisal of the value of the development rights. The success of this program is important to the future landscape quality and character of the state and, therefore, to the quality and enjoyment of passive recreational pursuits of its residents. These lands also have the potential to contribute to extensive recreational activities through their management for wildlife habitat as a compatible aspect of the farming operation. The allowance of hunting, fishing and hiking on portions of the owners' agriculture lands has provided substantial recreational opportunities for the state,'s citizens. The continuation and expansion of the Department of Environmental Protection Division of Conservation and Preservation's programs of cooperative leasing, stocking and policing-is vital to securing these recreational options for the public. C h a p t e r 6 cultural and Natural Heritage 164 CONNECTICUT'S CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE The State*of Connecticut contains a rich heritage of natural, histori- cal, and cultural value. Ever since the Connecticut Interregional Planning Program (CIPP) of the 1960's, Connecticut planners have recognized this heritage and have recommended its protection. State action programs have, however, failed in the past to recognize the interrelationship of these elements in forming the unique and generally beautiful landscape of Connecti- cut. The federal government has taken the leadership role in stressing the need for joint protection of our natural and cultural heritage. Sparked by President Carter's personal commitment, as. seen in the formation of a State Heritage Program in Georgia when he was Governor of that state, the U.S. Department of the Interior was directed to establish a National Heri- tage Task Force whose charge was to recommend steps to make a national Heri- tage Program a reality. It has indeed a sweeping mission, "to encompass and strengthen federal historic preservation efforts, and to develop a new parallel program for protection of significant natural resources.111 This program will be administered within the Department of Interior by the Heri- tage Conservation and Recreation Service (formerly the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation). Because of the potential significance of this program both nationally and locally, it is worth quoting in some detail the major elements of the heritage program and its six objectives, as follows: Excerpted from January 20, 1978 letter from Chri s T. Delaporte, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to Stanley Ji Pac, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 165 "First, and the central el,ement of the entire theme, is development of a partnership--private citizens and local, State and Federal govern- ments--for heritage resource identification and protection. Second, by providing a single point of contact within the Department of the Interior for natural and cultural heritage conservation, the Federal Government's performance in providing direction, technical assistance and funding to the States will be improved. Third, criteria will be developed by which heritage resources may be judged for significance to determine appropriate levels of protection. Fourth, the first com- prehensive nationwide inventory of potential heritage resources will be initiated. It is the Department of the Interior's goal to have identified 50 percent of the Nation's heritage resources within three years, and 70 percent within five years. Fifth, the tools available for protection of heritage resources will be strengthened and expanded. Sixth, a failsafe mechanism will be established to assure that Federal agencies colsider in advance the effect of their actions upon heritage resources." GENERAL ELEMENTS OF THE CONNECTICUT CULTURAL HERITAGE Connecticut contains a vast inheritance in terms of sites, structures, and artifacts of cultural significance. Both its relatively long (by New World standards) history and the nature of the original settlers are respon- sible for this fine legacy which it shares with much of the rest of New England--a rich and visually attractive regional cultural tradition. Al- though the prevailing architectural style was plain and simple, the lines were clean and graceful. The communal character of the settlers' society, a near theocracy, led to compact, structurally well-organized villages rather than the disorganized, scattered settlement of frontier regions,, as elsewhere in America. The Connecticut landscape received a strong cultural imprint, and one which was visually attractive as well. This imprint was maintained in the architectural style until the mid-nineteenth century, with the contemporary 1Excerpted from January 20, 1978 letter from Chris T. Delaporte, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to Stanley J. Pac, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 166 beginning of large scale urbanization and adoption of the Victorian style of architecture. In addition, Connecticut contains many fine examples and groupings of Victorian and other more recent styles of architecture. The major elements in Connecticut's cultural heritage consist of the thousands of individual structures and many groupings of structures, some of which are listed in the Connecticut Historical Commission's statewide inventory. The most significant type of grouping is the so-called "tradi- tional village" or prototype New England village which dates from the com- munal period of Connecticut history. Frequently they contain a green around which attractive historic homes and churches are grouped. The traditional village remains a dominant feature in the landscape and varies in size from tiny hamlets such as Winchester Center or East Putnam to larger villages such as Farmington Village or Old Lyme. Later post-communal age villages possessing much of the same architectural history as the traditional village also occur. The seaport village is one example and can be seen especially in Stonington Borough as well as in the nearby villages of Mystic and Noank. Early industrial age villages logically located alon g streams with their water power generating capability. Examples of these villages remain in Riverton, Pleasant Valley, West Goshen, and Sandy Hook (Newton). Later industrial communities of a more planned nature can be seen especially at Wauregan (Plainfield), Quebec Village (Brooklyn), Taftville (Norwich) and at Baltic (Sprague). In addition, a number of pic- turesque remains of the once-booming Connecticut iron industry can be found in the upper Housatonic Valley. An analysis of existing native cultural heritage features indicates 167 a significant loss of this resource. Urbanization has wiped out much of the early colonial village character of old communities such as Hartford, Middletown, Norwich, and most cities along Long Island Sound. Where sub- urbanization has not directly impacted the native Connecticut village, it has indirectly influenced it through drastically altering the environs and setting of the settlement. Urban blight followed by early efforts at urban renewal has also taken a heavy toll of this inheritance. Nevertheless, some substantial progress has been made. At present, 65 local historic districts have been established in 45 municipalities to protect a substantial portion of the most significant groupings of structures. Also, a number of more sensitively executed urban renewal projects, such as Wooster Square in New Haven and now Congress Street in Hartford, have been consciously developed around t he restoration of existing buildings. The trend is at least positive for the other roughly 75-80 noteworthy tra- ditional villages, historical groupings and single structures that have not as yet received such protection. Perhaps the main ingredient needed is an effective promotional and educational program to foster preservation in those communtiies which to date have not yet taken the initiative. Previous SCORP's as well as the State Plan of Conservation and Develop- ment have documented the need to preserve key elements of the Connecticut heritage, as have various planning reports including The Green Land (CIPP, 1966) and The Appearance of Connecticut (CIPP,.1963). Similarly, more de- tai led inventories such as that of historic sites and structures by the State Historical Commission and of natural areas by the.Connecticut Forest & Park Association have added to our knowledge of this inheritance. A further step was taken by Connecticut's SCORP planning process in .. .... . ... a X`o as K .. X.- .. . . .. . . ........ cot".. If. ch co m:::ma: . . . . .. . . . . . . . ................. .......... :.:.. IX. .. ......... ........ FIGURE M-1 TOWNS WITH HISTORIC DISTRICTS 1 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICTS 2 DISTRICTS 4 DISTRICTS SOURCE: CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL COMMISSION, JUNE, 1978 169 the 1975-1977 period, when a series of "Bicentennial Monographs" were pre- pared. Their intent was to focu s on certain significant landscapes or group- ings of sites which were culturally important, yet which hitherto'had not been consciously recognized as elements of the Connecticut countryside de- serving preservation and/or restoration. By chronological order of publica- tion, these included: 1. Northwestern Connecticut's Iron Hills Heritage is an analysis of the remaining features and artifacts of an industry which played a large part in the economic development of that portion of the state. Although its.immediate effect Was to strip the lovely hillsides of the upper Housa- tonic Valley for charcoal to fuel the iron furnaces and to darken the sky with soot, it played a leading role in the history of the region and its scattered stonework still remains a picturesque landscape feature. Of the original iron furnaces, only five now retain any semblance of their former appearance and therefore may merit preservation action. These include the Mt. Riga (Salisbury), Lime Rock (Salisbury), Beckley (North Canaan), Mine Hill (Roxbury), and Kent Furnaces. Of these, the Beckley and Kent Furnaces are in State ownership, with the Mt. Riga Furnace adequatel y protected by a private foundation. Immediate protective action is recommended only for the Mine Hill site which is deteriorating rapidly. 2. The Farmington Canal: A Proposal for Selective Restoration Popularly known as the Farmington Canal, the New Haven and Northampton Canal was intended by its developers to provide New Haven with the opportunity to compete with Hartford for the trade of the upper Connecticut Valley. Completed in 1836, the Canal was cursed with a number of structural, climatic, and financial problems and never realized its potential. Although the opening 170 of the New Haven-Plainville Railroad in 1848 finally caused its demise, the Farmington Canal is still significant as Connecticut's prime example of a transportation mode popular in the early nineteenth century, America's canal-building era. As canals elsewhere frequently have served as the focus of preservation and restoration efforts, an analysis was undertaken to determine the feasi- bility of such a project along the Farmington Canal. Unfortunately, time and man's subsequent activities have taken a very serious toll and it was deemed unfeasible to contemplate its complete restoration. Nevertheless, certain stretches do retain a substantial degree of structural survival and merit consideration either for preservation in their current, basically dry character, or for possible restoration as a waterway for canoers. In addi- tion to a short stretch of water-filled canal restored by the Town of Plain- vilTe in its Norton Park, key segments meriting action include a two and a half mile dry stretch in Avon and Farmington and an eight mile stretch from the State Reformatory in Cheshire to the Mt. Carmel section of Hamden. It should be feasible to restore much of the locks and water at these two areas. 3. Eastern Connecticut's Textile Heritage - With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, many water-driven mills were developed along the rivers and brooks of New England. One of the most regionally significant developments of this era was the concentration of textile mills along the Quinebaug River and its tributaries in Eastern Connecticut. In this pro- cess, the upland agricultural character of many Yankee towns became replaced by a more urban, industrial visage, a change emphasized by a substantial inflow of immigrants to man the mills. 171 Most of the textile industry has long since moved South, leaving be- hind, as elsewhere, a legacy of continuing economic depression and result- ing social hardship. Many attractive and significant relics of this era remain, however, as seen in the handsome stone and brick mills and.a num- ber of planned mill-housing complexes. These structures can play an impor- tant role in the renewal of these communities. In addition to many note- worthy examples of mills as yet surviving, the following complexes deserve attention: the "Quebec Village" section of Brooklyn and the mill and village complexes of Taftville (Norwich), Wauregan (Plainfield), and Baltic (Sprague). Suggested actions may include designation as landmarks or historic districts, renewal and/or rehabilitation where needed, adoptive reuse, and possibly development of an interpretive textile museum. 4. Connecticut's Marine Heritage Landscape - With many recent expres- sions of governmental concern over Long Island Sound and its shoreline, a cultural heritage survey to determine remaining concentrations of traditional maritime landscape features seemed timely. The findings of this analysis were9 that, despite the increasingly urban character of the Connecticut coast, the segment east of the mouth of the Connecticut River along with the lower Connecticut River Valley and the Thames Estuary still do possess a substantial degree of native landscape charm and cultural interest. In this part of the Connecticut coast, the combination of historic sites and villages, parks and preserves, tidal marshes, and busy harbor scenes main- tains the sense of this region's marine heritage. Taken together, this coastal region is of concern to the conservationist, the historical preserva- tionist, and the proponent of tourism alike. Therefore, development of a strategy for maintaining this valuable re- source is recommended. One possible model is that already in force along 172 the lower Connecticut River where an eight town compact regulates the use of land in the Gateway Zone. Another is the suggested Mystic River Conser- vation Zone proposed by DEP in 1976, also necessitating inter-town management of this culturally significant estuarine area whereby the multiple uses of the Mystic River may be resolved to maintain the beauty and economic viability of this resource. 5. Connecticut's Alluvial Valley Heritage - The last of the Bicenten- nial Monographs analyzed the floodplain-oriented cultural landscape of cen- tral Connecticut which served as the heart of the Connecticut Colony. In- terestingly, despite its location in metropolitan Hartford, much of this earlier landscape has survived along the Connecticut River floodplain and adjoining uplands in the Windsors, Wethersfield and its daughter towns of Glastonbury and Rocky Hill, and in Cromwell and Portland. Similarly, the mid-Farmington Valley from Farmington to Granby has also retained much of its native character. This rich agricultural sweep of the floodplains or meadows is bordered by the many historic villages and sites on the adjacent terraces, together illustrating an historic development pattern. Action similar to that proposed for the coastal heritage zone is also needed in this area. Although intertown agreements to define and regulate a given landscape zone are possible, much can be done informally at the municipal level. Necessary actions include planning and zoning decisions, regulation of floodplains, establishment of historic districts, control of earth removal operations, selective acquisition of land for open space, and encouragement of continued farm operations. Therefore, the immediate need is to promote such enlightened action on the part of the towns concerned. 173 NATURAL AREA HERITAGE Another important category of environmental heritage is that comprised of areas and sites of scientific, educational, or scenic value often called "natural areas." Examples of such tracts would include rare or unique floral and faunal communities and significant geologic sites. Increasingly, various states as well as the Federal Government have become concerned over their preservation.and proper management and have joined with private conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy to identify and to protect them. An early step in Conn ecticut was the establishment in 1967 under Chapter 23-5c of the General Statutes the Natural Areas Preserves System within the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources and its successor, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Although the deliberations of the Advisory Committee mandated by this legislative action to date have resulted in the designation of only five natural areas on State lands, the basis for future joint action by the public and private sectors is established. The type, diversity, and number of natural areas depends upon the nature of the underlying landbase and the climate. An essential step in categoriz- ing such tracts is to identify the basic land and vegetational zones experi- enced in the state. A major step in this direction came with the development of a system of ecoregions as seen in Figure VI-2. The pattern of ecoregions is a simple one, consisting basically of five northeast-southwest zones parallelling the shore of Long Island Sound. Dif- ferences between these macro-zones simply represent the changing landforms and vegetation communities encountered as one moves from the northwestern uplands with their prevailing woodland cover of sugar maple-beech-yellow birch-white pine-hemlock toward the coastal lowlands with an oak-hickory- 174 hemlock forest. The one major exception to this pattern of parallel zones is seen in western Connecticut where a north-south trending vein of lime- stone forms the so-called "Marble Valley" with its unique plant communities utilizing the available calcareous habitats. The next step is to define "critical habitats," or those specific site types which are of limited extent and/or which are threatened by development pressures. Dowhan and Craig Ifound that the following habitats merited a "critical" rating in Connecticut: 1. Bird-breeding islands in Long Island Sound, significant in pro- viding protected habitat for some of the few breeding colonies or rookeries of coastal birds in Connecticut. 2. Coastal sand beaches and dunes, providing important breeding habitat for coastal birds and habitat for fall migrants and winter resident birds. The few remaining relatively undisturbed examples of beach and dune in Con- necticut also contain a number of rare plant species. 3. Black spruce bogs, an extremely rare wetland type containing many tree and other plant species of northern or boreal type. 4. High summits, high windswept areas found in scattered locations over 1,500 feet in elevation in northwestern Connecticut. These sites pro- vide the only Connecticut habitat for certain northern or boreal species. 5. Trap-rock ridges, found within the Central lowland of Connecti- cut where they form a dominant landscape feature and also support many rel- atively rare species of flora and fauna. I Dowhan, O.J., and Craig, R.J., Rare and Endangered Species of Connecticut and Their Habitats, Stateof Connecticut, Dept. of Environmental Protection, 1976. pp. 15-24. 175 (Mass.) - hf-B 1/6 I-A (R. I.) iii-a ][V-C Long.Island Sound FIGURE V_T-2 ECOREGIONS OF CONNECTICUTa ,I. Northwest Highlands-Northern Hardwoods zone A. Northwest Highlands ecoregion II. Northern Uplands-Transitional Hardwoods zone A. Northwest Uplands ecoregion B. Northeast Uplands ecoregion C.. Northern Marble Valley III. Northern Hills-Central Hardwoods-White Pine zone .A. Northwest Hills ecoregion B. North-Central Lowlands ecoregion C. Northeast Hills ecoregion D. Central Marble Valley IV. Southern Hills-Central Hardwoods zone A. Southwest Hills ecoregion B. South-Central Lowlands ecoregion C. Southeast Hills ecoregion D. Southern Marble Valley V. Coastal Hardwoods zone A. Western Coastal ecoregion B. Eastern Coastal ecoregion aDowhan, J.J., and Craig, R.J., Rare and Endangered Species of Connecticut and Their Habitats, State of Connecticut, Dept. of Environmental Protection, 1976. 176 6. Floodplain forests, largely destroyed in the process of land clear- ance for agriculture. These fertile areas support a great diversity of plant and animal species, especially songbirds. 7. Old-growth forests, remnants of the original rich forest cover of the state. Unfortunately, no examples of this virgin or semi-virgin wood- land are known to exist. 8. Grasslands, or those relatively rare areas of natural grassland and open meadow supporting.a characteristic biota. 9. Calcareous habitats, whose limestone-based soils support certain rare plant and animal species including ferns, cave faunas, and certain rare aquatic and wetland species. Because of their general fertility and resultant use for agriculture, there is a paucity of all types of natural calcareous habitat. 10. Coastal salt marshes and mud flats, whose limited extent is eco- logically significant in providing the sole Connecticut habitat for many species of plants and animals and in being among the most productive eco- systems in the world. 11. Sand plains, supporting a desert-like scrub forest vegetation unique in Connecticut. Development and other human impacts have taken a heavy toll of this site type. A major step to identify specific sites came with the New England Natural Areas Project coordinated by the New England Natural Resources Center and with the Connecticut Forest and Park Association serving as the local agent. During the 1971-1974 period, this study produced a computerized listing of more than 400 sites representing categories of geologic, biological, and soil type significance. Of these 400 sites, approximately 40 percent are 177 owned by various levels of government, private conservation organizations, and educational establishments. Another 12 percent are at least partially protected by these categories of ownership. The remaining 48 percent are controlled by private individuals and corporations and therefore receive no official protection. Furthermore, although at least half of these*natural areas are at least partially in public, educational, or non-profit corporate ownership, most have not been dedicated as natural areas and therefore cannot be considered to be fully protected. Although the natural area inventory, now in the custody of DEP, was a major accomplishment, it must be recognized as representing only the initial stage in a program to protect these natural areas. What is now required is a refinement and an updating of this inventory and a determination of action priorities, a task which should be undertaken by DEP in concert with private conservation organizations. The continuation of the Natural Areas Preserves Advisory Committee after January 1, 1979 is advisable to help carry out this function. Consideration should be given to the means for most effectively implementing this program. In addition, the National Heritage Program proposed by the U.S. Heri- tage-Conservation and Recreation Service may well provide the needed impetus in terms of administrative priority and funding to make an action program a reality. Nevertheless, considerable urgency is necessary because many of the currently unprotected unique natural areas could be destroyed or adversely affected. CONCLUSION Thanks to its long and rich history and highly varied landscape, Connecticut 178 indeed possesses a rich cultural and natur'al heritage. Furthermore, it is clear that the natural and the man-made components of this heritage are often highly interrelated, as might be expected in a relatively old land- scape where man and land have had considerable time and opportunity to in- fluence each other. Fortunately, the interrelationship of the two produced a generally attractive product, at least until the last 100 to 120 years. A major priority for Connecticut must,now be to protect and in some cases restore traces of this inheritance which give the state much of its recog- nized quality of life. Thus, a major undertaking of Connecticut's continuing SCORP planning program will be to inventory key elements of the state's natural heritage and to establish action priorities for the preservation of these heritage resources for future as well as present generations. Upon the implementa- tion of the U.S. Department of Interior's Heritage Program and as funds become available under this program,,a comprehensive statewide heritage program in Connecticut will be implemented as a complement to the existing SCORP program. Until such funds become available, the preservation of unique natural areas is a high priority in the State's acquisition program utiliz- ing Land and Water Conservation Act funds. Similarly, the Restoration of Historic Assets Program of the Connecticut Department of Commerce and the Hist oric Commission will actively pursue the preservation of the state's historic landmarks and places. C h a p t e r 7 Population Segments Of Special Concern 179 POPULATION SEGMENTS OF SPECIAL CONCERN As with other public social service programs, there has been increasing recognition that the outdoor recreation needs of certain segments of Connecti- cut's population are not adequately met, despite increased efforts made in the past five years to improve the level of recreational services. This problem is one of growing magnitude and increasing significance with respect to outdoor recreation planning in the state. Those segments of the overall population of special concern with regard to limited available outdoor recreational opportunities include the state's urban and city residents, the elderly, the handicapped, and the economically disadvantaged. Resultant limited oudoor recreational participation is due primarily to differences and restrictions in such determinants as access, disposable income, and physical mobili ty. METHODOLOGY To identify and assess the outdoor recreational needs of the state's urban population, elderly, handicapped, and economically disadvantaged, a variety of information and data sources were utilized. A combination of mail survey and personal interviews were used to document specific needs as well as to gain an overall perspective. Constructive comments and recommendations in these areas of concern received during public informational meetings were also incorporated. The outdoor recreational needs of Connecticut's central city residents were investigated by mail survey and by detailed personal interviews with parks and recreation administrators in 12 of the state's major cities. Cities included in this analysis were Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, Meriden, 180 Middletown, New Britain, New London, New Haven, Norwalk, Norwich, Stamford, and Waterbury. All are Connecticut's older cities.. In addition, Danbury is one of the state's most rapidly growing -cities. Response to,the Municipal Needs and Preferences Survey of the state's 1 69 municipalities were received from seven of these cities and incorporated into this analysis.- Danbury, Hartford, Meriden, Middletown, New Haven, Norwalk,*and Waterbury responded to this mail survey. The mail questionnaire (Appendix E) included questions regarding the cities' outdoor recreation programs, their adequacies and inade- quacies, present use of facilities, priority outdoor recreational needs, and problems pre sently confronting the city in providing outdoor recreatio n. Input on the needs of the elderly with specific regard to outdoor recre- ation was solicited by personal interviews of public and private service and advocate organizations. Representatives from the following agencies and organizations were included in this sample: the State of Connecticut Depart- ment on Aging, Human Resources Services, Inc., the Connecticut Council of Senior Citizens, and CALENDAR House Senior Citizen Center. Active programs were the criteria for selection into the interview sample. To gain insight into the outdoor'recreational needs of the state's'handi- capped, four advocate and service organi2ations we're pers onally interviewed. These include the State Board of Education, Services for the Blind, the Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Connecticut, the Connecticut Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf, and the Connecticut Association of Retarded Citizens. These organizations were selected due to their statewide representation and their active service and advocacy programs for the physi- cally and mentally handicapped. A similar procedure was followed a*s above to identify the outdoor recre- 181 ational needs of the economically disadv antaged. Two private organizations were interviewed in this regard, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Poor People's Federation. These interviews also provided insights into the needs of inner city residents and raci.al minorities. NEEDS OF URBAN AREAS The outdoor recreational needs of Connecticut's cities have historically been underserved. The limited recreational opportunities available to the urban segment of the state's population must be expanded in quantity and increased in quality.' As-of 1976, approximately one-third of Connecticut's total population lived in 12 of the major cities (Table VII-1). The basis of these limited recreational opportunities is due, in part, to a shortage of urban open space for outdoor recreation in some urban areas, but primarily to the economic and social problems Connecticut's cities share with the nation's other cities. The majority of Connecticut's cities appear to have'adequate park and recreational lands (Table VII-2) based on a suggested national outdoor recreation space standard of 10 acres per 1,000 population for urban areas.1 In those cities somewhat lacking in recreational lands, additional open space lands of significant quantities suitable for outdoor recreation often do not,exist and, therefore, the required land resource is not available to increase outdoor recreational opportunities. It is for these reasons that the state's cities must rely primarily on those facilities that currently exist to meet their immediate as well as short-term future recre- ational needs. INational Recreation and Park Association. Outdoor Recreation Space Standards. Washington, D.C. 1965. 182 From study of outdoor recreati onal services in 12 of Connecticut's major cities, a number of problem areas have emerged. The common element, and the basis of many related problems, is the limited financial capabilities of cities to provide adequate quality outdoor recreational opportunities to their resi- dents. The financing of urban recreation is, at present, the crux of the out- door recreational needs facing Connecticut's cities. Related components of this complex economic problem include the collapse of school-sponsored recreation in many cities, increasingly poor urban populations, aging existing facilities, municipal fiscal crises, budget cuts, inflation of labor and material costs, and vandalism. Traditionally, municipal parks and recreational programs were supported pre- dominantly by local appropriations. Since 1970, local budget support for out- door recreation has generally declined in most cities in the nation.1 For most major cities in Connecticut, per capita municipal expenditures in current dollars for parks and recreation have not changed significantly from fiscal year 1971-72 to 1976-77 (Table VII-3). Notable exceptions are the cities of Hartford and Danbury where per capita expenditures have decreased since 1971. What increases did occur over this six year period were generally small-and failed to keep pace with inflation. The implicit price deflator for govern- ment services as published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business indicates that local government costs rose from 1972 (index = 100) to mid-1977 (index = 146.2) by 46.2 percent. Therefore, real recreation expendi- tures decreased from their 1971-72 levels (Table VII-4). Parks and recreation INational Parks and Recreation Association. Parks and Recreation August 1971,.p. 20. 183 TABLE VII-I TWELVE MAJOR URBAN'CITIES AND THEIR POPULATIONSa ESTIMATED 1976 CITY POPULATION Bridgeport 148,000 Hartford 147,000 New Haven 131,000 Waterbury 112,000 Stamford 107,000 Norwalk 80,300 New Britain 80,100 Danbury 57,700 Meriden 56,200 Norwich 44,500 Middletown 36,500 New London 30,700 TOTAL 1,031,000 State 3,161,410 aDepartment of Health, State of Connecticut. Estimated Populations in Connecticut as of July 1, 1977. Mimeograph. 184 TABLE VII-2 TOTAL ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED OUTDOOR RECREATION LANDS WITHIN CITY LIMITSa City Total Acreage Acres/1000 Populationb Meriden 2,208 39 Danbury 1,201 21 New Haven 2,239 17 Norwich 632 14 New Britain 901 11 Stamford 877 11 Norwalk 800 10 Bridgeport 1,365 9 Hartford 1,279 9 Waterbury 906 8 Middletown 268 7 New London 186 6 Total 18,640 aIn cludes developed and undeveloped lands. Does not include public school sites. Base year 1978. bBased on 1977 population estimates. 185 budgets are, on the basis of real dollars, generally considered severely limit- by their administrators. Local budget support of recreation also decreased relative to general municipal expenditures (Table VII-5). As a result, in recent years, Connecticut's cities have increasingly had to search for other than local sources of funding, including state and federal. The most immediate and highest priority needs delineated by the parks and recreation departments of Connecticut's cities are adequate funds to cover operations and maintenance costs, and funds for development of recreational facilities. Proper maintenance, rehabilitation, and the development of exist- ing facilities and-recreational land are the-most viable means@of increasing outdoor recreational opportunities in the state's cities in the short-term. The ability of cities to maintain and operate their existing recreational facilities has decreased significantly. A number of Connecticut cities have had to lay off large portions of their maintenance force due to budget problems. For example, the City of Hartford's Parks and Recreation Department has lost, in the past fou r years, 25 percent of its maintenance force, while the City of Waterbury's park and recreation maintenance and operations personnel has been reduced by 22 percent since 1970. In addition, vandalism and litter contriw- bute significantly to the increasing expense of park and facility maintenance. Maintenance of recreational facilities in some Connecticut cities is already heavily dependent on manpower funded thr ough the U.S. Department of Labor's Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). All-the parks and recre- tion programs in the 12 cities studied currently utilize CEfA personnel for operati ons and maintenance. CETA personnel make up from 10 to 51 percent of the overall parks and recreation manpower in these cities. The fear of city parks and recreation administrators. is what will happen when the CETA pro- TABLE VII-3 PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FOR TWELVE CONNECTICUT CITIES 1971-1977a (Dollars) FISCAL YEAR City 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Norwich 2.5 6.6 2.6 5.0 5.0 4.7 New London 6.6 6.9 7.0 6.7 6.2 6.6 New Britain 8.3 6.5 6.4 8.1 7.5 7.2 Middletown 9.0 5.0 4.8 4.7 10.2 10.3 Meriden 6.9 6.5 7.4 9.0 7.4 NAb Norwalk 7.8 8.0 8.5 8.0 9.0 9.6 00 Waterbury NA NA NA NA 11.0 10.9 New Haven 11.0 11.6 12.2 12.2 10.8 11.6 Bridgeport 11.4 11.6 12.7 13.4 11.9 13.1 Stamford 10.4 12.2 15.1 12.9 12.5 12.0 Hartford 16.6 18.3 18.3 20.0 11.8 16.6 Danbury 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.5 aCompiled from Annual Municipal Audit Reports, State of Connecticut Tax Department, Municipal Division. bNA denotes data not available. 187 TABLE VII-4 REAL PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FOR TWELVE CONNECTICUT CITIES Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 1971-72 1976-77 city Index 100 Index 146.2. Norwich $ 2.5 $ 3.2 New London 6.6 4.5 New Britain 8.3 4.9 Middletown 9.0 7.0 Meriden 6.9 NAl Norwalk 7.8 6.6 Waterbury NA 7.5 New Haven 11.0 7.9 Bridgeport 11.4 9.0 Stamford 10.4 8.2 Hartford 16.6 11.4 Danbury 6.0 3.8 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1NA denotes data not available. TABLE VII-5 PARKS AND RECREATION EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF GENERAL EXPENDITURES FOR TWELVE CONNECTICUT CITIES, 1971-1977a Fiscal Year City 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Danbury 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% Middletown 2.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.0 1.9 New Britain 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.6 Bridgeport 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2 Hartford 2.6 2.5 4.1 2.3 1.5 2.0 Meriden 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.5 NAb New Haven 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 00 co New London 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 Norwalk 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.8 Stamford 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.6 Waterbury NA NA NA NA 2.2 2.2 Norwich 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.2 aCompiled from Annual Audit Reports, State of Connecticut Tax Department, Municipal Division. bNA denotes data not available. 189 gram ends. Federal funds from the Land and Water Conservation Act (LWCA) are not applicable to operations and maintenance costs. Outdoor recreational opportunities in Connecticut's cities have over*the years been restricted by the pressing need for development and rehabilitation funds. Most cities have open space and park lands with recreational potential in an underdeveloped state, and/or aging physical facilities in need of rehabilitation. These problems are particularly pressing in the olde r.and inner city neighborhoods where recreational opportunities tend to be the most deficient. As of J anuary I , 1978, 2.25 million dollars, 16 percent of the total LWCA funds received since 1965, have been designated for municipal development projects. State enabling legislation originally limited LWCA moneys to land acquisition. No funds were available for development until 197-2 when 10 percent of the State's apportionment was allocated for municipal development projects by the Connecticut General Assembly. In,1974 an addi- tional five percent was authorized, and, in 1977, Public Act 77-548 mandated 25 percent with five percent left to the discretion of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection for development. While these moneys will do much to help alleviate the problem, they will not be adequate to meet all of the needs of our cities to develop facilities and rehabilitate existing facilities. A number of other problems also face Connecticut's c ities in providing outdoor recreation. The public school facilities in many cities which pro- vided the primary or only neighborhood facility for recreation are inaccess- ible after school hours and on weekends. This is often due to the high cost of custodians and utilities, or due to a breakdown in cooperation between the city's board of education and parks and recreation department. This-situ- ation only aggrevates the neighborhood recreational defic iencies in cities. 190 A second problem is that the lack of funds for recreational programs has been a constraint to a number of cities. Another major concern deals with the urban watercourses. Although much progress has been made in improving the water quality of the state's rivers, pollution of urban waterways is a major problem, as is the lack of sufficient public access to urban waterways. Examples of such urban waterways include the Connecticut River in Hartford, the Yantic River in Norwich, the Willimantic River in Willimantic, and the Naugatuck River in Waterbury. Specific outdoor recreational activities requiring additional facilities due to heavy use of present facilities do not differ significantly between Connecticut's cities and towns. Additional tennis courts, ballfields,.and swimming capacity are generally needed. Most city parks and recreation depart- ments would like to initiate other recreational activities and programs to avoid perpetuating present voids and unmet needs as well as to provide a variety of recreational opportunities. It should be remembered that recre- ational participation by individuals is, in part, a function of what facilities are available. Such "new" activities would include cultural events, passive outdoor recreational activities, and activities previously restricted in their association to specific socio-economic groups. The City of New Haven, for example, has found when tennis facilities were placed in a predominantly low income black neighborhood, use reached capacity despite the fact that tennis has historically been associated with white middle class communities. In planning such new activities, community input is essential. Certain user considerations combine with shortages of urban open space and the financial difficulties of cities to restrict the outdoor recreational opportunities available to many city residents. Poor access and limited 191 discretionary income-are especially restrictive to outdoor recreational participation. With limited neighborhoo d recreational opportunities, public mass transportation for non-work purposes (generally inadequate or nonexistent) and the distance between state recreation areas and centers of population, access is most limiting to those who do not own an automobile. Connecticut residents without automobiles have been found to participate in outdoor recreational activities less than half as often as persons with automobiles. Ownership of automobiles is slightly less prevalent in cities than the state overall (Appendix G). For'the 12 Connecticut cities studied, registered passenger vehicle ownership in 1976 averaged 0.43 vehicles per person while the statewide per capita ratio was 0.49. Automobile ownership and operation is greatly determined by income and therefore beyond the limited economic means of the poor and the many elderly on fixed incomes. The least mobile of all are those people who, in addition to not owning an automobile, have difficulty fully utilizing public mass transit. This group of people would primarily include the elderly, handicapped, and economically disadvantaged. The State's park facilities are resource-oriented, are not located in immediate proximity to urban areas, and are not served by regular public mass transit. Connecticut's State Parks are not generally accessible to most urban residents without automobiles. The alleviation of some of the deficiencies of outdoor recreational opportunities in urban areas and cities should be approached by increasing user access and capturing the full potential of existing facilities. A num- ber of possibilities could be employed. Increasing mass transportation access to city and state facilities should be considered. Intra-city bus routes should include parks and other lTri State Regional Planning Commission. Unpublished data on summer recreation use patterns. September 1976. See Appendix G. 192 recreational facilities. Servicing State parks in relative close proximity to urban areas with mass transit should be investigated. Existing State parks at which this may be a possibility would include Osbornedale, Indian Wells, West Rock, Hammonasset, and Wadsworth Falls. If State parks are not available to city youth, as is generally the case, then to a certain extent, city youth can be brought to the parks as part of the Summer Recreation Transport Program administered by the Connecticut Depart- ment of Social Services. This program is funded by federal moneys provided by the Federal Reimbursement Program for Social Services (Title XX). During the summer of 1977, nearly 17,OOG youths from 10 cities were provided 35,000 recreation days by busing to 22 state parks and recreation areas to which they would not normally have access. For this 1978 summer season, available funds have been tripled and will be made available to 31 cities and towns. Selection of eligible municipalities is based on need measured by the size of local welfare assistance roles. At this time, however, the use of Title XX moneys to fund the Summer Recreation Transport Program is presently being reviewed in a comprehensive manner by Connecticut's Office of Policy and Management's Division of Manage- ment and Evaluation. An attempt should be made to utilize the full recreational potential of facilities presently existing in Connectic ut's cities. Facilities at public schools can be made available as neighborhood recreational facilities through the cooperation of city agencies. Development moneys are needed to develop additional facilities and to rehabilitate obsol ete facilities. The 30 per- cent maximum development share of the State's Land and Water Conservation Act 193 apportionment established by statute should be reassessed in terms of its adequacy. Most major Connecticut cities suffer from a lack of operations and maintenance funds. At present the burden of these costs are a local responsibility. The use of Land and Water Conser'vation'Act funds is not recommended for this purpose as it could result in expending the entire apportionment for the State, curtailing open space acquisition and development activities. Future needs of the state should not be entirely foresaken for those in the short-term. Future new state facilities should be located in close proximity to urban population centers with access by mass transit where feasible and where a suitable resource base exists. Such facilities would be more accessible to those people without cars as well as meet the future needs of the overall urban population increasingly restricted in automobile travel by fi nite energy resources and the cost of such personal transportation. As a final note, it should be recognized that the state's central city population includes those portions of the population which, due to income, access, or physical limitations, are severely restricted with regard to recre- ational opportunities. Such population segments incl-ude the elderly, the handi- capped, and.the economically disadvantaged. Meeting the recreational needs of our cities would significantly increase the opportunities to those groups in our population Which are of increasing concern as well as the major proportion of the state's general citizenry.' THE ELDERLY The elderly represent a very significant portion of our population. According to the 19 70 U.S. Census, persons 65 years of age or older in 194 Connecticut numbered 288,900 or approximately 9.5 percent of the state's-total population. In addition, the elderly are the most rapidly growing population group nationally and in Connecticut (Table VII-6). As of 1975, estimates show the elderly now representing about 11 percent of the state'-s overall population. This percentage is expected to increase to over 14 percent by. 1985. TABLE VII-6 THE PROPORTION OF THE CONNECTICUT POPULATION 65 YEARS OR OLDER, 1960-1985 Percent of Total Year Number State Population 1960a 242,615 9.6 1970a 288,908 9.5 1975b 342,300 10.9, 1980b 405,800 12.6 1985b 476,600 14.3 aU.S. Census estimates. bDepartment of Planning.and Energy Policy, State of Connecticut. Connecticut Population Projections by Age and Sex 1975-2000. September 1975. Age has been w ell documented as a primary determinant of outdoor recre- ation demand and participation. The elderly generally have a large recreation demand due to their great amount of leisure time, but their rate of partici- pation is significantly lower than younger age groups for most outdoor activities. The elderly basically have the same open space and many of the same outdoor recreational facility needs as the younger segment of the popula- 195 tion. Most elderly persons perfer the more passive forms of outdoor recreation, part icularly near sites of activity that can be observed. Such areas should include seating facilities as part of city parks and commons, athletic fields, pedestrian malls, beaches, and downtown areas. As well as being spectators, the elderly,like to be entertained. This can be an important consideration to a successful program or facility. However, the elderly also can, and do, participate in many forms of active recreation as well as passive recreation. Activities of interest to the elderly include lawn bowling, bocci, horseshoes, golf, walking, fishing and swimming. In Connecticut, the elderly depend primarily on the 120 local senior citi- zen programs and centers. Organized recreation programs, facilities, and bus trips are regularly attended and often are utilized to draw people for human services programs. A large portion of the state's elderly population is, how- ever, not served by such programs or by municipal recreation programs. The outdoor recreational opportunities presently available to the elderly in Connecticut are limited. Their participation in outdoor recreation is fre- quently severely restricted not only by health problems but by a fixed, low income and by access constraints. Low discretionary income restricts the majority of persons over 65 from participating in activities requiring expen- sive capital expenditures or investments, such as boating or travelling. More important is the contribution of financial problems to limiting the mobility of elderly persons. Automobile non-ownership, the automobile orientation of most state and many municipal outdoor recreation areas, and inadequacies in public mass transit for non-work travel combine to make inaccessiblity a pri- mary barrier to the outdoor recreational opportunities available to the elderly. In addition, many elderly residents of cities do not take advantage of what outdoor recreational facilities are available due to a lack of security and fear of personal harm. 196 THE HANDICAPPED The handicapped in Connecticut have, until recently, been an unrecognized minority. Handicapped persons have often been subjected to a variety of forms of discrimination with regard to their opportunities for employment, education, and community services. As declared by the 1977 Connecticut State Legislature, "the State of Connecticut has a special responsibility for the care, treatment, education, rehabilitation of, and advocacy for its handicapped citizens."l As defined by the U.S. Congress, a person that is handicapped is "any person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of that person's major life activities."2 Handicapping conditions, as determined by the U.S. Attorney General, include alcoholism ' cance r, cerebral palsey, deafness, diabetes, drug addiction, epilepsy, heart disease, mental illness, mental retardation, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, orthopedic impair- ments, speech or sight impairments, and perceptual impairments. A major difficulty in determining the outdoor recreational needs of the handicapped is the lack of statewide census data on the physically and mentally impaired. However, in the absen ce of such a census, U.S. Depart ment of Health, Education, and Welfare standards can be used as an estimate for the number of handicapped in Connecticut (Appendix G). Utilizing these standards, the handi- capped approximate 12 percent of the state's overall population.3 The handicapped have the same basic open space and recreational require- ments, and receive the same psychological benefits as the rest of the popula- tion. However, most physical and mental impairments, at present, seriously IState of Connecticut, Public Act No. 77-589, An Act Concerning a Protec- tion and Advocacy System for the Handicapped, July 1, 1977. 2U.S. Dept. of Health, Educatio n and Welfare. "Nondiscrimination On Basis of Handicap," Federal Register. Sec. 84.3, May 4, 1977. Does not include alcoholism or drug addiction. 197 constrain the outdoor recreational opportunities of the handicapped as a result of access restrictions to recreational facilities or programs. There are two phases to this access problem. First, many handicapped may have no means of transportation to the facility due to their impairment. Secondly, the-handi- capped, especially those with physical impairments, have special outdoor recreational-facility needs. Recreational facilities, as with most other facilities, were designed prior to 1968 without use by the handicapped in mind and therefore have architectural barriers to unaided use by handicapped persons. Such architectur.al barriers prevent persons with physical impair- ments from.using most existing recreational sites and their support facilities such as sanitary facilities. The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-480) and Sect ion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112) clearly define the access rights of the handicapped. The Rehabilitation Act provides that "no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be exclud ed from the participation in.... any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Under these laws the access- ibility to such community services as outdoor recreation by handicapped persons -is insured. All new recreational facilities receiving federal funds must be designed and constructed barrier-free and accessible to the handicapped. Existing fac.ilities requiring structural changes will also need to be made accessible. The U.Si Department of the Interior (DOI) has not yet promulgated regulations- under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applicable to all recipients of DOI funds or specified when such structural changes must be completed. Such 198 regulations are currently in draft form-1 Within six months of the effective date of these Section 504 regulations, a transition plan must be completed, identifying physical obstacles at existing facilities and the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible. Structural changes to exist- ing facilities will need to be completed within three years of passage of the draft regulations. All state and municipal outdoor recreational facilities and programs which received financial assistance from the Land and Water Con- servation Act, Dingell/Johnson funds, or Pittman/Robinson funds must meet these regulatory requirements. Recipients of other federal moneys including Community Block Grants and Department of Housing and Urban Development's for- mer Open Space and Beautification funds will, in the near future, be required to comply with similar regulations. In addition to the accessibility needs of the handicapped, under some circumstances, and for certain activities, there is a need for outdoor recre- ational facilities and programs separate and specifically for the use of the severely handicapped. Although the major emphasis should be to integrate the handicapped into outdoor recreational facilities and programs for the general public, separation is sometimes necessary. Such cases would include programs where very specialized supervision or facility modifications are required, for example, a swimming program for ampUtees or basketball for the blind. Camp Harkness, operated by the State of Connecticut's Department of Mental Retardation is such a facility. It currently serves mentally retarded, blind, and persons impaired by cerebral palsy. The camp, however, is only useable during the warmer months of the year and therefore has a limited serving capa- city. The services of Camp Harkness and similar specialized municipal pro- lAttorney Advisor, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Personal Communication, May 25, 1978. 199 grams are much needed as a complement to integrating the handicapped into other general recreational programs and facilities. Many private organizations provide specialized recreational facilities for the handicapped. In Connecticut, the-Hemlocks Outdoor Education Center is a noteworthy example. Owned and operated by the Connecticut Easter Seal Society, the Hemlocks Outdoor Education Center is for the use of all handi- capped statewide. Its facilities include a specially adapted indoor pool, a 20 acre lake, year-round and seasonal housing, accessible paths, boating, crafts and educational programs. Like other such private facilities, it is supported by private donations from the citizens of Connecticut. To begin to meet the outdoor recreational needs of the handicapped citizens of Connecticut, as well as to meet the requirements of the federal law, will require a major effort in a number of directions on the part of the State and its municipalities. Foremost, existing architectural barriers must be eliminated. State and municipal outdoor recreational facilities need to be inspected and inventoried for existing architectural barriers. Means by which the programs or activities of that facility can be made accessible should be investigated. Where necessary, structural modifications must be made pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. Secondly, efforts should be initiated to integrate the handicapped into municipal recreational programs. The town of Branford provides a model program of this type worthy of study by other municipalities. Utilizing town and com- munity organizations, clubs, and volunteers, a wide and varied program for all town residents from toddlers to the handicapped and elderly is provided. As part of the overall program, the more specific access needs of the handicapped 200 are met through such projects as driving classes for the handicapped and Pro- ject Sunshine. Furthermore, the need for specialized outdoor recreational programs for the severely handicapped should be investigated by the municipalities. Camp Harkness should be developed for greater utilization and to service people with a variety of physical and mental handicaps. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Although Connecticut is a relatively affluent state, a sizeable portion of the state's population is still disadvantaged economically. According to U.S. Census statistics, 84,262 families (11.0 percent) had incomes in 1969 less than $5,000. The economically disadvantaged in Connecticut include many inner city residents, many of the elderly, and a large number of blacks and persons of Puerto Rican origin. Connecticut's economicall y disadvantaged are, however@, not restricted solely to the inner cities. For example, five to ten percent of all families in the Quinebaug River valley in rural, eastern Connecticut have incomes below the poverty level. Income is a primary factor in determining the degree and form of parti- cipation in outdoor recreation. The outdoor recreational opportunities of the economically disadvantaged are severely restricted by little or no disposable income with which to pay the transportation, equipment, and other costs asso- ciated with outdoor recreation. In addition, income is closely related to car ownership. In light of the lack of public mass transit service to most state parks and many city and town facilities, non-ownership of an automobile-cur- tails access to outdoor recreational facilities. Currently, public and private organizations' busing programs are being utilized as a means to provide access and to somewhat alleviate disparities 201 due to income in outdoor recreational opportunities. As previously mentioned, such a program under the Connecticut Department of Social Services for city youth will be significantly expanded as a partial, short-term measure. Revitalization of parks and recreation programs in the inner city neighbor- hoods would help to rectify the present situation by greatly increasing the accessibility of outdoor recreational opportunities to the economically dis- advantaged. C h a p t e r Goals, Policies and Recommendations. 202 GOALS, POLICIES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR MEETING OUTDOOR RECREATION NEEDS GOALS Major Recreation Development and Conservation Goals: The Department of Environmental Protection is mandated by the General Statutes to protect and enhance the environment by acting on many fronts. There are five general goals for the Department in carrying out its responsibilities for recreation and natural resources. 1. To provide an adequate supply and variety of open space and recre- ational opportunity for the citizens of Connecticut - a. Acquisition and leasing of land for recreational purposes. b. Development and operation of a br oad range of recreational areas. Major guidelines for such action include: (1) variety, (2) adequacy of opportunity, (3) degree of access to the population to be served, and (4) popular demand. C. Management and enhancement of the fish and wildlife resources of the state and regulation of the recreational activities dependent upon these resources. d. Grant-in-aid assistance to municipalities to encourage expansion of local recreational opportunity. e. Administration of the forestland section of P.A. #490 (G.S. 12- 107d and G.S. 12-96) to encourage the preservation of privately- owned open space through property tax relief on designated properties. f. Encourage the use of privately-owned land for recreational use through publicizing Public Act 249, which offers relief from legal 203 liability for injuries suffered on land open to the public wi thout fee. g. Encourage public access to the waters of Long Island Sound and recreational opportunities within the coastal area that are con- sistent with sound resource conservation procedures and constitu- tionally protected rights of private property owners (The Coastal Management Act, P.A. 78-152). 2. To protect and enhance the scenic and cultural character of the state, - Implementation of this goal rests primarily with the Department of Environmental Protection, although the Connecticut Historical Commission will remain the main agent for historic preservation through its promotion of historic districts and inventory of historic structures and sites. Within the Department of Environmental Protection, the primary preservation functions are as follows: a. Acquisition and maintenance of key areas or site types. Chief among these are: (1) scenic and historic areas, (2) unique natural areas of botanical or geological interest, and (3) ecologically key site types such as floodplains and inland and tidal wetlands which may also serve recreational, water resource management, and environmental-health-related fupctions. b. Regulation of floodplains and inland and tidal wetlands which com- bine scenic preservation values with their primary public health and hydrologic functions. C. Promotion of preservation action by local government and by the private sector through coordination and public informational activity 204 with conservation commissions, pri'vate conservation groups, and other concerned organizations. 3. To protect and foster the optimum use of Connecticut's water re- sources - Because water remains a critical factor controlling the number and distribution of people and human activity, its protection and management is a main function for society. Although the State Department of Health retains certain responsibilities relating to the protection of public water supplies, most water-related statutory authority in Connecticut rests with the Department of Environmental Protection. Major functions include: a. Planning for the wise development, allocation, and use of the state's water resources. The Inter-Agency Water Resources Planning Board study, in which the Department of Environmental Protection partici- pates, is part of the State Plan of Conservation and Development. b. Establishment of minimum flow regulations for insuring maintenance of cold water fisheries in waters stocke d by the state. C. Cooperation in water company lands studies to insure protection of critical water supply lands and formulation of surplus lands policies. d. Improvement and preservation of water quality through the state and federal water pollution control programs. 4. To protect and foster the optimum use of Connecticut's marine re- sources Recent years have seen a rapidly growing popular interest in the coastal and offshore resources of Connecticut. Although many of the problems and opportunities of Long Island Sound are comparable to those found on land, the unique character of the marine habitat requires it to be considered 205 separately. Major roles played b y the Department of Environmental Protection include: a. Management of marine fauna to allow a commercial and recreational harvest commensurate with the maintenance of population stocks. b. Regulation and abatement to the maximum extent of pollution and waste disposal in marine waters. C. Regulation of offshore mineral extraction. d. Involvement in the planning and regulation of recreational boat- ing in marine, estuarine and related navigable waters. e. Involvement in the planning and r egulation of the use of marine and related coastal resources and areas. f. Encouragement of local planning and regulation of coastal resources. 5. To protect and foster the optimum use of Connecticut's other natural resources - In addition to major roles in the management of water and marine resources, the Department of Environmental Protection has certain responsi- bilities involving several natural resource-based industries. Among these are: a. To protect and enhance the proper use of Connecticut's forest re- sources. The Department of Environmental Protection is involved in the following efforts: i. Encouraging the maintenance of privately-owned forestland through administration of the forestry section of Public Act #490 (G.S. 12-107d) which insures use value assessment for property taxation of forest properties and G.S. 12-96 which allows certification of forestlands for assessment of property values. 206 ii. Providing the basis for a permanent state forest products industry through its ownership and management of extensive state forest lands. iii. Providing technical forestry assistance to private forest- land owners. iv. Administering and coordinating a statewide forest fire con- trol system. V. Providing assistance in forest insect pest control. vi. Continue multiple use forest management on State lands. b. To assist in preserving Connecticut's agricu ltural base and ensure 'wise use of its mineral resources. The Department of Environmental Protection's main involvement with agriculture is to encourage use of Public Act #490 differential property tax assessments to prevent forced land sales due to taxation. P.A. 78-232 establishes the Department's role in assessing the value of agricultural lands on which development r.ights are to be acquired by the Department of Agriculture. C. Mineral extraction from land and waters of the state is governed by the Department through its water pollution abatement laws and the permit requirements for dredge and fill operations administered by the Water Resources Unit. d. To assist Connecticut's indigenous Indian Tribal Councils in ad- ministering lands held in trust by the State to insure maintenance of the tribes' rights to utilize such lands compatible with their natural resources values. 207 POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE ACQUISITION POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET RECREATION DEF.ICIENCIES The enumerated five goals present planners with a difficult challenge in determining how best to fulfill their responsibilities. The broad nature of these charges is indicative of the need to provide flexibility within a planning document as well as coming to grips with critical resource issues. Connecticut's recreational program must involve a mix of state acquisition and development projects which will serve its citizens. The following guide to action highlights these critical needs. 1. Water Access - Water-based recreation is the most critical recre- ational resource in terms of both demand for activities and the deficiency of supply. Therefore, the State should take the following act ions: a. Identify and acquire through purchase, lease or easements, river and stream corridors of significant scenic and recreational value to protect them from development and to secure for the public some of the return from the major public investment in water pol- lution control. Acquisition should include lands, dams, bottom and flowage rights for access to water bodies. State government (DEP) should identify and define stream corridors worthy of preservation efforts, work cooperatively with local in- terests including municipalities and private conservation organiza- tions to develop proposed management plans, acquire appropriate lands for public access, and encourage actions by municipalities to protect from development such stream corridors and to acquire 208 additional lands for special space and recreational uses. Particular attention should be directed toward acquisition of the Scantic River corridor and expansion of public access to and owner- ship of the Farmington River. Emphasis should also be placed on other cold water rivers and streams with the potential for anadro- mous fisheries management. b. Acquire coastal beach access and sites on inland water bodies offering a potential for swimming opportunity wherever they be- come available. This could be done primarily by DEP, utilizing federal grant-in-aid moneys together with matching dollars author- ized by the legislature. However, wherever municipal acquisition action may be more appropriate it should be encouraged. C. Acquisition and development of water@oriented inland recreational opportunities, especially access to large water bodies which can accommodate swimming and boating. d. To provide fishing an d boating opportunities, the State should continue to pursue its goal to acquire and develop a publically owned boat-launching site on every major water body in Connecticut, in every town along the coast and along navigable streams such as the Connecticut River. This program is in conformance with recommendations of the Coastal Area Management program for the coast4l region. The construction of fishing piers in marine waters can create significant additional water access to meet this segment of recreation demand. e. Provide additional public hunting access through expanded acqui- sition programs of key land types.. Important land types include 209 major inland wetlands, tidal wetlands, floodplains of larger rivers such as the Connecticut and Farmington Rivers, and mixed farm-forest land in the eastern and western uplands, both as desirable wildlife habitat and as a buffer to wetland holdings. Management of farmlands could'significantly increase wildlife popu- lations and habitat. Wildlife habitat improvement as an integral part of state forest management should be increased through addi- tional program fund.ing. f. The State should carefully review all potential water company sur- plus lands and assess their recreational potential. While the amount of acreage which will be declared surplus is un- known at this time, there is likely to be insufficient funds to acquire major portions of these surplus lands for retention solely as open space buffers against development. Therefore, alternative programs should be explored by the State and local governments to control development while retaining the lands with greatest recreational potential. Of particular importance for acquisition consideration are those smaller reservoirs which might be abandoned as water utility com- panies convert to ground water sources. g. Coastal lands accessible to the public are very limited. As recom- mended by the Coastal Area Management program, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Plan of Conservation and Development, and the Conservation and Development Policies Plan Proposed Revision of 1979, increasing access to the shoreline is of the highest priority. Specifi-c acquisitions recommended include offshore islands, tidal 210 wetlands of sufficient size to provide hunting opportunities and which can be managed for shore birds and waterfowl, and rights- of-way to gain access to Long Island Sound and its estuaries. 2. Acquisitions to Serve the-Needs of Urban Areas and Population Centers The State has a special obligation to provide recreational opportunities within a reasonable proximity to population centers. a. The State Conservation and Development Policies Plan Proposed Re- vision of 1979 places emphasis on concentrating development in urban centers, urban conservation areas and urban growth centers and providing the necessary supporting services. The Department's survey of inland state park users established that between 70-90 percent of users lived less than 1/2 hour distance or 20 miles from the site. State acquisitions policy must pay particular attention to this factor when locating or acquiring new facilities. b. Key sites for acquisition are riverbanks and coastal lands in urban areas for recreation and aesthetic purposes and ridges or natural topographic breaks as discussed in detail in the Green*Land docu- ment, especially in urban areas where their usefulness will be greatest. C. Where smaller communities are limited in their ability to acquire suitable recreational lands because of State land ownership, leas- ing parcels of land for recreational use to the communities should be considered when consistent with the State'.s management goals. 3. Land Areas of Special Concern - Certain land areas present unique opportunities to expand outdoor recreation options and maintain.natural 211 qualities for their scientific, educational and resource values. Among the more important targets for acquisition funding are: a. Environmental corridors for trail-oriented activities. In- recent years, the rapid expansion of trail-oriented recreation has greatly increased interest in such environmental corridors or "linear parks" as seen with the Appalachian Trail or the proposed Route Seven Linear Park between the towns of New Milford and Norwalk. Bikeways isolated from automotive traffic are a vastly under-de- veloped recreational resource. The Department of Environmental Protection and the Connecticut Department of Transportation must increase efforts to establish bikeways. Abandoned railroad and trolley rights-of-way and interceptor sewer lines are potential corridors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Water Quality legislation makes provisions for including recre- ation as a complementary land use when sewage treatment plants and interceptor sewers are constructed. Pressures upon the Appalachian Trail and Blue Trails System re- sulting from increased demand, create a special management and acquisition problem. Insofar as possible, cooperative landowner relationships should be maintained and strengthened. However, acquisiti on of key parcels as provided for under S.A. 77-47 should be pursued to provide a continuous, functioning trail system. Trail corridors should be protected such that the natural integrity of the corridor and its recreational use are insured. Hiking, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing trails deserve special 212 attention. Special attention should also be devoted to the loca- tion of snowmobile and trail bike trails to minimize noise and disruption of landowners and other recreation groups. b. Natural areasAncluding critical wildlife habitats. An important aspect of preserving Conne cticut's environmental quality is main- taining diversity of flora and fauna for their scientific, educa- tional and natural values. Sites identified by the State's Natural Areas, Inventory are a focus of considerable attention by both public agencies and private conservation groups. A program of planned acquisition of threatened sites for preservation through conserva- tion easements and other land use control techniques, including special zoning restrictions at the local government level, must continue to be a state priority. Habitats for rare and endangered species or unique@wildlife values, which are not presently included in the natural' areas inventory, should also receive acquisition funding. These habitats include such examples as heron rookeries and bird nesting areas on offshore islands. Areas close to popu- lation centers which may serve as a natural laboratory for educa- tional purposes have a unique role which should receive attention by both the State and local governments when future acquisitions are considered. Miscellaneous properties affecting management capability on public recreational facilities. A growing management problem relates .'to the so-called "inholding" or "nuisancell property. Located within or along the border of a public recreational facil ity, such privately- 213 held tracts prohibit the development and implementation of plans to utilize and control effectively the use of such areas. Thus, attention should be given to acquiring such problem parcels whenever they become available. 4. Recommendations for Land Acquisition Assistance - Because land acquisition presents particular difficulties with respect to the timing of land sales and the availability of funding, special consideration should be given to programs which can assist the Department in carrying out its goals. The following items are recommendations contained within the pro- posed State Conservation and Development Policies Plan Proposed Revision of 1979 and/or Coastal Area Management program and are endorsed by the De- partment of Environmental Protection. a. Establishment of a state first option to purchase areas of high- est coastal water-based recreational potential. b. Establishment of a funding procedure to allow timely exercise of purchase options when appropriate, especially for major water- courses and for shorefront properties following natural disasters. C. Incorporate provisions for public management and resource develop- ment with sale or lease-b4ck for uses compatible with environmental and public resource needs. d. Maximize utilization of private land gifts as a source of State and local matching funds. e. Establish a special project fund to acquire large-scale projects which are beyond the fiscal capacity of the regular state action program and whose preservation may require prompt action by the 214 State. Federal legislation providing acquisition funds for the State on Long Island Sound should be supported. Additional federal assistance for acquisition is especially warranted since there are almost no federal lands within the State of Connecticut avail- able for recreation. f. Provision of State matching funds for shorefront access planning under Section 315(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. g. Continued provision of funds to conduct title searches, land sur- veys, and incidental expenses associated with the State's receiving private land gifts. MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF STATE FACILITIES The Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Conservation and Preservation has the re sponsibility for managing land owned by the State for State parks, forests, wildlife areas, boating and other intensive and extensive recreational activities. Operation and maintenance is a primary factor in supplying recreational services to the public. Trash removal, road maintenance, equipment replacement, sanitary facilities servicing and other costs have increased under the inflationary conditions of the general economy. Increased pressures on state-owned facilities resulting from new population growth and the increasing numbers of young adults who utilize recreational services most actively create additional burdens on the State system to provide staff for supervision and operating functions. Information gathered from the Regional Planning Agencies' meetings on SCORP indicate that the State should devote more attention to the development 215 of existing St ate lands to meet recreation demands. The development of new recreational facilities will require increased funding of the Division of Conservation and Preservation for operating and maintenance. Under exist- ing funding levels, there has been a noted deterioration in the quality of some facilities and insufficient attention devoted to certain lands managed by the Department. While deficiencies are noted in every recreational activity, the SCORP planning process has identified certain development needs which should re- ceive priority attention:. 1. Rehabilitation of State Facilities - In the course of the public informational meetings held with regard to the current update of SCORP, the quality of Connecticut's state parks and recreation areas and their state of disrepair was criticized by municipal officials, members of the general public, and recreation-user groups. Complaints to DEP by users concerning dirty conditions, broken facilities, and generally deteriorating conditions have increased. significantly in the last several years. Deferred and in- adequate maintenance due to a lack of personnel and operation and maintenance funds has resulted in a decrease in the capacity and the quality of many state recreational facilities. As discussed in Chapter VII, the State's existing recreational facilities must be made accessible to the handicapped within three years of promulgation of regulations by,the U.S. Department of the Interior pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Since such regulations are presently in final draft form, this deadline can be expected to fall in 1981 or 1982. To insure.that existing facilities are utilized to their maximum potential while providing a quality recreation experience, and to provide for the 216 accessibility of the handicapped to existing facilities, a major rehabilitation program of Connecticut's park and recreational facilities is required. Priority elements of this program include: a. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabi.litation Act of 1973, and upon completion of an inventory identifying archi- tectural barriers to the handicapped in existing state recreational facilities, structural changes,to make these areas barrier-free need to be initiated immediately. The cost of these structural changes will be substantial. Due to current commitments of limited LWCA funds extending beyond 1982, special moneys will need to be appropriated to meet this need of the handicapped and the require- ments of the federal law. b. On an activity system basis, those areas requiring rehabilitation are the State's campgrounds, bathing areas, picnicking areas, and hiking trails. The physical plants for these activities are often obsolete and/or in need of extensive repairs. Physical facilities in particular need of rehabilitation are the sanitary facilities, picnic tables, fireplaces, and picnic shelters at State camping, swimming, and picnicking areas. Hiking trails, due to a lack of maintenance, are badly eroded and require extensive work if they are to remain in use. C. The cost of rehabilitation of the State's park and recreational areas will be great. Prevention of the need for similar costly programs in the future will require a commitment on the part of the State of Connecticut to maintain a quality State park system. It is recommended such a commitment be made and implemented with 217 adequate operations and maintenance funds. d. Management of State lands for multiple purposes should be supported to increase the ability of the existing State land holdings to meet recreational needs. This objective is also dependent upon additional state commitment to providing additional personnel and operating and maintenance funds. For example, the development of new access roads and game habitat improvement within State land holdings could encourage additional recreational activity. 2. Inland Swimming and Related Facilities - As indicated in Chapter IV, many existing State inland swimming facilities are not able to meet the intensive demands placed on them because of water quality deterioration and lack of available expansion capability. a. State development funds should be devoted to expansion of facilities on water bodies which can accommodate growth to immediately increase capacity. b. State lands bordering large water bodies and new land acquisitions on suitably-sized water bodies should receive development funding on a priority basis. C. In some regions of the state there will continue to be a lack of natural water bodies with conditions suitable for swimming. The Capitol and Central Connecticut Planning Regions, with the largest swimming capacity deficiency, are representative of.the situation where construction of Olympic-size pools in natural settings should be consi.dered. This type of facility can increase the attractive- ness of other inland State recreation areas and meet some urban 218 area needs. d. The Department's study of inland park user pattern indicates the majority of people utilizing inland parks are drawn from an area of 1/2 hour travel di stance or 20 miles. Location of new swimming pools should consider this factor in relation to meeting urban area needs. e. Diversion pools have major operating problems and have water quality difficulties associated with existing inland small water bodies. Therefore, the Department should not invest funds in this type of facility unless a thorough consideration is given to the long- range water quality outlook on the watershed and water supply system. 3. Coastal Swimming Facilities - Connecticut's SCORP documents over the past 15 years have consistently emphasized the-need to expand coastal swimming opportunities. The Rocky Neck, Hammonasset and Sherwood Island State Parks are truely statewide facilities drawing people from all parts of the state as well as out-of-state tourists. a. Because of the attractiveness of Long Island Sound and the limited public ownership of coastal land, the State should concentrate its development funds on expanding and upgrading the recreation potential of its existing coastal swimming beaches. b. Expansion of Rocky Neck State Park made possible by beach enrich- ment from offshore sand deposits will add to the user capacity and improve the beach experience by increasing the square footage of beach area per person. Combined with new sanitary facilities 219 capacity, correction of the Bride Brook channel and additional parking facilities, more than 5,000 additional users can be ac- commodated on peak days. C. The proposed Silver Sands State Park in Milford has an estimated 10,000 user day capacity and represents the major opportunity for the State to provide new coastal recreation. The $16 million anticipated initial cost of the project for landfill covering and contouring of the land and beach area will require special state expenditures and a careful phasing of project costs to avoid allocating all LWCA funds to a single project. Additional funds will be required for park development. d. The Coastal Area Management program recommends that "The feasi- bility of reusing current state owned non-recreational coastal lands for recreation should be determined." The Department should make a thorough evaluation of the potential of all State owned coastal lands to increase recreational usage especially in pro- viding swimming capacity. 4. Boating - The growing participation in boating activities by the public has increased the pressures on the available resources. In order to maximize the potential for supplying services from available funding sources it is recommended that: a. Boat launching areas on major inland water bodies and Long'Island Sound should be funded. b. The Department should develop existing sites acquired for boat launching areas and rehabilitate sites as its first priority in 220 meeting demand. C. Facilities development along major rivers to meet the needs of recreational boating should be initiated. At a minimum, picnic sites, trash barrels and sanitary facilities accessible to river users are prer equisites for proper management of this growing segment of recreational demand. Facilities for overnight canoe trips would provide more variety in the recreational experience and possibly alleviate a growing problem of unauthorized camping on private lands which results in landowner conflicts and post- ing against trespassing. d. Increased boating on river systems has resulted in conflicts be- tween river user groups and landowners. The State should initiate studies on how conflicts might be resolved through management pro- grams, scheduling of major boating events or other approaches. Legislative initiative may be required to enable the Department of Environmental Protection to exercise authority in these areas and to provide the personnel and budget required to undertake these new responsibilities. e. The Department should make considerable effort to build in recre- ational facilities in conjunction with the projects developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The locations of sewage treatment'pl ants and associated interceptor sewers can serve as boat launching sites and fishing access points. 5. Camping - In recognition of the historic division of responsibility between government and the private sector in providing camping services, 221 the Department should develop and manage public camping areas primarily to provide only a basic level of services in a largely natural setting. a. Connecticut State Parks provide very limited numbers of camp sites which customarily are booked several weeks in advance of the season. The Department should undertake to develop new campsites in suitable locations on existing State lands and expand available sites where feasible. b. Primitive campsites along trails for backpackers and others de- siring a semi-wilderness experience are almost non-existent in Connecticut. Such facilities present supervision and maintenance problems which can only be accommodated with additional personnel and equipment. 6. Recreational Pathways a. Non-motorized Whether used for the purpose of improving personal health, nature studies or aesthetic enjoyment, recreational pathways are key resources for expanding public outdoor recreation. Hiking, cross-country skiing and bicycling provide low-cost outdoor recreational experiences within the budgetary mean s of most of the population. i. Bikeways isolated from automotive traffic represent the great- est pathway deficiency identified by the Department's studies. The Departments of Transportation and Environmental Protection should develop one or more bikeways during the next five years. ii. As a general rule, bikeways should be located within metropolitan areas and.take advantage of natural settings wherever possible. iii. The Department-should investigate all opportunities to develop 222 recreational pathways in conjunction with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act program. Easements for interceptor sewer lines could be combined with easements on these properti es for trail recreation. Coordination between the Divisions of Conservation and Preservation and Environmental Quality to develop dual purpose projects on an ongoing basis is advis- able. iv. Non-motorized trail uses can be compatible and pathways should be managed and designed for multiple-use. V. Creation and development of new hiking trails to interconnect with and become part of the existing Blue Trails System with special consideration given to replacing missing links in the existing trail system and to connecting metropolitan areas with regional trail systems is also a need identified by the SCORP planning process and should be a guideline in any acquisitions for trails. b. Motorized The growth of the off-road vehicles industry and utilization of snow- mobiles, trail bikes and all-terrain vehicles by segments of the population have placed new demands on the State for specialized trails. Motorized trail activities are generally conflicting with other trail user groups and require special consideration of soil erosion, noise, wildlife disruption and potential for trespassing on private lands. i. Separation of motorized activities from trails utilized by other groups is advisable. 223 ii. Connecticut's snow cover conditions limit the recreational potential for snowmobiles. The development of longer trail segments of 25 miles or so could increase enjoyment of users during the season. Establishment of linear trail bike pathways of 25 miles or so would contribute to user enjoyment and could disperse rider concentrations, alleviating area disruptions. iv. The establishment of additional motorized vehicle trails must be based upon a thorough evaluation of operation and maintenance problems. 7. Specialized Facilities - The SCORP public hearings have indicated there are deficiencies in meeting the recreational needs of significant groups of outdoor recreation participants. a. The State does not provide an opportunity for organized groups to participate in horseback riding events. A State facility with riding rings and related structures combined with horse trails should be developed. Such a facility could be a significant tourist attraction as well as alleviating deficiencies in recreation supply. b. Recreational firearms shooters and hunters are lacking in suitable public facilities. Firearms safety considerations and recreational demand require the development of at least one major large bore rifle and firearms facility. In addition, several smaller sight- ing in and shotgun practice ranges should be de veloped to meet regional needs. C. The Department, in cooperation with other State agencies and private organizations, should consider additional facilities development 224 for handicapped individuals and methods of improving activities participation. The Connecticut Department of Transportation and the DEP should consider expansion of services which might improve use of State parks by handicapped persons as well as low income persons without access to automobiles. d. Expansion of capacity at existing state parks and development of new state parks should include planning for Summer Recreation Transport Program participation by municipalities as a.means of meeting the needs of economically disadvantaged youth. 8. Historic and Cultural Resources Protect sites, villages, ahd'*-. areas of historic or cultural significance as well as surrounding areas which act as their setting. Examples meriting such preservation action may be listed in the Connecticut Historical Commission's Historic Structures and Landmarks Survey or in other state studies such as DEP's Bicentennial Monograph series as discussed in SCORP in Chapter VI, Connecticut's Natural and Cultural Heritage. Implementation measures will include: (a) acquisition' (sometimes accompanied by resale with appropriate deed restrictions) by DEP or the Historical Commission, municipalities, or private organizations such as the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, (b) promotion of preserva- tion actions such as establishment of historic districts by the Historical Commission and local historic interests, and (c) appropriate land use regula- tion by municipalities to protect historic or cultural sites and their settings. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION FACILITIES 1. Given the present deterioration of State facilities, maintenance 225 and effective operation of existing recreational facilities will require additional financial support from the State. 2. Development of new State facilities is predicated upon provision of sufficient additional funding of the Department. New facilities cannot be accommodated by shifting resources from one recreational program to another. 3. Federal funding from general tax revenues for rehabilitation of State facilities to accommodate handicapped individuals should be sought. 4. The passage of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act establishing additional water purification requirements such as filtration systems may provide the opportunity to utilize water supply reservoirs and associated lands for recreation. The Interagency Water Resources Planning Board should initiate a study of the implications of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and review State policies relating to recreation in water supply areas. 5. The Summer Recreation Transport Program for bringing inner city youths to State parks should continue to be expanded. This program has been particularly valuable in alleviating urban area recreational deficiencies. Consideration should be given to expansion of the program to include museums, nature centers and private facilities open to the public. 6. The construction of boat launching sites and the maintenance of existing launch ramps will require additional funding sources. The use of currently unclaimed marine gas sales tax should be studied as a possible source of funds to augment existing boating funds. 7. Water utility lands, with their great open space significance, must be protected from large-scale development threats. This can be accom- plished through regulation authorized by Public Act 77-606 and through the acquisition of environmentally important lands deemed surplus to water supply 226 production needs. Regulation will be carried out by the State Department of Health, assisted by DEP, with acquisition the responsibility either of DEP or municipalities utilizing funds provided by State or local government legislative and executive actions and any federal grant-in-aid moneys which may be available. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT 1. Program Development - Historically, the State of Connecticut has developed outdoor recreation plans for a five year period. The recent amalga- mation of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and Historic Commission functions into the Heritage Conservation and Recre- ation Service will require increased planning flexibility. In addition, the increased funding of the Land and Water Conservation Act from the sale of offshore oil leases and other revenue sources has increased available annual funds for the State from $1 million in 1968-1969 and $3-4 million in 1973-1977 to $5-7 million anticipated for the next three years. In order to effectively manage the increased funds and respond to new federal programs, it is recommended that the State take the following actions: a. A continuous planning process should be developed within the De- partment of Environmental Protection. b. An annual report should be developed based upon research of recre- ational issues which will give direction to the expenditure of federal and state recreation funds. C. An update of the State's Natural Areas Inventory should receive special attention during the 1978-1979 period. d. In order to assist municipalities in the development of recreation 227 plans, a new position for a municipal recreation planner will be established within the Department of Environmental Protection. This individual shall be available to assist municipalities with technical expertise and special planning programs. e. Inventory and cost estimates of required structural c hanges to existing state rec'reational facilities to provide for the acces- sibility of the handicapped (1978-1979). 2. Development of a Project Priorities System - The research conducted during the past year has identified many deficiencies in the delivery of recreational services and in the acquisition and protection of natural areas. It is highly unlikely that sufficient funds will be available. at the state or local levels to meet all of the identified needs. Therefore, it is in- cumbent upon administrators of federal and state funds to assess the rela- tive merits of projects in competition for funds. a. The Department of Environmental Protection should develop a prior- ities system which would allow consideration of the many variables associated with recreation acquisition and development projects. b. Among the variables which a priority system for land acquisitions should consider are: i. potential loss of a critical land acquisition by delay in purchasing. ii. the degree to which the acquisition meets the identified de- mand for water access, critical wildlife habitat or key natural area criteria. iii. location of the acquisition relative to disadvantaged urban and rural areas. 228 iv. availability of recreational areas within the local community. V. the exte nt to which acquisition assists in consolidation of existing local and State land holdings. vi. the extent to which local governments utilize available land and recreational facilities. vii. the magnitude of the area's supply deficiencies in providing selective recreational opportunities such as swimming, tennis, ball fields, etc. viii. the potential for development of the site for intensive recre- ation. ix. involvement of a gift or partial gift on an otherwise prior- ity acquisition. X. degree of local government commitment to adequately manage and supply recreational facilities. xi. availability of other measures to protect critical natural areas and unique habitats. xii. the extent to which an acquisition may serve the needs of more than one community. C. Among the variables which a priority system should consider for development projects are: i. the availability of private facilities at reasonable cost. ii. the intensity of use by all segments of the population likely to be assisted by the development project. iii. the accessibility of the facilities by mass transportation services. iv. the proximity of the-development project to population 229 centers. V. the degree to which the development project is tied to al- leviating the areas identified as having the greatest recre- ational needs. vi. the degree to which the facilities may be able to meet the needs of more than one community. vii. the degree to which the development project improves upon existing facilities and makes them serviceable to the elderly and handicapped. viii. the degree to which the development project improves upon public recreational use of the state's water resources. ix. the availability of underutilized resources in the community such as recreational facilities and areas associated with schools. X. the proximity and capacity of State park facilities available to meet local needs. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL RECREATION 1. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Allocation of Land and Water Conservation Act Funds to Muni cipalities - a. Based upon DCA studies and SCORP questionnaires, the development and rehabilitation of facilities is the first priority to provide needed services. b. In order to accommodate development and rehabilitation of municipal facilities, HCRS Land and Water Conservation Act Fund development 230 grants should be increased. C. Major municipal development and rehabilitation projects should be phased for financing over a period of years to avoid dispro- portionate allocation of limited federal funds. Given the major deficiencies of most municipalities, a distribution of funds which allows funding of a multiplicity of projects in a given year will best serve as a corrective measure. 2. Other Federal Urban Action Programs - The State supports the con- cept of federal involvement in improving the quality of our urban areas as expressed in President Carter's urban message. Because of the large capital outlays required for rehabilitating and developing urban recreational facil- ities, the provision of federal funds through new legislative initiatives is endorsed. Neither the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act nor the financial capabilities of urban governments are capable of providing sufficient funds to improve the situation significantly. The Department of the Interior's Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service was directed by Congress to prepare a National Urban Recreation Study which noted problem areas in the urban sector. The report also recommended various options to meet their problems. It is felt that if Congress should implement the options outlined in the report and the Administration's urban policies are enacted, they will improve the urban park problems. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MEET RECREATION NEEDS The Department of Environmental Protection's survey of municipal govern- ment recreational programs has revealed several areas of concerm. 231 1. Some communities have not established cooperative programs between their recreation and education departments which could maximize use of avail- able facilities. a. School yards and indoor pools within school buildings should be open during non-school hours. b. Local governments should budget for custodial and other required services to allow full-time utilization of school facilities. C. New public schools should be architecturally designed to allow non-school hour use of their recreational facilities. 2. Local governments have not maintained real dollar spending levels for receational programs. a. There is a trend to substitute Comprehensive Employment and Train- ing Act personnel for regular parks and recreation staff. The potential disruption to the recreation systems could be severe if this federal program is reduced in scope or discontinued. b. Local governments should consider CETA personnel as primarily supplemental to required maintenance personnel to allow for better upkeep, supervision and rehabilitation of facilities. 3. Improvements to existing facilities can increase utilization. Local governments and urban areas in particular must be cognizant of the need to provide security at recreation areas. With a majority of the elderly concentrated in urban centers with high crime rates, the personal fear of being victimized has reduced facilities' utilization. a. Establishment of park security systems should receive increased attention both to avoid vandalism and improve public confidence. b. Local governments must begin a program of updating recreational 232 facilities to accommodate the needs of the elderly and handicapped. C. Mass transportation services should be extended to urban recrea- tional areas during weekend and holiday periods to serve inner city residents, elderly and handicapped citizens who do not have access to automobiles. d. Local governments should make provision for citizen participation in recreational acquisition and development planning. By inclusion of representation of community interest groups in the planning- process, programs can be better devised to meet local needs. Given the sometimes great differences in the recreational needs of seg- ments of the population, local participation is often the only way of assessing demand. 4. Local government utilization of State lands. As a result of the Regional Planning Agency public hearings on SCORP, several local government officials have noted that their communities are without adequate recreational lands while major state land holdings not presently used for intensive recre- ation are available locally. a. The State should consider leasing portions of State lands to local governments to develop and maintain for more intensive recreation. b. Given the public trust in these State lands, lease agreements should provide for non-discrimination between local residents and any other citizens. C. Leases should be granted only where they are compatible with De- partment management objectives. 5. Urban areas have been identified as having the greatest recreational deficiencies based upon the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Urban 233 Recreation Study and research conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection. Urban area governments and recreation planning agencies should initiate actions to correct deficiencies as follows: a. Review existing land holdings for their potential development as intensive recreation sites or natural areas. Lands bordering rivers and other bodies of water are particularly valuable for recreational development. b. Acquisition and development of new urban recreational areas should be in conjunction with mass transportation services. Planning for mass transportation services should be initiated at the pro- ject's conceptual stage. C. Adequately fund budgets of parks and recreation units for activi- ties development, maintenance and security services. Actions to increase utilization of existing facilities can be the most cost effective way to meet needs. d. Retention of permanent recreational staff rather than substitution of temporarily available federally-funded personnel can help in program development and continuity. e. Encourage federal funding of rehabilitation of facilities for use by the handicapped out of general tax revenues thereby retaining Land and Water Conservation Act funds for alleviating supply de- ficiencies. f. Housing redevelopment plans should be designed to encompass recre- ational facilities within walking distances of where people live. g. Special studies of the elderly and handicapped populations' recre- ational needs should be developed. 234 OUTDOOR RECREATION PRIORITIES As a general.guide to implementation of the recommendations resulting from the SCORP planning process, five,categorical priorities have been iden- tified based upon greatest demonstrated needs. Some examples of recommended actions which directly contribute to the accomplishment of outdoor recreation priority needs are included. 1. Increased Public Access to the-State's Water Resources. -Development of additional swimming and recreation capacity on State lands on Long Island Sound. Examples - Silver Sands State Park, Rocky Neck State Park expansion, Hammonasset State Park improve- ments. -Acquire additional land and water rights to the state's lakes and ponds, especially those best suited for additional swimming and related recreational uses. -Acquire lands, easements and water rights along cold water rivers and streams to preserve their natural integrity and allow recre- ation access and enjoyment. Examples - Farmington River and Scantic River corridors. coastal lands on Long Island Sound. Examples - fishing access, boat launches. 2. SupportMunicipal-Acquisition and Development based upon Assess- ment of Greatest Needs. -Population centers and urban areas. -Development and rehabilitation of community and neighborhood parks including the elimination of architectural barriers for use of existing facilities by the elderly and handicapped.. ..-Creation of additional swimming capacity in proximity to popula- tion centers. Acquire lands adjacent to urban waterways and Long Island Sound. -Recreation pathways bicycle paths and hiking trails. 235 -Small towns -Acquisition and development of community recreation areas. -Lease of DEP State lands to municipalities where compatible with State management objectives. 3. Rehabilitation and Development of State Facilities. -Inland swimming facilities - upgrading or development of alterna- ti've supply systems. -Structural and facility rehabilitation, sanitary facilities im- .provements, road and parking improvements, and elimination of architectural barriers to elderly and handicapped. -Boat launching site rehabilitation. -Additional natural camping sites. -Development of rifle and pistol range facilities. -Development of cross-country skiing and other trails. -Development of an equestrian center. 4. Other State Land Acquisition. -Selection, acquisition and expansion of areas for new State parks that are near cities.. -Elimination of private inholdings and consolidation of existing state park and forest lands. -Integrate and complete the State's Blue Trail and Appalachian Trail Systems. -Cultural, historic and scenic areas. 5. Conservation of Natural Areas. -Acquisition of natural areas listed on the State's Inventory of Nat.ural Areas and other critical habitats which cannot be protected by other methods. -Critical wildlife habitats. -Areas of scientific and educational value for natural systems, study and research. C h a p t e r 9 Five year Action Plan 236 FIVE YEAR ACTION PLAN STATE ACQUISITION ACTION PLAN Over the 1978-1983 period the State will continue to emphasize water resources as, Connecticut's greatest recreational need through the acquisition of river corridors for access and protection, coastal area acquisition for recreational use and access, and inland acquisitions of lakes and ponds to provide public access and recreational opportunities. To achieve this goal, the State will initiate and/or continue major long- term acquisition programs along the Farmington, Scantic, Housatonic, Salmon, Connecticut, and Willimantic Rivers and other cold water rivers and streams, especially those with anadromous fisheries potential. This program will help to provide public access and to conserve the scenic character of these river corridors. Implementation of the coastal acquisition program will be a result of timely negotiations with willing sellers of shorefront tracts. This program will be further expanded if natural disasters destroy developed areas along the shore. In such cases, the State will attempt to acquire private land before redevelopment on flood prone and hazardous areas can recur. Legislative action to create a disaster acquisition prograro would be advisable to insure the State's ability to act promptly to acquire storm-damaged properties. The State's current priorities also encourage expanded public ownership of desirable lakes and ponds suitable for swimming and fishing. To achieve this goal the St ate will recommend purchase of large and small tracts of land, dams, and bottom and flowage rights that provide access to lakes and ponds. The needs of fishermen and recreational boaters can also be met through care- 237 ful selections of water bodies that meet their recreational objectives. A second major SCORP goal is to increase the availability of State parks to the people concentrated in the state's largest urban areas. The cost of private transportation, lack of public transportation facilities, and the high cost of land near urban areas must be evaluated to establish a program whereby a greater number of citizens can obtain recreational experiences without traveling great distances. The acquisition of new parks or continued expansion of parks near large cities is a goal that will be emphasized. Providing muni- cipal recreational lands for less urbanized communities through leasing of suitable State lands controlled by the Department of Environmental Protection will be given additional consideration to alleviate local deficiencies. A third major goal is the acquisition of bicycle corridors and trails which may serve as multi-seasonal and multi-use facilities. Lands will be acquired for trail preservation and to integrate established trails used for hiking, horseback riding, skiing, trail biking, and snomobiling. Portions of the Appalachian and Blue Trail Systems are threaten ed by displacement and development. The State's priorities with regard to these trails will emphasize acquisition of critical trail lands and alternate trail routes. State acquisition of private "inholdings," or "nuisance" properties, which create management problems, and consolidation of State parks and forests was a goal proposed in past SCORP action plans and will again be emphasized. This proposed acquisition of private land will reduce trespassing and security prob- lems, and encourage more effective management programs. The acquisition planners will consider the availability of privately-owned watershed land as a source of hunting areas, natural or conservation areas and recreation sites. An o ngoing study program will assess the tracts.which are suitable for state acquisition if they become surplus properties. The com- 238 pleted study will enable the State to begin to exercise its first option to purchase with the goal of selecting the highest quality areas. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND ACQUISITION Because land acquisition presents particular difficulties with respect to the timing of land sales and to the availability of funding, special consider- ation should be given to legislative and financial actions set forth in Chapter 8 which can assist the Department in carrying out its goals. The following items are acquisition priorities required to meet the needs identified in the 1978-1983 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Coastal region purchases for public access to Long Island Sound and for future development of water-based recreational facilities. Acquisition of stream and river corridors both to preserve them from development and to realize their recreational potential. Acquisition of lands on large inland lakes and ponds which can accommodate public recreational swimming and related facilities. Selection, acquisition and expansion of areas for.new State parks that are near cities. Acquisition of natural areas listed on the State's Inventory of Natural Areas and other critical habitats which are immediately endangered and cannot be protected by other methods. Location of bikeways in metropolitan areas which are isolated from traffic and can serve other trail purposes. Acquisition of fishing and boating access points on water bodies that have recreational utility. Acquisition of watershed lands with the. highest potential for recreation and conservation purposes. Elimination of private inholdings and consolidation of.existing State parks and forests. Acquisition of additional hunting, fishing, and wildlife management sites. Assist in the acquisition of cultural and historic sites, in conjunction with the Connecticut Historical Commission, where recreation can be pro- vided. 239 Acquisition of lands to integrate and complete the state's Blue Trail and Appalachian Trail Systems. STATE DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN Major deficiencies have been noted in supplying recreational services to the public, both at the state and local government levels. For those facili- ties which are most properly identified as the responsibility of state govern- ment, the greatest deficiencies have been noted in development of coastal and inland swimming, camping, boat launching and fishing access, picnicking, and related facilities and provision of recreational trails, most notably bikeways. Public response to the SCORP planning process has emphasized development of existing state lands for recreation. While the need for new facilities is well established, a definite pattern of obsolescense and deterioration of existing facilities which accommodate intensive recreational activities has been noted. There is both a qualitative and quantitative aspect to recreational ser- vices which cannot be@separated from facilities planning. It would be unreal- istic to assume that substantial progress can be made in correcting State facility inadequacies without a continuing commitment by the State to funding operation and maintenance programs at levels commensurate with good management . The development of new facilities must be viewed as a goal rather than as a definite program which will be accomplished. The development of new facili- ties is dependent upon legislative support and financial resources rather than their enumeration in the state action plan. Under the provisions of the-Land and Water Conservation Act, it is the State's responsibility to assume the costs of facility operation and maintenance. It should be recognized that the development of new facilities has associated operations and maintenance costs. New facilities cannot be developed without also providing the required addi- tional operations and maintenance funds. 240 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT The provision of additional operating and maintenance funds beyond the meeting of existing facilities needs could allow the State to pursue the following development goals over the next few years: Improve and rehabitate existing facilities to provide quality recreation experiences and meet the needs of.the handicapped and elderly when design limits access. Develop additional coastal swimming capacity at Rocky Neck, Hammonasset, and Sherwood Islands State Parks. Begin construction of Silver Sands State Park, one of the State's few remaining opportunities'for new coastal swimming capacity. Siting of Olympic-size pools on lands near population centers with day- use, family-type support facilities. Complete the acquisition of Gardner Lake properties and development of its swimming potential. Develop and implement plans to upgrade, where possible, existing inland parks for added swimming capacity. Develop 100 new natural-resource based campsites per year. The Pattaconk Lake area in Cockaponsett State Forest could provide swimming facilities for campers. It may be possible to develop additional campsites at Rocky Neck State Park. Campsites to accommodate primitive and canoe campers should be located and developed when adequate supervision becomes possible. Construct and operate interpretive centers 'associated with Dinosaur, Fort Griswold, and Putnam Memorial State Parks. Construct additional trails to accommodate the desire for an inter- connected Blue Trail system tied to metropolitan areas. In conjunction with the Connecticut Department of Transportation and federal agencies, complete construction of one or more bikeways isolated, to the maximum extent possible, from,automotive traffic. Expand segments of trail bike and sno wmobile trails to allow greater travel distance (25 miles or more). Construct a large bore rifle and pistol range capable of meeting Olympic competition standards and several smaller target shooting and sighting ranges on State lands. 241 Complete plans for a State equestrian center and begin construction of support facilities and trails. Construct new boat launch ramps on Long Island Sound and large water bodies and upgrade existing facilities. MUNICIPAL ACTION PLAN The cities and towns of Connecticut have been participants in the Heri- tage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) Grant-In-Aid Program since its inception in 1965. Towns have relied on this funding source to relieve a major share of the cost burden of recreational land acquisition and develop- ment. Each municipality which has participated in the acquisition program has had its own specialized goals to meet local recreational needs and demands. These goals, though specific within each city or town, have been found to fit into the following categories: Watercourses and shoreline properties in both fresh and salt water bodies; Small tracts for future neighborhood parks; Large tracts to serve as community-wide parks providing a range of passive and active recreational opportunities; Scenic vistas along ridgetops, water bodies and natural areas; Substantial land areas primarily for use as conservation areas and/or passive recreation. Towns and cities have also shown an increased interest in developing active recreational facilities on currently-owned land which is usable for, or dedicated to, recreation. As in the acquisition portion of the grant pro- gram, each municipality has certain specific goals for development. These goals include the following types of facilities: Parking Facilities Sport and Playfields (ballfields, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.) 242 Playgrounds (with various equipment) Lighting Projects (ballfields and tennis courts) Access Roads into Park Areas Support Facilities (bathrooms, concession stands, storage buildings) Picnic Areas including Tables and Grills Swimming Areas on Ponds, Lakes, Seashores and Pools Skating Areas Hiking, Bicycling, Bridle, Snowmobile and Nature Trails Fishing Access Areas Nature Interpretive Centers Fitness Trails Marina Development Golf Course Development PRESENT NEEDS The immediate recreational demands of the state's municipalities have reflected such factors as the size of a community's population or the rate of population expansion. Smaller towns with slowly expanding populations and medium-sized com- munities hi storically have favored acquisition projects as their higher priorities. These communities indicate their need to plan for future expan- sion of undersized town parks or acquire land in newly developing neighborhoods. However, some of these communi ties have al so shown an increased interest in use of development programs to expand facilities on town-owned land. Suburban towns which have undergone recent and rapid expansion continue to express an interest in pursuing acquisition projects. They usually are attempting to make up for a lack of past activity in acquiring recreational property. These communities are frequently seeking park land in developed neighborhoods where there are no recreational facilities. Larger towns and 243 small cities have also shown a considerable interest in developing increased numbers and types of active recreational sites. Included in the need for capital improvements are requests for renovation of existing facilities. Con- tacts with these towns indicate that they will tend to shift their priorities from acquisition to development within the effective period of this plan. Urban centers have indicated that they often lack vacant areas that can be used as active recreational sites and that the cost of developable land is extremely high. Nonetheless, such communities generally rank acq uisition of new land as a low priority and exhibit strong interest in development projects. Cities that have made recreational purchases in the past or have existing parks favor increased intensive use of these areas. Thus, urban communities indicated that their highest priority is development of active recreational facilities on existing public lands. FINANCING RECREATION BY THE MUNICIPALITIES The municipalities of Connecticut have attempted to distribute the bur- den of capital cost of both acquisition and development of recreational areas to various levels of government in two ways. Both methods take advantage of federal and state funding and eliminate or reduce the local share in funding recreational improvements. Urban areas that can qualify for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Economic Development Administration (EDA).funds have used these sources to pay 100 percent of the local cost of both acquisition and development pro- jects. These federal funding sources can also be matched with moneys from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Some urban communities have been able to successfully combine LWCF with these other federal funding sources. On the other hand, many medium-sized and small communities have not.been able to obtain CDBG or EDA funds for their towns. These municipalit ies have 244 used bonding and short-term borrowing to meet the local 50 percent share of capital recreational outlays. Nevertheless, despite eventual reimbursement via HCRS and State grant programs, these communities still must provide 25 percent of the total project cost. Revitalization of recreational facilities in urban areas has beenrecom- mended by President Carter as part of his urban program. It should also be noted that Congress has implemented the option contained in the National Urban Recreation Study for an Urban Parks Program.. This program, as well as the President's urban proposals, should help mitigate urban recreational problems. The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Senate Bill 791) provides for an Urban Parks'Program. The Urban Parks Program provides up to 70 percent federal funding for rehabilitation and development projects in urban areas. The Secretary of Interior will determine the eligibility of a given locality for funding. LWCF moneys may not be utilized as the local match for the Urban Parks Program but general revenue sharing moneys and Community Development Block Grants can be utilized as the local share. If state matching funds are provided, the federal share of project costs may be up to 85 percent. Rehabilitation grants under this legislative act are "for the purpose of rebuilding, remodeling, expanding,.or developing existing outdoor or indoor recreation areas and facilities including improvements in park landscapes, buildings and support facilities but excluding routine maintenance and upkeep activities."I Assistance may also be extended to "private non-profit agencies" defined as, "a community based, non-profit organization, corporation, or association organized for the purpose of providing recreational, conservation lCongressional Record - House, October 4, 1978. 245 and educational services directly to urban residents on either a neighbor- hood or community-wide basis through voluntary donations, voluntary labor, or public or private grants.,,2 The Urban Parks Program may provide valuable additional support for meeting urban recreational needs. MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION The directions of municipal acquisition programs for the succeeding years should attempt to foster both acquisition for active and passive recreation as well as an expanded emphasis for the purchase of conservation areas. Municipal priorities should also reflect the expected availability of water utility sur- plus acreage that may be available for purchase in future years. The HCRS mandate to expand the use of the LWCF into a significant land and resource conservation tool can serve as a vehicle to acquire significant watershed areas as they become available to municipalities. As an additional goal, the con- servation effort of the grant program should be to encourage the purchase of land that can be used concurrently for conservation, passive recreation and future active recreation. A trend which is apparent in urban centers has been the development of areas set aside by planners and farsighted conservationists of the past. Suburban and smaller towns can be expected to follow in this direction in future years. MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION PRIORITIES Purchase of access to rivers, shorefront areas, ponds and other water bodies for preservation and active recreation. Acquisition of 5 to 10 acre tracts for use as neighborhood parks and active recreation sites. Selection of large tracts that have a potential for both passive and active recreational uses. 2Ibid. 246 Provide for large land areas that are selected primarily for use as conservation areas but have the capacity to provide selected active and passive opportunities in the future. Preservation of scenic vistas by purchase or easement, along ridge- tops, water bodies or natural areas. MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT Municipal recreation development plans should continue to emphasize the increased need for sport and playfields along with encouraging increased use of existing recreational facilities. Municipalities must initiate facilities' improvements to make them accessible to handicapped and elderly persons. It is advisable to begin such actions within the next year. The lighting for night use of sport fields is a method which allows for greater participant use of park sites without requiring additional. land resources. Support facilities such as sanitary facilities, parking lots, access roads, and storag e buildings are also necessary. Along with playfields, municipalities should strive to develop the concept of multiple-u se of faclilities. The multi-se ason use of parks is anothermethod whi ch.can add to the availability of recreational resources. Encouraging a better utilization of -recreational areas will aid in maximizing benefits of development projects. MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Sport and Playfields (ball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.) Playground Areas Parking Facilities Lighting Projects (ballfields and tennis courts) Support Facilities (bathrooms, storage buildings, dams and control fencing) Picnic Areas Access Roads into Park Areas 247 Trails (hiking, biking, bridle, snowmobile, and nature) Swimming Areas (natural area development and pools) Winter Sport Areas (skating and sledding) Fishing Area Access Fitness Trails Marinas Nature Interpretive Centers Golf Course Development. BUDGET FOR SCORP PLANNING PLANNING AND COORDINATION UNIT The Department of Environmental Protection's Planning and Coordination Unit is responsible for long-range outdoor recreation planning and other environmental planning and coordination activities. These responsibilities include assessment of recreation supply and demand characteristics, analysis of municipal recreation problems, development of programs to correct recreation deficiencies, development of environmental impact statements on recreation pro- jects, and advising the Commissioner of Environmental Protection on outdoor recreation issues. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan is the end product of these planning elements. Historically, the State has chosen to provide an updated recreation plan every five years. The Department has determined that an annual planning program would provide improvement in assessing and meeting recreational needs. The State's budget for recreation analysis must be increased to provide the necessary personnel for analytic elements and to provide assistance to muni- cipalities in their planning programs. 248 At present, manpower allocation of the Planning and Coordination Unit allows 2 person-years for recreational responsibilities. During the SCORP planning of the past year, and additional .5 person-years was contributed by the Director of Planning and Coordination and an estimated 1 person-year by intermittently available personnel most of whom were nonpaid work-study program students from State colleges. This has proven to be inadequate for the tasks which must be completed for a comprehensive program. Similarly, the provision of only $2,000 in state operating funds for the entire Planning and Coordination function has resulted in the uni t incurring substantial deficits in its oper- ating budget because of SCORP and other planning responsibilities. In order to provide the State with recreational planning assistance adequ ate to direct the expenditure of over $14 million annually of combined federal, state and local funds for recreational acquisition and development projects, there must be state-funded manpower and operation allocations for recreational planning functions. These personnel requirements are estimated as: Personnel Person-Years 2 Planner III positions or equivalent 2 1 Municipal Recreation Specialist 1 I Environmental Analyst or equivalent 1 2 Permanent intermittent positi.ons 1 Total 5 In order to meet the above sta ffing requirements, the Planning and Coor- dination Unit should add one additional position to support municipal recre- ational planning, one recreation planner position to release the Director for administrative duties, and two part-time student positions for research pur- 249 poses. The estimated net additional personnel costs are: 1 Planner III or equivalent position $15,000 1 Municipal Recreation Planner 15,000 1 person year Student laborer-technical 6,000 Total $36,000 The unit must be able to provide transportation, travel, specialized equip- ment, computer programming and analysis time and publication funds for these individuals to effectively conduct studies. The minimum estimated operating funds for this aspect of the Planning and Coordination Unit's functions are estimated as: Travel and Automotive $2,000 Equipment and Supplies 750 Printing, Publishing & Related Expenses 1,500 Computer Analysis 5,000 Miscellaneous 750 Total $10,000 DIVISION OF CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION The Parks and Recreation Unit of this Division is responsible for develop- ment of intensively used outdoor recreational facilities. Adequate development plans are critical to the success of any State actions to supply recreational services. Among the tasks which the Parks and Recreation Unit must fulfill are. development of plans to upgrade State Parks to accommodate handicapped and elderly persons, rehabilitation programs for obsolete facilities, new recre- ational activities plans (bicycling paths, Olympic-size swimming pools, a development program for Silver Sands and West Rock Ridge State Parks). These tasks and others cannot be accommodated with existing Parks and 250 Recreation Unit planning personnel and budget. If the SCORP action plan is to be meaningful, increased*budgeting for development plans is necessary. An estimate of the requirements indicates the Parks and Recreation Unit bud get should, at a minimum, be increased to provide: 1 additional Recreation Planner $18,000 Operating expenses and supplies 5,000 Total $23,000 The additional person would supplement the current staff of the Depart- ment's Parks and Recreation Unit which consists of three recreation resource specialists who are responsible for assessing the recreation potential of proposed land purchases, evaluation of construction plans for new facilities, and development plans among other responsibilities. OUTDOOR RECREATION PLANNING PROGRAM 1978 to 1983 Planning elements are outlined below by federal fi scal year. The anti- cipated planning program for 1978-1979 is presented in detail with a work schedule. 1978-1979 1. Development of a project funding priority system. a. Literature review, interview states with existing system. b.- Identify variables and develop ranking system. C. Test priorities ranking system on past acquisition and develop- ment projects. d. Review system with SCORP Advisory Board. e. Test system on current project submittals. f. Publication and dissemination of system. 251 2. Munici-pal needs survey a. Survey by personal interview with recreation staff of 40 municipalities. b. Development of municipal outdoor recreational needs, profiles, 3. Initiate update of Natural Areas Inventory a. Analysis of needs. b. Reexamine computerized retrieval system. C. Identification of unique wildlife ecosystems. 4. Review of state recreational facilities for barriers to the handi- capped and elderly. ai Identification of architectural barriers. b. Assessment of accessibility. p C. Transition plan. 5. Appalachian Trail planning. 6. Continue participation in the New England-New York Recreation Demand Study. 7. State park recreation user study. Planning elements which can be accomplished in 1978-79 within existing Dep artment personnel constraints are: Element Personnel- 1. Development of Priority Ranking System 2person-years* 2. Municipal needs Survey - 20 towns 4person-months 3. State Park User Study - design only Iperson-month 4. Identification of Unique Wildlife Ecosystems 2person-months" 5. Appalachian Trail Planning 4person-months 6. New England-New York Recreation Demand Study Iperson-months Total 3person-years TABLE IX-1 PLANNING WORK SCHEDULE October 1, 1978 September 30, 1979 Planning Element Month of Year OCT NOV DEC JAN I FEB MARI APR I MAY JUN I JUL AUG SEP 1. Development of Priority Ranking System a. Literature review and interviews b. Develop ranking system C. Testing system/post projects d. SCORP Advisory Board review e. Testing system/current projects. 2. Municipal Needs Survey a. Personal Interviewing b.. Develop municipal needs profiles. 3. Initiate update of Natural Areas Inventory a. Analysis of needs b. Retrieval System Design C. Identification of uni@ue wildlife ecosystems. 4. State facilities review for handicapped and elderly accessibility a. Identification of barriers b. Assessment of accessibility C. Initiate development of transition plan. 5. Appalachian Trail Planning 6. New England-New York Recreation Demand Study 7. State Park Recreation User Study a. Survey design b. Data collection. 253 *A cooperative effort involving personnel of the Planning and Coordination Unit, Open Space Acquisition Unit and Division of Conservation and Pre- servation. **A cooperative effort involving personnel of the Planning and Coordination Unit and Division of Conservation and Preservation. Planning program elements predicated upon additional Department personnel: Element Personnel 1. Initiation of the Natural Areas Inventory Update 2 person-years* 2. Municipal Needs Survey - 20 towns 0.5 person-years 3. State Pa rk User Study - implementation 0.5 person-years 4. State Facilities Review for Handicapped and Elderly Accessibility I person-year** Total 4 person-years *A cooperative effort involving personnel of the Planning and Coordination Unit, Natural Resources Center and Division of Conservation and Preser- vation. **A cooperative effort involving personnel of the Planning and Coordination Unit and the Division of Conservation and Preservation. 1979-80 1. Update DEP lands inventory and classification system. 2. Heritage Program planning. 3. Municipal needs survey - 40 municipalities. 4. Regional Planning Agency staff workshops. 5. Workshops for municipal recreation personnel. 6. Continue development of transition plan for handicapped accessibility. 1980-81 1. Reassessment of demand data. 2. Heritage Program planning. 3. Reassess municipal inventory data. 4. Mu nicipal needs survey 40 municipalities. 254 1981-1982 1 Continue supply and demand analysis. 2. Initiate public participation element of the 1983 SCORP update. 1982-1983 1. 1983 SCORP. 2. Public participation meetings. PROJECTED FIVE-YEAR ALLOCATION SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS The total five-year action plan envisioned in SCORP calls for the expendi- ture of $74 million by all levels of government in the state. This amount, and an additional $14 million being requested from special state bonding and the Secretary of Interior's Contingency Fund for development of Silver Sands State Park, is summarized on Table IX-2. Action Plan estimates for expenditure are based upon receipt of an annual apportionment of $7,400,000 from the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund. Coupling this annual apportionment with the required 50 percent match over the five-year period accounts for the $74 million amount. The division of this $74,000,000 Action Plan by sector of investment is necessarily somewhat imprecise, because changing opportunities, problems, and administrative priorities during this five-year period are to be expected. Nonetheless, the General Statutes mandate an allocation of up to 30 percent of the annual Land and Water Fund apportionment for municipal development projects, indicating that $2,200,000 in Federal moneys annually will be earmarked for this purpose. These funds over the five-year period will generate a $22,000,000 park development and rehabilitation program. TABLE IX-2 PROJECTED FIVE-YEAR ALLOCATION SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPME;JT FUf@OS* FISCAL YEAR 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-33 5-YEAR ACQUISITION State $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 $11,900,000 Local 4i720,000 4,360,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 27,080,000 6,720,000 7,360,000 3,300,000 8,300,000 8,300,00-0 38,980,000 DEVELOPMENT State $14,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 2,060,000 $ 2,060,000 $ 2,0060,000 'P"26,130,000 u), Local 4,440,000 4,440,000 4,440,000 4,440,000 4,440,000 22,200,000 Ln 18,440,000 10,440,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 48,380,000 Total $25,160,000 $17,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $87,360,000 *Funds include Land and Water Conservation Fund and matching expenditures. For more detailed breakdown of expenditures, see Appendix J. "Includes $14 million in special requests from state bonding and the Secretary of Interior Contingency Fund for development of Silver Sands State Park. 256 Based upon recent experience, the div.ision of the remaining $5,200,000 annually in Federal moneys is likely to average roughly 60 percent for muni- cipal acquisition and 40 percent for state acquisition and development, although perhaps varying considerably from year to year. Thus, during this period roughly $30,000,000 may be spent on municipal park and open space acquisition, with a minimum of $20,000,000 invested in state land acquisition and development projects. Appendices a p P e n d i x a 0utdoor Recreation Roles of Government 257 A. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH RECREATIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES PLNNG FIN TECH RES.f ASST. ASST. REG. COORD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE Rural Environmental Assistance X COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE Cooperative Forestry Research X X FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION Farm Ownership Loans X Irrigation, Drainage, and other Soil and Water Conservation Loans X Recreation Facility Loans X Resource Conservation and Devel- opment Loans X Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans X EXTENSION SERVICE Extension Programs for Recreation, Wildlife and Natural Beauty X X Extension Programs for Soil and Water Conservation X X FOREST SERVICE State and Private Forestry Coop- eration X X Forestry Cooperative Research X X Forestry Research X X SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Resource Conservation and Devel- opment X X X Soil and Water Conservation X X Soil Survey X X Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention X X X River Basin Surveys and Investi- gations X X DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Nautical Charts and Related Data X River and Flood Forecasts and Warning X @ncludes funds for development and constructiont rehabilitationt restora- tion, planning, managementp equipment and acquisition. 258 PLNNG FIN TECH RES.@ ASST. ASST. REG. COORD Weather Forecasts and Warnings x Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation x DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY., OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS (ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Aquatic Plant Control x x Beach Erosion Control Projects x x Flood Control Projects x x Navigation Projects x x DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Comprehensive Planning Assist- ance x New Communities Supplementary Grants for Public Facilities X_ COM MUN ITY DEVELOPMENT Neighborhood Facilities Grants x Open Space Land Programs x Public Facility Loans x Neighborhood Development x Urban Renewal Projects x DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Public Land for Recreationy Public Purposes and Historic Monuments X HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE Land and Water Conservation Act -Land Acquisition@ Development and State Planning x Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance x Outdoor Recreation Research and Education x Outdoor Recreation Water ResourcBs Planning x x Outdoor Recreation Coordination x Outdoor Recreation Resource Area Studies x x National Register of Historic Plac.bs x x x 259 PLNN G. FIN TECH RES.9 ASST. ASST. REG. COORD. Administration of Historic Preser- vation Fund Historic Landmark Survey x x x Historic American Buildings Survey x x Historic American Engineering Record x x Interagency Archeological Services x Technical Preservation Services x BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Small Reclamation Projects x FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Conservation Law Enforcement Training Assistance x Farm Fish Pond Management x Sport Fish Management x Fish Restoration (Dingell/Johnson Act) x Wildlife Enhancement x Wildlife Research Information x Wildlife Restoration (Pittman/ Robertson Act) x Fishery Research and Information x GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic and Minerall Resource Surveys and Mapping x Map Information x Topographic Surveys and Mapping x Water Resources Investigations x NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Disposal of Surplus Wildlife x Park and Recreation Technical Assistance x Park Practice Program x National Wild & Scenic River Act x x National Trails System x Federal Water Project Recreation Act x DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. COAST GUARD Boating Safety x FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Highway Beautification-Land- scaping and Scenic Equipment x Highway Planning and Construction X 260 PLKNG. FIN TECH. RES.@ ASST. ASST. REG. COORD. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Water Resources Development x GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property x NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Interdisciplinary Research Relevant to Problems of Our Society x x NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COMMISSION New England Regional Economic Development x SMALL BUSINESS ADIVUNISTRATION Management Assistance to Small Business x Management and Technical Assistance for Disadvantaged Businessmen- Research and Demonstration Grants x x Small Business Loans x ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WATER QUALITY OFFICE x x x AIR POLLUTION CONTROL x x x OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL x x x 261 B. STATE GO VERNMENT - DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY The government of the State of Connecticut is patterned after the federal system with three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. Within the latter branch, the Governor's Cabinet is appointed from among the Commissioners of Administrative Services, Agriculture, Bankingg Children and Youth Services, Commerce, Community Affairs, Consumer Protection, Correction2 Education'p Environmental Protection@ Health, Insurance, Labor, Mental Health@ Mental Retardation, Motor Vehicles, Policy and Management, Social Services, State Police., Tax, Transpor- tation, and commissioners of additional agencies and boards. DEPARn,IENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was established in the Executive Branch of the State Government by Public Act 872 of the 1971 General Assembly, to implement the environmental policy of the State. This policy is to conserve, improve, and to protect the natural resources and environment of Connecticut and to control air, land, and water pollution in order to enhance the health., safetyt and welfare of the people of Connecticut. It is further encumbent upon this policy to improve and coordinate environmental plans, functionsp powers and programs among stateg federal, regional and local governmentsy other public and private organizations, and concerned individuals@ and to manage the basic resources of air, land and water in order that the state may fulfill its responsibility as trustee of the environment for the present and future generations. The Department of Environmental Protection basically consists of (1) the Office of the Commissioner, including a staff services unit and a 262 business administration unit-, (2) The Division of Environmental Quality; and (3) the Division of Conservation and Preservation. (See Figure A-1) The Commissioner, with the assistance of his staff, directs overall planningg coordination and control of all Departmental programs., provides a broad range of administrative services to the department and receives, administers, and expends the Department's funds. The Division of Environmental Quality, under the direction of a Deputy Commissioner@, administers and enforces the statutes and regulations governing pollution control within the department's jurisdiction and develops programs to protect the health and well-being of the public through the enhancement of environmental quality. The Division of Conservation and Preservation under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, manages the natural and recreational resources areas under the direct control of the department, establishes programs to enhance the productivity of the state's natural resources, and provides for management and protection of unique and endangered natural resources. Office of the Commissioner The commissioner of environmental protection provides overall supervision and direction to the activities of the department. He is appointed by the governor. The connissioner is assisted by one or more executive assistants, a director of staff servicesq and a director of business administration who advise him on matters concerning their respective fields of experience and expertise. The director of staff services assists the commissioner with all phases of departmental programs and directs the activities of the staff services unit which consists of five sections: Information and Education; Adjudication; Planning and Coordination; Land Acquisition; and the Natural Resources Center. 7- 10 cm -40 9 2 S M ZE ac !A s A A cob; 'M C2 MR .I C3, M in 61 M -M 1.3 v 4.1 00 Car;! ID MR 2 A wp: 4p@ ac Mc T f9m C2 CA 2c MM ac Sc Was Mv; con 2c a ac 2c rM M A VI 2 r- at % CA -SEA CIA Cj TTT C^ WE M 4 r" P" ;I;g M a 54 v St IV a ;lc F-i 12-: 1 I 264 The director of information and education coordinates the dissemina- tion of information to the public and directs educational programs to inform groupsi individuals, and other government agencies of Connecticut's environ- mental problems and of the department's activities. One of his principal duties is to present, in a clear and comprehensive manner, the complex concepts and interrelationships which underlie the delicate balances in Connecticutts ecological system. The chief hearing officer directs the activities of the adjudication section and advises the commissioner on all hearings. He is responsible for all public and private hearings including training and assignment of hearings officers and completion of recommendations made as a result of such hearings. He also reviews hearings procedures to see that they meet all legal requirements. A primary responsibility of this office is to assure that the right of the public to be heard, fully and openly, is not abrogated or unnecessarily restricted. He shall also be responsible for reviewing existing departmental regulations and for promulgating new regulations when necessary. He shall maintain a complete file on all regulations. The chief of land acquisition is responsible for acquiring land interests for the state. Acquisition is normally by devise, gift, exchange or purchase of a fee, lease or easement. The chief and his staff also provide assistance to municipalities seeking acquisition and development funds under federal, state and municipal open space programs9 and coordinate with other units in reviewing land management proposals. The director of the natural resources center is responsible for the collection, integration, and dissemination of natural resource 265 (earth materiall topography, hydrology, biology, and atmospheric) data needed to make better environmental and land use decisions. He develops and maintains, in a central locationg a natural resource data handling system containing the products of past systematic data collections and coordinates future data collection programs through the Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey. The director and staff develops and participates in natural resource training programs@ and provides technical assistance to state and local government agencies to. aid them in performing their authorized duties through the specialized expertise of the center. The director of planning and coordination directs analytical studies of the environmental and economic impact of pollution abatement programs, evaluates policy and program alternatives and recommends policies and programs to the commissioner. He coordinates relations with other federal and state agencies and local governments through review of federal and state funded projects requiring environmental impact statements and assists, local governments and the public by coordinating permit applications. He is responsible for interdepartmental coordination, of the staff services unitg. division of environmental quality., and division of conservation and preservation in cross discipline policy development and planning projects. The director of administration directs the preparation of the budget and the management of the departmental funds. He is responsible for the procurement and accountabi-lity of federal grants-in-aid to the department and to municipalities. He directs the personnel activities of the department and is responsible for the purchase and inventory of all equipment and supplies. The director is responsible for receipt of all departmental revenues, the registration of x-ray devices.and the issuance of various permits to huntg fish, and trap. He is also 266 r.esponsible for the development of a management information system and the cost analysis of departmental programs. Division of Environmental Quality The deputy commissioner for environmental quality directs the activities of the department with respect to administration of the statutes and regulations governing pollution control. He is responsible for developing and implementing new programs and policies designed to improve the quality of the environment, for enforcement of statutes and regulations@ and for allocation of the division's manpower and budget resources. The deputy commissioner directs the activities of seven line units: Air Compliance, Water Compliance@ Solid Waste Management, Water Resources, Radiation Control, Pesticides Control and Noise Control. He also super- vises the activities of special studies units which may be established and which are assigned to his responsibility by the commissioner. A director is responsible for the administration of each of the seven line units. The director of air compliance is responsible for management of the state's air pollution control program. He administers Connecticut's air quality implementation plan and other federal and state programs which provide for abatement of air pollution from both mobile and stationary sources. The director of water compliance is responsible for the management of the state's water quality program. He administers federal and state permit programs for controlling discharges to the waters of the state. He is responsible for insuring compliance with pollution abatement regu- lations, issuing orders to abate water pollutiong evaluation of the adequacy 267 of industrial and sanitary waste treatment systems, the inspection, registration and issuance of permit conditions for discharge systems. He also is responsible for supervision of control of oil and hazardous material and for development of plans for establishing and attaining water quality standards. The director of solid waste management programs directs the develop- ment and implementation of state-wide plans for solid waste.management and resource recovery. He supervises the regulation of volume reduction plants and ultimate disposal areas and coordinates with representatives of business,, industry and government to encourage the development of public and private programs for solid waste management and resource recovery and reprocessing. With assistance of his staff, he issues permits for all solid waste facilities and monitors compliance with permit con ditions. The director of water resources and his staff areresponsible for managing th e water resources of the state, except the use of water for waste assimilation. The principal activities of this unit are wetland preservation, flood controlq implementation and administration of minimum flow standards for Connecticut streams and regulation of dam construction, dredging and construction of other structures in waterways. The director is responsible for planning and'developing comprehensive programs in furtherance of the:general statutes in each of these areas of responsi- bility. The director of radiation control is responsible for administration of federal and,state programs and regulations for the control of radioactive substances which have the potential for discharge to the environment and to which the public is exposed through medicalp scientific, engineering,' education and related activities. 268 The director of pesticides control is responsible for implementing state and federal control laws regulating the use of.pesticides in the environment. The director supervises the manufacture) distribution, storage, use and disposal of pesticides to ensure compliance with environmental quality standards. The director of noise control administers a regulatory and consulta- tive program for-control of noise from stationary sources. Assistance is provided to local communities in the development of ordinances and programs. Upon complaint2 noise sources are investigated and appropriate action instituted. The deputy commissioner for conservation and preservation manages and regulates the use of natural resources and land and water areas within the jurisdiction of the department. He is responsible for establishing seasons and conditions for hunting, fishing, and other recreational sports, for creating and maintaining fish, wildlife, and plant management programs, for managing state land and water interests. The deputy commissioner directs the activities of seven staff units: operations and maintenance, law enforcement, fisheries and waterlife, forestry, property management, parks and recreation, and wildlife. Each unit is headed by a director or chief. In addition, the deputy commissioner super- vises five regional field offices, whose personnel implement policies and programs coordinated, reviewed and developed by the staff units with the approval of the deputy commissioner, The chief of operations and maintenance and his staff coordinates the development and administration of policies and programs in the division. The chief is the deputy commissioner's principal assistant. He coordinates the operations of the other staff units and the activities of the five 269 regional offices. He is also responsible for the youth conservation corps program,, the Portland supply depot, ra:dio communications and the coordination of indian affairs. The chief of law enforcement is responsible for enforcing state laws and administrative regulations governing the use of ConnecticutIs natural resource areas and the protection of wildlife within them. He trains and exercises technical program supervision over a field staff of enforcement officers who monitor compliance with laws, regulations, and licenses issued by other units in the division. The chief of fisheries heads a staff which provides technical super- vision for inland and marine fish programs and commercial and recreational fishing. These programs include producing, stocking and managing inland fish; maintaining boat launch sites; investigating fish populations; providing consulting services for private owners of ponds, lakes and streams; and administration of federal aid programs as they pertain to fish and waterlife. The state forester is responsible for providing technical supervision for managing trees and forests on state lands, for preventing and suppressing ,forest firesp for providing planting stock to other public and to private landowners, for providing technical forestry advice and assistance to private landowners,, loggers and primary woo&proces.sors, municipalities and other interested partiesq for administration of the forest land tax law under provisions of Connecticut general statutes section-12-96 and section 12-107D, for operating the James L. Goodwin forest conservation center and for administering cooperative agreements with state and federal agencies and federal aid programs as they pertain-to forestry and forest fire suppression. 270 The chief of;property management and his staff administer the depart- ment's property management program. Management includes all matters con- cerning leases, agreements9 easements9 land exchangeg land records@ in-house surveysq encroachments9 annual inspections of state owned properties acquired with federal funds and other matters normally related to property management. They may assist in land acquisition programs at the.request of the chief of land acquisition with the approval of the deputy commissioner. The chief of parks and recreation and his staff develop and administer Connecticut's recreational facilities and programs. The principal recrea- tion programs include campingg swimming, boating, picnicking, trails, winter sports and heritage sites visitation. The chief of wildlife and his staff provide technical supervision for the purchase and liberation of wildlife, the improvement of habitat conditions for all wildlife on state owned and private lands, and the administration of federal aid programs as they pertain to wildlife manage- ment. The regional field offices implement the various programs of the division under the guidance of the various staff directors and chiefs., For purposes of program implementation, the state is divided into five regions: (1) Northwest quarter; (2) Southwest quarter; (3) Middle- eastern quarter; (4) Far eastern quarter; and (5) Marine district, comprising the area along Long Island Sound, A field office and staff exist in each region. 271 STATE AGENCIES WITH RECREATIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 1 PLNNG FIN TECH RES.9 ASST. ASST. REG. COORD.@ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER PLANNING & COORDINATION Provision of a Comprehensive Plan for Recreation x LAND ACQUISITION Assistance to Towns for Open Space Acquisition x x Coordinaticn and Purchase of State Open Space Lane x x Selection and Operation of Natural Area Preserves x Assistance to Potential Donors of Land and Water x DIVISION OF PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION PARKS AND RECREATION Development and Operation of Historic Parks and Monuments x Development and Operation of Swimming and Picnic Facilities x x x Supervision and Promotion of Boating x x Development and Operation of Camping Facilities x x Development and Maintenance of Trails x @x Development and Operation of Winter Sports Facilities x x FISH AND WATER LIFE Management of inland and Marine Fish x x WILDLIFE Management of Wildlife x x LAW ENFORCEMENT Conservation Law Enforcement x x Includes funds for development and construction, rehabilitationg restoration, and acquisition. 272 PLNNG FIN TECH RES. , ASST. ASST. REG. COORD. DIVISION OF ENCIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER QUALITY Establishing and Enforcing Water Pollution Standards X X X AIR QUALITY Enforcement and Control of Air Quality X X X WATER RESOURCES Maintenance of Flood Retarding Structures X Small Watershed Prevention Assist- ance to Towns X X X Flood Control Studies and Inter- Governmental Flood Control Studies and Surveys X X Participation in Long Range Water Resources Planning X Shore Erosion Control x X CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL COMMISSION Preservation and Development of Historical Sites X X Research to Discover Historically Significant Sites X CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Development of a Year-Round Tourist Industry X X Small Business Loans X X Historic Restoration X CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Research on Natural Resourcesf Forestry, Horticulture, and Agronomy. X X DEPARTMENT OF HEATLH OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH Regulation of Recreation Facilities Sanitation Inspection X X X DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maintenance of Highway Facilities x X X 273 PLNNG FIN TECH RES.9 ASST. ASST. REG. COORD. OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DIVISION Coordination of Inter-Agency Water Resources Planning Board x Preparation of State Conservation and Development Policy Plan x x BUDGET AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION x INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION x x x 274 C. LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPALITIES WITH CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS@ PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSIONS, AND DIRECTORS OF PARKS AND RECREATION: TOWN CONS. COMM., PARK & REC. COMM. PARKS & REC. DIRECTOR ANDOVER x x ANSONIA, x x ASHFORD x x AVON x x BARKHAMSTED x x BEACON FALLS x BERLIN x x x BETHANY x x BETHEL x x BETHLEHEM x x BLOOMFIELD x x x BOLTON x x BOZRAH x x BRANFORD x x x BRIDGEPORT x x x BRIDGEWATER x x BRISTOL x x x BROOKFIELD x x BROOKLYN x x BURLINGTON x x CANAAN x x CANTERBURY x CANTON x x x CHAPLIN x CHESHIRE x x CHESTER x x CLINTON x x .COLCHESTER x x COLEBROOK x COLUMBIA x x CORNWALL x x COVENTRY x x CROMWELL x x DANBURY x x x DARIEN x x DEEP RIVER x x 275 TOWN CONS. COMM. PARK & REC. COMM. PARKS & REC. DIRECTOR DERBY X X DURHAM X X X EASTFORD X x EAST GRANBY X X EAST HADDAM X X EAST HAMPTON x X EAST HARTFORD x X EAST HAVEN X X X EAST LYME X x EASTON X x EAST WINDSOR X X ELLINGTON X X ENFIELD X X ESSEX X X FAIRFIELD X X X FARMINGTON X X FRANKLIN x x GLASTONBURY x X X GOSHEN X X GRANBY X X GREENWICH X X. X GRISWOLD x X GROTON x X X GUILFORD X X HADDAM X X HAMDEN X X X HAMPTON X HARTFORD X X HARTLAND x HARWINTON x X HEBRON X X KENT X X KILLINGLY X X KILLINGWORTH x X LEBANON X x LEDYARD x X LISBON X LITCBFIELD X X, LYME X X MADISON X X 276 TOWN CONS. COMM. PARK & REC. COMM. PARKS & REC. DIRECTOR MANCHESTER x x MANSFIELD x x x MARLBOROUGH x x MERIDEN x x x MIDDLEBURY x x MIDDLEFIELD x x MIDDLETOWN x x x MILFORD x x MONROE x x MONTVILLE x x x MORRIS x x NAUGATUCK x x NEW BRITAIN x x x NEW CA14AAN x x NEW FAIRFIELD x x NEW HARTFORD x x NEW HAVEN x x x NEWINGTON x x x NEW LONDON x x x NEW MILFORD x x NEWTOWN x x NORFOLK x NORTH BRANFORD x x x NORTH CANAAN x x NORTH HAVEN x x x NORTH STONINGTON x x NORWALK x x x NORWICH x x X. OLD LYME x x OLD SAYBROOK x x ORANGE x x OXFORD x x PLAINFIELD x x PLAINVILLE x x PLYMOUTH x x POMFRET x x PORTLAND x x PRESTON x x PROSPECT x x PUTNAMI x x 277 TOWN CONS. COMM. PARK REC. COMM. PARKS & REC. DIRECTOR REDDING X X RIDGEFIELD X X ROCKY HILL X X ROXBURY X X SALEM X X SALISBURY X X SCOTLAND x SEYMOUR X X SHARON X X SHELTON X X SHERMAN X X SIMSBURY X X X SOMERS X X SOUTHBURY X X SOUTBINGTON X X SOUTH WINDSOR X X SPRAGUE X STAFFORD X X STAMFORD X X x STERLING STONINGTON x x STRATFORD x X SUFFIELD X X x TOLLAND X X TORRINGTON x X TRUMBULL X X UNION X VERNON X x VOLUNTOWN WALLINGFORD X X WARREN X X WASHINGTON X X WATERBURY x X X WATERFORD X X WATERTOWN X X WESTBROOK X X WEST HARTFORD X X X WEST HAVEN X X WESTON X x WESTPORT X X X 278 TOWN CONS. C OMM. PARK & REC. COMM. PARKS & REG. DIRECTOR WETHERSFIELD x x x WILLINGTON x x WILTON x x WINCHESTER x x WINDHA14 x WINDSOR x x WINDSOR LOCKS x x WOLCOTT x x 'WOODBRIDGE x x WOODBURY x x WOODSTOCK x x 279 D. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL -AND QUASI -GOVERNMENTAL BODIES REGIONAL AGENCIES 'WITH RECREATION SUPPORT ACTIVITIES PLNNG FIN TECH RES.,, ASST. ASST. REG. COORD. REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES x x SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS x x RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS x x 280 E. SELECTED PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Statewide Or@,,anizations American Youth Hostels Hartford Council P.O. Box 10392 West Hartford, Connecticut 06110 Appalachian Mountain Club, Connecticut Chapter 20 Dyer Avenue Collinsville, Connecticut 06022 Connecticut Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Agriculturai- Center Litchfield, Connecticut 06759 Connecticut Association of Recreation ek Park Directors 7 Linsley Street North Haven, Connecticut 06473 Connecticut Audubon Society 2512 Burr Street Fairfield, Connecticut 06430 Connecticut Conference of Municipalities 956 Chapel Street New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Connecticut Forest and Park Association 1010 Main Street P.O. Box 389 East Hartford, Connecticut 06108 Connecticut Horse Council, Inc. 1185 Main Street South Vindsor, Connecticut 06074 Connecticut and New England Family Campers Association 21 Court Street Art. 6-9F Rockville, Connecticut 06066 Connecticut and New England Trail Riders Association R.R. 1/5 North Main Street Marlborough, Connecticut 06424 281 Connecticut Snowmobilerst Association Pedersen Road Box 141 East Hartford, Connecticut 06027 Connecticut Sportsman's Association 393 Sun Valley Drive Southington, Connecticut 06489 Connecticut Waterfowler's Association Beaver Dam Road Stratford, Connecticut 06497 Connecticut Wildlife Federation 27 Washington Street P.O. Box 7 Middletown@ Connecticut 06457 Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adu2ts of Connecticut, Inc. 6821 Frospect Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Natural Resources Council of Connecticut P.O. Box 151 Bridgewater, Connecticut 06752 The Nature Conservancy Connecticut Chapter P.O. Box MMM, Wesleyan Station Middletown, Connecticut 06457 Sierra Club, Connecticut Chapter 60 Washington Street, Suite 611 Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Regiongl Organizations Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council P.O. Box 552 Lakeville, Connecticut 06039 Connecticut River Watershed Council 256 Old F,@,rms Road Simsbury, Connecticut 06070 Fairfield County League of Sportsmen 96 Bennett Street Bridgeport, Connecticut 06605 282 Farmington River -"jatershed Association, T I -ne. '195 "J"est Main Street Avon, Connecticut 06001 Housatonic Valley Association, Inc. R.F.D. 1, Box 134 L Kent, Connecticut 06757 New London County League of SDortsmen 4j- Green Avenue Jewett City, Connecticut 06351 Sleeping Giant Fark Association Box 52, Quinnipiac College Hamden, Connecticut 06518 Talcott Mountain Forest Protective Association ..0. Box 515 Simsbur-y, Connecticut 06070 dhite Memorial Foundation Litchfield, Connecticut 06759 Local and Re@--ional Land Trusts T Aspetuck Uand Trust Box U.4 'destport, Connecticut 06880 Bethany Conservation Trust, Inc. Miller Road Bethany, Connecticut 06525 Cheshire Land Trust, Inc. '.C. Box 781 Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 Guilford Land Conservation Trust, Inc. P.O. Box 200 Uuilford, Connecticut 06437 Haddam Land Trust, Inc. Old Country Road Haddam, Connecticut 06/4.38 1 Includes only those with 100 acres or more land held in trust. In total there are 65 local land trusts in Connecticut. 283 Madison Land Conservati on Trust, Inc. P.O. Box 561 Madison, Connecticut 06443 Mashantucket Land Trust., Inc. P.O. Box 49 Old Mystic, Connecticut 06372 Newtown Forest Association, Inc. P.O. Box 525 Danbury, Connecticut 06810 Old Lyme Land Conservation Trust Still Lane Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371 Redding Land Trust, Inc. P.O. Box 76 Redding, Connecticut 06875 Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. P.O. Box 584 Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877 Steep Rock-Association, Inc. P.O. Box 133 Washington,-Connecticut 06793 Weantinogife Heritage@ Inc. P.O. Box 242 New Milford, Connecticut 06776 A p p e n d i x b DEP Property Management List PRELIMINARY DETAILED LISTING OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROPERTIES BY AMENDED MANAGEMENT CATEGORY1 . PRIMARY PRIMARY L@AND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 1. STATE PARKS Devil's Hopyard State Park 111 860 Devil's Hopyard State Campground 4 Fort Shantok State Heritage Park IV 170 00 Gillette Castle State Heritage Park 111 184 Haminonasset Beach State Park 928 Hammonasset State Campground 88 Salt Marsh State Natural Area 605 Harkness-Memorial State Heritage Park 116 Headquarters - Region V 2 Hurd-George Dudley Seymour State Park 111 1106 Kent Falls State Park 285 Kent Falls State Campground 18 Macedonia State Park 2300 Macedonia Brook State Campground 60 Mashamoquet Brook State Park IV 1540 Wolf Den State Campground 92 Penwood State Park 787 Lake Louise State Conservation Reserve 36 Co U) co ri) Ito 4. 0 ir 0 0, C-) 0, r- CD :@d 0 5- C+ (D 0 ;Kl r M '0 0 P3 o P C+ (D FJ. I @o z 0 @j N 0 0 c+ (D d- PI 1-. orq r- (D C) t:1 -1 @S (D t 0 0 crq F-I (D pg@l 0 ;1- C) 0 1-0 @j M o 0 Cl) t, @7L o P, @D w @j ri) Z@ @-j CD P. , 1-H t-I rL cfl H 0 C+ Z PO @3@ cill P) C+ ca @:s P, C+ F-A 115' W w C+ CL PD tv C-) 1-t co (D C+ C+ UO C+ W c+ co @11-- FH C+ ;0 (D Ct, co @m (D , F-3 C') D C+ C+ C+ C+ C@ P) c+ CD C+ P (D 0 C) P3 & C) (D w @3' C+ (D r+ w (11 I(D+ tt 0 C:) CD @o Cf-I 0 Fj (:+ n -r, - ,(D Fj PO N, P) fl 0 Fl PV C+ 0 @'l (D P; C+ F1 0 CD FS ctl C+ Cf. H H F-i IC C) to to U: Ui w ti _Q N) w co w OQL 0 tri @-3 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 2. STATE FORESTS Algonquin State Forest I 23o6 Kitchell Wilderness Preserve 484 American Legion State Forest 1 .782 Austin Hawes State Campground 78 Headquarters - Region 1 5 Cockaponset State Forest 111 15,118 00 Pataconk State Campground 350 Pataconk Lake State Boat Launching Facility 1 Chester Cedar Swamp Natural Area Preserve 400 Turkey Hill Lot Natural Area Preserve 80 Westwood State Reserve 250 Millers.Pond State Reserve 281 Forster Pond State Reserve 194 Chatfield Hollow State Recreation Area 356 Enders State Forest 1434 I No fluntina James L. Goodwin State Forest IV 1912 No Hunting Pine Acres Lake Access Area 1 James L. Goodwin Conservation Center 83 Great Pond State Forest 1 429 No Hunting Stratton Brook State Recreation Area 148 -PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBOUSS GLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Housatonic State Forest 1 9492 Housatonic Meadows State Campground 6o I uanaan Mountain Fatural Area Preserve 1430 Hoy Swamp State Wildlife Area 40 Federal Funds Mattatuck State Forest 1 4468 Matt-atuck State Recreation Area 407 Thomaston Dam 995 Black Rock State Campground 32 Humaston Brook State Reserve 141 Meshomasic State Forest 111 6691 N) Cox Lot 40 00 Reeves Lot Natural -Area Preserve 40 Cabin Lot 40 Gay City State Recreation Area 1569 D.E.P. Central Supply Depot 40 Mohawk State Forest 1 3245 No Hunting Black Spruce Bog Conservation Reserve 40 Mohawk Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 Mohawk Mountain State Recreation Area. 26o Mohegan State Forest IV 778 Nassahegon State Forest 1 1226 Burlington State Fish Hatchery 42 Federal cost sharing requires a continuation of existing use. This note applies wherever "Federal Funds" are indicated in this document. PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Natchaug State Forest IV 12515 Airline Railroad 285 Natchaug State Recreation Area 56 Pumpkin Hill State Wildlife Area 50 Hampton Reservoir State Fish Area 60 Bigelow Brook State Fish and Wildlife Area 40 Nathaniel Lyon Monument State Heritage Site .01 Nathan Hale State Forest 111 1238 White Oak Natural Area 25 Naugatuck State Forest 11 3338 r1j Nehantic State Forest 111 3655 co .Uncas Lake State Reserve 10 Utcas Lake State Boat Launching Facility 1 Norwich Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 Tanney Hill State Fish and Wildlife Area 1200 Nepaug State Forest 1 1198 NiDmuck State Forest(Less Black Pond Parcel) IV 7757 Bigelow Hollow State Recreation Area 20 Bigelow Pond 20 Bigelow Pond State Boat Launching Facility 4 Mashapaug Lake State Boat Launching Facility 2 Morey Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 Breakneck State Conservation Reserve 113 Nye Holman State Forest 111 873 Pachaug State Forest IV 22,937 Mt. Misery State Campground 14 Green Falls State-Recreation Area 32 Green Falls State Campground 15 Green Falls State-Boat Launching Facility 1 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Hopeville Pond State Recreation Area 494 Hopeville Pond State Campground 60 Hopeville Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 Hell Hollow State Wildlife Area 40 Great Meadow State Wildlife Area 70 Great Meadow Swamp Natural Area Preserve 550 Lockes Meadow State Wildlife Area 25 Rhododendron Swamp State Scenic Reserve 60 Porter Pond State Fish ila-ea 20 Sue Hopkins State Wildlife Area 35 Ledgebwiids State Fish and Wildlife Area 85 Heron Marsh State Fish and Wildlife Area 40 Wickaboxet State Fish and Wildlife Area 10 Erickson State Fish and Wildlife Area 6 00 Dawley Pond State Fish Area 10 State Forest Nursery 12 Headquarters - Revion IV 4 Beachdale Pond,State Boat Launching Facility 1 Wyassup Lake State Boat Launching Facility 1 Pachaug Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 Paugnut State Forest 1 3794 Burr Pond State Recreation Area 346 Burr Pond State Boat Launching Facility 2 Taylor Brook State Campground 88 John A.'Minetto State Recreation 678 Sunny Brook State Recreation Area 444 Paugussett State Forest 11 1935 Peoples State Forest 1 2954 Matheis State Recreation Area 25 Quaddick State Forest IV 576 Quaddick State Recreation Area 1-15 Quaddick Reservoir 194 Quaddick Reservoir State Boat Launching Facility 1 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Salmon River State Forest 111 6102 Day Pond State Recreation Area 180 Wopowog State Fish and Wildlife Area 473 Salmon River Imprint Ponds 4 Larson Lot State Wildlife Area 240 Holbrook Pond State Fish and Wildlife Area 75 Holbrook Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 Pickerel Lake State Boat Launching Facility 1 Headquarters - Region 111 4 Shenipsit State Forest 111 6178 @@Furnace Brook-Middle River State Conservation Reserve 1200 -C) Topsmead State Forest 1 512 Tunxis State Forest 1 8692 Wyantenock State Forest 3260 Total 135,395 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 3. STATE RECREATION AREAS Indian Well State Recreation Area 11 153 Indian Well State Boat Launching Facility 1 Kettletown State Recreation Arpa 11 507 Kettletown State Campground 17 Lake Waramaug State Recreation Area 1 95 LakeWaramaug State Campground 79 Mt. Tom State Recreation Area 1 223 Osbornedale State Recreation Area 11 350 Wharton Brook State Recreation Area 11 96 Whittemore State Bridle Trail 241 TOTAL 1665 mmmm PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 4. STATE CAMPGROUNDS (listed also under Primary Land Classification) Devil's Hopyard State Campground 111 4 Hammonasset State Campground 111 88 Kent Falls State Campground 1 18 Macedonia Brook State Campground 1 60 Wolf Den State Campground IV 92 Rocky Neck State Campground 111 90 Sleeping Giant State Campground 11 4 Austin Hawes State Campground 1 78 Pataconk State Campground 111 350 Housatonic Meadows State Campground 1 60 Black Rock State Campground 1 32 Mt. Misery State Campground IV 14 Green Falls State Campground IV 15 Hopeville Pond State Campground IV 60 Taylor Brook State Campground 1 88 Kettletown State Campground 11 17 Lake Waramaug State Campground 1 79 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLAS'S CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 5. STATE HERITAGE AREAS Bartlett Arboretum State Heritage Area 11 63 U-C.onn Manages Continental Army State Heritage Site 1 12 Dinosaur State Heritage Site 57 Fort Griswold State Heritage Site IV 16 Industrial Monument State Heritage Site 1 2 Israel Putnam Monument State Heritage Site IV .1 John Mason Monument State Heritage Site IV .01 Miantonomc, Monument State Heritage Site IV .4 Nathan Hale Monument State Heritage Site III o8 Pequot Burial Ground State Heritage Site IV 20 Swamp Fight Monument State Heritage Site 11 .01 TOTAL 150.8 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATI10N SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION' ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 6. STATE RESERVES Above A11.7e-serve 31 Baldwin Marsh State Conservation Reserve 34 Beaver Brook State Reserve IV 401 Beaver Brook Ponds Access Area 2 Blackberry River;State Reserve 1 250 Bluff Point State Reserve IV 806 Bolton Notch State Scenic Reserve 111 70 Bolton Notch State Boat Launching Facility 1 Brainard Homestead State Scenic Reserve 111 25 Campbell Falls State Scenic Reserve 1 102 Collis P. Huntington State Reserve 11 878 Connecticut Arboretum.State Reserve IV 10 Connecticut Valley Railroad 111 300 Scenic Railroad Dart Island State Scenic Reserve 111 2 Dennis.-Hill 3tate Scenic Reserve 240 Farm.Brook State Conservation Reserve 11 200 Saybrook Fort State Heritage Reserve 111 18 George C. Waldo State Reserve 11 150 Haddam Island State Scenic Reserve 14 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Haddam Meadows State Conservation Reserve 111 175 Haddam Meadows State Boat Launching Facility 2 Haley Farm State Reserve IV 198 Haystack Mountain State Scenic Reserve 1 116 Hopemead State Reserve IV 60 Horseguard State Reserve 1 146 Ivy Mountain State Reserve 50 Lamentation Mountain State Scenic Reserve 4? Lord's Island State Conservation Reserve 111 20 Lovers Leap State Scenic Reserve 75 Mad River State Reserve 430 Mad River Flood Control,Reservoir 406 Mansfield Hollow State Reserve 111 2328 Leased from Fed. Govt.' Mansfield Hollow State Recreation Area 40 Naubesatuck Lake State Boat Launching Facility 2 Mianus River State Reserve 11 335 Minnie Island State Reserve IV 1 Mount Bushnell State Reserve 1 114 Mount Riga State Reserve 276 mmmmm mom mmm MM M MM M PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS North Branch Park River State Reserve 1 1450 Leased to Bloomfield Norwalk River State Conservation Reserve 425 Platt Hill State Scenic Reserve 81 Pomeroy State Reserve IV 104 Quinnipiac River 342 Rich's Island State.Scenic Reserve 10 4D Rocky Glen State Conservation Reserve 11 41 Selden Neck,State Scenic Reserve 524 Seth Low-Pierrepont State Reserve 11 305 Silver Sands State Reserve 11 223 South Branch Park River State Reserve 1 670 1-291 Corridor Leased to W. Htfd. Squaw Rock State Scenic Reserve IV 343 Stoddard Hill State Scenic Reserve IV 55 Stoddard Hill State Boat Launching Facility 1 Sucker Brook State Reserve 1 156 Sunset Rock State Scenic Reserve 1 15 Talcott Mountain State Scenic Reserve 557 Heublein Tower State Recreation Area 294 Thatchbed Island State Reserve PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Trimountain State Scenic Reserve 11 157 West Peak State Scenic Reserve 11 177 Werner Woods State Reserve 1 109 Whittemore Glen State Reserve 11 307 Hop Brook Flood Control Reservoir 250 Windsor Meadows State Reserve 1 128 Wooster Mountain State.Reserve 11 381 Zalessky State Reserve 250 No Recreational Use West Rock Ridge 213 Joshua's Trust 58 TOTAL -151096 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 7. STATE NATURAL AREA PRESERVES (listed also under Primary Land Classification) Hammonasset Salt Marsh Natural Area 111 605 Kitchell Wilderness Preserve 1 484 Chester Cedar Swamp Natural Area Preserve 111 400 *Turkey Hill Plot Natural Area,Preserve 111 80 *Canaan Mountain Natural Area Preserve 1 1430 *Cox Plot Natural Area Preserve 111 50 co '-Reeves Plot Natural Area Preserve 111 40 *Cabin Plot Natural Area Preserve III@ 40 ,dhite Oak Natural Area 111 25 Great Meadow Swamp Natural Area Preserve IV 550 'Total 3704 Formerly designated as provided by Connecticut General Statutes PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 8. STATE FISH AND/QR WILDLIFE AREAS Assekonk Swamp State Wildlife Area IV 697 Federal Funds Barn Island State Fish & Wildlife Area IV 756 Federal Funds Barn Island State Boat Launching Facility 2 Bartlett Brook State Wildlife Area IV 571 Federal Funds Bishops Swamp 111 500 Branford River State Wildlife Area 111 80 Federal Funds r%3 Charter Marsh State Wildlife Area 111 240 Federal Funds ko Charles E. Wheeler State Wildlife Area 11 812 Federal Funds Milford Sanctuary State Conservation Reserve 15 Cromwell Meadows State Fish & Wildlife Area 1 486 Federal Funds Democrat Rock State Wildlife Area III 1 (0.1) Durham Meadows State Fish & Wildlife Area 111 571 Federal Funds East River State Fish & Wildlife Area IV 142 Federal Funds East Swamp State Fish & Wildlife Area 82 Federal Funds Farm River State Fish & Wildlife Area 11 33 Federal Funds Fenton River State Fish Area 111 2/, Federal Funds Flaherty Field Trial Area 111 261 Federal Funds PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 8. STATE FISH AND/OR WILDLIFE AREAS Franklin Swamp State Fish & Wildlife Area IV 450 Federal Fund Franklin State Wildlife Propagating Facility 12 Glastonbury Meadows State Wildlife Area 2 Great Harbour State Wildlife Area 220 Federal Fund Great Island State Fish &- Wildlife Area 111 504 Federal Fund Great Island State Boat Launching Facility 2 Hammock River State Wildlife Area 111 88 Federal Fund Higganum Meadows State Fish & Wildlife Area 111 61 Federal Fund C) Little River State Fish Area IV 48 Lord's Cove State Wildlife Area 111 340 Federal Fund Nott Island State Wildlife Area 111 82 Federal Fund Pease Brook State Fish Wildlife Area IV 207 Federal Fund Pecausett Meadows State Fish.& Wildlife Area 111 11 Federal Fund Penny Island State Wildlife Area IV 1 Federal Fund Plum Bank State Wildlife Area 111 258 Federal Fund Pudding Hill State Wildlife Area IV 137 .Quinebaug State Fish & Wildlife Area IV 988 Quinebaug Valley State Fish Hatchery 60 w cn w Cr C/) In Cj) @o :Z ::d 1@0 I(D CD P3 (D 0 P, P* o 03 0 0 0 p 0 I-J. co ci- @5 0 @-j co (D cr aq Fi. @j C+ @-s rn @4 5 co CD v GQ @j Z. (D @3- C'Q @d Fl (D F@ 0 Fi. (D @:s Fj @a � ID H Fj. @d H PSI t@ 0 Id P. -9@ F@ 0 @:s 5, ('D P. 0 tzi P) CD C+ -:4 t.4 cpq Fj* cf) H 0 P t@ (D CD aq w & [1) e, t3l 0 0 c- H C+- 0 CD Cl) P.) IN, t-I W P) @:s Cf) c-F @@l @ld p 0 C+ Fj* F@ C+ cf) 0 ci- P) @d C_) H* Cf) Fj P -@i 0 (D ti: c-F C') P C+ F-i .4 ITj co CD M rn C+ (D @:s (D P3 0 C+ (D Cl) (D CD i--i cc (D :El- P) C+ 0 C+ (D c .) (JD & F@ P, CD :E@ p @lv F-I cn C+ p C/) cl'@ P* C+ C) C+ p C+ H* c-F c-F co H (D co C+- P) c-F CD F-i p P) @-j IJ. cn c-F ca @L c-F m 0 (D Q, Ci. & P. q F--j C+ p @3- F@ :E@ P) C+ t2i F3J H CD (D 1-t C+ Q@ P) C+ P. Fj. C+ (D CrIl 0 Fl. Fj. (D (D H C+ CD Ft H (D U) :E@ @l t@ CD (D 9-.L, (D F" P. @r- U2 F@ X, rA H 1-1 (D Fj. 4 H. P. la, P, (D P. ca 1@ Ft H O@ H (D (D :E@ (D H. p H. P3 4 (D RD P. CD (D (D Ft . (D :E,- o (D CD SDI H (D P. @7 H P. H 4 CD 1j. CD Q, 1-1 (D P5 F-t (D Fl H (D (D p CD (D H. 0 Ft (D CD (D (D PO F-I @-l H F-4 F-q F-i 10 tR@ cf) C-) C-- cf@ cn c-, -d IQ w F-i 0\ N \0 CT\ @-n 0 4t- co OOL 04 o to --Q 04 H 0 0 S w N) I\j @t- Cn FXJ F@j t4 I=j I@j F-j It (D CD (D (D 0 (D (D CD CD In, @l $:L ol @01 @l ID, (D CD (D (D (D (D (D CD FS Fj 11 Il 11 P) PO p p C) Gtl 0 P, Q@ co co m ca In col EQ LOC PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS 9. STATE ACCESS AREAS Amos Lake State Boat Launching Facility IV 2 Anderson Pond State Boat Launching Facility IV I Avery Pond State Boat Launching Facility IV 2 Ball Pond State Boat Launching Facility 11 2 Batterson Park Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 4 CD Bashan Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Bayberry Lane State Boat Launching Facility IV 1 Beseck Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Billings Lake State Boat Launching Facility IV 2 Black Pond State Boat Launching Facility III I Black Pond (Woodstock) State Boat Launching Facility IV 1 Middle Bolton Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Lower Bolton Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Branford River State Boat Launching Facility 111 3 Cedar Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 Crystal Lake (Ellington) State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Crystal Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Dock Road State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 Dodge Pond State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Dog Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 1 Dooley Pond State Boat Launching Facility III I East Haddam State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 East River State Boat Launching Facility 111 11 Enfield Dam State Access Area 4 Enfield Dam State Boat Launching Facility I Enfield Rapids State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 Farmington River State Access Area 1 30 Four Mile River State Boat Launching Facility 111 8 Gardner Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 3 Glasgo Pond State Boat Launching Facility IV 2 Gorton's Pond State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 Hayward Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Higganum Reservoir State Boat Launching Facility III I Highland Lake State Boat Launching Facility 1 1 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Housatonic River State Boat Launching Facility 11 1 Kenosia Lake State Access Area 11 1 Lake Housatonic State Access Area 11 3 Lake Lillinonah State Boat Launching Facility (2) 11 7 Lake of Isles State Boat Launching Facility IV 3 Lake Zoar State Access Area 11 52 Lake Zoar State Boat Launching Facility 2 C) Lantern Hill Pond State Boat Launching Facility IV 2 Lattins Cove State Boat Launching Facility 11 5 Little Pond State Boat Launching Facility IV 1 Long Pond State Access Area IV 13 Long Pond State Boat Launching Facility Mamanasco Lake State Boat Launching Facility 11 2 Moodus Reservoir State Boat Launching Facility (2) 111 2 Muddy River State Access Area 11 1 Mudge Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 1 Mystic River State Access Area IV 1 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Niantic River State Boat Launching Facility 111 3 North Farms Reservoir State Access Area 11 70 North Farms Reservoir State Boat Launching Facility 1 Old Saybrook State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Park Pond State Boat Launching Facility I I Pataganset Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 Pawcatuck River State Access Area IV 12 C) Point Breeze IV 13 Ln Pond Brook State Boat Launching Facility 1 1 Powers Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 Quinebaug/Shetucket River Junction State Access Area IV 1 Quonnipaug Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 1 Rainbow Reservoir State Boat Launching Facility 1 3 Rogers Lake State Boat Launching Facility, 111 1 Saugatuck River State Access Area 11 4 Shetucket River State Access Area IV 1 Silver Lake State Access Area 1 17 Silver Lake State Boat Launching Facility 1 PRIMARY PRIMARY LAND CLASSIFICATION SUBCLASS CLASS SUBCLASSIFICATION REGION ACREAGE ACREAGE RESTRICTIONS Thames River (Groton) State Access Area IV 1 Thames River (New London State Boat Launching Facility V 1 Tollgate Pond State Access Area Ii Tyler Pond State Boat Launching Facility I Walker Reservoir State Access Area 111 1 Waumgumbaug Lake State Boat Launching Facility 111 2 Wauregan Reservoir State Access Area IV 1 West Hill Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 2 West Side Pond State Boat Launching Faci lity 1 1 Winchester Lake State Boat Launching Facility 1 1 Windsor Locks State Access Area 1 4 Wononskopomuc Lake State Access Area 1 1 Wilson State Boat Launching Facility I Windsor State Access Area 1 3 Wood Creek Pond State Boat Launching Facility 1 2 WATER BODY ACREAGE TOt,)N RESTRICTIONS 10. STATE-O' ED WA "JV tiTER BODIES Amos Lake 105.1 Preston Avery Pond 50.6 Preston Barber Pond 1-3 Bloomfield Federal Funds Bashan Lake 276.3 East Haddam Beachdale Pond 45.9 -Voluntown Beaverbrook Pond 11 Windham Beseck Lake 119.6 Middlefield Bigelow Pond 18.6 Union Billings Lake 105.1 North Stonington Black Pond (partial ownership) 75.1 Meriden Black Rock Pond Watertown Bolton Lake (lower) 178.4 Bolton Bolton Lake (middle) 150.4 Bolton Bolton Lake (upper) 35.4 Bolton Bolton Notch Pond 23 Bolton Breakneck Pond 104.7 Union WATER BODY ACREAGE TOWN RESTRICTIONS 10. STATE-OWNED WATER BODIES Burr Pond 85 Torrington Carlson Pond East Hampton Cedar Lake 68 Chester Chapins Pond Mansfield Crystal Lake 35.5 Middletown Darling Pond Chaplin Day Pond Colchester C) 00 Dodge Pond 40 East Lyme Dooley Pond 28 Middletown Eagleville Pond 80 Coventry-Mansfield Emmons Pond Hartland Forster Pond Killingworth Former owner-life use Gardner Lake (partial ownership) 486.8 Salem-Montville Gay City Pond Hebron Glasgo Pond 184.2 Griswold-Voluntown Gorton's Pond 70 East Lyme WATER BODY ACREAGE TOWN RESTRICTIONS Green Falls Reservoir 46.9 Voluntown Hackney Pond Haddam Hall's Pond 82.3 Eastford Hampton Reservoir 32.2 Hampton Hart Pond Cornwall Hatch Pond 61.5 Kent Haystack Mountain Pond Horfolk Higganum Reservoir 32 Haddam C) %D Hodge Pond 5 Voluntown Holbrook Pond 72-.5 Hebron Hopeville Pond 149.4 Griswold Horse Pond. East Lyme Howells Pond 17.3 Hartland Joshuatown Pond 3.4 Lyme Lake Louise Bloomfield Lantern Hill Pond 15.1 Ledyard-North Stonington Lily Pond Bethel WATER BODY ACREAGE TOWN RESTRICTIONS Mahoney Pond 15.5 Franklin Mansur Pond Chaplin Miller Pond Durham Mohawk Pond 15.2 Ccr nw'all Moodus Reservoir (partial ownership) 451 East Haddam Morey Pond 52.07 Union Federal Funds Mount Tom Pond- 61.5 Litchfield Natchaug Forest Pond Eastford North Farms Reservoir 62.5 Jallingford Northfield Pond 24.9 Litchfield Norwich Pond 27.5 Lyme Nystrom Pond 20 Litchfield Pachaug Forest Pond Voluntown Pachaug Pond (partial ownership) 830.9 Griswold Paper Mill Pond Oxford Park Pond 76.7 Winchester WATER BODY ACREAGE TOW14 RESTRICTIONS .Pataconk Lake Chester Maintenance Garage Pond Farmington Pataganset Lake 123 East Lyme Pickerel Lake 88.6 Colchester Picketts Pond Derby Pierrepont Pond Ridgefield Pine Acres Lake Hampton Porter Pond Voluntown Powers Lake 152.6 East Lyme Putnam Park Pond 22 Redding Quaddick Reservoir 466.8 Thompson Rangers Headquarters Pond East Hampton Ross Marsh Pond Kill.ingly Schreeder Pond Killingly Silver Lake 151 Berlin South Pond Bethel WATER BODY ACREAGE TOWN RESTRICTIONS Sterretts Pond Bethel Stratton Brook Pond Simsbury Tankerhoosen Lakes 24.6 Vernon Tetrault.Pond 60 Killingly Toll Gate',Pond. 5 Greenwich Uncas Lake .69 Lyme Unnamed Pond Durham Unnamed Pond Haddam Unnamed Pond Voluntown Unnamed Ponds (2) Hartland Walker Reservoir (partial ownership) 10 Vernon, 99 year lease Wauregan Reservoir 110 Plainfield Werner Woods Pond Canton Wharton Pond Wallingford Winchester Lake 229 Winchester 0 0 @-3 0 (D CD ca t:4 F3 0 0 0 Fj 11 ci- H) 0 ci- 0 C+- 0 :z 0 F--3 F-I 0 C) (D CD @Olg t-I C+ C+ 0 0 @-j U) CD m & cr, CD V-4 " C+ Sb @l 0 In C+ z C+. (D CD @co w @-l Ci- C+l 03 03 R C+ C+ P@ CD CD CD C+ H. (D 0 C+ 0 C-1 Ct) cn MARINE DISTRICT FIGURE B-1 DEP MANAGEMENT REGIONS a p p e n d i x c Recreation Demand in ConnecticUt 316 APPENDIX C RECREATION DEMAND IN CONNECTICUT Introduction Since the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Act in 1965 and the resulting formation of the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the various states have become deeply involved in the SCORP preparation and update process. A key element of this analysis is the determination of apparent unmet needst preparatory to proposing an action plan to correct them. The most obvious way to determine needs is by comparing the available supply of recreational facilities with some measure of apparent demand for such facilities; hence the need to calculate both factors in comparable terms. In the ensuing yearst a great deal of time and money nationwide have gone into this process and particularly into the quantification of recrea- tion demand. Some scholars have delved into the entire issue of leisure time and its use, as all elements thereof were thought to be competitors for a share of available leisure time. Others have hewed more closely to recreation or at 16ast the outdoor recreation component of it. However, most seem to have become bogged down in the attempt to construct a simple, clear methodology for estimation of demand. One problem was whether to stick strictly to actual or observed demand or to consider latent demand, or'the total possible amount of demand which a person could generate. If latent demand was to be considered at what point then could a "reasonable" standard of demand be located,, for not everyone can live in a beach or lakeside home offe ring unlimited opportunity for swimming for example. Following this train of thought, 317 it quickly became apparent that demand was largely a function of income and perhaps of education. The wealthier and better educated a person wasq the more he would tend to participate in recreational activities and to expect gre ater available recreational opportunity. However, the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund seemingly was not to meet the absolute needs of people who frequently were financially able to provide their own private opportunitiesy but rather to provide a basic threshold or satisfactory minimum standard of outdoor recreation opportunity for all. Therefore Connecticut SCORPs historically have tended to rely on standards which hopefully indicated a "reasonable" level of demand which should be the responsibility of various levels of government to address. Furthermore, Connecticut's SCORP planning has relied on standards of "instant demand" or "instant use.," a term more or less equivalent to average peak day use or that use likely to be experienced for swimming for example on an average summer weekend day. In this wayq "instant use" could be readily compared to units of capacity or "instant capacity." Thus no effort has been made to compute total annual or seasonal activity days for given sports as has been done in many other demand studies as well as Federal studies. Connecticutts 1978 SCORP Update generally follows the lead of earlier plans in estimating demand for outdoor recreation. Although an ongoing New England-New York Recreation Demand Study should result in a methodology for calculating both demand and inter-state flows of demands (hitherto a largely unquantified factor),, SCORP updating deadlines mandated that this revision rely on presently available materials. Thus the first step taken was to review the literature and in particular the SCORPs of certain 318 roughtly comparable states to obtain possible leads as to methodology and as to likely rates of participation in given recreational activities. The three studies most heavily relied upon in this process were: the New York SCORPp a related Tri-State Planning Commission survey which included approximately one-half of Connecticut's population (Figure C-1)9 and the Massachusetts SCORP. The first of these provided a statistically sophisticated yet logical and clear assessment of demand, especially in its "design day" approach. Apparently more or less equivalent to Con- necticut's "instant demandg" this approach provided a way to convert total activity days into the level of usage likely to be expected on an average peak day. Alsol the Tri-State study, which used the same survey data as the New York SCORP, permitted the expanded use of this data and methodology over a large portion of Connecticut. Although the Tri-State sample with its presumably somewhat more urban character may not perfectly reflect the precise nature of the entire Connecticut population as a whole, the table below shows that the socio-economic c.haracteristics of the survey sample and the overall state population are comparable, On this basis it was assumed that the Tri-State sample was fairly representative of the state population and in turn inferences could be made with regard to outdoor recreation participation on a statewide basis. Also., the Massachusetts SCORP was found to have many useful insights, especially on the effective length of season of certain sports and on changing trends in relative popularity of selected activities. As another useful chec-kp various HGRS materials including a 1972 study for the Northeast and preliminary data from the new National Outdoor Recreation Plan were consulted. LITC 6ED HiLi"' 6@Pl OL N RTHEA N N ICUT ONNEC INDH M CENT A ...... . CONN I C N R A CK MIDS SOU WASTE 6diIN CTICUT H US C VAAL EY S UT A Co 0 CTI T RI U LL GR ER FIGURE C- 1 TRI- STATE REGIO'N OF CONNECTICUT 320 Table C-1 COMPARISON OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TRI-STATE SAMPLE AND 1970 CONNECTICUT CENSUS Family Income Tri-State Sample a Connecticut _(%) - pop, (%)b $5000 15.3 13.6 5-10POOO 21.8 25.9 10@000 62.8 6o.5 Age Distri bution 15-18 9.7 10.0 19-64 76.9 76.7 65 and older 13.4 13.3 Se Male 43.9 48.5 Female 56.1 51.5 Race Blackp Spanish speaking 8.4 8.4 Other 91.6 91.6 a Based on unpublished survey data from Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. 1976. b Based on U.S. Census data from 1970. 321 The next step was to evaluate such selected materials to determine whether they could, either separately or in combination with others, provide a statistical estimate of "instand demand." A key element in this analysis was to look for quantitative similarities or groupings of findings between different approaches which might indicate a reasonable degree of statistical validity. Therefore subjective interpretAtion was added where necessary to develop-demand standards. A mix of approaches was there- fore utilized to obtain standards of instant demandq depending upon which seemed to provide the most relevant and valid information. In summing up, it has been the experience of SCORP planners in Con- necticut that quantitative estimation of recreation demand is a most inexact art. Interestingly HCRS also has recently deemphasized the role of demand assessment and has instructed states preparing SCORP revisions to do likewise. In light of the lack of statistically solid empirical data, Connecticut's approa ch with an emphasis on common sense blending of available data and intuition seems to be a practical, efficient method of.attacking this project. Discussion by MaJor Recreational Activity. The following section offers an estimation of recreational demand in Connecticut for all major activities and/or those for which some use data or assumptions are available, grouped again by general activity system: 1. Water Activily _System a. Swimming, a key activity for which use data is comparatively easy to obtain. In terms of total participation2 swimming indeed ranks as a very popular sport as seen in the table below. 322 Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Swimning New York State 50.7 Tri-State (Total) 55.2 Tri-State (Conn. portion only) 47.1 Massachusetts Pool 42.3 Other 66.8 HCRS (1972 Northeastern Study) Pool 20 Other 43 Although several of these sets of data are difficult to compare because they do not give a total participation rate for swimming@ it is clear that a very large segment of the population customarily engages in this activity at some time in the year. For Connecticut as a whole@ a participation rate of approximately 50 percent would seem reasonable, especially in view of the Tri-State and New York State data which generally seem to be statistically the most valid indications of demand. However., translation of total participation to instant participation is a step for which few guidelines seem available. One is a form The New York State SWRP@ which indiates that 20-25 percent of all participants in 1 IlDay Use" recreation enter the market on a so-called "Design Day." As this seems to mean an average peak use day, or an average summer weekend Swimming is considered to be the core element of "Day Use" recreation with Picnicking an ancillary activity. Connecticut's SCORP staff agrees with this New York assessment and therefore will not discuss Picnicking separately as a prime recreational activity. Instead it should be planned for as a part of the normal day use recreational experience. 323 day, this analysis has considered the New York "Design Day" concept equiva- lent to Connecticut's traditional "Instant Demand" approach. In terms of numbers of people, the New York appraoch applied to Connecticut would mean an instant swimming demand of about 12.5 percent of the total population. Earlier subjective interpretation of preliminary data from a mid 1960s state-wide telephone survey indicated an apparent instant resident demand for public swimming facilities of about 10 percent or so of the total population, with total swimming probably in the range of 12-15 percent. Later statistical analysis of this survey data predicted a 1975 instant swimming demand of 12.3 percent at state parks, which presumably can be translated to-mean "public facilities." Therefore the general validity of Connecticut's historic demand measures seems borne out. However this assessment conservatively will assume an instant demand for public swimming facilities of from 10-12 percent of the state's popu- lation. Therefore Connecticut-generated instant swimming demand as of 1975 was estimated to be approximately 310,000 to 375,000 persons on an average peak weekend day. b. BoAting. Determination of boating demand is even more difficultp because many surveys discuss boating as a whole and do not distinguish between motorized and non-motorized boating. Neverthelessp this assessment has attempted to cover eachlo.eparately. 1. Motorized boatingp the segment which seems to involve the largest segment of all boaters and for which the best use data exists. Participation data from various surveys is as follows: 324 Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Motorized Boating New York State 18.0 (All boating) Tri-State (Total) 23,3 (All boating) Tri-State.(Conn. portion only) 23.4 (All boating) Massachusetts 14.9 (Power only) HCRS (1972 Northeastern Study) 1-1 (Power only) Although no data on motorized boating above can be obtained from the New York and Tri-State surveys which generally have seemed to give the most accurate assessment of demand for Connecticut and surrounding areas,, from the other data one may apparently conclude that approximately 10-15 percent of Connecticutts population engages in this sport annually. A cross check on this assumption can be seen in power boat registrations which are approximately 70,000 annually (not including a substantial and growing number which reportedly are registered out-of-state by their Connecticut owners). Assuming an average family size of three to four people plus non-owners with access to use of a boat would seem to imply that some 10-15 percent of state residents have and preseumably exercise the opportunity to engage in this sport annually. A New York State conversion factor of 12 percent use by participants on a design day can then be used to estimate instant demand on an average peak day. Assuming the general validity of the 10-15 percent participation rate discussed above,, instant use may therefore be approximately 40j,000 to 60,000 people. Assuming again an average of four people per boaty some 10,000 to 152000 power boats may be utilizing Connecticut waters on an average peak weekend day. 325 2. Non-motorized boatingg consisting of canoeing, kayaking, and sailboating in particular. Unfortunately very little statistical data is available on these activities, beyond a Massachusetts annual participation rate of.18.5 percent for sailing and canoeing and preliminary data from a recent HCRS study.which seems to indicate a New England rate of 17 percent for canoeing/kayaking and 19 percent for sailing. As these figures subjectively seem highq they have not been utilized in this SCORP and no quantitative assessments of demand have been made. 2. Wildlife Siports a. Fishinz. Measures of the popularity of fishing are vatied.4 consisting of license sales (which support the opinion that few non-residents fish in Connecticut), DEP staff insights on peak and averag e peak useq and survey data. The simplest to use are the first two types. For example, fishing and combination license sales totalled 220,,000 in 105 (7 percent of the state's population).,.@ When the many non-licensed anglers, including children1 and marine fishermen are added, DEP staff feel that at least 20-25 percent of all Connecticut residents fish in a given year. In terms of instant useq DEP staff estimate a total of 60,000 to 70,000 fishermen on thd average summer weekend day (60 percent marine and 40 percent inland). However the major seasonal peak is the opening day of the trout season which seems to attract a minimum of 100pOOO fishermen, versus a minimum of 20,000 daily on normal spring weekends. Surveys have indicated at least one non-licensed juvenile fisherman accompanying every licensed fisherman plus many juvenile fishermen partici- pating with an adult. 2 1 1 See especially National Marine Fishery Service 1973-1974 survey which indicated 91000,000 men days/year of saltwater sport fishing in Connecticut or 12 days/year by the average fishermen. 326 Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Fishing New lork State, 19.0 Tri-State Region (Total) 21.3 Tri-State Region (Conn. portion only) 23.7 Massachusetts 20.4 BOR (1972.Northeastern Study) +16 Sindlinger Sports Participation, Repoi@t@(N"atiorial*Statistics'-1977) 19.5 From this data it seems safe to assume that participation 11evel-in the range of 20-25 percent is probably valid. In particularp it is likely that the level for the state as a.whole equals if not exceeds that for the Tri-State portion of Connecticut. Although representing only a minor differential perhaps explainable by error in the sampling process, the comparatively low participation rate for New York.State as a whole with its large rural population is mildly puzzling. Possibly one may see here the marine location of a Greater New York offsetting its highly urban character and expected lower participation rates. The only method of translating total annual participation-into daily use pressure was found in New York's SCORP, which'determined 'that 5.0 percent of all fishermen were apt to participate on a normal summer weekend day. Although Connecticut SCORP staff subjectively feel that this daily level of use seems low, the 5.0 percent-figure was applied against the 20-25 percent total participation rate (600*iOOO-750POOO people) and produced"a summer weekend day participation Ilevel in the range of 30.,000 to 40,000 a volume'oP use which seems to be low. Therefore a decision was made to use the DEP staff assessments as apparently the most valid estimate of fishing activity in Connecticut.'* 327 b. Huntina. As with fishing, the volume of hunting activity can be estimated by license sales, DEP staff opinions and survey data. License sales, again almost wholly to residents, are approximately llOyOO0 annually. When unlicensed hunters (16.3 in a 1965 National Survey of Fishing & Hunting) are addedq Connecticut residents generate roughly 140,000 hunters, or 4.5 of the population. Of these, DEP staff estimate an opening day participation of 50,000 to 60,000 and a normal weekend day demand in the range of 20,000 to 25.,000. Survey data from various sources indicates the following participation rates: Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Hunting New York State 8.1 Massachusetts 3.8 HCRS (1972 Northeastern study) +2 Sindlinger Sports Participation Report National Statistics 1977) 11.7 Of these, the ones with most relevance to Connecticut are New York and Massachusetts which bracket the 4.5 percent participation rates developed above from license figures. Therefore, an assumption.was made to rely in the 4.5 percent annual participation rate. However, use of the New York SCORP's detign day concept proved less successful. In New York,, 10 percent of all hunters seem to hunt on a design dayy again a figure which subjectively seems very low. Howevert when applied to Connecticut's total of 140,000 hunters, a design day use level of only 14,000 results. As this seems well below the levels reported by DEP staff., a decision was made to go with the opinions of the st aff experts. 328 3 CamiAng Estimation of demand for camping in Connecticut is more difficult that for many other recreational activities because of the substantial volumes of inter-state flows of users. Thus for exampleg a Connecticut Interregional Planni ng Program survey in the 1960's indicated that over 80 percent of Connecticut residents who:took a vacation did so out of state. As camping is largely a vacation type of recreational outing@ one may therefore assume a very substantial out-flow of resident generated demand. At the same timet origin and destination surveys of State campground users in Connecticut show a sizable number of out-of-staters. Largely comprised of New Yorkers utilizing parks in western Connecticut, percentages of non-residents at sample parks ranged from less than ten to as high as 29 percent. Total survey data provides the best guideline on general magnitudes of use. Data collected from various sources was as follows: Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Fishing New York State 9.2 Tri-State Region (Total) 12.2 Tri-State Region (Conn. portion) 11.4 HCRS (1972 Northeastern study) +11 Massachusetts 20.1 With an interesting grouping of rates in the 10-12 percent rangeq especially as the Tri-State data reflects the apparent activity of 50 percent of Connecticut's residentsp it seems safe to assume a likely Connecticut 329 participation rate of that magnitude. Converted to peoplet some 3109000 to 375jOOO state residents seem to participate annually in camping'. In terms of estimating average peak daily useg.recourse again was made to New York State's SCORP. Seemingly some 21 percent of all-campers in that state did so on a "design day." If this guideline is generally,applicable to adjoining Connecticut as seems likely.. at least 60,000 and possibly up to 75,000 state campers are seeking accommodations on an average summer weekend. 4. Trail Oriented Activities @a., Walkin-a & Hiking. Because of the difficulty in distinguishing amongst the various forms of hiking and particularly the casual nature walk and hiking variants and the vary-Ing definitions used in different SCORP. analyses, it is impossible to accurately calculate the volume of "walking and hiking" use. This survey's results indicate the following wide range in participation rates: Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Walkina New York 7.7 Tri-State (Total) 21.6 Tri-State (Conn. portion only) 20.2 Massachusetts 29.7 HCRS (1972 Northeastern study) 5 Assuming a roughly 20 percent rate for walkingg broadly interpreted to include hiking, nature walksq backpacking., etc.j.at least,600,000,Connecticut residents enj-oy this activity annually. However the same table perhaps 330 hin ts that walking more narrowly defined to include hiking alone (as in New York) may be no more-than 30-40 percent of the total at most. As the New York SCORP did not include day use conversion factors for walking or hikingt no estimates based on survey data can be made (Survey data also may be inadequate because of the small survey response rate for relatively low volume use sports such as hiking). Thus a most subjective assumption was made that, of the 6009000 or so nature-oriented walkers in the state, probably no more than 20,000 to 30,000 are apt to be so engaged on an average peak day. b. Horseback riding. Again estimation of demand must rely upon scattered survey datap as seen below: Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Horseback Riding., New York 8.0 Massachasetts 10.1 HCRS (1972 Northeastern Study) +6 Therefore a safe assumption is that no more than 10 percent of state residents participate'in horseback ridingt with the rate possibly considerably lower. As no data on day use exists, an estimate must be purely subjective. Simply to fill a voidp this SCORP therefore predicts a peak day use of no more than 20pOOO to 30YO00 people. c. Skiina. Scattered data on participating in downhill skiing is as follows: 331 Source Percent of Population Particilpatin New York 7.4 Sindlinger Sports Participation Report (National Statistics 1977) 5.8 HCRS-Preliminary 1976 data 7.0 Therefore a Connecticut participation rate of at least seven percent seems reasonable. Using a New York SCORP conversion factor of 15 percent 'participation of all skiiers on a design dayy it seems likely that-somewhat over one percent of the state's population@ approximately 30YO00 to 40,000 peopley are apt to ski on an average winter weekend day, often at out of state ski areas. Data on cross country skiing is much more sparse. Indeed the only solid indicator comes from BOR's preliminary 1976 data which shows a-two percent participation rate. Again utilizing New Yorkts 15 percent design day participat ion ratev possibly 10@000 Connecticut residents cross country ski on a similar winter weekend day. d. Snowmobiling. No satisfactory data on snowmobiling use in Connecticut exists, a problem magnified by the fact.that only 20 percent of the estimated 50,000 snowmobiles in the state are registered in Connecticut and that the bulk of the utilizing generated by state residents takes place out of state. However snowmobiles themselves estimate that approximately 2,500 to 3,,000 -machines are in use in Connecticut on a peak. day, e. Trailbike Riding. As with snowmobiling no solid data on participation or use exists. However, there are approximately 7000 trailbikes and an 332 additional 20fOOO combination road and trailbikes in Connecticut. Of these, trailbikes spokesmen estimate a peak day use in the range of 3yOOO to 3000 bikes. f. Bicyclin A fast-expanding sport in recent years,, bicycling data indicates the following rates of participation: Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Bicycling New York 25.0 Tri-State (Total) 31.6 Tri-State (Conn. Only) 29.7 Massachusetts 41.0 Thus it is likely that at least 30 percent of Connecticut's population engages in bicyclingt a total of roughly 11000,000 people. However no data on instant use is available. 5. Other Activities In addition to those recreational pursuants covered under the four major activity systems and which tend to be state-wide or.regional in character, there are a number of other activities of more local nature., Some of the more significant of these and for which at least some partici- pation data is available include: a. Golfine. Participation rates for golfing have been estimated in various studies,as follows: 333 Percent of Population Participating Sgurce Annually in Golfing New York State 7.8 Tri-State (Total) 10.0 Tri-State (Conn. portion only) 15.5 Massachusetts 12.8 Sindlinger Sports Participation Report (National Statistics-1977) 15.9 As golfing seems to be particularly an urban-suburban sportp the Tri- State figures are likely more valid than that for New York State as a whole. However the Tri-State (Conn. portion only) rate of 15.5 percent seems rather high, raising the question of validity based on sample size. Therefore a conservative estimate of participation in the range of 12 percent may be more reasonable. To convert this usage to some function of "instant demandt" New York State's guideline of 15 percent of the participating public entering the market on the design day was used. Therefore average weekend day demand in Connecticut is probably in the range of 55,000 people. b. Tennis. A very fast growing sport, as seen in the table below: Percent of Population Participating Source Annually in Tennis Tri-State (Total) 22.7 Tri-State (Conn. portion only). 30.1 Massachusetts 29.4 Sindlinger Sports Participation Report (National Statistics-1977) 29.6 334 Thas a rate of participation of 30 percent seems reasonablev a level of involvement, seemingly supported by preliminary 1976 BOR data. (In contrast HCRS data for the Northeastern States in 1972 indicated a rate of only six percent approximatelyq showing the booming nature of the sport). Howevers these figures do not indicate the division between the share warranted by indoor and outdoor tennis respectivelyp effecting the usefulness of the data considerably. In addition there are no avail- able guidelines on conversion of participation in tennis to average peak day demand. @c. Outdoor Games/Field Games$ including baseball., basketballq football@ and the mushrooming sport of softball. Although some frag- mentary data for specific sports exists, they are discussed as a'related grouping in this discussion as follows: Source Percent of Population Participating Annually in Outdoor Games HCRS (1972 Northeastern Study) 23.0 Massachusetts 29.4 Therefore when increasing participation is considered over the course of the year it is likely that 25 percent to 30 percent of Connecticut's residents play at least one of these sports. Obviously with such a mixed category, no peak day use estimates can be provided. However, as a point of information, a New York State design day guideline of nine percent of the participating public is listed. A p p e n d i x d Department of Community Affairs R ecreat ion Survey 335 APPENDIX D DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS RECREATION SURVEY The State of Connecticut Department of Community Affairs (DCA) surveyed by mail municipal recreation facilities for the purpose of assessing the adequacy of such local recreation facilities. Of Con- n.ecticut's 169 municipalities, 116 participated (69 percent) in the survey. Survey responses were analyzed by individual recreational activities for the following seven population size classes: 1. Under 3,500 population 2. 3,500 to 7.999 3. 81000 to 141999 4. 15)000 to 24,999 5. 25,000 to 39,999 6. 4D,000 to 74p999 7. 75,000 and over The adequacy of existing municipal recreation supply was assessed in relation to recommended minimum supply standards presented in Table D-1. The inherent limitations of basing a supply analysis on standards should be recognized. Such national standards are subjectivet do not take into account municipal recreation programming@ and should be used'only as a guide. Despite these limitations, the DCA study provides some useful insights into the adequacy of existing municipal outdoor recreation facilities and the opportunities they provide.2 The DCA study findings regarding local outdoor recreation are presented below by population size class. 1 Department of Community Affairsj, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionnaire. August, 1977. 2Natural swimming areas and picnicking areas were not included in the survey. 336 Table D-1 OUTDOOR RECREATION MINIMUM SUPPLY STANDARDSa Item Standard (Propulation)b Source Total Acreage 15 acres/1,000 Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) Baseball Diamond 1/6000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Softball Diamond 113000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Little League Diamond 1/2000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Baseball Court 1/4000 CRCOG Football Field 1/15tooo U.S. Dept. of Interior Soccer Field 1/15,000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Track 1/20.'000 CRCOG Tennis Court 1/2,000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Handball Court 1/10@000 CRCOG Platform Tennis 1/1,500 CRCOG Lawn Bowling On demand only Golf Course 1 hole/3000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Natural Beach Areas Capacity for 3% of U.S. Dept. of Interior total population Manmade Outdoor Pool 1/15S000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Ice Skating Rink 1/50@000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Ice Hockey Rink 1/50,000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Roller Skating Rink 1/509000 Conn. Dept. of Community Affairs Boat Launch Area 1/public-owned waterbody for boating Conn. Dept. of Comminity Affairs Boat Dodk/Marina 1/public-owned waterbody for boating Conn. Dept. of Community Affairs Camp sites 4 people per site; capacity for 3% total population U.S, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Picnic Area 5 people per table; capacity for 3% of total population U.S. Dept. of Interior Ski Slope On demand only Bandshell 1/259000 U.S. Dept. of Interior Rifle Range, On demand only aDepartment of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut, Results of State- wide Recreation Questionnaire. August 1977. bStandards presented are not official standards of the Department of Environmental Protection or the State of Connecticut. 337 As seen in Figure D-1, Connecticut's smallest towns with populations less than 3,500 primarily provide the basic outdoor recreation facilities such as baseball, softball, and soccer fields plus basketball courts. For these types of facilities, 50 percent or more of the towns met or exceeded the standard, Water-based recreation facilities@such as outdoor poolsq boat launching areas@ boating areas, and boat docks are often not available. A maximum of 30 percent of the smallest towns meet the standards for these types of facilities. Facilities less in demand are generally not available in the State's smallest towns. These include handball courts,, platform tennis, golf, ice hockeyq and roller skating rinks. Overall acreage of recreational lands met the standard of 15 acres per 1000 population in 45 percent of the respondent towns. The adequacy of outdoor recreation facilities for municipalities in the survey with a population of 39500 to 7,999 is shown in Figure D-2. Acreage of recreation lands met or exceeded the standard in less than 30- percent of the towns surveyed in this population class. Baseball fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, and tennis courts are the only outdoor recreation facilities provided to standards by 50 percent or more towns in the survey. Softball and Little League fields appear to be lacking in sufficient quantities in the majority of towns. Water-based recreation facilities are also limited in supply. Adequate water-based facilities are provided by 35 percent or less of the respondent municipalities. A broader range of outdoor recreation facilities is available in Connecticut towns of 8,,000 to 14,999 population than those with smaller populations (Figure D-3). Baseball fields) football fields, soccer fields, 338 FIGURE D-1 PERCENTAGE OF TOWNS WITH A POPULATION UNDER 3500 MEETING OR EXCEEDING MINIMUM OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY STANDARDS a PERCENT b 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 OUTDOOR FACILITIES Acreage ............ Baseball Field .. .. ... ...... Y., :L:A!:L:L Softball Field Little League x . ... ....... Basketball Court Football Field Soccer Field ." x., Track & Field Area Handball Court ......... ............ .................. Tennis Court ............ Platform Tennis Golf Course Man-made Outdoor Poo1*"*"'*'***' Ice Skating Rink 4= Ice Hockey Rink Roller Skating Rink Boat Launch Area Boating Area Boat Dock Band Shell aDepartment of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionnaire. August 1977. bBased on response from 20 towns (54%) in this population class. 339 FIGURE D-2 PERCENTAGE OF TOWNS WITH A POPULATION OF 3500 - 7999 MEETING OR EXCEEDING MINIMUM OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY STANDARDSa PER4CENT b 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 OUTDOOR FACILITIES Acreage .......... ........... % Baseball Field I % . . . . . .. . . . Softball Field ....... Little I-eague Basketball Court otball Field C ........ ..... .. .... ........ .... ............... Soccer Field .. ......... .. Track & Field Area Handball Court Tennis Court ... Platform Tennis Golf Course . ...... Yhn-nade Outdror Pool:::*:.:.:.:.:':.: ............ ice. O'kating Rink Tce Hockey Rink Holler Skating Rink IR o aLaunch Area Boating Area Boat Dock Band Shell aDepartment of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionnaire. August 1977. bBased on responses from 25 towns (69%) in this population class. 340 FIGURE D-3 PERCENTAGE OF TOWNS WITH A POPULATION OF 8000-14,999 MEETING OR EXCEEDING,MINIMUM. OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY STANDARDSa PERCENT b 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 OUTDOOR FACILITMS I .. ................ ............ ... ....... Acreage . .. ............... . ........... Baseball Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Softball Field Little League Basketball Court ....... . 1-1-1 +44- -V-V1 +-r--5 . . . . . . . .. . . Football Field . ....... *.*. .*. ttt-. . . Soccer Field .. ........ Track & Field Area ..... .. . Handball Court ............ Tennis Court ...... ................... Platform Tennis Golf Course Man -ade Outdoor Pool'001* .......... . Ice Skating Rink Rink Ice Hockey Roller Skating Rink ............... .. ........0... @.. .0 ....... . .. ........0...... .... Boat Launch. Area X Boating Area Boat Dock ...... Band Shell Department of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionaire. August 1977. b :F@t Based on responses from 24 towns (71%) in this population size class. 341 basketball courts2 tennis courts, and field and track areas are provided in quantities which met the standards in 50 percent or more of the towns. Half of the municipalities provide adequate boat launching facilities. There are significantly fewer towns that met the standards for softball and Little League fields. Half of the towns with populations of 15,000 to 24,999 met or exceeded outdoor recreation supply standards of four types of facilities (Figure D-1+). These recreation facilities include softball fields, tennis courts, ice skating rinksg and boat launching areas. Noteworthy is the lack of Little League facilities. Total recreation acreage in approximately 35 percent of the responding municipalities met the standard of 15 acres per 1,000 population Towns in the next largest population categoryt 259000 to 399999 appear to be severely lacking in acre age of outdoor recreational lands (Figure D-5). In addition, a reduction in the number of towns meeting supply standards is seen. This is particularly noticeable in the various types of baseball facilities. However,, five types of facilities are provided to 50 percent of standards; including soccer fields9 track and field areas, tennis courts, golf coursesj and boat launching areas, The reduction in the number of towns meeting supply standards continues in the municipalities within the 40,000 to 74,999 population size group (Figure D-6). Three types of outdoor recreation facilities; football, soccer, and boat launching; are provided to standards by 50 percent of the towns. Only twenty percent of these towns met or exceeded the standard for total acreage of outdoor recreational lands. As illustrated in Figure D-7, Connecticut's most populated cities (75,000 and over)@ are severely lacking in most types of outdoor recreation 342 facilities. Basketball courts are the only sport facility available in any quantity in the State's largest municipalities. Baseball and track and field areas are extremely lacking. 343 FIGURE D-4 PERCENTAGE OF TOWNS WITH A POPULATION OF 15,000-24,999 MEETING OR EXCEEDING MINIMUM OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY STANDARDSa PERCENT b 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 @OUTDOOR FACILITIES Acreage Baseball Field Softball Field Littl e League ... ..... ............. ............... .......... ... ... ................ Basketball Court ......... .. .. ........ Football Field Soccer Field ........... ........ . ............ ...... ......... .................. .. .. ......... I.. ...... Track & Field Area ......... ..... ............ Handball Court ........... Tennis Court ................. .. ............ .. ......... ......... .. Platform Tennis .. .............. Golf Course Man-made Outdoor Pool ........... .. ... ............... .. .. ... .... ... .. ..... Ice Skating Rink - *** . .... . .......... Ice Hockey Rink Roller Skating Rink .. ...... .. Boat Launch Area ......... .. V. ^414L 'Boating Area ...... Boat Dock Band Shell Department of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionaire. August 1977. bBased on responses from 22 towns (79%) in population size class. 344 FIGURE D-5 PERCENTAGE OF TOWNS WITH A POPULATION OF 25,000-39,999 MEETING OR EXCEEDING MINIMUM OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY STANDARDS a PERCENT b 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 OUTDOOR FACILITIES Acreage Baseball Field Softball Field Little League o -7-.1 Basketball Court Football Field ................ Soccer Field ......... ........ Track & Field Area Handball Court ............. .. ......... Tennis Court ............ . .. ............. ...... Platform Tennis ........... ... .. ............. ......... Golf Course Man--@made Outdoor Pool::.: ... .. .............. .......... . lee Skating Rink . .. ....... . Ice Hockey Rink Roller Skating Rink .......... Boat Launch Area ... .......... Boating Area ......... .. ...... Boat Dock L-&A J6.L-& Band Shall aDepartment of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionaire. August 1977. bBased on responses from 10 towns (77%) in population size class. 345 FIGURE D-6: PERCENTAGE OF TOWNS WITH A POPULATION OF 40,000 - 74,999 MEETING OR EXCEEDING MINIMUM OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY STANDARDSa PERCENT b 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 100 OUTDOOR FACILITIES Acreage .. ......... ........ Baseball Field ........... Softball Field Little League Basketball Court . ............. .. ............ Football Field Soccer Field .............. Track & Field Area Handball Court Tennis Court Platform Tennis Golf Course Man-made Outdoor Pool Ice Skating Rink Tee Hockey Rink Roller Skating Rink .. ............... ............ Boat Launch Area ............... ..... ........ ... .. ..... Boating Area Boat Dock Band Shell aDepartment of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of Statewide Recreational Questionnaire. August 1977. bBased on responses from 10 towns (71%) in population size class. 346 FIGURE D-7 PERCENTAGE'OF TOWNS WITH A POPULATION OF 75,000 OR OVER MEETING OR EXCEEDING MINIMUM OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY STANDARDSa PERCENT b' 0 10 20 3.0 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 OUTDOOR FACILITIES 'Acreage Baseball Field Softball Field .Little league .......................... Basketball Court ............ ............ Football Field Soccer Field Track & Field Area Handball Court Tennis Court Platform Tennis Golf Course Man-made Outdoor Pool Ice Skating Rink ...... . . ............ .. Ice Hockey Rink Roller Skating Rink ...... .. .. . .......... ... ....... Boat Launch Area ....... .. ....... . ............... .. Boating Area Boat Dock Band Shell aDepartment of Community Affairs, State of Connecticut. Results of.Statewide Recreational Questionnaire. August 1977. bBased on responses from 5 towns (71%) in population size class. a p p e n d e i x Municipal Needs and Preferences Survey 347 APPENDIX E MUNICIPAL NEEDS AND PREFERENCES SURVEY Introduction To help ascertain local perspectives on outdoor recreation needs in Connecticut at the municipal levelp a mail questionnaire was sent to all 169 communities in the state (see at end of this Appendix). The selected contact was the Recreation and/or Park Director, the Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman, or where such a body was lacking., the First Selectman or other highest local official. Assisted by two series of follow up telephone calls, responses were finally received from 74 communitiesp or about 44 percent of the total as seen on the map following.1 This was deemed a satisfactory rate of response to obtain the needed local point of view. Furthermore, it also reflected a satisfactory diversity of response, from urban2 suburb an, and rural towns alike. Survey Findings Responses to key survey questions were tiy board category of community (urban, suburbany rural) to determine.any geographic patterns and generali- zations which might be apparent. Discussion by selected survey questions was as follows: .Question 3. "Below are some-problems or issues in outdoor recreation which confront some towns. Please rank these as to their importance in your town." As several responses were received late, subsequent to the completion of the analysis of the survey results, it was not possible to include them in the survey findings. FIELD HILLS A N CONN ICU ........... .. .. ...... m .... ... .. . ....... . .. .. .. . .... ...... -C-EW-A CONN CEN CK co .. ...... .. .......... .......... C VALLEY ........... UTH N RA ...... ..... T .. .... . . . . . GR El ... ....... .......... FIGURE E RETURNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MUNICIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE ............ [cc U R B A N SUBURBAN 'j R U R A LS M A L L T 0 W N SOURCE, CONNECTICUT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 1968 349 The top five listed problems for each town were grouped as to their frequency of mention and tabulated as seen below: Table E-1 RANKING OF OUTDOOR RECREATION PROBLEM CONFRONTING TOWNS BY PRIORITY Number of Towns Problems Problems Problem #1-5 #1-3 #1 1. Lack of funds to develop 60 51 33 2. Lack of funds to maintain 50 33 8 3. Lack of neighborhood facilities 45 22 2 4. Lack of funds for programs 34 23 5 5. Lack of funds for acquisition 33 22 9 6. Vandalism and crime 29 12 1 7. Rapid Population Growth 21 14 6 8. Lack of suitable.land for open space 17 12. 4 9. Other 6 5 4 The above table indicates that the five top municipal recreation problems by order of priority seem to be: (1) lack of funds to develop, (2) lack of funds to maintain, (3) lack of facilities in neighborhoods, (4) lack of funds for programs, and (5) lack of funds for acquisition. Grouping into the top three problems and the number-one problem further bear out this finding, especially in the case of lack of funds to develop. The survey findings indicate some internal variance in order of priority, indicating the perceived needs of various community subtypes. Question 4. "Below are some recreati onal activities. Please indicate your estimate of where your town's resident's are most likely to carry out the activity" (In Town, In Region, Other Part of State, or Out-of-State). a. Swimming. Apparently most Connecticut residents do the bulk of their swimming in their home community, particularly along the coast where percentages exceed 90%. Exceptions 350 to this generalization include some smaller towns with no swimming facilities and some suburban and moderate- sized communities with inadequate facilities. The remaining participation in swimming seems to be largely oriented to regional facilities. b. -Boating-Motorized. Not surprisinglyg local use has a majority or near majority share only along the coast or selected inland areas as around Lake Candlewood possessing a prime opportunity for bating. Examples of regional use seem scattered@ occurring largely near Long Island Sound and in the Eastern Highlandz, where the region contains suitable boating water. Use outside the region yet within the state is noteworthy in resource-poor inland central Connecticut where it tends to have a majority or at least substantial share of the total participation. c. Boatina-Non-Motorized. This is clearly a resource- based sport which frequently cannot be enjoyed in one's home town. Thus use seems to occur primarily in the same region or elsewhere within the state. d. Fishina. Interestingly, fishing is largely a highly localized activity, generally carried out either in the home town or home region of the participant. The one major exception is seen in urbanized central Connecticut where the bulk of the use oc cur s outside the home region yet within the state, probably reflecting both its relatively resource-poor status and the interest in marine fishing on the part of inland anglers. e. Hunting. As might be expected, the location of hunting in Connecticut in inversely related to the degree of density of settlement. Therefore local hunting dominates only in rural areas such as northwest or northeast Connecticut. Regional use is important throughout much of eastern Connecticut. Elsewhere State use is seen especially in urbanized Central Connecticut south to Milford. Out-of- State use dominates in southwestern Connecticut and easterly along the coast to the New Haven area, directly reflecting the lack of hunting opportunity in this area. f. Campina. This activity is basically extra-regional in nature, with the location of use generally fairly evenly split in terms of dominant use between State (outside the home region) and Out-of-State use. The former is stronger in central inland Connecticut, with the latter seeming somewhat stronger in parts of northern 'and western Con- necticut with their ready access to the Berkshires and other desirable camping areas to the north. 351 9. Hiking. This is basically an In-State activity. How- ever use within the state is split amongst local@ regional@ and extra-regional locations with no clear geographic patterns of preference. h. Picnicking. Generally speaking@ picnicking tends to be a local or regional activity. Within this framework2 local use predominates, with substantial regional use seen, especially in Greater New Haven and northern Hartford County. i. Nature Study. Prirn&rily a local or regional sport., with local use predominating. However@ scattered traces of use outside the home region yet within the state are seen especially in Greater New Haven and northern Hartford County. J. Snowmobiling. Because of its resource-oriented nature, limited snow accumulation in much of Connecticut,, and the need for room in which to operateg snowmobiling demonstrates a large out-of-state flow of use, especially from southern/ coastal and inland/urbanized areas. k. Downhill Skiing. Again highly resource-based, this is a very largely out-of-state-oriented sport, except perhaps in some rural areas of eastern and western Connecticut. The main exceptions to this rule seem to be in the vicinity of major in-state ski areas. 1. Cross Country Skiing. This is primarily an out-of-state or extra-regional activityp with both categories combined usually having 75% or more of the total use. Although both are distributed state-widep in-region or local cross country skiing seem somewhat stronger in snowy., rural northwest Connecticut. m. Skating. Skating is basically a local sport, although there is substantial evidence of strong regional use. Perhaps the dominant use represents outside skating, with regional use reflecting indoor (arena) skating in towns located rela- tively near such arenas. n. Golfing. Almost wholly a Local or Regional sport, golfing is enjoyed either in one's home town or in an adjoining town if local facilities are lacking. o. Biking. Basically a.local activity, with scattered evidence or strong Regional use. p. Tennis. Almost wholly a local sport with scattered sub- stantial Regional useq especially in ruralg have-nottowns. 352 q. Ball Pla3dng. Nearly always a predominately Local sport. Scattered towns indicate major Regional use, perhaps indicating town team sports played out-of-town. Question 5. "Please list any special outdoor recreation programs your town has for certain segments of the popu- lation (for example, children, teenagers, elderly adults, the handicapped3, low-income families)." By frequency of response, the ranking by order of the most common special programs was: 1. Swimming 2. Childrents sports tied 2. Senior Citizen Programs 4. Baseball 5. Tennis 6. Teen programs 7. Playground 8. Handicapped 9. Football 10. Skating tied 10. Day Camp Further ranking by general community type provided the following results: 1. Rural towns emphasized children's sports, followed by swimming., Teens and Tennis, Softball and Ballfields. 2. Suburban towns emphasized Childrents sports., Teens, Senior Citizens. 3. Urban, Fragmentary responses were deemed to be of little use. Question 5a. "Of these special programs, please indicate (1) those programs which you feel are most adequate for the popu- lation served and (2) those areas where you think a program is needed or improvement in an existing program is needed." The resulting findings were as follows: 353 1. Which Special Proarams Seem Adeauate a. By frequency of ranking: 1. Baseball 2. SwI-mm*In .1 tennis@ playground, childrents sports %ed) b. By Community type: 1. Rural - Baseball, softball 2. Suburban - Children's sports, swimming 3. Urban - Fragmentary responses were deemed to be of little use. 2. Which Special Programs Seem Inadequate a. Py freq@iency of ranking: 1. Senior Citizens programs 2. Skating 3. Teen programs 4. Swimming b. B_y Community Tv-pe: 1. Rural - Seniors, also swimming and skating 2. Suburban - Skating, teens@ seniors, then swimming and fishing 3. Urban - Seniors Question 5b. "What have been the primary factors in the successful programs? By frequency of rankingg the following factors were felt to be the most critical ones: 1. Capable Staff People - leads in all community types, although money also significant in suburban towns. 2. Money 3. Facilities Question 5-c "What is needed to improve or start the other programs?" Similarly the needed-ingredients for success by order of ranking were felt to be: 1. Money 2. Capable staff people 3. Facilities 354 By community type., these opinions varied s3ightly as follows: 1. Rural Money followed by People 2. Suburban - Money and People tied 3. Urb - Money Question 6. "What types of facilities in your town are so heavily used that additional facilities appear to be necessary?" By order of ranking, the following needs were perceived: 1. Swimming 2. Tennis 3. Ball fields 4. Playgrounds 5. Skating 6. Specialized ball fields (soccer., softball). However, if this category added to #3 (Ball fields)category becomes tied for #1 ranking. Varying needs by general community type were: 1. Rural. Tennis, followed by Swimming and Ball Fields. Lesser needs included Playgrounds, Specialized Ball Fields, Skating. 2. Suburban. Specialized Ball Fields., followed by Swimming and Tennis, Ball Fields. Also noteworthy were Skating, Golf, Playgrounds and Bike Paths. 3. Urban. Only scattered responses received., with Ball Fields dominant. Question 6a. "What new facilities will your residents most need in the next five years?" By frequency of response, the resultant ranking was as follows: 1. Swimming 2. Tennis 3. Ball fields (If specialized Ball Fields added, this category becomes #1) 4. Playgrounds Tied 4. Skating 355 Question 6b. "What new facilities will your residents most need in the next twenty years?" Closely echoing the findings of 6a abovet the perceived most acute needs included: 1. Tennis 2. Swimming 3. Ball Fields (If specialized Ball fields added, this category becomes #2) 4. Skating Tied 4. Biking Question 7. "Which new recreational programs (not development of physical facilities) would your town like to initiate?" By frequency of ranking, the following programs were deemed desirable to initiate: 1. Senior Citizen 2. Biking tied 2. Swimming 4. Teen 5. Skating, Tennis Comments by community type included: 1. Rural - The new fesponses received recommended Senior Citizens, Swimming, Teen, and Skating programs respectively. 2. Suburb - Senior Citizen programs again were deemed the top priority, followed by Soccer and Swimming, Biking, Teen, and Children's programs. 3. Urban - The very few responses received did not allow development @-f-auy generalizations as to prictity. Question 7a. "What has been the major obstacle to initiating a program such as you have just listed?" By general ranking, the chief obstacles appeared to be 356 1. Money (roughly 60% of all responses) 2. Suitable people (21% of responses) 3. Facilities (17% of responses) However, these perceptions differed somewhat by category of Community as seen below: 1. R-=al- - Money (72%)9 Facilities (18%) 2. Suburba - Money (50%), People (37%)9 Facilities,(13%) 3. Urban - Money (75%), Facilities (25%) Question 8. "What in your opinion is the major outdoor recreation need facing our State?" Survey findings were as follows: By Ranking 1. Beaches and money (Tied) 3. Open Spaces, Swimming, and Camping (Tied) (If Beaches and Swimming combined - easily #1 in ranking.) By Community L@Me 1. Rural - Swimming (Beach and swimming), Money Also Open Space/Parks. 2. Suburban - Swimming dominant, Open Space/Parks, Money. 3. Urban - Scattered responses with no findings possible. Question 9. "What should the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan contain to be the most useful to you?" Few responses to this question were given2 with most simply saying "Information." Question 10. "In which ways can the Department of Environmental Protection best assist your town in meeting its outdoor recreation needs?" The ranking of responses was as follows: 357 1. Technical Assistance 2. Information, Technical information 3. Money (1) Question 11. "In your recreational planning and management, what kinds of information would be most helpful?" Responses included the following recommendations: 1. Technical information (over 75% of responses) 2. Funding Information Question 12. "In regard to outdoor recreation@ what is the State not doing that you think it should be doing?" Responses by ranking included: 1. Technical information 2. State and regional parks 3. Money Question 13. "In regard to outdoor recreationg what is the State presently doing that you think it ought not do?" Interestingly enough, very few and scattered answers were made to this trial balloon question. Question 14. "What do you see as your town's principal contribution to the Statewide recreation system?" This rather philosophical question,elicited a general response that provision of -town facilities or of town facilities open to the public was the prime local contribution. Conclusions In general) this survey effort proved worthwhileg both in terms of percent of response and of general quality of response to specific queries. Particularly useful responses were received for Questions 3 through 8 358 which provided the new material for recommendations made elsewhere in this SCORP. On the other hand@ Questions 9-14 admittedly were less specific in nature and attracted responses which tended to be fragmentary, irrelevant, and therefore less useful. Thus future resurveys of municipal needs and preferences should place primary emphasis on the first half of this questionnaire and perhaps even consider adding more specific questions if deemed desirable. a p p e n d f i x Public Attitudes and Preferences Survey 359 APPENDIX F PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES SURVEY Introduction One method of obtaining public input into Connecticut's 1978 revision of lts SCORP was to send a questionnaire on outdoor recreation issues to .a wide range of groups and organizations. Thas a list of 141 organizations was developed (see Appendix H) which represented the full spectrum of Connecticut's society., including business, labor@ minority and handi- capped groups as well as conservation and recreation interests. The attached questionnaire (see at end of Appendix) was then sent to each and was followed up with two series of telephone calls to encourage a satis- factory rate of response. Final returns totaled 31, or approximately 22% of the survey sample. Although the re latively low rate of response did not always allow solid generalizations to be made concerning the opinion of certain categories of interest groups, it was nevertheless felt that useful indicators of public concerns and priorities were obtained. Inferences from this survey should be made with recognizing that the greatest response was received from conservation and recreation user organizations. Survey Findim-_s As detailed in the pages following, public opinions as expressed by. frequency of responses were offered for the following_questions: Question 1. "In using its limited dollars available for outdoor recreation and open space preservation, government must develop priorities which will direct its spending to areas and programs of critical need or major opportunity. In your organization's opinion, what should be the top five action priorities by each of the following sections of government?" 360 The replies ranked as follows: a FEDERAL 1. Open space preservation 2. Shore/beach access expansion 3. Matching grants-in-aid to help local and state government 4. National Park and Recreation Areas tie 4. Trails and.hiking 6. Wildlife Preservation b. STATE 1. Shore/beach access 2. Water access grouped (rivers, general water access, swimming) tie 2. General acquisition 4. Farmland 5. Trails and hiking 6. Watershed land, acquifiers 7. Development of existing facilities 8. Wetlands 9. Other significant issues raised included Camping, Maintenance, Hunting and Fishing access c. MUNICIPAL 1. Acquisition of parks and open space, especially access to rivers and lakes, swimming facilities 2. Suitable land use planning and control 3. " Local" /Neighborhood parks ) 3. Development of parks tie 3. Farmland Question 2. "Do you feel that Connecticut's State Government is spending an adequate amount of money on outdoor recreation opportunity and on open space preservation?" The overwhelming response was "NO." This reaction was seen particu- larly with environmental, sportsmen, and associated organizations. Question 2a. "If your answer (to Question 2) is NO, what specific improvements would you like to recommend?" The two most common recommendations., which received more or less equal backing were: 1. A strong or not particularly well articulated desire for improved State facilities2 especially concerning beaches and to a lesser extent swimming in general. 361 2. An emphasis on increased land acquisition, especially by environmental , recreation-, and sportsmen groups. Other issues receiving a significant response included: 1. Providing sufficient State moneys to match available Federal grant-in-aid moneys. 2. Increasing the amount of Federal grant-in-aid moneys. 3. Boat ramps and associated parking areas. Question 2b. "If your answer (to Question 2) is "NO" how do you feel such improvements should be financed?" Respondent recommendations by frequency of occurrence included: 1. Major support for increased State spending (taxes, bonding, freeing-up previously-authorized bonding). 2. Also significant support for increased user fees, particu- larly dedicated fees where fee increases were.dedicated to capital spending (acquisition and development) 3. The real estate transfer tax 4. Continued Federal-State cost sharing, perhaps with increased Federal share. Question 3. "How adequate (quantity or quality-wise), are our existing State outdoor recreation facilities?) Survey responses were somewhat divided as follows: a. A strong majority feels that State facilities are at least partially inadequate, with there being a strong "Inadequate" vote. Major complaints especially from environmental groups, involved the beach or shore access issue. Also significant concern expressed on camping, poor facility main- tenance, and boating ramps. b. On the other hand, some groups feel that State facilities are partially to wholly adequate (see especially Business responses). Question 4. "Generally speaking, how adequate in your opinion are our municipal outdoor recreational facilities by category of community (please suggest any desirable improvements)?" By category of community, survey responses were as follows: 362 a. Urban Community - A strong majority (over 70% of respondents) feel that they are inadequate. b. Suburban Communi - The basic reaction is that suburban recreation facilities are more-or-less adequate (60% of responses). The remainder is fairly evenly split between "Good" and "Inadequate." c. Small Town Community - Again the basic feeling is that such facilities are more or less Adequate (60% of responses). Remaining comments are split,, but lean slightly more to "Inadequate" than to"Good.11 Question 5. "Within the constraints posed by governmental financial limitations) what positive suggestions would you recommend for: a) Disadvantaged inner city citizens and b) Handicapped and/or elderly citizens?" Regarding inner city residents., the most popular recommendations were: a. Improving transportation access to recreational facilities. b. Providing more neighborhood/nearby facilities, preferably with local involvement in their operation. For the elderly and handicapped, key recommendations were: a. Improving transportation access to recreational.facilities. b. Removal of any architectural barriers plus local mini parks for the elderly. Question 6. "Recognizing that government has limited financial resources, what types of outdoor recreation do you feel should not be the responsibility of government to provide?" Respon dents apparently interpreted "government" as meaning State Government, as seen in the opinions listed below by frequency of occurrence: a. Spectator or team sports. b. Expensive sports for the minority or which the private sector can provide, as golfp skiing@ motor boating. c. Subsidized camping, which the private sector can provide as well as tennis. d. In addition, there was some minor "anti" sentiment as against snowmobiling, hunting. 363 Question 7. What types of outdoor recreation appear to be increasing at a faster than average rate in popular demand? a. The greatest increase was in Hiking followed by Camping. be The second greatest increase was seen in Canoeing and biking. c. Substantial increase predicted in Tennis, Swimming., followed by Riding and Boating. However these conclusions differed considerably by type of organization as.seen below: 1. Business - Tennis 2. Labor - Swimming 3. State and Regional Environmental Groui)s - Hiking,, canoeing., camping. 4. Land Trusts- Apparent interest in biking and boating. Question 8. "What types of outdoor recreation appears to be inc reasing at a less than average rate or to be decreasing in popular demand in Connecticut?" Survey responses were relatively few and scattered and exhibited little if any value. However there was some minority sentiment that spectator sports, hunting, and picnicking were on the decline. Questjon 9. "In your opiniont how far will most Connecticut citizens travel for a day outing at a State or regional park (one half hour, one hour@ greater?" Approximately 80% of survey respondents felt that a one hour travel time limit was a desirable goal: The remainder basically felt that greater than one hour was acceptable, especially for fishing and hunting with their resource-based character. Question 10. "Do you feel that the energy crisis and the increasing cost of gasoline will alter traditional travel patterns? If so, how and to what degree?" The overwhelming response was "NO.," although over half have various qualifiers such as: 364 a. It will restrict long distance travel and thereby help put more pressure on state and local facilities. b. It will be long range rather than short range in effect. c. It may have a significant effect if the cost of gasoline increases substantially. On the other hand, only three respondents had a clear-cut IINO@1' two of whom were sportsmen, demonstrating again the sportsmen's willingness to travel to reach a desired recreational resource opportunity. Question 11. "What types of land (and water) should receive the highest priority for state acquisition?" The three highest ranking responses respectively were: a) shore, b) lakesq and c) rivers (would tie for #2 ranking if "Wild and Scenic River" support added). Substantial support was also given to acquisition of State forest/large tracts of land, wetland/wildlife refuge areas, and farmlands. Lesser watersheds/acquifers. Question 12. "Do you feel the State should in its recreational investment emphasize: a) more natural land and water-based parks which may not be in close proximity to centers of population or b) more man-influenced non-resource-based parks in close proximity to centers of population?" There was a strong preference (over two thirds of the responses) for a natural setting. Of the remaining eight comments,six favored nearer access and two favored a balanced approach. Question 13. "Do you feel the State government should spend more of its outdoor recreation dollars bn: a) better maintenance of existing areas, b) developing new areas, or c) both. No clear cut response emerged in the responses although the highest vote (46%) went to a balanced approach. The remaining responses were split roughly 60-1+0 between the "new area" and the "Existing area" points of view. Thus the balance point is probably in favor of a comprehensive approach, with a slight leaning toward "New Areas." 365 Questign 1 . "Do you feel the State government should spend more of its outdoor recreation dollars on" a) More facilitiesy b) More lands, or c) Both? Analysis of the responses indicated a strong preference (57%) for "More lands," although there is also substantial interest (32%) in a balanced approach. Only 11% favor a "More Facilities" only strategy. Conclusions In general, this survey proved to be quite successful in eliciting a good quality of response on most questions. This is particularly so in view of the fact that some questions required considerable thought as opposed to a simple yes or no response. Therefore the basic content of the questionnaire seems to have been proven satisfactory in providing consistently useful insights and should not need to be altered substantially at the time of the next SGORP update. The one survey shortcoming involved the relative ly low rate of response, despite the two follow up telephone calls. However, one must realize that the bulk of the organizations contacted previously had no direct interest in the SCORP process and probably were reluctant to take the time to reply to a detailed questionnaire of this type(a reluctance apparently also shared by many organizations involved in the conservation-outdoor recreation issue). This low response rate in part indicates the need for more public information and education programming. 366 CONNECTICUT STATE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN .PUBLIC. ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES SURVEY _Qve5Tio0N#qjAG In using its limited dollars available for outdoor recreation and open space preservation, government must develop priorities which will direct its spending to areas and programs of critical need or major opportunity. In your organization's opinion, what should be the top five action priorities by each of the following sections of government? a. FEDERAL 3. 4. 5. b. STATE 2 3. 4. 5. c. MUNICIPAL 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. Do you feel that Connecticut's State Government is spending an adequate amount of money on outdoor recreation opportunity and on open space preservation? Yes- No a. If your answer is NO, what specific improvements would you like to recommend? b. If your answer is NO, how do you feel such improvements should be financed? 3. How adequate (quantity or quality-wise), are our existing State outdoor recreational facilities? (if suggest desirable improvements) 361 4. Generally speaking, how adequate in your opinion are our municipal outdoor recreational facilities by category-of community (please suggest any desirable improvements)? a. Urban Community b. Suburban Community c. Small Town Community- 5. Within the constraints posed by governmental financial limitations, what positive suggestions would you recommend to improve the recreational opportunity provided? a. Disadvantaged inner-city citizens b. Handicapped and/or elderly citizens 6. Recognizing that government has limited financial resources., what types of outdoor recreation do you feel sh ould not be the responsibility of government to provide? 1. What types of outdoor recreation appear to be increasin.g at a faster than average'rate in popular demand in Connecticixt? 368 8. What types of outdoor recreation appear to be increasing at a less than average rate or to be decreasing in popular demand in Connecticut? 9. In your opinion, how far will most Connecticut citizens presently travel for a day outing at a State or regional park? a. 1/2 hour b. 1 hour c. If greater, please specify 10. Do you feel that the energy crisis and the increasing cost of gasoline will alter traditional recreational travel patterns? If so, how and to what degree? 11. What types of land (and water) should receive the highest priority for State acquisition? a. b. C.- d. e. 12. Do you feel the State should in its recreational investment emphasize:- -a. More natural land and water-based parks which may not be in close proximity to centers of population? b. More man-influenced non-resource-based parks in close proximity to centers of population. 13. Do you feel the State government sh.o.u-ld spend more of its outdoor recreation dollars on: (a,b,or c) a. Better maintenance of'existing areas 369 b. Developing new areas c. Both. 14.. Do you feel the State government should spend more of its outdoor recreation dollars on: a. More facilities b. More lands c. Both 15. Do you have any other comments which you feel could be of assistance to the State outdoor recreation planning process? a p p e n g d i x Population Segments of Special Concern ITO'.' Table AVERAGE ANNUAL YWCAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR PARKS AND, RECREATIOY@ BYT@' TWELVE'CONNECTICUT-CITIES9 1971-1-977,- city Average-Annual: @Average.Percentage of Annual Exp diture (Dollars)@ General Expendittiure Norwich 4.4@ 1,.Z: Danbury 5'i 8 1:. 2' New London 6.7@ 1-..6- New Britain. 7'.3 2'.0 Middletown 7.'3, 1.6_@ Meriden 7.4@@ 1.7@ Norwalk, 8@. 5 1-.7.- 2:2'@ Waterbury New Haven Bridgpport 12;.4- 2-;4. Stamford,. 12.51- Hartford aCompiled", from,: Annual Municipalt. Audit:.RiDports-9, State- of Connecticut Tax Department, Municipal.Division... 371'; Table G-2. CURRENT USE OF CETA MANPOWER By PARKS'AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS IN TWELVE CONNECTICUT CITIESa Total Number Number Yercent CETA b City Personnel. CETA Personnel Personnel of Total Bridgeport 195 85 44 Danbury 52 3 6 Hartford 418 86 21 Meriden 61 31 51 Middletown c c New Britain 77 20 26 New London C 0 New Haven 292 94 32 Norwalk 102 37 36 Norwich 57 6 10 Stamford d 101 Waterbury 131 31 24 aFor most recent operating year., 1977 or 1977-78. bIncludes permanent2 seasonal, full and part-time,, and CETA personnel. cData not available. dStamford is utilizing CETA personnel for first time in 1978. Number is not yet known. 372 Table G-3 THE NUMBER OF PASSENGER VEHICLES REGISTERED PER CAPITA TN 1976 Total Nuibera Number Vehicles Vehicles Per Capita State 11582,554 0.49 Stamford 599711 0.55 Norwalk 43,843 b .54 Meriden 281,262 0.50 Danbury 282566 0.48 Middletown 189546 0.45 New Britain 35086 0.42 Bridgeport 629248 0.40 Norwich 18,210 0.39 Waterbury 41,404 0.38 New London 119921 0.37 New Haven 46@574 o0.35 Hartford 469202 0.31 aConnectic:ut Depar'tnient of Motor- Vehicle s Table G-4 AVERAGE TOTAL NUMBER OF TIMES PARTICIPATING PER CAPITA IN SUMMER RECREATION ACTIVITIES BY DEMOGRAPHICS TOTAL POPULATION 31.9 Family Income Under $5,000 15.0 $5,000 to $10,000 28.0 Over $10,000 40.4 Age 15 to 18 82.0 19 to 64 29.7 65 and older 7.1 Sex Male 36.6 Female 27.6 Race Black/Spanish Speaking 27.9 Other 32.2 Available Automobile None 15 9 1 or more 34.5 aTri-State Regional Planning Commission. Unpublished data from Summer Recreation Use Patterns Survey. Based on 321 Connecticut respondents. 374 Table G-5 PERCENT--PERSONS:,65 AND OLDER-IN 1970-FOR @.STATE OF CONNECTICUT.ANDTHE MAJOR..CONNECTICUT.CITIES -Percent -Elderly :of -Total -,Number Elderl ,Population Waterbury .13.9-5.42 12._5 New Haven 16.,940 12.3 Bridgeport 18@584 llw9 New-London 3 P-706 :11,.-7 Norwich .43@'866 _11.7 New Britain 9,327 _11.2 Hartford .17p,121 10,.@8 Meriden i61033 .10..@8 Middletown .31662 9.9 :Danbury 4 @1823 -9.-'5 Stareord 10.1119 '9@0 Norwalk 6.1862 8,.7 City.Total _115.585 -State 288,90`8 M Source: 1970 U..S. Census 375 Table G-6 COMPARISON OF STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND TWELVE CONNECTICUT CITIES.B1 PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1969 Per Capita Income (Dollars Stamford 4787 Norwalk 4070 State 3900 Danbury 3514 New Britain 3509 New London 3428 Meriden 3379 Middletown 3337 Waterbury 3296 Bridgeport 3233 New Haven 3181 Hartford 3113 Norwich 3108 Source: 1970 U.S. Census. 376 Table G-7 AVERAGE MONTHLY WELFARE ROLES FOR STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND@TWELVE' CONNECTICUT C ITIES IN 1977 Humber Persons Percent of Total State Welfare Role State 142..540 100 Bridgeport 21..139 15 Danbury 29398 2 Hartford 309269 21 Meriden 29751 2 Middletown 1..613 1 New Britain 4010 3 New 1@ondon @,T54 1 Now Haven 209664 14 Norwalk 39836 3 Norwich 2049 1 Stamford 59203 4 Waterbury 82013. 6 CITIES TOTAL 104,699 73 Source: State of Connecticut Department of Social Services 377 Table G-8 AVERAGE PERSONAL 1969 INCOME BY AGE GROUP FOR STATE OF CONNECTICUT Average 1969 Personal Income a Age Group (Dollars 14-19 1372 20-24 3844 25-29 6702 30-34 7988 35-39 8844 40-44 9194 45-49 9241 50-54 8994 55-59 8663 60-64 7671 65 and older 4158 Based on persons with a personal income. Source: 1970 U.S. Census 378 Table G-9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH@ EDUCATION AND WELFARE POPULATION STANDARDS FOR ESTIMATING NUMBERS OF HANDICAPPED Handicap Percent of General Population Orthopedic 1.0 Health handicapped a 1.5 Speech impaired 1.5 Deaf@ hearing impaired 1.5 Behaviorly handicapped 2.5 Epilepsy 0.2 Mentally retarded 2.0 Mentally gifted 2.0 TOTAL 12.2 Includes lung and heart diseaseq blindness, and other health related impairments. a p p e n h d i x Public Participation Element 379 APPENDIX H PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ELEMENT A major objective of the 1978 Connecticut Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) updating process is to incorporate adequate and meaningful public input into the assessment of the various outdoor recreation needs within the state and therefore input into the delineation of future goals, policies and priorities. To achieve this objective, a -three part public participation program was initiated early in the SCORP program, The first phase of this program was a mail survey of 141 private organizations representing a broad range of interests and segments of the general Connecticut population. Included in the survey were conservation and environmental organizations; recreation user organizations; professional societies; business and labor groups; organizations dealing with the . elderly, the handicapped and minorities; civic groups; and a sampling of community organizations. Private organizations included in the survey (Table H-1) were selected from the 1977 State of Connecticut Reaister and Manual. Community organizations were added to insure a full spectrum of representation in the survey. The mail questionnaire investigated the attitudes and preferences of organizations in the survey sample with regard to the outdoor recreation and open space priorities of state and local government (See Appendix F for mail questionnaire and detailed survey results). The mail question- naire, and a summary description of SCORP were distributed in early summer of 1977. Of the 14-1 organizations afforded the opportunity for input, 22 380 Table H-1 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED IN MAIL SURVEY Conservation and Environmental Organizations Aspetuck Land Trust Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council Bethany Conservation Trust Brookfield Open Space Legacy Connecticut Arboretum Association Connecticut Association of Conservation Commissions Connecticut Association for Environmental Education Connecticut Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Connecticut Audubon Society Connecticut Conservation Association Connecticut Environmental Health Association Connecticut Forest and Park Association Connecticut River Ecology Action Connecticut River Watershed Council Connecticut Wildlife Federation Cheshire Land Trust Clinton Land Conservation Trust Environmental Action Fund Essex Conservation Trust Farmington Land Trust Farmington River Watershed Association The Federation of Garden Clubs of Connecticut Great Meadows Conservation Trust Land Trust Division of Greenwich Audubon Society Guilford Land Conservation Trust Haddam Land Trust Housatonic Audubon Society Housatonic Valley Association Joshuats Tract Conservation and Historic Trust Madison Land Conservation Trust Manchester Land Conservation Trust Mashantucket Land Trust Middlebury Land Conservation Association National Audubon Society Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter Natural Resources Council of Connecticut New Cnnaan Land Conservation Trust Newton Forest Association North Haven Land Trust Old Lyme Land Conservation Trust Redding Land Trust Land Conservancy of Ridgefield Steep Rock Association 381 Sierra Club' Connecticut Group Talcott Mountain Forest Protective Association Torrington Land Conservation Trust Weantinogue Heritage Wildlife Management Institute Wilton Land Conservation Trust Woodbridge Conservation Recreation Oraanizations Appalachian Mountain Club Connecticut Horse Council Connecticut and New England Family Campers Association Connecticut and New England Trail Riders Association Connecticut Recreation and Park Association Connecticut Snowmobiler's Association Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance Fairfield County League of Sportsmen Housatonic Fly Fisherman's Association National Recreation and Parks Association New London County League of Sportsmen Young Men's Christian Association Young Women's Christian Association Professional Oraanizations American Institute of Planners, Connecticut Chapter American Institute of Landscape Architectsq Connecticut Chapter Connecticut Society of Architects Connecticut Bar Association, Conservation and Environmental Quality Section Society of American Foresters, Yankee Chapter Soil Conservation Society of America., Southern New England Chapter Business and Labor Organizations American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Bridgeport Area Chamber of Commerce Connecticut Bankers Association, Connecticut Business and Industry Association Connecticut Construction Industries Association Connecticut Development Council Connecticut Farm Bureau Association Connecticut Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs Connecticut Nurseryman's Association Connecticut Retail Merchants Association Connecticut State Employees Association 382 Connecticut State Federation of Teachers Connecticut State Labor Council$ AFL-CIO Connecticut State United Auto Workers Community Action Program Council Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce Greater Waterbury Chamber of Commerce Western Connecticut Industrial Council Organizations Dealing with the Elderly, the Handicapped, and Minorities Connecticut Department on Aging Dixwell Senior Center - New Haven Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens Connecticut Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Disabled American Veterans Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Connecticut Mental Health Association of Connecticut National Federation of the Blind of Connecticut Black Coalition of Greater New Haven, Inc. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Poor People's Federation .Spanish American Development Agency Spanish-American Coalition (La Casa De Puerto Rico) Statewide Civic Organizations Connecticut Association for Com man ity Action Connecticut Association for Human Services Connecticut Citizens Action Group Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Connecticut Conference of Municipalities Connecticut Consumer Association Connecticut Council of the Family Connecticut Education Association Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies Connecticut Lung Association Connecticut Public Expenditures Council Connecticut Federation of Women's Clubs Connecticut State Grange Connecticut State Taxpayers Association Council of Small Towns Humane Society of the United States, Connecticut Chapter League of Women Voters Community Oraanizations Action for Bridgeport Community Development Ansonia Community Action, Inc. 383 Bristol Community Organization, Inc. Community Action Committee of Danbury2 Inc. Community Action for Greater Middletown, Inc. Community Renewal Team of Greater Hartford@ Inc. Enfield Neighborhood Center Family Services of New London Hall Neighborhood House, Inc. (Bridgeport) HARAMBEE (Bridgeport) Human Resources Agency of New Britainy Inc. Information and Referral Drop-In Center (Milford) Interfaith Social Action Corp (Danbury) La Casa Hispana (Stamford) Meriden Community Action Agency Metropolitan Woman's Club of Hartford Mount Pl-easant Neighborhood Corporation (New Britain) New Horizons (New Britain) Project COOL (Bridgeport) Revitalization Corps (Hartford) Thames Valley Council for Community Action The Wheeler Clinic (Plainville) Urban League of Greater Hartford Urban League of Greater New Haven 384 percent responded. Results of this survey were incorporated in to the assessment of state, regionalt and local outdoor recreation needs (Chapter IV) as well as into the analysis of the needs of cities, the elderly, the handicapped, and the economically disadvantaged (Chapter VII). The second phase of the SCORP public participation program was a series of 12 public informational meetings held in cooperation with the State's Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs). The purpose of these meetings was to provide the general publieg local officialsv and private organi- zations adequate opportunity for meaningful input into the SCORP update process. The public meetings were well distributed geographically in the state and held on weekday evenings to solicit maximum public turnout (See Table H-2, SCORP Public Informational Meeting Schedule). Each meeting was hosted by the regional planning agency. Local publicity was done by the RPAs while the Department of Environmental Protection notified private organizations of statewide representation, other state agencies, the Connecticut Soil and Water Conservation Districts, all State Legislators, and placed noticein the Connecticut Law Journal. 1 Statewide private organizations notified of the public meeting schedule and encouraged to participate are listed in Table H-3. The schedule of public informational meetings was publicized locally by each of the hosting regional planning agencies. Notices of each of the meetings were carried by major regional newspapers as indicated below in 1Commission on Official Legal Publications. Connecticut Law Journal. Vol. XXXIX No. 26, December 27, 1977 and Vol. XXXIX No. 30, January 24, 1978. 385 T abl. e H-2 STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE Hosting Regional Date Place Time Planning Agency (s) Jan. 4 Silas Bronson Library 3:00 P.M. Central Naugatuck Waterbury Jan. 6 Danbury City Hall 7:00 P.M. Housatonic Valley Danbury Jan. 10 Univ. of Connecticut 8:00 p.m. Connecticut River Extension Center EstuaryMidstate Haddam Jan. 11 Connecticut Agri. 7:30 p.m. South Central Experiment Station New Haven Jan. 12 Court of Comon Pleas 7:30 p.m. Southeastern Norwich City Hall Connecticut Jan. 18 Derby Train Station 2:00 p.m. Valley Derby Jan. 19 Goshen Town Hall 8:00 p.m. Northwestern/ Goshen Litchfield Hills Jan. 23 Windham RPA 7:30 p.m. Windham Willimantic Jan. 31 Plainville Municipal 7:30 p.m. Central Center Feb. 15 137 Rowayton Ave. 8:00 p.m. Southwestern Rowayton Feb. 16 CRCOG 7:30 p.m. Capitol Region Hartford Council of Governments (CRCOG) Feb. 22 Bridgeport 7:30 p.m. Greater Bridgeport 386 Table H-3 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS OF STATEWIDE REPRESENTATION INVITED TO ATTEND SCORP PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS 1. National Recreation and Parks Association 2. Connecticut Recreation and Park Association 3. Connecticut Family Campers Association 4. Connecticut Wildlife Federation 5. Connecticut Audubon Federation 6. Natural Resources Council of Connecticut 7. Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance 8. Connecticut Sportsman's Association 9. The Nature Conservancy-Conn. Chapter 10. Sierra Club-Connecticut Group 11. Appalachian Mountain Club 12. Connecticut Conservation Association 13. Connecticut Forest and Park Association 14. Connecticut Association of Conservation Commissions@ Inc. 15. Federated Garden Clubs of Connecticut 16. Connecticut Farm Bureau Association 17. Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc. 18. Farmington River Watershed Association 19. League of Women Voters 20. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 21. Urban League of Greater Hartford 22. Urban League of Greater New Haven 23. Connecticut Conference of Municipalities 24. Eastern Seal Society of Connecticut 25. Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens 26. Connecticut Citizens Action Group 27. Revitalization Corps 28. Poor People's Federation 29. Connecticut Council of Senior Citizens 30. National Federation of the Blind of Connecticut 387 . Table H-4. In additiont notices were mailed to RPA representativ es; city managers and first selectman; chairmen of municipal planning and zoning commissions, conservation commissions@ and parks and recreation commissions; town planners; and active local and regional private organizations. Such groups as conservationg environmentalt recreationy and minority groups were notified. Furthermoret notices were included in many of the RPA newsletters. Such newsletters were widely dis tributed to interested citizens on each RPA's mailing list. For example., in the Southeastern Connecticut RPA aloneg 1500 persons receive the bimonthly SCRPA Newsletter. Other RPAs utilized similarly extensive mailing lists. At the regional public meetings, the,same basic format was utilized. Staff of the Regional Planning Agency opened each meeting with statements of the meeting's purpose,, the RPA's past open space-and outdoor recreation planning efforts, and an introduction of Connecticut Department of Environ- mental Protection (DEP) staff. The DEP presentation consisted of a brief description of SCORP, what it is knd what it.means to the State and its municipalities. Also presented was a description of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and DEP's Municipal Open Space Grant Program. Both the RPA and DEP presentations were purposely kept brief to allow maximum time for public comments and questions. The meetings were moderated by either a RPA or DEP staff person.in such a manner so as not to be too formal but yet maintain adequate control to keep comments relevant to the objective of the meeting. Tape recordings were made of each meeting for the purpose of maintaining a permanent record for future reference of public comments. As well as receiving oral comments, many towns and several private organi- zations presented written comments. 388 Table H-4 CONNECTICUT NEWS MEDIA IN WHICH NOTICES OF SCORP PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING SCHEDULE WERE POSTED Bridgeport Sunday Post Bridgeport Telegram Bristol Press Danbury News Times Evening Sentinel (Ansonia) Hartford Courant New Haven Register New London Day Norwich Bulletin Old Lyme Gazette Redding Pilot Waterbury American WADS Radio (Ansonia) 389 Attendance at the public information meetings-varied considerably. A total of 215 persons attended. Turnout for individual regional meetings ranged-from a low-of nine to a maximum of 30. Of'those people who attendedlp members of the@generalpublic as well as municipal officials were well represented, Comments received at the public meetingswere generally positive and constructive in nature. Upon review, such comments were utilized to complement the activity systems' needs assessment and to identify areas of special concern. In providing new and different perspectives on Connecticut's recreational needs, the public information meetings proved invaluable to the planning process. The third and final phase of the public participation program consisted of establishing a SCORP Advisory Board. The 12 member Board is made up of representatives of private and public organizations representing a broad range of interests. The SCORP Advisory Board's make-up and the groups represented are shown in Table H-5. The three regional planning agencies represented were elected by ballot by the executive directors of the Statets 15 regional planning agencies. The three representatives from the Advisory Council to the Division of Conservation and Preservation of DEP were also elected from amongst themselves. Other organizations asked to participate on the Board appointed their ow". n representatives. The membership of the SCORP Advisory Board was established in late February and early March of 1978. The first meeting of the Board was March 28, 1978 at which time the members selected John Hibbard, Secretary- Forester of the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, as chairman. The Board's role has been an advisory and editorial one to DEP's planning 390 staff. The Board has reviewed and commented on the draft SCORP document including the Plan's recommendations and action plan. The comments of the Board have been incorporated into the draft plan. Overall the Advisory Board has had a significant role.and considerable input in the drafting of the 1978 SCORP. The SCORP Advisory Board will continue to function as part of Connecticut's continuing outdoor recreation planning process. 391 Table H-5 MAKE-UP OF THE CONNECTICUT SCORP ADVISORY BOARD Organizatlon Name 1. Southeastern Connecticut Regional Richard Ericksonj Executive Director Planning Agency 2. Capitol Region Council of Nancy London (representing Governments Dana Hanson, Executive Director) 3. Northwestern Connecticut Regional Thomas McGowans, Planning Director Planning Agency 4. Connecticut Forest and Park Assoc. John E. Hibbardt Secretary-Forester 5. Connecticut Wildlife Federation Gene F. Marrat Executive Director 6. Connecticut Waterfowlers Association Milan J. Bull., Secretary 7. The Nature Conservancyt Connecticut Evan Griswold,, Director Chapter 8. Connecticut Association of Robert Dlugolenski, President Recreation and Park Directors 9. Connecticut Conference of Hugh Manke@ Executive Director Municipalities 10. Connecticut Council of Small Towns David Russell, Executive Director 11. Urban League James Scott and Cynthia Coleman 12. Budget Division, State of Atoinetta Bascetta Connecticut Office of Policy Acting Assistant Director and Management Representatives from the Advisory Council to the Division of Conser- vation and Preservation of the Department of Environmental Protection. e Regional Needs 392 APPENDIX I REGIONAL NEEDS To address the outdoor recreation needs of the different planning regions within Connecticutq the cooperation and expertise of the State's Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) were utilized.1 Connecticut is subdivided into 15 multi-town regions (See Figure I-1). Outdoor recreation needs identified by existing regional open space and recreation planning programs were reassessed in light of the comments and input received from municipal officials and the general public at public information meetings hosted by the RPAs.2 Needs delineated by the Regional Planning Agencies have been incor- porated into the statewide and regional needs assessment presented in Chapter IV. Given the limitations of the data base upon which Chapter IV's analysis relies, regional perspectives proved useful as a complimentary means to document state as well as regional outdoor recreation needs. Listings of priority regional needs as perceived by each of the Regional Planning Agencies follow. Capitol Reaion The Capitol Region Council of Governments has delineated the following recommendations relating to the open space and outdoor recre ation needs of this region: 1 Of the 15 RPAs, 13 provided assessments of their region's needs. Midstate and the South Central Connecticut RPAs did not. 2See Appendix H for listing of the 12 regional public information meetings to solicit public input and held cooperatively,by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Regional-Planning Agencies. 393 1. Transportation - A transit system should be-developed to service recreational areas, particularly major shoreline beach areas, The existing express bus service system could be utilized to transport individuals to state recreation areas, particular ly on weekends in the summer months. Land and Water Conservation Act Funds should be allocated to promote greater access to recreational facilities. 2. Natural Area Protection and Scenic Preservation.- Prioritize acquisi- tion of environmentally sensitive areas and scarce natural resources, such as flood plains, wetlands2 ridgelinesp agricultural, forest and park lands. The state should give priority to acquisition of agricultural lands within the Region. In addition@ significant slope areas in the eastern and western highlands of the Region and along Talcott Mountain) primarily where such areas are visible to large urban concentrations of population, should be given high priority. 3. Water - The Commission supports improved lake management. In additiony the Commission feels that the State should support increased flows in major tributaries to increase dilution and also increase recrea- tional boating facilities. 4. Water Activities - The Commission supports the acquisition of property along the Connecticut River, in the Great Meadows area, and along the Hockanum, Scantic.. and Farmington River, in or near,, but no limited to., areas of urban concentration. 5. Trail Activities - The Commission recommends,the development of a re gional trail syst. em. Uie of abandoned railroad rights-of-way for ........... LITC FIELD HILLS CAPI OL CONN CUT INDH M CENT CONN IC CEN RAL A CK MIDS L SOU HEAST HOUS N VALLEY ... . ... .... 0 S UTH EN RA C ON CTIC T RI LLEY ...... .... GR ER FIGURE 1- 1 CONNECTICUT PLANNING RE( 395 recreation should be maximizedp especially where rights-of-ways link existing open space parcels. The State should support efforts to solicit recreation opportunities on utility company lands. The State should begin to regulate and restrict the use of motorized recreation vehicles in order to limit noisep conserve energy, and promote safety. 6. Local Recreation Activities - The Commission recommends that the State research funding sources and seek innovative techniques to develop recreational opportunities in the urban area of the region. 7. Administration and Future Planning - The Commission recommends greater involvement and coordination on an annual basis with the Regional Planning Agencies. The Commission recommends that the State assume a greater portion of the local match required by municipalities when receiving Land and Water Conservation Act funding. The acquisi- tion of open space parcels at the local land would be greatly accelera- ted if a larger portion of the local share were available from the State. It is recommended that the State share be allocated on an annual basis to insure immediate commitment. The State should consider combining historic preservation and open space planning in selected urban settings. Centrgl Connecticut Region The policy of the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency with regard to recreation is "to provide recreation facilities as open space land and water areas that satisfy within the physiographic limitations of the area@ the open space and recreation needs and desires of the population in terms of the amounts provided and the types provided, in such a manner that the environment is enhanced." Short-term outdoor recreation and 396 open space goals and needs of the Central Connecticut Region include: 1. Meeting the recreational needs of the aged. 2. Meeting the recreational needs of the handicapped. 3. Preservation of an additional 8,600 acres of regional open space. 4. Preservation of unique open spaces and prominent ridges. 5. Improvement of hiking trails system@ including the Metacomet, Tunxis, and Mattatuck trails in the Region. 6. Develop recreation in short supply in Region, including boating, picnicking and fishing. 7. Acquisition of Cathole Mountain, Fern Hill, and Plymouth Hills. Central Naugatuck Valley Region The recreation and open space goal of the Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Planning Agency is that, "opportunity for a full range of passive und active recreation at locations accessible to residents and preservation of the environmental balance and exhaustible natural resources of the Region, are essential. to the continued health and well-being of the residents." The outdoor recreation and open space needs and objectives of the Region are as follows: 1. Provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities. a. Priority should be given to water oriented expenditures, including the acquisition and/or construction of fishing and boating access points, beaches and.other facilities. The State should actively pursue the acquisition of access rights to the Region's water bodies such as the upper Naugatuck River and Lake Quassapaug and to the foreshore of Long Island Sound. 397 b. Discharges to streams should be strictly limited to that which is fully compatible with the St ate proposed water quality rating of the stream. c. Multiple use of statef federal and local facilities should-be encouraged. d. Camping facilities should be expanded and modernized with priority given to locations near multi-purpose, intensive recreation centers. e. Existing recreation trails should be protected, improved and new ones developed. 2. Provide recreational opportunities close to the.home of all residents. a. Priority should be given to the purchase and development of recreational sites within and close to the ma@jor population concentrations in the Region. b. Recreation land should be located according to its purpose, with high frequency and children's facilities closest to home. For exa,mplep ball fields should be within walking distance, swimming pools and tennis courts no more than 20 minutes away by available transportation (i.e. within the municipality) and day outing facilities available within the Region. c. The potential use of the rivers in the urban areas for.recreation and aesthetic purposes should be fully explored. d. Land cleared by demolition of unsound structures or urban renewal should be used to procure small playgrounds in the built-up areas. 398 e. The siting and-design of schools should be.integrated with local and. regional plans and their facilities available after school hours for community use. f. Maximum use sho uld be madeof linear connections between open space areasq for exampley rivers utility easements@ highway rights-of-way., to maximize accessibility and visual impact. 3. Conserve the scenic, historic and natural features which.give the area its character and are essential to the environmental-balance of the Region. a. Ridge tops, escarpmentsi significant wetlands, existing recrea- tional trails and other unique natural features should be preserved as open space. b., Rivers and other water bodies should have high priority for recreation and preservation. c. Open space reservations should be used to compliment and support the desired development pattern. do Imaginative and topographically suitable subdivision design should be encouraged to preserve the naturalfeatures and vegetation of the area, and provide additional common open space accessible to the commi;nity. Utility company;lands and facilities should contribute to the open spacep aesthetic and otherienvironmental.objectives of the Region as well as their primary utility function, f. Purchase of land by tbe"municipalities for recreation and open space should be based on a priority schedule and municipal budget allocation,made annually to support the acquisition program. 399 4. Acquisition of the 8 action areas. Improve and develop existing recrea tional facilities within the Region. a. Increase the availability of funding for recreational facilities throughout the Region. b. Increase citizen awareness as to the availability of recreational facilities throughout the Region. C. Develop bicycle paths throughout suitable land areas within the Region, such as abandoned trolley lines and canals., etc. d. Promote tourism as a by-product of improved recreational opportunities. Connecticut River Estuary Region Acquisition Priorities: 1. Tidal wetlands along the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound. 2. Acquire development rights on the 2,500 acres of upland ridges within the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Area. 3. Acquire water access to Long Island Sound for development of beach facilities. 4. Acquire five hundred acres of locally controlled open space. This acreage for future "intensive" and "passive" recreational uses. Development Priorities: 1. Expand and improve recreational facilities in the State Forest System. 2. Develop hikingt camping@ riding, nature study and recreational uses. 3. Develop, improve and maintain public boat launching ramps with access to the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound. Expand swimming facilities. 400 5. Expand the multiple use of the Valley Railroad corridor. Greater Bridaeport Region The Greater Bridgeport's Regional Planning Agency's last complete open space plan was done in 1969. Although much of the information in this plan is now outdatedq the two top priorities identified--small parks and saltwater beaches--still rank high among regional needs. The outdoor needs listed below were determined by taking into consideration public comments and priorities determined in the formulation of the Greater Bridgeport Regional Land Use Element and the Region's Environmental Quality Invento, . The rankings are listed in two cate- gories: types of recreation needs and specific sites. Types of Recreation Needs: 1. .Small neighborhood parks in urban areas. 2. Development and rehabilitation of recreation facilitie s on existing parkland. 3. Saltwater swimming and boating facilities. 4. Preservation of public water supply watershed lands for light intensity recreational use. Specific Areas: 1. Great Meadows, Long Beach, Pleasure Beach and Lewis Gut-- Great Meadows and portions of Long Beach should be preserved as wildlife conservation areasq while Pleasure Beach should be rehabilitated as a major saltwater recreation facility. 2. Ash Creek Salt Marsh should be preserved as a wildlife conservation area. 401 3. Indian Ledge Park and the Pequonnock River Ravine should be maintained in their respective present usesp as a recreation area and natural area. Both areas would be impacted by proposed construction of Route 25 through Trumbull. Housatonic Valley-Reeion The Housatonic Valley Region is the fastest growing region in the State. Between 1960 and 1970 the area grew 59 percent. Population projections indicate a 35 percent increase for the 1970-1980 decade. Such rapid growth places demands on all commmity services, including open space and recreation facilities. The top five general outdoor recreation priorities of the region as determined by a RPA survey are as follows: 1. Swimming - town based facilities, 2. Camp facilities - tent facilities. 3. Ball playing, including facilities to accommodate baseball, softbally soccer, and general purpose football. 4. Tennis facilities. 5. Cross country skiing. Litchfield Hills Region In its regional open space and outdoor recreation planning, the Litchfield Hills Regional Planning Agency has taken the streambelt corridor approach. Exis ting committed open space presently accounts for 21-percent (51,500 acres) of the Region. There is no present deficiency or near future need (2020) for additional open space lands for extensive recreation. 402 The open sp .ace and recreation needs' of'the Litchfield Hills, as delineated below, are generally for more intensive recreation and the protection of natural-resources,relAted to the Region's stream corridors. These specific needs include: 1-Protection of marshlands, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, fields and forests-related to the Regim's stream corridors. 2. Swimming capacity needs to be expanded to meet future needs due. to the Region's population growth and increased use from outside 'the Region (ex. Compensating Reservoir., Thomaston Dam). 3. Fifteen towns in the Region need to develop playground.and neighborhood park facilities, 4. Lakes, such as Highlandt Bantam,*and Tyler, with public access for boating are currently congested. Public boat access should be provided to the Region's other lakes and ponds. 5. With three private and three public golf courses, there is a need for the development of additional facilities. Northeast Region Priority open space and outdoor recreation needs of the Northeast Regiont li Acquisition of lands adjacent West Thompson Reservoir-for extensive recreational uses., such as trail activities and hunting. 2. Public control of the confluence of the French and Quinebaug'. Rivers. 3. Protection of the Quinebaug River corridor as a linear park from the confluence of the French River to.Jewett City mill pond.'.' 403 Establishment of a Route 6 bikeway utilizing in part adjacent abandoned rail right-of-way. 5. Technical planning and design assistance from the State to the rural towns of the region. 6. Public access to the region's water bodies. 7. Trail facilities, particularly dirt bike and trail bike trails. Northwest Region- The open space planning efforts of the Northwestern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency (NWCRPA) have been based on the recognition that the northwest corner of Connecticut is one of the most scenic sections of the State. Such planning is based on the concept of a "scenic ridgeg" a corridor of permanent open space along the Housatonic and Shepaug River. In NWCRPA's Preservation and Conservation Study, the Region's natural and cultural factors are identified, mapped and analyzed on a town-by-town basis. The goal of this study was to identify those land areas that should be protected if the Region is to retain its present unique beauty and character. Three major land classes are delineated: preservation lands, lands with development restraints, and conservation lands. The preservation or open space category includes irreplaceable natural resources. Natural resources of this type are: inland wetlands, fertile agricultural soils, primary groundwater areas, and lands already permanently designated through ownership as open space (state parks and forests9 lands held by land trusts, and water company lands). Lands not included in the Preser- 404 vation category with natural development restraints were identified. Such restraints include areas of steep slope and shallow depth to bedrock. Conservation areas include those areas with special scenic and cultural values. Such areas were then imposed upon developable areas to form a composite analysis which identified primary regional areas for preser- vation and conservation. Southeastern Reaion Open space and outdoor recreation priorities tbrough 1982: 1. Primary emphasis should be placed on broadening the recreational facilities at existing state parks@ preserves, and forests rather than on acquiring additional acreage. Southeastern Connecticut has numerous examples of state holdings that offer only limited recreational opportunities because a range of facilities has not been developed. 2. There is particularly a need for additional swimning areas, both saltwater and fresh. 3. High priority should be given to expanding in size Hopemead State Park on Gardiner Lake. This lake has considerable potential for meeting an expanding demand for water-based recreation.- 4. The anticipated increase in funds from the Land and Water Conservation Act will be useful only if non-federal matching dollars are available. State appropriations should be increased to assure that Connecticut will not lose an opportunity to improve its open space and recreational resources. 405 South Western Rezion The South Western Region presently has about 30 square milesq or 15 percent of its area set aside as open space for recreation@ conser- vationy or other purposes. Most of this landis privately owned. Even in relation to the existing population*of 334.,0009 this is regarded as an inadequate amount. Puture-population growth and inmigration will increase the need@ especially for open spaces accessible to the general public. Assuming moderate population growth,, a 30 percent increase in the number of residents of the Region can be expected by the, year 2000. To meet present and future open space and outdoor recreation demands, the following regional objectives and priority needs have been delineated by the South Western Regional Planning Agency. Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Objectives and Policies: 1., Use open space tbroughout -the Region as a basic shaper of ,the pattern of development. 2. Interrupt linear development with open spaces, particularly by preserving north-south river valleys as linear open spaces interrupting east-west linear development. 3. Develop a system of "green belt" open spaces around conce,n- trations of higher density developmentp and provide for well- designed open spaces within those concentrations. 4. Assure sufficient open space being accessible to residents of the more densely developed areas. 5. Concentrate on preserving those open spaces which are unique, 406 vulnerable, or crucial to the character of the Region. a. Treat Long Island Sound as the Region's principal unique open space resource. b. Preserve as public open space all offshore islands. 6.', Develop and enlarge existing shorefront recreation areas. Priority Short Term Proposals and Needs: 1. Preserve the Norwalk Islands and their surrounding waters as a conservation area for public use. 2. Preserve the Mianus River Gorge for its unique natural characteristics. 3. Development of Western Connecticut Linear-Park along proposed U.S. 7. 4. Preservation of tidal and inland wetlands. Valley Region The recreation goal of the Valley Regional Planning Agency.as defined in the 1971 Open Space Reaional Plan of the Valley Region is to "provide access to recreationalp cultural, and other leisure-time activities that are suited to the needs of Valley residents and provide for the location of the maximum number of appropriate-facilities within the Region itself." The short range open space and recreation (10 year) needs of the Valley Region are listed below: 1. Preservation of the most valuable portions of the slopes above Indian Wells State Park. 2. Preservation of all water company holdings. 3. Development of all appropriate recreation facilities in Osborndale and Indian Wells State Parks. 407 4. Development of hiking trails, especially along the banks of the Housatonic River. 5. Increased public access to the Housatonic for boating and other activities. 6. Development of recreational use on water company lands where such use would be compatible with water supply requirements. 7. Provision of adequate open space in all existing residential areas and reservation of open space required for foreseeable future development. 8. Preservation of valuable openspace to the maximum possible extent in new low and moderate-density residential areas. Windham Region Based upon public comment and previous regional open space and recreation policies, the following needs have been identified by the Windham Regional Planning Agency: 1. Municipalities in the Region which have previously acquired lands for outdoor recreation., are now in need of Land and Water Conservation Act funding assistance for facilities development. 2. Water-based recreation of a regional scale remains an important unmet need. Swimming facilities are particu- larly lacking. A large-scale swimming facility is a high priority in the Region. 3. The need for the establishment of a regional park centered on the Shetucket River and Pleasure Hill continues to be a high priority need. Due to significant improvements in the water qualit y, the Shetucket River has great potential as a major recreational resource for fishing, boating, and 408 hiking along its natural shoreline. Such a facility would serve both the Windham and Southeastern Connecticut Regions. Greater access to stream banks and ponds, particularly those.stocked by the Statey should be acquired for public fishing. State boat launching facilities should be better designated and maintained. The launching facilities at Mansfield Hollow State Park are inadequate in both these regards. 5. Creation of a regional system of trails for biking and riding connecting existing public lands would be a major asset. Such a system would expand the usefulness of the State Forests in the Region. The existing Nipmuck Trail corridor should be protected where it crosses private property. a p p e n j d i x Allocations to Acquisition and Development SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITIONS FISCAL-YEAR October, 1978 to September, 1979 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development .Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Acre -Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF. Other State Acquisitions 1.978 5 650 $2,000,000 50% 50% State Parks & Forests. 1978 5 650 $2,000,000 and Natural Areas General State Approp.* Grant L & WCF Local Park/Recreation Areas '1978 19 400 $2,360,000 25% 25% 50% Neighborhood Parks 10 45 $ 260,000 Area-wide Parks 6 130 $ 860,000 General Town Parks 3 225 $1,240,000 *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT Fiscal Year October 1978 to September 1979 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF Other State State Recreation 1978 2 $14,000,000 50% 21% 29%** Areas Coastal.Beaches 2 $14,000,000*** Inland Facilities 0 General State Approp.* Grant L & WCF Local Sports And 1�78 45 $ 1,090,000 25% 25% 50% Play-Fields General play area 10 $ 100,000 Baseball/softball 15 $ 480,000 Football/soccer 6 $ 240,000 Tennis Court 10 29 $ 60,000 Tracks/jogging areas 4 $ 210,000 *Municipal share. **Secretary of U.S. Department of the Interior's Contingency Fund if available for the development of Silver Sands State Park ***The $14 million will be used to initiate the development of Silver Sands State Park ($13 Million) and to expand Rocky Neck State Park ($1 Million). In the eventuality of uncommitted f6nds.such monies could be allocated for rehabilitation and/or development of inland park facilities. Wes M SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISEAL YEAR October 1978 to September 1979 Source of Funding Programmed Level of Type of Development Estimated General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Lighting Projects 1978, 16 $440,000 25% 25% 50% General site 5 $ 50,000 Ballfields 6 $240,000 Tennis courts 5 10 $150,000 Support Facilities 1978 .18 $280,000 25% 25% 50% Bathroom buildings 6 $120,000 Water control structure 2 $100,000 General fencing 10 $ 60,000 Picnic Areas 1978 10 30 sites $ 80,000 25% 25% 50% *Municipal share SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1978 to September 1979 Source of Funding Programmed Level of Type of Development Estimated General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Trail Facilities 1978 8 $200,000 25% 25% 50% Hiking 3 10 miles $ 40,000 Nature 2 2 miles $ 20,000 Other (bike, bridle, etc.) 3 10 miles $140,000 Sw i mmi ing Areas 1978 .2 $400,000 25% 25% 50% Winter Sports 1978 10 $150,000 25% 25% 50% Ski trails 2 $ 20,000 Sledding areas 5 $ 10,000 -Ice Skating areas 3 $120,000 Marinas 1978 1 30 berths $200,000 25% 25% 50% *Municipal share M mamma Mae M M"M@M M"MMM MMM M M M SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1978 to September 1979 Source of Funding Programmed Level of Type of Development Estimated General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Golf Course Improvements 1978 1 $310,000 25% 25% 50% Nature Centers 1978 2 $ 80,000 25% 25% 50% Playground/Tot Lots 10 $110,000 25% 25% 50% Playgrounds 6 $ 70,000 Tot lots 4 $ 40,000 Parking Areas & 'Access Roads 1978 18 $1,100,000 25% 25% 50% Parking lots 10 $ 300,000 roads 8 $ 800,000 $4,440,000 *Municipal share SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITIONS FISCAL YEAR October 1979 to September 1980 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Acre Estimated Cost Bonding__ L & WCF Other State Acquisitions 1979 6 700 $3,000,000 50% 50% State Parks & Forests and Natural Areas 6 700 $3,000,000 General State APprop.* Grant L & WCF 4@b Local Park/Recreation Areas 1979 30 800 $4,360,900 25% 25% 50% Neighborhood Parks 15 100 $ 660,000 Area-wide Parks 10 200 $1,200,000 General Town Parks 5 500 $2,500,000 *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1979 to September 1980 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF Other State State Recreation 1979 4 $6,000,000 46% 23% 31%** Tr-eas. Coastal Beaches 1 $5,000,000*** Inland Recreational Facilities 3 $1,000,000 General State Approp.* Grant L & WCF Local Sports and 1979 38 $ 852,000 25% 25% 500% Pl ayf iw-e@s General@playfjelds 5 $ 40,000 Baseball/softball 15 $ 300,000 Football/soccer 6 $ 144,000 Tennis 10 20 $ 320,000 Track/jogging, 2 $ 48,000 *Municipal share. "Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Contingency Fund if available for the development of Silver Sands State Park. ***For development of Silver Sands State Park. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1979 to Sept. 1980 Source of Funding Programmed Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Lighting Projects 1979 17 $ 480,000 25% 25% 50% General site 5 $ 50,000 lighting Ballfields 7 $ 280,000 Tennis courts 5 10 $ 150,000 Support Facilities 1979 12 $ 330,000 25% 25% 50% Sanitary buildings 4 $ 120,000 Water control 3 $ 180,000 structures General fencing 5 $ 30,000 Picnic Areas 1979 10 39 sites $ 68,000 25% 25% 50% *Municipal share. mewwas mom wemawvww@m@m M M SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR Oct. 1979 to Sept. 1980 Source of Fundin Programmed Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Trail Facilities 1979 8 $ 120,000 25% 25% 50% Hiking 5 15 miles $ 60,000 Nature 2 2 miles $ 20,000 Other (bike, 1 5 miles $ 40,000 bridle, snowmobile, etc.) Swimming Areas 1979 1 $ 540,000 25% 25% 50% Winter Sports 1979 11 $ 350,000 25% 25% 50% Ski trails 3 10 miles $ 40,000 Sledding 5 $ 10,000 Ice skating 3 $ 300,000 Marinas 1979 1 30 berths $ 300,000 25% 25% 50% *Municipal share SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October, 1979 to September 1980 Source of Funding Programmed Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Golf Course 1979 1 $ 470,000 25% 25% 50% =rovements Nature Centers 1979 0 25% 25% 50% Playground/Tot Lots 1979 11 $ 210,000 25% 25% 50% CO Playgrounds 8 $ 160,000 Tot lots 3 $ 50,000 Parking Areas & 1979 11 $ 720,000 25% 25% 50% TEZFss Roads Parking lots 7 50 car $ 480,000 Access roads 4 $ 240,000 $4,440,000 *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITIONS FISCAL YEAR Oct. 1,980 to Sept. 1981 Source of Funding Programmed Level. of Type of Development Government Recreation P@@oject Fiscal Year Number Acre -Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF Other State Acquisitions 1980 4 780 $2,300,000 50% 50% State Parks & Forests 4 780 $2,300,000 and Natural Areas General State Approp.* Grant L & WCF Local Park/Recreation 30 1,000 $6,000,000 25% 25% 50% Areas Neighborhood Parks 15 100 $1,000,000 .A:reawide Parks 10 400 $2,0b 0,000 Towhwide Parks 5 500 $3,000,090 *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1980 to September 1981 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF Other State State Recreation 1980 5 $2,060,0100 50% 50% T-reas- Swimming Area 1 $ 860,000 Facilities Inland Recreational 4 $1,200,000 Facilities PQ C) General State Approp.* Grant L & WCF Local Sports And Playfields 1980 36 $ 800,000 25% 25% 50% General purpose 5 $ 40,000 fields Baseball/softball 15 $ 300,000 Football/soccer 6 $ 140,000 Tennis 10 20 $ 320,000 *Municipal share. M mow M SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1980 to September 1981 Level of Type of Programmed' Source of Fund ing Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated .Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Lighting Projects 1980 13 $350,000 25% 25% 50% General Site Lighting 4 40,000 Ballfields 4 160,000 Tennis Courts 5 150,000 Support Facilities 1980 13 $430,000 250/10 25% 50% Sanitary Building 4 160,000 Maintenance Building 3 210,000 General Fencing 6 60,000 Local Picnic Areas 1980 10 30 sites $ 90,000 25% 26%, 50% *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1980 to September 1981 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Trail Facilities 1980 5 $1-60,000 25% 25% 50% Hiking 2 10 miles 40,000 Other (bridle,, bike, snowmobile, etc.) -3 15 miles 120,000 Swimming Areas 198d $800,000 25% 25% 50% Winter'Sports 1980 8 $410,000 25% 25% 50% Ski Trail 10 miles 40 000 Sledding Areas @5 20,000 Ice Skating 1 350,000 Marinas 1980 0 25% 50% *Municipal share mmm Mao M mmm MMMMMM M M M M SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1980 to September 1981 Programmed Source of Funding. Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Golf Course 1980 2 $ 800,000 25% 25% 50% ImDrovements Nature Centers 1980 1 $ 70,000 25% 25% .50% Playground/Tot Lots 1980 9 150,000 25% 25% 50% Playgrounds 6 120,000 Tot Lots 3 30,000 Parking Areas & Access Roads '1980 6 3805000 25% 25% 50% Parking Lots 4 50 cars Access Roads 2 220,000 $4,440,000 *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF AqUISITIONS FISCAL YEAR October 1981 to September 1982 Programmed Source of Funding Level of T pe of Development V Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Acre Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF Other State Acquisitions 1981 4 730 $2,300,000 50% 50% State Parks & Forests 4 780 $2,300,000 and Natural Areas General State Approp.* Grant L & WCF Local Park/Recreation Areas 1981 30 1,000 $6,000,000 25% 25% 50% Neighborhood Parks 15 100 $1,000,000 Area-wide Parks 10 400 $2,000,000 Town-wide 5 500 $3,000,000 *Mun.icipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1981 to September 1982 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development Government Recreation Project, Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Bonding L (OX WCF Other State State Recreation Areas 1981 51 $2,060,000 50% 50% Swimming Area Facilities -1 $ 860,000 Inland Recreation Facilities 4 $1,200,000 PQ General State Approp.* Geant L & WCF Local Sports And 1981 36 800,000 25% 25% 50% Playfields General Purpose Fields 5 $ 40,000 Baseball/Softball 15 $ 300,000 Football/Soccer 6 $ 140,000 Tennis 10 20 $ 320,000 *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1931 to September 1982 Programmed Source of Funding. Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation PrQject Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Lighting Projects 1981 13 350,000 25% 25% D-o% General Site Lighti,ng 4 40,000 B'a 1 If i el ds 4 160,000 Tennis Courts 5 150,000 Support Facilities 1981 13 430,000 25% 25% 50% Sanitary Building 4 160,000 Maintenance Building 3 210,000 General Fencing 6 Picnic Areas 1981 10 30 sites 90,000 25% 25% 50% *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1981 to September 1982 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation.Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Trail -Facilities 5 160,000 25% 25% 50% Hiking 2 10 miles 40,000 Other (bridle 3 15 miles 120,000 bike, snowmobile, etc, Swimming Areas 1981 1 800,000 25% 25% 50Z .Winter Sports 1981 8 410,000 25% 25% -,50% Ski Trail 2 10 miles 40,000 Sledding Areas 5 20,000 I.ce Skating 1 3509'000 Marinas 1981 0 25% 25% 50% *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1981 to September 1982 Programmed Source of Funding Level of T,ype of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Golf Course 1981 2 800,000 25% 25% .50% ImDrovements Nature Centers 1981 1 70,000 25% 25% 50% Na Playground/Tot Lots 1981 9 150,000 25% 25% 50% co Playgrounds 6 120,000 Tot Lots 3 30,000 Parking Areas & 1981 6 380,000 25% 25% 50% Access Roads Parking Lots 4 50 cars 160,000 Access Roads 2 220,000 $4,440,000 *Municipal share. M@m M 1MMM M M SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITIO14S FISCAL YEAR October 1932 to September 1983 .Programmed Source of Funding. Level of Type of Development Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Acre Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF Other State Acquisitions. 1982 4 780 $2,300,000 50% 50% State Parks & Forests 4 780 $2,300,000 and Natural Areas Genera.1 State Approp.* Grant L WCF' Local Park/Recreation Areas 1982 30 1,000 $6,000,000 25% 25% 50% Neighborhood Parks 15. 100 $1,000,000 Area-wide Parks 10 400 $2,000,000 Town-wide Parks 5 500 $3,000,000 *Municipal share. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1982-to September 1983 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Bonding L & WCF Other State State Recreation Areas 1982 5 $2,060,000 50% 50% Swimming Area Faci- lities 1 $ 860,000 4_1@ Inland Recreational W Facilities 4 $1,200,000 CD General. State Approp.* Grant L & WCF Local Sports And 1982 36 $ 800,000 25% 25% 50% Playfields General Purpose 5 $ 40,000 Fields Baseball/Softball 15 $ 300,900 Football/Soccer 6 $ 140,000 Tennis 10 20 320,000 *Municipal share. M Mao SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1982 to September 1983 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year Number Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Lighting Projects 1982 13 350,000 25% 25% 60% General Site 4 40,030 Lighting Ballfields 4 160,000 Tennis Courts 5 150,000 4t- Support Facilities 1982 13 430,000 25% 20'% 50% Sanitary Building 4 160,000 Maintenance Building 3 210,000 General Fencing 6 60,000 Picnic Areas 1982 10 30 sites 90,000 25% .25% 50% *Municipal share SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1982 to September 1983 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year I'lumber Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Trail Facilities 1982 5 160,000 25% 25% 60% Hiking 2 10 miles 40,000 Other (bridle, 3 15 miles 120,000 bike, snowmobile, etc. Swimming Areas 1982 1 800,000 25% 235% 50% Winter Sports 1982 8 410,000 233% 25% 50% Ski Trail 2 10 miles 40,000 Sledding Areas 5 20,000 Ice Skating 1 350,000 Marinas 1982 0 25% 25% 50% *Municipal share SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR October 1982 to September 1983 Programmed Source of Funding Level of Type of Development General State Government Recreation Project Fiscal Year "lumber Units Estimated Cost Approp.* Grant L & WCF Golf Course 1982 2 800,000 25% 25% 60% Improvements Nature Centers 1982 1 70,000 25% 25% 0% Playground/Tot Lots 9 150,000 '25% 25% 60% Playgrounds 6 120,000 Tot Lots 3 30,000 Parkings Areas & 1982 6 380,000 .25% 25% 50% Access Roads Parking Lots 4 50 cars 1609000 Access Roads 2 220,000 $4,440,000 *Municipal share. CENTER DATE DUE j, GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U.SA 36,668