eeos capstone project: stephen norris kevin carpenter
TRANSCRIPT
EEOS Capstone Project:
An Assessment of Current Policy Conditions, Constraints, and Consequences in the Process of
Ecosystem Service Restoration
Stephen Norris
and
Kevin Carpenter
Environmental, Earth, and Ocean Sciences Capstone Project Professor Anamarija Frankic
The School for the EnvironmentThe University of Massachusetts at Boston
December 19, 2013Revised May 5, 2014
Introduction
Over the past half century, Boston Harbor has experienced a major shift in the quality of
its municipal water. Thanks in large part to public awareness, the creation of the MWRA, and the
installation of the Deer Island Waste Treatment Facility, Boston Harbor has rebounded from
decades of neglect. As a result of herculean efforts, the impact of sewage and storm water runoff
input into the harbor has been mitigated. However, there is still room for progress, particularly in
the area of oyster stock prorogation and restoration. As keystone species, they provide critical
natural services that ensure the ecological health of the harbor. Furthermore, they have
historically played a role in Massachusetts' economy. Prior to 1950s there was a burgeoning
shell-fishing industry within Massachusetts. Under the combined pressures of declining water
quality and over-harvesting, the oyster populations collapsed. This loss created a positive
feedback cycle due to the declining populations of natural bioremediators and contributed to the
weakening of the state’s fishing industry. The absence of a natural water filtration service has
entailed financial costs to the state and has hindered the environment.
Savin Hill Cove is faced with other ecological issues beyond the loss of biodiversity. A
contributing factor to the recurring flooding of near sea-level infrastructure along Morrissey
Boulevard is the lack of natural barriers. The loss of natural water-absorbing salt marshes has left
public and private property exposed to astronomical high tides and storm surges. Aside from
being a natural buffer at the land see interface, wetlands are crucial habitats and provide natural
services such as water filtration and sediment retention. Thus their destruction not only leads to a
loss in biodiversity and a decline in ecological health, but also increased risk and costs to society.
Clearly the vacuum created by the loss of their natural services has been met with costly
technological solutions such as storm walls and dredging. In order mitigate future capital
expenditures the restoration of coastal wetlands is paramount.
Though the flooding of Savin Hill Cove is an extremely localized problem, it doesn’t
mean that there are not similar problems all along the Boston Harbor coastline. This is merely a
small example of a larger problem that needs to be addressed throughout Boston Harbor. The
declining shellfish stock is also widespread throughout Boston Harbor. The need to restore the
water quality in this large area is without question. One way to help speed up this process is by
using natural systems such as shellfish population. We believe that the two problems that we
have presented can be solved with the same solution. One working solution is the
implementation of a series of floating islands in Savin Hill Cove that contain several species of
cordgrass and oyster banks to mitigate wave action, promote biodiversity, and natural rehabilitate
the cove. For the purpose of this project we will assess the current policy conditions, constraints,
and consequences of the permitting process and its influence on the proposed solution.
Biomimicry LivingLabs at Savin Hill Cove
Biomimicry LivingLabs present students and researchers with the opportunity to
implement innovative technology and interdisciplinary fields of study to address environmental
issues. Furthermore, it encourages involvement and engagement with local communities to
jointly explore solutions. The Biomimicry LivingLabs at Savin Hill Cove will focus on several
problems: oyster stock propagation, sedimentation rates, installation of floating islands, flooding
of Morrissey Blvd, and wetland restoration. In conjunction with capstone students from the
School for the Environment at University of Massachusetts at Boston LivingLabs will attempt to
rehabilitate Savin Hill Cove to a more ecologically productive state and monitor its systems. At
its very core, LivingLabs is as much an attempt to restore the environment as it is an in situ
classroom.
Objectives
The purpose of this project is to explore the current regulatory process and regime and its
effect on citizen run ecological restoration projects. Given the nature of the project and the
multiple layers of jurisdiction, many laws, and regulations must be consulted. The wide ranging
governmental oversight of coastal areas adds an additional layer of complication to restoring the
Cove. Indeed, it may prove that rebuilding an entire population of shellfish and restoring a
wetland is easier than navigating the policy and permitting process. The current ecological
restoration plan for the Cove falls under municipal and state oversight- and should the project
expand to directly altering wetlands, federal laws will apply. In addition to studying applicable
laws and policies, this project will seek to gain permits for the installation of floating islands and
shellfish propagation.
Methods
A review of the applicable laws to the project and their consequences to ecological
restoration is a daunting task. However, it is a task worth pursuing because political engagement
is an important element of LivingLabs efforts at Savin Hill Cove. In order to pursue this this
goal, the team started the basic task of studying Massachusetts General Laws and Boston City
Codes. Specific laws are noted and summarized further in this paper. Future capstone students
should familiarize themselves with these laws to understand the limits on their activities in the
Cove. In addition to the relevant laws, the team reviewed the regulations enforced through the
Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), especially those that are cited in the “Shellfishing
Guidelines 2011.”
In order to better understand the current state of Boston Harbor, the team also reviewed
the history of its pollution. A brief history is replicated below. While the factors that led to the
extreme degradation of the Harbor are too numerous and extensive to discuss in the confines of
this paper, the brief history provided does note many of the policies and pressures that led to its
pollution.
The team reached out to politicians, community leaders, activists, scientists, and
regulators in order to better understand the current state of Savin Hill Cove. Furthermore, the
team consulted with many of these individuals regarding the intentions of LivingLabs at the
cove. Their feedback provided invaluable insight into navigating the permitting and policy
process that LivingLabs must adhere to in order to achieve its goals. Finally this information was
used to locate the necessary permits needed for shellfish propagation and the installation of
floating islands.
A Brief History of Boston Harbor
The students and faculty at the University of Massachusetts at Boston are fortunate
enough to be positioned on the waterfront and enjoy a remarkable view of Boston Harbor.
However, 25 years ago such a view would have been fouled by sewage and sludge. Since 1985,
the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority has implemented stringent orders to facilitate the
protection of the coastal environment. While the MWRA and the state's $4.2 billion investment
has led a tremendous improvement in the Harbor's water quality, there is room for improvement.
Fortunately, future progress does need not come at hefty price tags or grandiose plans. By
incorporating innovative technology and community engagement, the environment can be
protected. Treatment facilities and dumping bans only mitigate or prevent future pollution, in
order to be true stewards of the environment, the Bay State must actively turn to ecological
restoration. However, while noble in intent, any activist organization that seeks rehabilitate any
facet of the costal environment must navigate through the complex permitting process.
To understand the current condition of Boston Harbor- and through extension Savin Hill
Cove in Dorchester- it is important to explore its history. While this is a difficult task, this section
of the paper will very briefly investigate some of the historical trends that led to the degradation
and the restoration of the harbor. For the brevity of this section, only issues pertaining to
environmental matters will be detailed.
Boston Harbor's environmental problems can be traced back to 1820 when the municipal
government began allowing residents to deposit human waste into sewers.1 This combination of
sewage and runoff may not have been detrimental at the time given that the population of Boston
was a mere 43,000 people.2 By the time Boston's population swelled to 178,000 by 18603 the
stresses placed on the sewage system became apparent enough that in 1876 construction began
on 3 separate sewer systems to serve the metropolitan area. 4
Interestingly enough, this infrastructure expansion partially coincides with the filling in
of the Back Bay, which occurred between 1858 and 1882. Clearly as the population of Boston
increased, so did efforts to expand the city. One such maneuver to do is by the annexation of
surrounding municipalities such as Roxbury, West Roxbury, Dorchester, Brighton, and
Charlestown. In addition to incorporating abutting towns, Boston's history demonstrates that it
has consistently reclaimed land from the harbor in order to expand its boundaries. Mudflats,
1 Dol, Eric Jay. "Boston Harbor's Murky Political Waters. (Cover Story)." Environment 34.6 (1992): 6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.p 2
2 Allison, Robert. A Short History of Boston. (Commonwealth Editions 2004). p 1143 Allison, Robert. A Short History of Boston. (Commonwealth Editions 2004). p 1154 Dol, Eric Jay. "Boston Harbor's Murky Political Waters. (Cover Story)." Environment 34.6 (1992): 6. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.p 2
intertidal zones, and wetlands have all been erased from the historical map of Boston- including
at Columbia Point- to make room for an appetitive city.
Perhaps the most important event the history Boston Harbor that contributed to the
cleanup occurred on December 17, 1982 when Quincy solicitor William Golden filed a lawsuit
against the Boston Metropolitan District Commission for violations of Massachusetts
environmental laws.5 Eventually, this lawsuit led to another lawsuit by the Conservation Law
Foundation and the EPA against the MDC. In conjunction these lawsuits and the judicial orders
of Judge Garrity and Judge Mazzone forced Beacon Hill to address the problem. The vehicle
they chose to do so was the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA), which oversaw
the $3.9 billion cleanup of the harbor and the construction of the present Deer Island treatment
facility. Thus 450 million gallons of waste water and 100,000 pounds of sludge were no longer
dumped directly into Boston Harbor, rather it is pumped 9.5 miles out in Massachusetts Bay.6 At
long last the environmental catastrophe that a 1939 special commission deemed as violation of
all public health requirements and esthetic sensibilities had been solved.7 However, despite all
the money, time, and effort, much more can be done to restore the Harbor to a more naturally
productive state. Specifically a greater focus can be placed on the restoration of the depleted
oyster banks.
Oysters are a truly remarkable creature and are considered to be a keystone species for
coastal habitats. These pivotal shellfish are crucial to the biodiversity of intertidal zones, and
5 Haar, Charles M. "Boston Harbor: A Case Study." Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 19.3 (1992): 641. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013. p642
6 Haar, Charles M. "Boston Harbor: A Case Study." Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 19.3 (1992): 641. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013. p642
7 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Report on the Special Commission Investigating Sewage Systems of Sewerage and Sewage Disposal in North and South Metropolitan Sewerage Districts and the City of Boston,” House doc no. 2465 (Boston, MA 15 June 1939) 12-13. This source was located through Eric Dol's treatment previously cited in this paper.
contribute to the construction of biogenic habitats.8 Furthermore they provide important
ecological services, such as water filtration (30-50 gallons per day per oyster), which helps
maintain the natural water quality of coastal areas. However, as pointed out by the Massachusetts
Oyster Project, oysters have been inadvertently eradicated from Boston Harbor by a variety of
factors, such as the loss of habitat due to anthropogenic costal filling; river subjugation and
nutrient flow disruption due to damning; pollution from centuries of sewage and sludge
dumping; and over-harvesting.9 The conditions in Boston Harbor are reaching a point in which
organizations, such as the Massachusetts Oyster Project, can viably restore oyster stocks
especially given that water quality. Indeed, concentrations of PAH, PCB, DDT, Chlordane, and
Lead have all decreased since the activation of the Deer Island treatment facility. 10 This progress
provides Bay Staters with the opportunity to behave as stewards, rebuild the depleted stocks, and
restore Boston Harbor to the state that they deserve. Hopefully when future students study the
history of Boston Harbor oyster stock restoration will be more than a footnote.
Discussion of Relevant Laws
One element of this project was the maintenance of a project blog, available at
www.permitsandpolicies.blogspot.com , that chronicled the team's progress through the semester.
One element that we frequently blogged on were relevant laws that must be consulted in the
installation of the floating islands and propagation of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica.
Laws relevant to the proposed LivingLabs activities at Savin Hill Cove can be found in the
8 Luckenbach, Mark, Coen, Loren; et al. “Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration: Relationships Between Oyster Abundance and Community Development Based on Two Studies in Virginia and South Carolina.” Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No 40 (2005) 64-78. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 December 2013. p 65
9 Massachusetts Oyster Project. “History of Oysters in Boston.” Massachusetts Oyster Project. N.p. October 2013. 12 December 2013.
10 Hunt, Carlton D., and Elizabeth Slone. "Long-Term Monitoring Using Resident And Caged Mussels In Boston Harbor Yield Similar Spatial And Temporal Trends In Chemical Contamination." Marine Environmental Research 70.5 (2010): 343-357. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013. p289
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 91 (water ways), 111 (public health) and 130 (marine and
fisheries regulations). Furthermore, municipal ordinances must be considered. For the purposes
of LivingLabs activities in Savin Hill Cove, the City of Boston Codes must also be consulted.
While there are many laws that are pertinent within those chapters, the most important- in
regards to regulatory powers and permits- are discussed in this paper. The summary and analysis
of each law published on the blog has been reproduced below.
Massachusetts General Law: Chapter 130, Section 20A
MGL Chapter 130 Section 20A holds that the DMF director is required to assist and
cooperate with coastal cities in the establishment, cultivation, propagation and protection of
shellfish. Furthermore the funds from the Tourism and Industrial Promotion Fund will be
appropriated to such endeavors. Cities will be completely reimbursed for propagation of shellfish
under this law.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 130, Section 54
MGL Chapter 130, Section 54 holds that municipalities through a board of aldermen or
city council may appropriate money for the cultivation, propagation, and protection of shellfish.
Furthermore the board of aldermen or city council is given the authority to declare a close season
for any and all kinds of shellfish for no longer than three years. They also have the authority to
plant, grow, and protect shellfish, even during a closed season. However any area that is selected
for municipal propagation may not be licensed for the private cultivation of shellfish for at least
two years.
Massachusetts General Law: Chapter 130, Section 74
Massachusetts General Law 130, S 74 is a crucial environmental law that ensures the
protection of public health in regards to the Bay State's coastal waters. The law holds that the
Division of Marine Fisheries may authorize through its own accord (or at the request of a
municipality or commissioner of public health) an examination of commonwealth's coastal
waters and mudflats in order to determine if contaminated shellfish are present. Upon the
completion of the examination, the DMF is required to forward its findings to the commissioner
of public health; and should the report conclude that contaminated shellfish are present; the DMF
is required to define boundaries that denote the location of contaminated areas. Furthermore, the
law states that the DMF is required to:
Publish the results of its report in the local newspaper of each affected and adjacent
municipality
File the report with every office of the clerk in every affected town
Post notices of contamination at every effected site, outlining the areas of contamination
Notify the directors of the DMF and division of law enforcement of the determination,
publication, filing, and posting of the report - all of which have to be certified by the
Massachusetts Secretary of State
Notify the director of the division of law enforcement of its determination, by filing with
him an authenticated copy of its determination.
The DMF is also required to monitor contaminated sites until such sites can be declared safe for
harvesting and the shellfish safe for human consumption. Furthermore the law states that the
DPH and DMF acting jointly and in consolation with the DEP may promulgate rules and
regulations that establish the standards and criteria for the classification of all shellfish growing
areas so long as they conform at a minimum to the rules established by the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. Finally the law, states that it cannot be applied to scallops or conch unless
they are included in the DMF determination and report.
This law is crucial to the policing of the Commonwealth's coastal waters, and it
essentially provides the DMF with administrative power of the entire state's coastal areas. It is
important in not only protecting human health by preventing the harvesting of shellfish with
bacteria, such as Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp), but also by defining environmentally degrade
regions. This identification is instrumental in developing a strategy to rehabilitate the
Commonwealth's waterways back to a state that not only benefits commercial and recreational
activities, but also to a state that ensures that both the surrounding ecosystem and human
community can benefit from costal ecological services.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 130, Section 74A
MGL 130 S 74A further defines the regulatory and administrative powers of the Division
of Marine Fisheries. Under the law, the DMF is granted the authority to immediately designate
shellfish harvesting areas as contaminated- barring the harvest of shellfish from that area.
According to the definition of "contaminated" in this law, a site is contaminated if the
consumption of shellfish from the area are unfit for food or dangerous to public health. The
designation of "contaminated" will remain in effect until further examination (initiated within 30
days of the designation) demonstrates that there is no danger to human health. Furthermore,
under this law, the commission of public health is given the power to direct the DMF employees
that monitor the condition of shellfish during the duration of the "contaminated" designation.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 130, Section 83
The Division of Marine Fisheries is authorized under MGL c. 130 s 83 to issues permits,
including the special projects permit. Relevant laws also include MGL Chapter 130, sections 17,
69, 75, and 80. This specific permit allows individuals to engage in aquaculture, scientific study,
and shellfish propagation. For the purpose of the LivingLabs Project, this is the permit that
should be pursued.
Given that a goal of the LivingLabs Project is to plant oysters, this permit must absolutely
be filed and accepted for the project to progress. Furthermore the Massachusetts Shellfish
Planting Guidelines of 2011 notes on page 12, "Marine Fisheries regulates the source and species
of shellfish to be introduced into the marine waters of the Commonwealth pursuant to MGL
Chapter 130, sections 57 and 69 and in CMR 15.00 Aquaculture Regulations at 15.03 seed and
15.07 source." It is crucial for the integrity of the LivingLabs Project that a source of oysters,
agreeable to the Division of Marine Fisheries, be located and prepared for transport to Savin Hill
Cove. This obligation must be met not only to fulfill the requirements of the permit, but also to
protect the biodiversity of the cove, and the public health of Savin Hill residents and all that
come in direct contact with the oysters.
Massachusetts General Law: Chapter 91, Section 10A
MGL C91 S10A invests the mooring permitting authority in a city's harbor master, unless
otherwise mandated by the city or town. The law requires that a reasonable fee be associated
with each permit, and that the harbor master be required to act on the permit application within
15 days from its receipt. Furthermore, the law establishes an appeals process, should the
application be denied. Anyone person that is aggrieved by the rejection of a permit or restriction
may appeal to the Division of Waterways.
City of Boston Code: Chapter 16, Section 48
In respect to Boston, the current Harbor Master is Sgt. Joseph Cheever of the Boston
Police Department. The City of Boston, as stated in the City of Boston Code Chapter 16 Section
48, requires that all vessels docked within the municipal waters be permitted. Furthermore CBC
Chapter 16 Section 48establishes the Boston Waterways Board. This ordinance must be
addressed for the installation of the floating islands.
Capstone Project and LivingLabs at Savin Hill Cove, Dorchester, MA
To reiterate the purpose of the project, the primary objective is the assessment of current
policy conditions, constraints, and consequence in process of ecosystem service restoration-
including the complex permitting process for the restoration of urban harbors. In addition, the
project entailed the secondary objectives of securing the necessary permits for the installation of
the floating islands and propagation of shellfish in Savin Hill Cove; and to reach out to adjacent
communities to determine their interest in its restoration.
The local civic association, specifically Peter McNamara of The Savin Hill Civic
Association, did demonstrate interest in restoring the Cove. LivingLabs were discussed at an
October meeting of the civic association and it generated interest among the attendees.
Furthermore, Mr. McNamara was a frequent guest of the weekly capstone sessions, and he
actively encouraged the students pursue the leads he provided. Clearly, the Savin Hill Civic
Association has an invested interest in the restoration of the Cove. Therefore, future capstone
students that participate in LivingLabs should seek the advice and aid of Mr. McNamara and
support of the Savin Hill Civic Association.
Another attendee of the civic association was the commodore of the Savin Hill Yacht
Club. The yacht club is an abutter to the cove, and therefore also has an invested interest in
maintaining the water quality. Future LivingLabs students will need to recognize the importance
of fostering a working partnership with the club and cooperatively address the cove's issues. The
main three common interests between the two are the restoration of the Spartina/wetlands,
addressing tidal flooding, and high sedimentation rates within the cove. Clearly the Savin Hill
Yacht Club has a capital interest in maintaing the esthetic qualities of the area. The restoration of
wetlands via floating islands could address this issue while also mitigating wave action and
flooding. Finally, oyster propagation would address both LivingLabs and the Savin Hill Yacht
Club's concerns regarding water quality and sedimentation rates. Thus the interest of involved
parties are respected and addressed.
Another group that was reached out to was the Massachusetts Oyster Project (MOP).
Specifically, our team reached out to Andrew Jay, president of this group. In a conference call,
he discussed the regulatory and political roadblocks that his group has encountered in their effort
to restore oyster banks. He advised that LivingLabs deposit oyster shells along the bottom of
Savin Hill Cove. This does not require a permit, and does encourage the natural propagation of
oysters. Furthermore, he explained that the main impediment to shellfish propagation was the
DMF, outdated laws, and fear of tainted oysters entering the human food supply. The latter
concern is a very real threat to the shellfishing industry, since contaminated shellfish can cause
paralysis or even death and could force the Division of Marine Fisheries to shutdown harvesting
areas until the threat of tainted stocks had diminished.
Political leaders and employees of the DMF were also reached out to, however, they did
not respond by the time this paper was authored. Members of the Boston City Council were
emailed regarding the creation of a municipal containment plan, municipal propagation of
shellfish, and their interest in ecological restoration; specifically, the councilmen: Bill Linehan,
Charles Yancey, John Connolly, Felix Arroyo, and Stephen Murphy. With the exception of
Connolly, none returned the inquiry. Connolly, who at the time of this writing was a candidate for
the Mayor of Boston, as well as Rep. Marty Walsh (now the new Mayor), were contacted, and
both responded. They expressed interest in the project, but requested that the inquiry be
resubmitted after the November elections. Unfortunately, nothing substantive emerged from
these contacts in time for this paper.
Members of the Nature Conservancy, Casey Shetterly, and the Division of Marine
Fisheries, David Chase, were also contacted. However, their contact and their response occurred
late in November and early December, and unfortunately nothing substantive emerged in time for
this paper. Future capstone students should pursue these sources, but they must do so very early
in the semester (especially in the Fall given the numerous federal holidays which interrupt
normal business). Furthermore, the students must also realize that these individuals are extremely
busy, and anticipate understandably lengthy periods between emails.
Another individual that we consulted with was the Sgt Cheever of the Boston Police and
the current Harbor Master. In a discussion in on October 29, 2013, Sgt Cheever indicated that
LivingLabs could proceed with the installation of the floating islands, provided that the
appropriate mooring permits were filed with his office. It is important that future capstone
students consult with the Harbormaster, given that he has the policing authority for the municipal
waters in Boston. They should also keep in mind that his office is extremely busy, and they
should anticipate some time to pass between initial contact and response.
Results
Based upon the discussion with the experts and officials, and in conjunction with our own
experiences in navigating the permitting process, it is clear that the current regulatory regime
constrains ecological restoration. Throughout the semester roadblocks were consistently
encountered regarding oyster propagation, and there were difficulties in locating the necessary
permits, given the overlapping jurisdictions. Specific results are detailed in the subsections
below. Based the upon the observations, experiences, and interviews made during the duration of
this project, it is fair to conclude that the current regulatory regime is adversarial to LivingLabs
efforts at Savin Hill Cove. Several factors such as multiple layers of jurisdiction, locating
necessary permits, and the area's designation of “prohibited” by the DMF make the restoration of
the Cove – as well as the other 90% of Boston Harbor that has the same DMF designation-
difficult.
Floating Islands
The floating islands are an instrumental element of LivingLabs at Savin Hill Cove. They
were the easiest element to pursue for this project. The University’s Marine Operations already
had permits on file for the islands, so it eliminated the need for our group to pursue filing a
permit for the islands with the Boston Harbor Master. However, we decided to explore the
permitting process for this particular element of the project. Overall, it was found to be a
relatively simple task, with the greatest difficulty being locating of the permit online. To aid
future students with the search for this permit, we have included a 2013 version of the form.
However, it is important to note that this form does change annually, and will be obsolete by the
time this paper is read by future students. Nonetheless, the form should provide some insight into
the required information needed to secure the approval of the permit, and at the very least
provide future students with contact information for the Boston Harbormaster's office. Finally, it
is important to note that one of the islands have been installed in the cove, and is being
monitored by another LivingLabs group.
Shellfish Propagation
The second significant element of the LivingLabs program is shellfish propagation. By
repopulating the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, the project seeks to rehabilitate Savin Hill
Cover to a more ecologically productive state by utilizing their natural filtration services.
However, while direct field observations conducted by our group, and substantiated by past and
current capstone projects, prove that oysters are present in the cove, LivingLabs will encounter
problems trying to propagate them. The greatest regulatory roadblock encountered by in this
project was the designation of Savin Hill Cove as “Prohibited” by the Division of Marine
Fisheries. According to the Shellfish Planting Guidelines provided by the DMF in 2011, there are
five area classification definitions: Approved, Conditionally Approved, Restricted, Conditionally
Restricted, and Prohibited. The “Prohibited” designation bans harvesting of shellfish, and the
creation of new self-sustaining populations.11 However, there are avenues that LivingLabs could
pursue in order to facilitate the propagation of oysters in the cove.
According the Shellfish Planting Guidelines, the only way that the DMF would support
planting activities in “prohibited” waters is if the area is covered by a municipal containment
11 Hickey, J.M. “Shellfish Planting Guidelines 2011” The Division of Marine Fisheries. December 2011. Web. p7
area management plan,12 as outlined in MGL Chapter 130 Section 54. The drawback to this
approach is that it requires political action by the Boston City Council. Based upon the
observations made by our group during the duration of this project, it is clear that there is neither
the political will nor public pressure to facilitate the passage of a containment plan. Moving
forward, future capstone students could seek to directly lobby the city council or build a
grassroots coalition group that would encourage the council to pass the necessary measures.
Should this paths be pursued, students should be prepared for a costly, lengthy, and difficult
campaign. Despite these difficulties, public awareness is the best method to engage the local
community and the political officials. By sharing information and educating others, LivingLabs
will promote the innovative science and technology that is the cornerstone of our plan.
Another means through which oysters may be propagated in a “prohibited” area is also
available. The most viable means through which LivingLabs will be able to restore the oyster
population is by a Special Research Permit. Pursuing this. Projects conducted with a Special
Research Permit are meant to be temporary, and are not supposed to create self-sustaining
populations of oysters.13 However, if the projects are done with municipal consent and through a
municipal propagation permit, then such projects will be allowed to persist even after the
expiration of the project.14 This path seems to be one viable path forward for LivingLabs.
However, in our conversation with Andrew Jay, he noted that the DMF may be reluctant to issue
such permits out of fear that the propagation of oysters in a “prohibited area” would lead to
attractive nuisances and jeopardize human health should a tainted shellfish find its way to the
human food supply. Thus the likelihood of the DMF granting LivingLabs at Savin Hill Cove
remains uncertain. To illustrate the extent of condemned waterways in Boston Harbor, several
12 Hickey, J.M. “Shellfish Planting Guidelines 2011” The Division of Marine Fisheries. December 2011. Web. p713 Hickey, J.M. “Shellfish Planting Guidelines 2011” The Division of Marine Fisheries. December 2011. Web. p7-814 Ibid
maps generated through MassGIS Oliver, using data from the Nature Conservancy has been
added below. Clearly the extent of the Boston Harbor's pollution is far reaching, and it
demonstrates that much work needs to be done to truly cleanup the area. The two necessary
permits that LivingLabs would have to submit are also inserted into the following pages. It is
recommended that future students use this information as framework to further the effort of
getting these permits ( and others) approved so the restoration of Savin Hill Cove can progress.
Political Roadblocks
The collision between political realities and our efforts to restore the cove proved to be
the most frustrating throughout the Fall 2013 semester. Perhaps the greatest obstacle that was
encountered was the Boston mayoral race between State Representative Martin Walsh and
Boston City Councilman John Connolly. Both candidates were contacted regarding LivingLabs'
efforts for Savin Hill Cove, however we were respectfully asked to follow up with their offices
after the election. Understandably, both candidates had more immediate issues to address. This is
not to suggest disinterest on their parts- rather it is a merely a reflection of political reality.
Indeed, the response from each office connoted interest in the project. Future LivingLabs
students will need to immediately seize on this enthusiasm and reach out to the mayor's office in
order to further LivingLabs' progress in rehabilitating the cove. Furthermore, students attempting
to pursue political action will need to set practical goals and expect lengthy response intervals.
Other Road Blocks
The main impediment to this process stems from the regulatory problems concerning
environmental construction. As it was brilliantly put to us by Dr. Frankic, “You don’t need a
permit to pollute, but you need more than one to clean it up.” Though regulation is important, the
lack of simplicity in the permitting process is one of the reasons why rehabilitating polluted
water ways is so daunting that it deters citizen-activists. As we discovered with this project, there
seems to be no efficient way for an ordinary citizen to begin to mitigate even the smallest of
environmental problems. There is no comprehensive area to find out exactly what permits groups
may need or websites that indicate whose jurisdiction projects fall under. A specific example of
this is the use of waters on Boston’s coast. These waters are controlled by city, state and federal
departments. Shellfish propagation and harvesting is controlled by Boston city ordinances, state
laws, and implicitly overseen by the FDA.
Points of Discussion: Thoughts and Feelings on Our Capstone Project
Now that the project has drawn to a close and the semester has ended, it is important to
review the group's project and critique our progress. The single greatest roadblock encountered
was the DMF's classification of Savin Hill Cove as “prohibited.” Unfortunately this proved to be
an impediment to great to overcome in the duration of a single semester. Therefore, the one
regret that we have is that we did not immediately focus on the shellfish propagation element of
the project. We recommend that future students immediately orient themselves to this issue
should this topic be addressed in future capstone projects and that they use our work a guide to
avoid the many pitfalls that we encountered.
We hope that other capstone groups will address the complex permitting process. We
found it to be prohibitively time consuming and extremely frustrating. It is our hope that one day
this process could be streamlined to better accommodate ecological restoration projects. Clearly
a plethora of laws that have been constructed to prevent pollution also prevent restoring the
environment to a more naturally productive state.
Our final recommendation to future capstone students is that they focus on coalition
building. Clearly there is a political component is involved in environmental restoration. If given
the opportunity again, we would have contacted our experts and community leaders sooner.
Furthermore, would have tried to gain greater community awareness and support the project in
order to place greater political pressure on the Boston City Council to address the problems of
the cove.
Conclusion
Boston Harbor has not always been the jewel of New England that it is today. Not to far
in the past, Boston Harbor was one of the most polluted waterways in the United States. After a
nearly $4 billion investment and several court cases, the Harbor is now rebounding to a more
natural state. However, much work needs to be done to further facilitate a genuine restoration.
Future efforts need not involve billion dollar commitments or civil litigation or even the creation
of a metropolitan authority. Small citizen run organizations can turn the tide against pollution in
Boston Harbor.
Our project focused exclusively on the permitting process and ultimately it sought to
acquire the necessary permits for the installation of floating islands and oyster propagation at
Savin Hill Cove. Our experience has shown that the permitting process is prohibitively restrictive
of ecological restoration. Coupled with political roadblocks, these factors constitute the greatest
threat to fulfilling the goals of LivingLabs at Savin Hill Cove. While we were successful in
locating all the necessary permits for shellfish propagation, the current DMF classification
regime makes it unlikely that they would be approved. Fortunately our experience regarding the
floating island component of the project was more successful. Currently there is a floating island
located in the cove awaiting future LivingLabs students to begin their capstone projects. On a
final note it is important to remember the significance of LivingLabs. As prospective
environmental scientists, capstone students- and indeed all residents of Massachusetts- have a
responsibility to be stewards of the environment. Our coastal environment plays a pivotal role in
our health and wellness, and it is inextricably intertwined with our identity. After all, the citizens
of Massachusetts are simply known as Bay Staters.
Acknowledgments
Our project would not have been possible without the assistance of numerous individuals. We
sincerely are grateful for their patience, interest, and cooperation with us. This document
represents the combined efforts of these individuals and we are grateful that they shared their
time and thoughts with our group.
Dr Anamarjia Frankic, the University of Massachusetts at Boston, School for the Environment
Sargent Joseph Cheever; the Boston Police, Boston Harbormaster
Andrew Jay, President of the Massachusetts Oyster Project
Peter McNamara; Chairman of the Savin Hill Civic Association
The Savin Hill Yacht Club
David Chase; the Division Marine Fisheries
Casey Shetterly, the Nature Conservancy
Marine Operations at the University of Massachusetts- Boston
Maps courtesy of MassGIS Oliver, and the Nature Conservancy
Works Cited
Allison, Robert. A Short History of Boston. (Commonwealth Editions 2004).
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Report on the Special Commission Investigating Sewage
Systems of Sewerage and Sewage Disposal in North and South Metropolitan Sewerage
Districts and the City of Boston,” House doc no. 2465 (Boston, MA 15 June 1939) 12-13.
Dol, Eric Jay. "Boston Harbor's Murky Political Waters. (Cover Story)." Environment 34.6
(1992): 6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Haar, Charles M. "Boston Harbor: A Case Study." Boston College Environmental Affairs Law
Review 19.3 (1992): 641. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013
Hickey, J.M. “Shellfish Planting Guidelines 2011” The Division of Marine Fisheries. December
2011. Web.
Hunt, Carlton D., and Elizabeth Slone. "Long-Term Monitoring Using Resident And Caged
Mussels In Boston Harbor Yield Similar Spatial And Temporal Trends In Chemical
Contamination." Marine Environmental Research 70.5 (2010): 343-357. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Luckenbach, Mark, Coen, Loren; et al. “Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration: Relationships Between
Oyster Abundance and Community Development Based on Two Studies in Virginia and South
Carolina.” Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No 40 (2005) 64-78. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 19 December 2013.
Massachusetts Oyster Project. “History of Oysters in Boston.” Massachusetts Oyster Project.
N.p. October 2013. 12 December 2013.
Norris, Stephen. EEOS Capstone Blog. permitsandpolicies.blogspot.com. 2013. Web. 19
December 2013.