The Environmental Economics of Hamant Brook - Part II

Following up on the Hamant Brook Stream Restoration proposal brought forth by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (see The Environmental Economics of Hamant Brook), one is struck by the information contained in the Conservation Restriction (CR) that accompanies the property. Said CR, filed with the Registry of Deeds (Book 39299, Page 123), clearly identifies that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts owns (in perpetuity) a conservation easement on the property purchased by the Town of Sturbridge from its former owner - OSV.

Formerly known as a Consensual Order of Taking, the CR, which was signed by the Sturbridge B.O.S., the Sturbridge Conservation Commission, and representatives from the Department of Fish and Game, clearly spells out the meaning, intent, purpose, limitations, and authorizations for the property.

Additionally, the CR, as well as the property deed, clearly indicates that the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) paid $1.9 million for the easement. That said, DFW, or more specifically the State of Massachusetts, is in effect an equal co-purchaser and equal co-owner of the property. The agreements to purchase the land, complete with the CR attached to the land, which effectually allowed the town to purchase (as a partner) the property, were well understood by all at the time of closing. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

With that said, one is reminded of the letter DFW District Supervisor Bill Davis sent to the Conservation Commission on April 17, 2008, wherein he wrote the following “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”.

Bearing that letter in mind, consider the following from Section III, Permitted Acts and Uses listed in the CR which all parties were joint signatories to.

(8) The control, management, and eradication of species not native to The Commonwealth of Massachusetts under a Non-Native Species Control Plan approved by The Commonwealth.

(9) The stocking of sport wildlife and fish species such as pheasants and trout for recreational purposes under a Sport Species Stocking Plan approve by The Commonwealth.

(10) The enhancement of habitat for native plants and animals and the enhancement of natural communities under a Habit Enhancement Plan approved by The Commonwealth.

(11) The repair and/or removal of dams on the Premises in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations and the restoration to a natural condition of the stream channel and associated riparian habitats as approved by The Commonwealth.

It seems rather clear from the document signed by all, that the dam removal or stream restoration proposal was clearly a permitted act and use, which is consistent with the mission statement and responsibility of the DFW. It seems a bit odd at this point, that there is any significant level of resistance from any affected parties considering that it was clearly outlined as a permitted use and thus a possibility from the onset. As well, when one considers that based upon the CR purchased and owned by DFW for $1.9 million, it is somewhat of a stretch to argue that they have little input relative to the property.

One significant concern raised by an individual well respected in his field and certainly by this author, is the issue of access, or lack thereof, if the dams are removed. Clearly, considering the significant amount of time and effort thus far invested by members of our Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC) and members of the Trails Committee in establishing a series of well developed trails on the property, this is a item well worthy of attention. Void of the dams and any bridges that may have been developed in concert with those structures, there remains concern about the inability to maintain connectivity for pedestrian and/or motorized vehicle access .

Accordingly, DFW was contacted by this writer and conversations specific to this issue were engaged. Specifically, it was asked if DFW would be willing to work with the town to address this concern and support – financially – the construction of an appropriate means of pedestrian and vehicle (emergency) access. The short answer was “yes”.

However, it was pointed out that the access issue has nothing to do with the Stream Restoration proposal, but everything to do with the interpretation of the CR as it relates to vehicles. Simply stated, regardless of what the outcome is of any stream restoration project, the access issue is separate and exists with or without the dams.

Referring again to Section III Permitted Acts and Uses, the following in terms of motorized vehicle is addressed:

(3) The construction, maintenance, and repair of non-paved hiking trails and paths, subject to the Forest Management Standards in Exhibit B attached hereto, the marking and identifying thereof with signs, and the use of said trails and paths for the above permitted recreational activities, and the periodic use following written notification to The Commonwealth of motorized vehicles if and as necessary for the purpose of maintain such trails.

(7) Access by automobiles and other four-wheeled vehicles for (a) activities authorized under Sections III and IV, (b) as required by The Commonwealth to carry out its duties, rights, ad responsibilities under this Conservation Restriction, (c) as required by the police, firemen, or other governmental agents in carrying out their lawful duties, and (d) as necessary to provide appropriate handicap access.

Based upon the sections cited above, it seems clear that the access issue should be relatively simple to address, though perhaps not easy, as interactions between governmental entities – state and local – tend to become strained. Additionally, once emotions begin to replace intellect as the foundation for discussion, simplicity is no longer part of the equation. With that said however, in terms of at least this writer’s conversations with DFW representatives, there appears to be a high level of willingness to engage on this issue while working collectively towards an acceptable solution.

Being equal partners in the stewardship of this property, it is in the best interests of all concerned to collectively work towards addressing the conservation restrictions associated with this land. To that end, restoring Hamant Brook to its natural state via dam removal (consistent with the CR which enabled the town to purchase the property), while ensuring continued trail connectivity along with accessibility for motorized vehicles (consistent with the CR) can and should be done collectively and objectively.