The Environmental Economics of Hamant Brook

On January 12, 2009, Mr. Todd Richards - Fisheries Biologist with the MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) – presented a Stream Restoration proposal to the B.O.S. and the ConCom that DFW believes would restore Hamant Brook to its natural state (a free-flowing stream), while simultaneously improving the water quality in the Quinebaug River.

To accomplish the DFW stream restoration proposal, a series of dams currently restricting water flow on town owned land would be removed. The property in question includes approximately 826 acres of land purchased by the residents of Sturbridge. Two of the dams included in the stream restoration proposal are now town owned land, the third is on property owned by an abutter.

In a pre-presentation letter sent to the Conservation Commission on April 17, 2008, DFW District Supervisor William Davis conveyed his belief that “…the Hamant Brook Restoration proposal presents the town of Sturbridge with a unique conservation and funding opportunity”.

Mr. Davis went on to write that “The restoration of the brook from artificial impoundments with dams in various states of disrepair, to a natural, free-flowing stream, is in the best interest of habitat diversity and consistent with the intent of the Conservation Easement, which enabled the town to acquire the land”. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

Additionally, Mr. Davis highlighted the “…outside funding source currently available through Millennium Power [which] provides the town with a means to eliminate future substantial costs associated with dam repair”. Those costs are estimated to be approximately $715,000, of which $570,000 would be borne by the residents of Sturbridge, with the other $145,000 borne by the other dam owner. In addition, the annual maintenance fees associated with each of the three (3) dams, is estimated to be $2,000 per structure, of which $4,000 would be shouldered annually by the residents of Sturbridge.

The DFW presentation outlined a number of benefits - environmental and economic - which they believe (based upon their experience, expertise, and mission statement) would manifest in direct response to the stream restoration proposal. According to their study, the environmental benefits (in no particular order) include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

1. Restoration of the stream to its natural state
2. Water quality improvement in the Quinebaug River
3. An increase in the quantity and quality of brook trout habitat
4. Restoration of access to a high quality spawning habitat
5. Expansion of fishing opportunities for native brook trout
6. Improved fish communities in the Quinebaug River.
7. Restoration of riverine flows towards natural regime
8. Restoration of thermal continuity improving coldwater fish community
9. Restoration of the natural free-flowing stream setting
10. Restoration of historical passage for multiple species
11. Reduction/Elimination of the expanding invasive weed species

To be clear, the Hamant Brook Stream Restoration proposal is completely consistent with the Conservation Restriction attached to the land, which enabled the residents of Sturbridge to acquire this property.

When one considers that DFW is “…responsible for the conservation - including restoration, protection and management - of fish and wildlife resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the public”, one is hard pressed to find contradictions between their stream restoration proposal and the overall environmental and recreational benefits to Sturbridge residents and visitors. Additionally, as DFW is required to “…balance the needs of people and wildlife today, so that wildlife will be available for everyone’s enjoyment, today and for future generations”, it would appear - based upon the DFW report – that the stream restoration proposal is a unique conservation opportunity for the residents of Sturbridge.

There are however - in addition to the DFW identified environmental benefits - several financial and long-term economic implications that we are obligated to consider as well. Any project or expenditure that entails the potential use of taxpayer money must be weighed heavily in terms of its costs vs. its benefits to the community. This particular project is no exception.

The residents of Sturbridge purchased this property for the environmental, recreational, and ecological benefits it affords. With those benefits however, comes a significant responsibility for us to manage and maintain that property in the safest and most appropriate manner reasonable. The dams associated with the Sturbridge property are part of that management and maintenance responsibility.

The DFW report, as prepared by Inter-Fluve Inc, outlines what appears to be a good faith estimate (based upon similar DFW projects), which indicates a $570,000 liability to the residents of Sturbridge for repair/restoration of the dams. Additionally, we will be burdened with an ongoing annual maintenance liability of approximately $4,000. That being said, we must consider the overall cost of such - in perpetuity - balanced against the benefit to the community of retaining those dams.

In reviewing the information presented during the January 12 meeting, one is challenged to find a single convincing argument that there is any substantial benefit to the town, nor the eco-system for that matter, in maintaining the Hamant Brook dams. A Fisheries Biologist who has studied the available options has concluded that restoring Hamant Brook to its natural state is in the best interests of the overall environment and the eco-system.

Additionally, one has to weigh the benefit or lack thereof with incurring substantial repair/renovation costs - $570,000 and counting – along with annual maintenance liabilities, to maintain ponds, which are being overtaken by invasive weed species so that a relatively small number of residents can pond fish.

Any regular visitor to Hamant Brook can verify that the numbers of individuals utilizing same for fishing is extremely small. Thus, we as residents must ask ourselves just how much money we are willing to spend in so far as the long-term financial commitment to the dams at Hamant Brook, and just how seriously we prioritize the conservation of the environment and natural habitats.

Last year we heard all manner of hyperbole about eco-tourism and the importance of positioning Sturbridge to be an eco-tourist destination. Yet, when presented with an opportunity to expand fishing prospects for native brook trout (particularly considering the numbers of anglers who travel great distances to sport their skills - clearly an eco-tourist opportunity) some of those same voices now stand in opposition to the Hamant Brook Stream Restoration proposal.

Equally odd is the fact that some of our local self proclaimed “environmentalists” who regularly champion the cause of conserving natural habitats and protecting our eco-systems, are now crying foul as it relates to restoring Hamant Brook to its natural state. Sadly, they offered little (in fact nothing) in terms of objective or concrete evidence with which to support their opposition to this proposal.

Instead the meeting was used as an opportunity by local “conservationists” to attack Millennium Power (who was state mandated to set aside these funds), as well as Casella (lost me on this one), the town of Sturbridge for approving a 1.3 WWTF (someone has to explain this one to me as well) along with the Planning Board for allowing a “truck stop” on Route 15 - which for the record is completely inaccurate. The Planning Board did not approve a truck stop on Route 15; that project - if undertaken - is being located in another community zoned for such, while the zoning modification supported by the Planning Board (commercial) would not permit a Truck Stop on the Sturbridge parcel.

Thus, here again we are faced with a situation wherein our elected and appointed officials must bear in mind that the decision they make, as well as the leadership they provide (or fail to provide) will have a profound impact upon this community for decades. The decision in terms of the Hamant Brook Restoration proposal cannot be based upon emotional attachments to an unnaturally created pond, or some self-serving NIMBY or political ideologies.

This decision must be based upon economics and ecology - period. From an economic standpoint, based upon the information thus far presented by Fisheries Biologist - Todd Richards, the stream restoration project is, quite simply, a no-brainer. The financial liability of maintaining those dams, far outweigh any benefits one might perceive exists. There is no significant value nor anything unique in these ponds that is not found in hundreds of other nearby bodies of water. Conversely, the environmental and economic value of free-flowing streams is well documented. To invest taxpayer money for the purpose of maintaining a fishing hole for an incredibly small number residents is irresponsible.

From an environmental standpoint, removal of the dams and restoration of Hamant Brook to its natural state is in the best long-term conservation interests of the land, and those species which utilize it and depend upon it. It is also completely consistent with the Conservation Restriction attached to the land, which enabled the residents of Sturbridge to acquire this property. Additionally, it provides opportunities via a free-flowing stream that are either rare or in many cases, simply unavailable.

The Hamant Brook Restoration proposal as presented and supported by currently available data, is highly beneficial to the environment and economically in the best long-term interests of this community. Allowing taxpayer money to be misused for the benefit of a few, over the needs and benefits of the many, is not in this community's best interests.