HRR home | Plan Preface | Plan Summary | Goals & Recommendations |
"There are some things you
want to do right away "I wish they could clean up
the river so we could eat the big fish." >>related photos>> |
|
Administration Two overwhelming themes emerged on how to develop and implement a Housatonic River restoration. One was that a common vision for the river should be forged and articulated that considers the Housatonic in its overall context. "We have to look at the vision of the river," said Robert Tublitz of Stockbridge. "We have to look at the river in its entirety. We’re caught up in what do we want today. I think we should be thinking about what we want tomorrow and then figure out how to get there." To accomplish that goal, residents urged that a long-term plan be created with concrete action steps conceived and implemented. "We should have a one-, three-, five- and ten-year plan in how to make the improvements," said Kate Ryan of Stockbridge. "We run the risk of having this fund diddled away on a lot of different and diverse projects that meet a lot of different constituencies," added Peter Berle of Stockbridge, former president of the National Audubon Society. "We need a unified vision with an organization to carry it out. We have a great opportunity to make this the best, cleanest river in New England. We only have one shot and we shouldn’t waste it. The key is to get the vision first." The second oft-repeated point was that a successful river restoration would require more than a one-shot blast of activity, but rather a sustained effort dependent on a reliable source of funding for many years. "There needs to be a way to perpetuate the momentum," HRI board member Benno Friedman of Sheffield said of the creation of a river restoration endowment. "I’d love to see something with an ongoing purpose that can continue to generate excitement for the river’s future." Starting from the first meeting with Berkshire sportsmen, there was a strong desire to create a long-term fund from which to draw annual income to finance the operation of the restoration plan and invest in restoration projects as they emerge. Simon’s Rock College Environmental Sciences Professor Don Roeder of Stockbridge suggested an endowment be created to support ongoing activities, educational programs, water quality monitoring, etc. It could be modeled on the Hudson River Foundation, he said. Several suggestions were made to work with the Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation to manage the fund. In addition, residents said the fund could be used as seed money or matching funds for other grants. "It’s a great idea," Sheffield dairy farmer Jim Larkin said of the proposal. "Nobody will be able to figure out what to do tomorrow or next year on a lot of these issues. The situation changes. There are some things you want to do right away and other things you can do in ten or twenty years, when there might be another way to do what you want anyway." "I agree," added Frank Lowenstein, Berkshire program director for The Nature Conservancy. "Even if you decide today that you should clean out all the trees in the river, you’ll have to do it again in five years. If you develop canoe access sites, they will have to be maintained." Thus, a clear consensus emerged that a common vision with a plan to carry it out should be developed. A community-based organization should then take on the responsibility of implementing the plan, as best as possible, and it should try to establish an endowment to assure its long-term viability. Many discussions were held on how to best structure and finance the organization. Proposals ranged from requiring 20 percent of board members be children (Nick Peck of Stockbridge) to crafting a new structure out of the dismantling of Berkshire County government (Pat Carlino of Lee) to assigning the task to a single, responsible individual (Naomi Gordon of Lee). The vast majority of suggestions, however, centered on the creation of a collaborative entity that represents the diverse interests of the river. "It is important to create an entity that represents all the shareholders and all the interests of the river," said George Darey of Lenox, chairman of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Board of Directors. "Go out into the community and identify the body of people who collectively represent the interests of the river. From them create an advisory board with the power to make decisions about what is best for the river, based on all the shareholders’ interests. It has to have a more comprehensive constituency than an individual state agency. The program is doomed to fail if it is a governmental agency." "As someone who works for the state, it should not be organized or operated by the state," agreed EOEA Watershed Team Leader Tom O’Brien. "The watershed should have a bottom-up organization dedicated to the support of the river. It should be kept local and dynamic." Dozens of residents stressed the importance of keeping the decision-making process local and broad-based. "Local knowledge is needed to make the appropriate decisions for the river to keep it as a resource," said Robert Swann of Egremont, president of the E. F. Schumacher Society. How to best represent all local interests without hindering the entity’s ability to act was discussed many times in the public hearings and at several HRR meetings. Lenox Town Manager Joe Kellogg said there
should not be more than five or ten people on an oversight committee, but at the same time
you want to represent the river’s entire constituency. "That’s going to be
tough," he said. He later added, however, that given the alternative of having river
trustees who hail from Property owner Joseph Ruggio of Stockbridge was concerned that the interests of property owners be considered. "I ask that your deliberations and plans give us attention, respect, and a voice," he wrote. League of Women Voters participants echoed this view, noting that there have been many instances of property owners feeling threatened because they were not included in a planning process from the beginning. René Laubach expressed concern about having too small and close-knit a group making the decisions the same way many foundations do. He warned against it becoming an insider’s type arrangement. |
