February 2008

Editor: Brian Labowsky (Lumpy)
Newsletter of the Naugatuck-Pomperaug
Chapter of Trout Unlimited

Pictures from the Connetquot Trip (click here for pictures)

 Caddis Looped Wing Emerger FLY OF THE MONTH:
Submitted by Mike Kaklamanos

Caddis Looped Wing Emerger

Hook: # 16-20 curved light wire
Wing: 2 CDC feathers tied loop style
Thread, hackle, and dubbing to match natural

February Meeting

February 6, 2008

Monthly Meeting

Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan Association.
7:00 PM




February 6th










February 9th





April 12th

Upcoming Events

Pomperaug Coalition Director to Speak.
Ed Edelson will be the guest speaker at the February 6 meeting of the Trout Unlimited Naugatuck-Pomperaug Chapter. Edelson is the Executive Director of the Pomperaug Watershed Coalition. The main topic will be the Pomperaug Plantation Project. There will be a question and answer period.

Fly Tying Lessons & Demonstrations will be held on Tuesdays Jan. 15, 22 & 29 in the Community Room of the Southbury Stop & Shop in Southbury and on Wednesdays
Feb. 13, 20 and 27 in the Watertown Stop & Shop Community Room on Straits Turnpike. The public is invited. There is no charge for the sessions. For further information call Dom Falcone at 860-274-4103 or dafalcone@snet.net.

Fly Fishing & Outdoor Shows
Marlborough, MA --- Jan.18-20
Somerset, NJ --- Jan. 25-27
Eastern Fishing and Outdoor Exposition (Worcester, MA) --- Feb.7-10

Northwest Chapter TU Banquet---The Northwest Chapter will be holding a Game dinner instead of their annual fund raiser banquet. Several of their members attend our banquets and support us in our fund raising events including our annual trip to the Connetquot. Their game dinner will beheld on February 9th at the Torrington Elks Lodge and the cost is $35.00 per person. Let’s enjoy the various”game” and help support their chapter.

Spring river clean up. We are looking for a coordinator and volunteers. We need to start planning now!

Fly casting clinic- April 12, 2008 Newtown Bait & Tackle
Hot dogs, hamburgers, soda. Dealer reps, Sage, Thomas & Thomas, Winston, Scott, Temple Fork

Connecticut Trout Unlimited Website

Our Connecticut Trout Unlimited council has launched a website aimed at helping bring our chapters together statewide. The web site has a large amount of information and links to each chapter in the state. Take a look, it is well worth it.



Chapter “logo” hats are now available for $15.00

Choice of colors Forest green or Safari tan.

Can be purchased at monthly meeting

Membership Renewals:

Recent changes have been made to TU's policy toward membership renewals. Individual chapters no longer receive a portion of each renewal. As such, please send renewals directly to TU national or renew on the website.

If you would like to be added to or removed from the e-mail list for the Naugatuck Pomperaug Newsletterplease email bobflybox@aol.com.

Dear Sir(s):


The Naugatuck Pomperaug Chapter of Trout Unlimited wish the Sub Council to reconsider the findings and decision of the Trustee Work Group (TWG) incorporated into their report as it relates to the Chapter’s detailed proposal regarding phase II of the Housatonic River Basin Natural Resources Restoration Project.

In reviewing the Trustee Work Group’s report we find the following,

1. While some proposals indicated that items could be separated into respective smaller projects, the Trustee Work Group unilaterally separated the Naugatuck/Pomperaug TU Chapter’s proposal into two segments. In turn, one segment was accepted for “further consideration” and it was stated that the other segment of the arbitrary separation, “does not warrant additional consideration at this time.” Further, the proposal review requirements and scoring criteria do not stipulate that there can be, or should be, any, separation of the proposal by the Trustee Work Group. We would like the Sub Council to reconsider the findings.

2. The TWG project evaluation summary indicates,
a. “Trout stocking is widely used as a method of increasing populations.” While quite accurate on its own merits and as a stand alone item, it is also a method to ensure breeding populations, natural reproduction and sustainability of the natural resource.
b. (Trout stocking) “May require permit for transportation of fish across state lines.” Again, while quite accurate on its own merits as a stand alone statement, the proposal clearly identifies native Connecticut trout hatcheries as a first priority before seeking out-of-state resources.
Further, the proposal recognizes the need for permitting as a DEP requirement and would seek the required permitting if and when the proposal was accepted. It would appear to be presumptuous of the TWG to infer that the TU Chapter did not recognize the permit requirement. Further, it would be a waste of time, effort, energy and resources to initiate the obtaining of permits before the proposal was accepted. We would like the Sub Council to reconsider the findings.

3. The TWG project evaluation summary indicates,a. “Ninety-eight percent of the budget is for trout stocking (over five years). All labor is to be donated (value not assigned.)” The statement itself should be very clear. If there is no cost incurred for labor, how can there be a value assigned i.e., it is at no cost. If the RFQ would have requested “relative value” then perhaps the proposal would have responded accordingly. We would like the Sub Council to reconsider the findings.

. The TWG project evaluation summary indicates,
a. “The project would result in low to moderate benefits, but does not demonstrate long-term sustainable ecological and recreational benefits.” It is not clear what criteria or how the TWG determined “low to moderate benefits” for this project. The proposal clearly addresses the ecological and recreational benefits

And, the proposal is very clear in establishing a study to determine through the use of monitoring and data to determine long-term ecological benefits with the assistance of the DEP. The TU Chapter believes that the DEP should clearly be interested in conducting such a study to determine the efficacy of stocking. Although we do not wish to determine DEP’s methods for this, the study could include electro-shocking and angler surveys as proposed in other projects that were selected for further consideration. We would like the Sub Council to reconsider the findings.

5. The TWG project evaluation summary indicates,
a. “The applicant may have the technical expertise and administrative capabilities to implement the project, but specific examples and qualifications are not provided. The proposal is quite clear in stating that the TU Chapter has other similar projects and stipulates the Beacon Falls Riverfront Park System as an example. This is noteworthy and difficult to reconcile, since the Beacon Falls Riverfront Park System project was accepted for further consideration by the Trustee Work Group. It should also be noted that Trout Unlimited is a national organization and a history and qualifications of implementing projects much larger that those proposed in response to the RFP. We would like the Sub Council to reconsider the findings.

6. The TWG project evaluation summary indicates,
a. “The high cost relative to benefits” It is difficult to determine the basis for this conclusion by the TWG. We would like the Sub Council to reconsider the findings.

The Naugatuck/Pomperaug Chapter of TU is troubled with the findings in other areas. The basic premise and title of the RFP is the “Housatonic River Basin Natural Resources Restoration Project. In the English language, the word “restoration” means to “return something to its former state.” “Restoration” also has synonyms including “return, reinstatement, re-establishment, reinstallation, repair, refurbishment and renewal.” Each of these synonyms speaks directly to putting something in place that may have previously been in existence. We believe that this is the underlying purpose of the Housatonic River Basin Natural Resources Restoration Project.

It is particularly troubling that many of the projects selected for further consideration have no merit in being restorative in nature. Some are public works projects disguised as restoration. Some are easements, land preservation and access projects that have nothing to do with the restoration intended in the GE settlement. Some are dam modifications, while worthwhile projects, again they are not restorative as it relates to the GE case and better suited to another funding forum.

Based on and in light of these seeming inconsistencies, we would request that the Naugatuck/Pomperaug Trout Unlimited’s proposal be reviewed and reconsidered. The Chapter is prepared to offer additional information and expertise as required to conduct a further review.

Robert Perella,
Naugatuck/Pomperaug Chapter of TU

Trout Unlimited's Mission

To conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watershed.