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.