This report is an environmental values assessment of the Muddy River Restoration Project (MRRP). The MRRP is the proposal to dredge the Muddy River and other bodies of water within the Emerald Necklace park system (in Boston, Brookline, Jamaica Plain, MA), for the purpose of "flood damage reduction and environmental restoration".[1] An environmental values assessment (EVA) is a means of assessing those values in an ecosystem not within the purview of a standard environmental impact assessment (EIA). Thus, an EVA involves a more comprehensive assessment of the goods and values in an ecosystem—recreational, educational, social, cultural, aesthetic, biological, and non-commodity—impacted by a specific project than does an EIA. The rationale for undertaking EVAs is that the narrowness of focus of EIAs results in significant ecological and social impacts being omitted or marginalized in project decision-making processes—including those regarding whether a project should be undertaken at all. Whereas an EIA assesses only the economic and ecosystems services dimensions of a project, an EVA assesses a project also in terms of its impact on biological values and values associated with the experience of place.

The MRRP is proposed for the Emerald Necklace, at the center of which is the Muddy River, as well as the bodies of water it connects. The Emerald Necklace is an aesthetic jewel, valued by some humans, and by all its wild inhabitants and migrants. For the wild-things it is life. For humans it is an oasis – a green buffer, a rest for the eye, ear, nose, and for feet a break from paved surfaces. It is a source of inspiration, and a place to observe, to appreciate, and to learn from, and about, the plants and creatures that inhabit this place.

The Emerald Necklace has a history of misuse, neglect, encroachment, pollution and erosion, but the history of excavation and construction should not lessen the value of this area as an ecology where systems have established themselves and stabilized the area. The Muddy River is first and foremost a river.

This report asks: What is the "value" of what is on-going in this area at all times? It seeks to broaden the definition of "stakeholder", beyond institutions and government entities to include the frequenters: the turtles, birds, trees, fish, as well as the human visitors and appreciators. The goal of this report is to encourage alternative, inclusive ways for considering our impacts on those living, ongoing, struggling systems that comprise the Emerald Necklace—and the hope is that these will inform, if not help guide decision-making processes.

II. Summary

The environmental values present in the Muddy River area are educational, scientific, aesthetic, ecological (the value of the system itself), ecosystem services, recreational, cultural/spiritual (connection to place, our membership in the natural community, renewal/respite, character/appreciation development), and biological (the value of the organisms both to themselves and to each other).

The proposed Muddy River Restoration Project (MRRP) involves dredging the Muddy River from the Victory Gardens area at Boylston Street through to Ward's Pond in Jamaica Plain, in order to widen and deepen the river and to "eradicate" the mats of the emergent reed Phragmites. In two areas where the river was buried and channeled into undersized culverts, the proposal is to re-open the river to the surface (daylighting), and to accommodate its width and carrying capacity by new bridge construction. Six staging areas will be constructed to allow for the launching of dredging equipment, unloading and loading of flat-bed and dump trucks, dewatering of sediments, and some decontamination activities. The dredging spoils sediment and reed mats will be disposed of in an out-of-state hazardous waste facility due to their level of toxicity (e.g. lead). The "eradication" program for the Phragmites includes repeated treatment of the area with herbicides for an undetermined number of years, perhaps in perpetuity. Costs for a portion of the project, those involving designs and construction, will be split among federal, state and municipal entities: however, the environmental restoration portion of the project will not be shared by the federal government. The cost for the project is estimated to be around $70 million--for construction, not restoration.

The impacts of the MRRP on the values of this place are substantial and far beyond what are identified in the EIA or being given serious consideration by the proponents of the proposed restoration. The established ecology will be damaged and/or destroyed, then replaced by minimal plantings of smaller plants stressed by the transplanting. In addition to the attrition on the mature ecology and habitat, educational opportunities used by schools and institutes will be lost or compromised, as will the recreational opportunities of artists, birders, walkers, and others who enjoy the place.

Moreover, the restoration "plan" involves implausibly optimistic and scientifically unsupported assumptions about the recovery of the place. It also assumes a sustained commitment to maintenance and financial support by responsible agencies, which is unwarranted given the history of inadequate care of the area.

Furthermore, the necessity for this project is questionable. Regarding pollution, none of the sources of the ongoing pollution that enters the area have been eliminated or mitigated—e.g. storm drains, Stoney Brook, Tannery Brook at the "industrial island" and storm-water runoff. Concerning flooding, the frequency and severity of future flooding cannot be anticipated with any degree of accuracy. However, alleviating flow restrictions by correcting the undersized culverts and opening the river (without damaging the existing trees), as well as by bridge construction would relieve the major choke-area for much of the flooding, infrequent as it is. Moreover, by carefully supplementing existing trees and plants, rather than ripping out or damaging what's already there, by filling in shade gaps and anticipating aging canopies, the biodiversity of the area could be increased gradually and the habitat enriched with minimal ecological damage and, likely, lower costs. As to Phragmites, studies on the rate of, and reason for, their spread have not been undertaken—e.g. the source of nutrient load—nor have studies on the possible benefits of their presence—e.g. bank stabilization or bioremediation of toxics. Therefore, their "eradication" is not justified, nor can it be used to justify this project.

The detrimental impact of the Muddy River Restoration Project on the diverse values inherent in the Muddy River area is enormous. The necessity of the project is questionable, at best. The economic costs of the project, restoration, and maintenance are substantial. The proposed restoration plan is woefully inadequate. The Muddy River and the Fens embody values as commons, public good, community asset, and valuable habitat, therefore, this report concludes that the MRRP, as now proposed, is not desirable and should not proceed.

III. Methodology

It is the time spent in this place that has enabled me to connect the project proposal and the content of the reports to the values instantiated there. I have attempted to translate the lines on the maps in the reports into the vibrant, vital, teeming happenings that occur routinely in this space that runs through the middle of the urban areas of Boston, Brookline, and Jamaica Plain. In this report I ask the following questions: What impact will the proposed dredging of the Muddy River, for the stated purpose of mitigating flooding and restoring the area - The Emerald Necklace - to Frederick Law Olmsted's original design have on the ecosystem, the working wetland? Do the Muddy River and surrounding park areas have value beyond those covered in the environmental impact assessment? If so, what are they? To whom are they valuable, and in what ways? And how will they be impacted by the project?

The research for this report was collected over eighteen months, from 2005 to 2007. The research consisted of:

(1) Detailed study of the MRRP project proposal and associated documents;

(2) Attending MRRP public meetings;

(3) Detailed study of non-MRRP related reports--including government reports--and research conducted on the project area and/or the organisms that reside there;

(4) Spending time in the project area observing and encountering what�s occurring there, as well as talking with other people who use the space: nature appreciators, birders, teachers, students, passersby, etc. I made approximately six to ten visits a week, amounting to four to fourteen hours a week, carried binoculars and a hand lens, and kept notes.

(5) Detailed study of social science and humanities research on types and forms of environmental values.

These materials and experiences enabled me to develop a comprehensive account of the values instantiated in the MRRP site, as well as to anticipate how they will be impacted by the MRRP. There are numerous values--in addition to economic values--in natural areas that are rarely enumerated in a standard environmental impact statement. Among those identified and assessed for this study are:

* Aesthetic value. Beauty. "On small scales and large, both ensemble and individual, nature's patterns can please the eye. We do not need to settle whether or how far beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it is enough that such experiences come,the sense of abyss overlooking a gorge is aesthetic, so also is the thought that in one cone lies a possible forest. Plain places (as may be judged swamps and flatlands) have a coherence and completeness."[2]

* Educational value. This includes formal classes studying the area (schools, colleges, summer programs, camps, and senior classes), conducting research in the area, and informal or less structured inquiries of the active mind, such as birdwatching, flower appreciation, or studying shifts of light.

* Character-building value. It is often noticed that many organizations– e.g. Boy and Girl Scouts, Outward Bound, and church camps--spend time in nature as part of character developing activities. Many have also observed that natural settings provide "a place to gain humility and a sense of proportion", and wonder, and when "integrated into character, they increase wellbeing, and the social good is benefited by having such citizens."[3]

Social values. In urban natural areas activities such as picnicking, or walking with friends or dogs, or playing games are expected to be the norm. This value can be as simple as the impromptu sharing with strangers of some wonder or amusement over a natural phenomenon, animal behavior, or activity.
Ecosystem services value. These include helping to clean the air, sound and dust mitigation, and bioremediation of toxics entering the waterway.
Ecological value. These include providing food, breeding habitat, or cover for reptiles, amphibians, mammals and insects, as well as stopovers for migrating and non-migrating species of birds.
Biological value. This is the value that living organisms have in and of themselves, an intrinsic value by means of their very existence, outside of any use or benefit we may see in them.
Recreational value. Parks and greenspace provide a pleasant place to walk, listen to the rustle of leaves, the glint of sun on the water, glimpse a colorful bird, or jog on an unpaved surface. They provide artistic opportunities, places to play games, places to walk dogs, play, etc.
Scientific value. This value comes from the opportunity to observe and to study place, whether pollution effects and mitigation, bioremediation, species discovery, species behavior or the economics of energy in the natural world.
Connection to place value. This is the value associated with the feeling of belonging to a place. It is the value associated with familiarity, comfort, and consistency of place. Land is basic to place and to belonging.
Spiritual and emotional value. Connection to nature can provide renewal, respite and spiritual growth.[4]
Re-valuing the city-scape. Involves nurturing and enhancing perceptions of, and appreciation for, the natural systems within the built environment.[5]

Community building value. Community involvement in tending or hands on ecological restoration and maintenance fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility, attachment, appreciation, education, and the possibility of altering attitudes about and toward nature.

How these values are instantiated in the Emerald Necklace area and how the MRRP is likely to affect them is at the core of this report.

IV. The Muddy River Restoration Project

1. The MRRP

The proposal for a revamp of the Muddy River was precipitated by a storm in 1996 that dropped 8-12" of rain over two days, causing unusual and major flooding. That amount of rain, even in an area without a small river running through it will flood, and every minor grade can become a raging stream. The flooding in the Emerald Necklace area was magnified by a number of factors, including a diminished watershed because of development over time, which has added buildings and paved surfaces that have decreased the ability for the natural storage of runoff. "Other flow restrictions have been created over the years as public agencies have filled sections of the river and installed pipes or culverts that restrict flow during major storms.";[6] The dollar value of the flood damage in 1996 was high enough that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) could be brought in to design a remedy and thus Federal Government monies would pay a percentage of the project's costs—those involving dredging, infrastructure alterations and Phragmites "eradication" among them.[7] While funding for all the construction stages of the project is to be provided by federal, state and municipal governments, USACE likely will not contribute to the environmental restoration of the area.[8]

This extraordinary weather event followed not only years of shortsighted infrastructure alterations, but also serious lack of infrastructure maintenance that has allowed the stream bed to be host to islands of road sand and sediment buildup, and for the conduit entrances to be blocked by plant debris, sediment, and trash.

The phase of the MRRP discussed in this paper is in the design stage, and the design presentation is anticipated this Spring (2007). (Phase I, from Boylston St. to the Charles River, was completed in 2005.)

In order to discuss the values of the Emerald Necklace to be impacted by MRRP, it is necessary to spend some time examining a few specifics of the proposed project. Of critical concern are the proposals to dredge, to depths from 1 – 10 feet, and bank-to-bank in areas, from the Victory Gardens[9] to Leverett Pond, and in spots in Leverett Pond, Willow Pond and Ward's Pond, the five or six "staging" areas to be located between the Victory Gardens and the Leverett Pond area, and the goal of Phragmites "eradication" by a combination of both dredging and repeated pesticide applications.

2. The Dredging

"Dredging", a technical term on the page, is a messy proposition in the environment. It involves excavation of banks and sediments by means of a backhoe or a "barge-mounted suction boom with a mechanically operated cutter head or jetting ring."[10] During dredging, "The boom is positioned at the front of the barge and angled to the desired dredging elevation. The cutter head churns up the sediment and mixes it with water to form a slurry. The slurry is then sucked through a pump mounted on the barge and pumped through a pipeline connected to dewatering equipment on shore at the staging areas."[11] Nothing survives that can't out run or out swim it, or the newly suspended toxic sediments, including plants, roots of bank and non-bank trees, benthic organisms, reptiles and amphibians—everything in the path of the dredge will be destroyed. In areas too far from staging areas to pump directly to them, the slurry will likely be pumped to a truck for transport to the staging areas.

The machinery used in dredging needs to gain access to the river from riverbank, either from the "staging" areas, or by entering, or working from, any of several areas along the bank outside of the designated staging areas. The trucks and equipment will need to be close enough to the river so that the hoses will reach to the bank. This adds to the areas where there will be compaction, injury and destruction of plants. The trucks will then transport their loads to the staging area "de-watering" sites. This is repeated, in stages, along the entire length of the Emerald Necklace between May and October for as many successive years as it takes to complete the project—3 to 10 years. The dredging depth will range from1-10 feet.

An important note on the effects of the dredging is that, while it may reduce levels of some of the toxics, it will not eliminate the toxics in the Muddy River. In addition to those being added continually from pesticides being applied for the Phragmites eradication program, and the uncorrected road runoff and source point additions, higher levels of toxics, such as arsenic, PCB�s, DDT will be brought closer to the water because of the removal of sediments with lower toxicity capping them.[12] This also means, that all of the dredging will be putting toxic sediments into suspension in the water for the duration of the project.

3. The Staging Areas

The staging areas are large sites that will be constructed for the purpose of treating the dredged materials. There are six sites proposed in the Emerald Necklace, and each of these staging areas will have to be excavated, lined and bermed.[13] They will be launching sites for dredging equipment, destination points for truck after truck loaded with dredge spoils, and departure points for dewatered sediment that is to "be loaded onto 18-wheel dump trucks at a rate of approximately 1 truck per hour."[14] The areas of impact include not only the staging area itself, but also the areas between the staging areas and the dredging, as well as those between the staging areas and the highway, thus impacting surrounding neighborhoods. Added to this are the noise, the dust, and the use of chemicals[15] inherent in the operation of the staging areas, and the possibility that more than one of these sites will operate at a time. These areas will be used for the "dewatering and processing" of the sediments, and special construction is needed in order to keep the contaminated water and sediments from entering the ground or the river. The water from the dewatering process will have to meet certain water quality criteria,[16] however, it will not be clean before being discharged back into the river. The "Discharge will be analyzed once per week and the contractor will be required to increase engineering controls if the limits are not met."[17] It is not clear that "once a week" is a frequency of testing that addresses the volume of spoils dredged and moved, over the course of a week, which will come from different parts of the river, and with different toxins and varying degrees of toxicity.

There are two chemical products, each containing several different chemicals, that are named in the report as being proposed for dewatering and dust and odor control. The report contains no information on the ecological impacts[18] of their use, nor is there health data offered on impacts to passersby who may have asthma or other sensitivities. These six sites will require cleanup and restoration themselves when the project is completed.

An additional impact of this project is the disposal of its toxic waste. The State of Massachusetts does not permit disposal of high level toxics wastes to occur in this state. It must be shipped to out of state disposal sites with which the state has a contract. While this specific area of concern is beyond the scope of this paper, it is our responsibility to know whose "backyard" it will taint, whether it is to be incinerated or dumped. The ultimate resting place for the toxic dredge spoils is not stated in the EIS.

4. The Phragmites Eradication

"The proposed project will eradicate 6.2 acres of Phragmites present in the Riverway and Fens by dredging or cutting with concurrent application of a glyphosate herbicide (RODEO or Roundup). In wetland areas, Phragmites and associated contaminated sediment will be removed by excavation. In riparian areas that are not being excavated to remove sediment, Phragmiteswill be controlled initially by cutting and herbicide (RODEO) application using a backpack sprayer, hand sprayer, or painted on leaves or cut stems. Some shoots will survive the initial control measures, and follow-up application will be required for several years to completely eradicate Phragmites� Follow-up control will rely on cutting and targeted herbicide application." A 2003 report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers emphasizes that, "Repeated cutting and follow up herbicide applications, over a period of several growing seasons can eradicate well-established stands." That means years of repeated pesticide applications[19]—until the Phragmites surrender their preferred habitat. I will address below whether "eradication" is desirable and should even be a goal. Here I address the use of herbicides for this purpose in this area.

The herbicide suggested for poisoning the Phragmites is glyphosate. Briefly, glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide, that is, it is not species specific and kills several types of plants, and persists in soil with a half-life of 47 to174 days, and in water from 70 to 84 days. "Residues of glyphosate have been known to persist for months in anaerobic soils deficient in microorganisms."[20] "According to reviews by the U.S, Geological Survey, treatment of cattail marshes (also a target species in this project, though not covered in this report) has reduced populations of the marsh wren and the sora."[21] The EPA Material Safety Data Sheet states that glyphosate is "Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment." "Do not allow material to enter drains or water courses. Avoid contaminating sewers and waterways with this material."[22] "Glyphosate herbicides caused genetic damage and damage to the immune system in fish. In frogs, glyphosate herbicides caused genetic damage and abnormal development."[23] Then there is the concern of resistance: What happens when the reeds develop resistance to the herbicide? A super Phragmites?[24] In considering the effects of herbicides, it is necessary to consider the potential effects in humans. Some "symptoms of exposure include eye irritation, burning eyes, blurred vision, skin rashes, burning or itchy skin, nausea, sore throat, asthma and difficulty breathing, headache, lethargy, nose bleeds, and dizziness."[25] Glyphosate use has also been "linked with increased risks of the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, miscarriages, and attention deficit disorder. For each of the hazards identified in these studies there are also laboratory studies with results that are consistent with the studies of exposed people. There is also laboratory evidence that glyphosate herbicides can reduce production of sex hormones."[26]

As a preliminary to the project, a test plot for use of glyphosate was begun in September 2006 and will continue for two years in an area across the Muddy River from the Victory Gardens. This plot is FIVE FEET FROM A SIDEWALK, LESS THAN 80 FEET FROM A PLAYGROUND, in an area HEAVILY USED BY DOG WALKERS AND DOGS, DAYCARES, MUSICIANS PRACTICING THEIR INSTRUMENTS, and lunchtime PICNICKERS, among others. The test plot is NOT fenced, NOR adequately signed (one needs to walk on the cut plot to reach the orange plastic flags with some message on them), has an INADEQUATE BUFFER between it and the edge of the river, and sits IN water part of the time.

This test area is heavily used by various birds for food and shelter. How are the birds to know they shouldn't be eating the insects, or using strips of cut Phragmites stalks foliage for nesting material because they may contain a substance that is toxic to it?[27]

5. The need for ongoing funds and commitment

The success of the project in the long term is dependent on the will and commitment of the parties responsible for the area, the municipalities and the state, to maintain the area in more than a minimal manner in perpetuity. That means the area must be a priority for which continual funding will be made available for timely and persistent maintenance and care – catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, trash and plant litter removal from all surfaces, including the water. If that commitment is not guaranteed, then Muddy River is doomed to be disrupted by radical dredging every 20-30 years, which is an unacceptable, disrespectful, shortsighted, unnecessary, and unjustifiable fate.

Examples of the historical lack of commitment to the area include: the absence of adequate culvert cleaning and repair; the insufficient frequency of street-sweeping (a program has recently been instituted to begin to address these as the result of pressure from permitting agencies for the project[28]); the lack of removal of trash from the banks of the river for months at a time; the lack of repair of areas of ongoing erosion – most notably at Daisy Field, where sediment continues to enter Leverett Pond[29] despite the fact that that condition was cited in a 2001 report.[30] In addition to these, there is the ongoing practices of Boston Parks and the DEC of regularly driving on the walkways, thus exacerbating compaction over tree roots, widening the paths (especially when the cars are used to chase the Canada geese[31]), and creating and amplifying erosion by killing vegetation. (It would take a huge number of geese to damage the land to the extent that results from one trip in a car or pickup truck.)

V. The effects of the Muddy River Restoration Project on People and Place

1. The effects on educational opportunities

It is common to happen upon groups of children from any of several area schools, or from summer ecological institutes sponsored by area colleges, busily studying the area. Identifying species. Learning appreciation. Learning interconnections. Learning wonder. In talking with one teacher at Muddy with her class, and asking what she thought of the Muddy River Restoration Project, she said she had some vague recollection of it being cleaned up (which to her meant trash being removed). When I told her the plan was to dredge it, she was silent for a long moment, then looked at me and said, "But what will happen to the organisms?" But what WILL happen to the organisms? What is she to tell her class? That the �organisms� and the turtles and frogs and fish will be killed, but that that's okay, other ones will take their place? That this area will operate at some facsimile of what is now a functioning ecosystem, but not until perhaps when her students are young adults. And even that assumption is a big MAYBE. Maybe, if the new introductions take, if the money's there to fund, maintain and care for them, if they survive the compounded trauma of "transplant" and climate change at the simultaneously. Still, it will not be at the level it might have been had it not had to start over, if it had not lost the time it�d taken getting to the stage of development it has now attained.

What are these children to learn of the connections between humans and nature from the radical dredging of the area? How is witnessing the destruction inherent in the proposal as it now stands going to enhance or nourish a positive relationship with the natural world for them? Is learning what appears to be an attitude of nature-as-a-disposable-entity, as evidenced by not only the dredging activity, but also by proposed repeated pesticide applications to eradicate Phragmites, consistent with the values we want to have perpetuated in the next generation? How do we explain to the next generation, the hypocrisy of saying we are "cleaning up" an area by destroying it and then introducing more toxics into it? Are lessons of dominance and disposability what we want to be teaching, when climate change is showing us the severe limits in that kind of thinking, and when this place could be a teaching opportunity for cultivating the human connection to nature, and how to take our responsible place in harmony within it?

2. The effects on recreation

Artists are as common a presence in the area as school children. Easels and camera tripods are abundant on pleasant days year-round. The beauty of Muddy is a magnet. Before the planned disruption is in recovery stage (whatever that looks like), many of the students will have graduated from high schools and colleges, having lost forever the opportunity of art and peace and education an urban jewel like the Emerald Necklace graciously offers at this time.

Bird-watchers are also common. Some of them are members of groups, some simply individuals (including myself) who await with great anticipation the harbingers of spring, knowing the cycle by the timing of specific species arrivals. Remembering from year-to-year, where a particular species feeds, or sings, or nests. Birding is not all naming and check-lists. It's about wonder and excitement – watching a Baltimore oriole weave her pouch-nest with her beak and claws, her body acting as a template for shaping it. This project will sever that connection, and it is not overly emotional to say that there are people who will be mourning. They will worry about where their feathered-friends will go, and their moments of elation at sharing that timeless connection to the wild-ness will be severely lessened, or gone. That is no small effect. Some of us form a connection with place immediately and nurture that connection for a life-time.

3. The effects on people who have a connection to this place

The Muddy River and its upstream (as well as downstream) continuances are more than the sum of lines on a map. It is a vital, breathing system, critical to its inhabitants. The people who pass through have a differing awareness and perception of what's occurring there, but coming upon the full scale major disruption, once it's underway, will have an impact on them. That impact will range from annoyance and surprise to shock and trauma, and should not be underestimated. City dwellers are intensely and emotionally attached to 'their' green spaces, (perhaps even more than their rural counterparts) due to the scarcity of such areas in a urban settings. They watch for "their" particular tree to blossom, or for the Baltimore Orioles to return and suspend a new nest from it, anticipate the reappearance of a seasonally absent perennial, or discover a chipmunk 'exit/entrance' when it's resident pops back in with a sharp warning chirp.

There are people who have been coming to the Fens for more than thirty years, who pick up the trash because it's there – because no one else does, because they love the place – who will share the spectacle of a pair of red-tailed hawks perched in a nearby tree and, as an aside, mention that the rats have disappeared since the hawks moved in, and how much louder and more visible the cars are with the Phragmites in winter dormancy.

There are others who are passing through on their way to somewhere else, for whom the mystery of a previously glimpsed tip of a fin is resolved by the fleeting change of light which reveals a large carp backlit through the water as it mucks about in the river bed. Some are caught by the spectacle of turtles, in sizes ranging from 3-10�, sunning themselves one-by-one, or, heaped on top of one another due to the dearth of suitable let snags. Others find amusement over goslings of ducklings, or a fledgling, as large as its parent, loudly, persistently and aggressively harassing its parent for food, or watching the head-wagging communication of the adult geese, as they steer their young away from the fast current, away from traffic, away from humans.

4. The effects on bird habitat

The number of bird species recorded in this area could seem surprising, if one thinks of an urban setting as a sterile environment, but that�s only because we fail to listen between the passing, pulsing machines, to look between the cracks to hear and see that wild-ness is there doing its thing.

In contrast to the number of bird species (33) listed in the Wildlife Habitat Evaluation[32], one list of bird-sightings in the Back Bay and Fens area contains 186 species![33] I have identified over 80 species over the past 12 months along the Necklace. That vibrancy of bird-population demands that we ask: What are the birds to do? Where will the birds go? The dredging and accompanying staging area activities for the project will be scheduled between the months of May or June, through October, for several successive years.[34] The months of April – October are when birds select or reunite with a mate, choose nesting sites (based on suitable habitat, nesting material availability), mate, brood, feed and tend chicks, feed fledglings, teach them bird skills and ready them for migration (if it�s a migrating species). What are birds to do during these months of successive breeding-season disruption – the entire breeding cycle for most species that breed in this area?

Essential to breeding is protection from noise, dust, and traffic, as well as access to food, and being able to get the food to their young. Birds need to be able to HEAR their young in order to locate them once they have left the nest (this will affect not only the birds that breed here, but those that migrate through still feeding their young.) They could not tolerate the daily disturbance of heavy machinery over one breeding season, so the impact of this level of disruption for several breeding seasons would be catastrophic, especially in an urban environment where there are few-to-no options for relocation, and where competition for space is tight. This area needs protection as critical habitat for migrating, breeding and year-round resident avian species.

In a study on climate change and birds, cited in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe, "University of Texas researcher Camille Parmesan found in a review of 866 peer-reviewed papers that wildlife habitats are changing, with already a 'disproportionate number of population extinctions documented along southern and low-elevation range edges in response to recent climate warming.'"[35]

A 2006 report by the Environmental League of Massachusetts found that Massachusetts data indicates that songbirds are in decline at a rate of "halving" their numbers "every 30 years". And while precise reasons are not clear, among the contributing factors are: habitat loss due to fragmentation, degradation, land use change and development pressures, and environmental factors, such as, acid rain, loss of native plants, and pesticide use.[36] The greater the loss of habitat, the more important it becomes to protect those areas which have become vital to songbird survival, such as the Emerald Necklace. How does one take these studies into account and then go on to read the Muddy River plan that includes the following:

"The proposed project will eradicate 6.2 acres of Phragmitespresent in the Riverway and Fens by dredging or cutting with concurrent application of a glyphosate herbicide."[37]
�Clearing of vegetation, other construction activities, and noise will disturb mammals, waterfowl and songbirds � some active nests may be abandoned or destroyed by construction��[38]
�In the Fens, loss of about 3.7 acres of emergent wetland will have an adverse affect on songbirds and other wildlife that use the Phragmites stands for nesting, cover and foraging habitat��[39]
�The small stands of emergent wetland created, however, (to "replace" the lost habitat) will have less cover value than the existing Phragmites stands and provide wildlife less of a buffer from human activities.[40]
"Dredging will eliminate mudflat habitat in the Fens, Riverway and Leverett Pond. This may have an adverse effect on foraging shorebirds, but may reduce occurrence of outbreaks of avian botulism."[41]
"Food chain modeling indicates that contaminants in sediment may continue to pose a risk to � wetland dependant birds after construction. (�lead, zinc, DDT, mercury �)"[42]

While walking the Fens at twilight recently (12/4/2006), I came upon some young thousands of birds were taking refuge for the night in the stands of Phragmites near the Victory Gardens. The reeds were glowing in the fading light with a yellow/tan color, and all along the stalks were large sprinklings of black bird shapes, raucously �discussing� the accommodations – robins, different species of blackbirds and of sparrows. At night they congregate near the bottom of the stalks, where the mud likely retains heat and the wind doesn�t penetrate.

5. The effects on the ecology and bioremediation services of the Phragmites

Phragmites is a reed, a grass that grows along the edges of ponds, streams, ditches, swamps and lakes. They are a native species that thrives in disturbed areas, such as where a road has been cut through a swamp and slowed the flow, or in excavated drainage areas. It is a reed, with few appreciators (in this country, in Europe it is highly valued) outside of segments of the natural community. Phragmites adds texture to the picture of a wetland with their tall, elegant grace, and drama. They rustle in the wind, and shine in the sun. Aesthetics aside, historically they weren't maligned, and indeed, had far-ranging utility: "for making into boats, jewelry, pen tips, and paper. Phragmites has been used for weapons and for hunting spears. In the household, it could be seen in the form of rugs, mats, baskets, beads, musical instruments, combs, grave mats, roof thatching (still used in Europe today), bedding, fishing rods, drying frames, games, prayer sticks, dress fringe, food, medicine, smoking implements, clothing, and for sugar and salt products, and no doubt fuel. In New England, however, use of Phragmites has been difficult to document. A more recently understood aspect of Phragmites is its role in bioremediation (cleaning of waters containing waste material, including heavy metals and sewage) and for that purpose, too, it is considered an important part of ecosystems in Europe."[43]

Plants take advantage of suitable growing conditions. What is it about the areas of the Muddy River where they are growing that accommodates them? Light – that is, unshaded areas. Water – not deep, not fast flowing. Nutrients – runoff from garden and lawn fertilizers, natural plants decomposition and some pollution sources that enrich the water with various biotas. They obviously LIKE it there, so what are they DOING?

If, as stated in a book on heavy metals and wetlands, "natural systems use wetlands to adapt to wastes,"[44] if "wetlands filter lead,"[45] if "wetlands [are] one of the main places where the toxic materials [are] filtered,"[46] then perhaps an investigation of whether or not that might be what the Phragmites are doing in the Emerald Necklace is in order. Perhaps, rather than incurring costs and increasing risks, to stir, move, treat, transport and relocate the toxic waste, we should let the Phragmites and the wetlands do their work. Heavy Metals in the Environment Using Wetlands for Their Removal, is a technical text, dealing with both ecological engineering and ecology economics, and is highly valuable in offering a model for a different perspective on the Muddy River. It's worth listing a few of the conclusions from the book here:

"Where possible, restore the original biogeochemical cycle of lead. This means minimizing lead passage through the atmosphere and open waters. Wetlands are a means of keeping lead on land." (Lead is one of the contaminants in Muddy River sediments.)
"Where possible, where lead has been concentrated in sedimentary depositions in estuaries and lakes, allow these levels to be buried by normal sedimentation to become part of the geological cycle."
"Avoid processing lead-containing materials through incinerators in order to prevent lead release to the atmosphere."
"Wetland interfaces are needed between all runoffs and waters. This means restoring variable water levels to streams and lakes so that they will develop wider wetlands (longer hydro-period). Remove weirs and unnecessary dams. The stormwater ponds arranged to catch urban runoff need to be managed as wetlands rather than as bare reservoirs. Very small wetlands need to be restored or constructed within city parks, housing developments, and road ditches to help filter the still high lead washing off streets and out of urban soils." (Emphasis added).
"The studies of the wetlands with high lead concentrations showed that these areas had been of great value to public safety for many years and should be continued."
"Wherever a series of wetlands has functioned to absorb large concentrations of lead in its sediments and peat, the lead is not readily released so long as the wetlands receive their normal water regimes. Regulation, tax incentive, or land purchase for protective purpose may be necessary to keep these areas operating as wetlands. It may be good public relations policy to fence these areas, advertise their history, and use them for educational purposes. Do not dig up the wetland and transfer it to upland. Lead levels reaching wildlife are small."[47]

This book is full of measurements of the toxics removal services of wetland plants, including Phragmites and cattails, which are targeted for eradication by the proposed project, and points to the necessity of studying and assessing this wetland at work. It would be a shortsighted and needless destruction of a viable system to do otherwise. We should measure how much Phragmites are actually expanding annually, study and reduce the nutrient load, appreciate the bank stabilization they provide, study whether they might not actually be decontaminating the water and keeping toxins from the Charles River. Rather than labeling them as "invasive" or "exotic," they should be studied as they work. There is wisdom in the natural processes. It may well be that we'll find more Phragmitesare needed on the banks, especially within areas where the river is newly exposed in close proximity to the roads and the resultant air pollution and road runoff, such as in the areas proposed for daylighting.[48]

6. The effects on turtles

"During dredging activities, some turtles and amphibians may be entrained by the hydraulic of bucket dredges and lost. Bottom dwelling species like mud turtle are most at risk. The possibility of entrainment will be greatest in the early spring and late fall when turtles and amphibians are lethargic or in hibernation and are less able to avoid the dredge During the rest of the construction season, most turtles and amphibians should be able to avoid the active work area."[49] (Is this is a realistic assumption?) "The project will remove logs and other debris that impede floodflow through the Fens and Riverway. The value of this debris as basking sites for turtles and amphibians will be lost. To mitigate for this impact, habitat logs will be installed in backwater areas where they well provide basking sites but not adversely affect floodflow."[50] (Is this a realistic presumption? What is a "backwater" area in the Muddy River? How will the turtles find it?)

The Emerald Necklace environs is host to several species of turtles (painted, mud, pond slider, snapping and red-eared), and well as some frog and toad species (bull frogs, green frogs, American toad, and possible chorus frogs) and it is important that the well-being of reptiles and amphibians be put into a larger context. At a time when frogs and toads are in decline due to global warming[51] we can hardly afford to be cavalier about construction impacts on their habitat. "Whether the cause is a global-warming-inspired fungus, artificial stocking of trout for anglers, pesticides, or suburbanization, frogs are disappearing where they once thrived from Midwestern farms to national parks. Most of our frog species in the Northeast are still quite common and that tends to be a problem to generate concern for them. There're still a lot of bullfrogs, peepers, and green frogs. But we may be heading to a situation where something that was once super-abundant is now merely common, and with frogs you don't know when they suddenly might become rare."[52]

7. A Tale of a Turtle

On July 4^th, 2006, I spent 2 hours watching a painted turtle patiently dig a hole, one rear claw full of dirt at a time, until she determined it was deep enough (maybe 4 to 6 inches), then after a rest, wriggle her butt (there's probably a technical word for this part of a turtles anatomy, but "butt" works) and drop one brilliantly white >1/2 inch egg into her claw and place it in the hole. She rested again and repeated the wriggle, delivering another egg. This continued at least 8 times, then, she rested once more. Finally she began reversing the soil removing motion, refilling the hole, until, when it met her criteria, and/or maybe was getting too dark, she turned and headed for the river (about 15 feet away). She had spent many more hours at her task than I was privileged to witness, as was attested to by the sudden appearance of three young people on bicycles, who exclaimed, "Wow! She's still at it!" They'd watched her four hours earlier, and one of them had been so concerned about her placement of the nest, at the edge of a busy walkway, had dug her an alternative hole closer to the river, though he was wise enough not to disturb her. Until the colder weather came, I checked every time I passed the spot, to see if anything had happened/hatched – but have since learned that if the baby turtles survive, they won't emerge until after the winter.[53]

This is one tale about one turtle, but it illustrates the way values intersect and overlap with one another. First, so far as we know, there's the intrinsic biological and ecological value for the turtle. Then, due to her activities, there are the social, aesthetic, educational, recreational, scientific, connection to place, re-valuing the city-scape values, and maybe even character-building, in the meeting between the bicyclists and me. Added to these are the spiritual and emotional values I find in being witness to a turtle doing her turtle-thing.

VI. In Conclusion

Since learning of the Muddy River Restoration Project, I have spent a good deal of time trying to imagine how it would feel to simply accept it as a "done deal," to not make waves, to try and convince myself, or to pretend, that it'll all work out "fine." But I only have to reflect on how I would have felt if I'd happened upon the project already in progress to realize, and to admit, that that attitude is not an option for me.

Every time I walk through any part of the Emerald Necklace, I see, hear, smell and am wrapped in the experience of place. The timeless, and never-to-be-repeated, moments of the exquisite song of a White-throated sparrow, or its backwards-like-a-chicken's ground-scratching-scavenge. The increased numbers of waterfowl – as the migrants join the year-rounders – Canada geese, black ducks, mallards. The locals paired and hesitating to see if the human movements may indicate the coming of food, while their wilder relatives scatter immediately, not hesitating lest the human movements portend buck-shot. I muse about what the new-to-me behavior of both the mallards and the black ducks means: high-speed chases and races – above and below the water – rapid surface scooting about accompanied by head-bobbing squeaks. Amusing and curious to me, but what is it to them? And what's to be made of coming upon 15-25 geese all facing in the same direction, all standing on their right legs, all leaning to the same degree to compensate for a shift in their center of gravity, and all perfectly still? How is a human to know?

As a naturalist and birder, I was compelled by a love of this place and her inhabitants to search for a way of discussing the project that gives voice to more than the scope of the environmental impact study, the statement of problems, and the technological fixes. As a gardener and farmer, I have an understanding of the rich opportunities there are to work in partnership with the natural process (to think we have any other options is delusional and arrogant on our part) and recognize the Muddy River area as a place needing that kind of tending. As a life-long learner and full-time student, I am using my concern for, and attachment to, the Muddy River area in order to concentrate on alternatives to the proposed radical disruption and destruction of this loved area, including attitude shifts.

I am not a specialist, nor a biologist, and not someone who considers herself expert in anything beyond an ability to take in nature with an attitude of love, respect, and an awareness of interdependence. This report is not complete, nor comprehensive. It is a beginning, an invitation for an ecological assessment study of the Muddy River. The thumb-nail sketches in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) are minimal and inadequate for accurately cataloguing the ecological community. Such a study would need to be a frequent, year-round record of observations of natural processes as they unfolding through the seasons, such as breeding bird behavior, nesting sights, food sources, and population fluctuations. It can not be assumed, as the EIA assumes, that these populations will recover, return or be able to find replacement habitat – we don�t even know what species are there. The inventory would need to be extensive in scope and done over a long period of time.

An adequate study would need to catalog plant and insect populations thoroughly, and to undertake a measurement of the rate of spread of the Phragmites community, as well as investigate the source of the nutrient load enabling their growth. A study would need to be undertaken to ascertain the level of benefits to the environment of the bioremediation services the Phragmites perform in the trapping or removal of lead and other heavy metals from the water and keeping them from migrating to the Charles River. The purpose of these and other studies would be to help us to learn to support a healthy ecosystem and to find less destructive ways of discouraging what's undesirable.

Nothing is superfluous in nature – nothing in a place without a purpose. That humans sometimes have difficulty figuring what the purpose might be doesn't negate that truth, nor give us the right to destroy the possibility of that purpose.

The studies needed to adequately protect this area have not been done. The mammals, plants, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and other biota are scarcely and minimally mentioned in the project literature and then dismissed as replaceable. They are thus an insufficient representation of the richness that every frequent visitor and curious appreciator of the Muddy River area witnesses.

What would Muddy River look like if it were accommodated, respected, loved and valued? How would it feel to us, if we were able to allow ourselves to let this happen? What would we learn? Should nature be required to continually accommodate itself to our lifestyles? Isn�t it appropriate and necessary for humans to accommodate and to leave space for nature to do her thing, even, and especially, in an urban environment?

Is it not a gift that these creatures would stay with us in this struggling environment? Should we not respect them more, not less? Working to support this natural area can reflect gratitude for place and for it�s natural processes, but the MRRP is not a model for it. If it's allowed to go through, as presented in filed documents, if we pursue the tired models of attempting to force nature into submission, we will be missing an opportunity for important lessons in urban ecology for ourselves and future generations.

There are alternatives, including: Do not implement the MRRP:

1 And re-evaluate the need for the project after sources of ongoing pollution and sediment buildup from road runoff and other sources are corrected.

2 And undertake studies of the benefits of Phragmites, including wetland services and bioremediation.

3 And undertake studies of effects Phragmites removal would have on the water quality in the Charles River.

4 And undertake studies of Phragmites benefits to wildlife, and the effects Phragmites eradication would have on that wildlife.

5 And undertake ways to control Phragmites by means of planting trees and shrubs to begin growing sources of shade and competition.

6 And undertake frequent and regular mowing and brush-hogging to slow inland spread. (Note: They don�t need to be allowed to take over the area, but they don�t warrant eradication either.)

7 And undertake alternative ways of discouraging undesirable human behaviors by means of foot patrols.

8 And post signs to draw attention to the area as a working wetland, with the added benefit of fostering appreciation.

9 And increase biodiversity by careful augmentation of existing plants with thoughtfully chosen plantings of additional trees and shrubs.

10 And increase biodiversity by increasing the numbers of community gardens by the creating of a new plot between the Rose Garden and the basketball court.

11 And exploring other ways of freeing the river�s flow in constricted portions, including regular maintenance.

12 And eliminate erosion by instituting walking patrols and banning all vehicular traffic on paths and walkways, except in cases of emergencies.

13 And eliminate erosion by sloping walkways away from the river and into grassy swales on the away-side of the path, and adding cobble curbing on river side.

14 And institute program of immediate repair of erosion damage.

15 And undertake an economic analysis of the losses of ecological services of the hundreds of trees that will be destroyed or damaged by the excavation.

16 And prioritize knotweed removal by mechanical means in particular areas, but in other areas, study knotweed as a means of limiting the spreading of Phragmites, and as desirable habitat for bees and migratory insects as late season food source. (Especially considering climate change and the later frost date. The bees are staying active later into the fall season, and need alternative sources of energy since the native flora have finished their reproductive cycle – frost or no frost.)

17 And undertake full ecological impact studies of each project area – staging and dredging.

The tree spared with the sufficient surrounding undisturbed area in which to survive, returns the favor with blossoms, leaves, shade, squirrels, hawks, bird-sounds, sound buffer, dust filter, and oxygen. The question is: How do we repay/reciprocate that wealth and generosity?

Appendix I


							sitemap