|
Table of Contents:
Keywords: river, watershed, rainbow smelt, brook trout, Neponset River, Hoosic River, riverine ecosystem restoration, refugia, flood chutes, water quality, Watershed Initiative |
Photographs copyright Nina Danforth |
Watersheds are, by nature, complex systems made up of multiple components: land, water, human, living, and non-living. From an environmental educator’s point of view, any one of these components can attract people into watershed activism, often in the form of spring clean-ups, canoe trips, or voting to save a piece of conservation land at Town Meeting. But in the case of entrenched degradations that go back decades and even centuries, I have wondered what element could be a strong enough lure for citizens, scientists and government officials to work together over time, often with no budget, to find solutions.
After working for eight years to help forge a statewide watershed network, I think I may be closer to recognizing that lure. From the vantage point of an organizer with the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative, I’ve had the opportunity to listen to and watch dozens of lake, stream, and estuary groups in action. This has allowed me to observe what gets the average person started on watershed activism. Whether a threatened species, a meadow threatened with development, or a remarkable grove of trees, the lure is almost always a watershed inhabitant.
My first exposure to how a river can grab the interest of its neighboring citizens was in 1994 while working on the Neponset Watershed Pilot Project. Governor Weld had recently taken a boat ride out into the urban estuary, which weaves between Dorchester and Milton. Weld’s new Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Trudy Coxe, was in the boat, too, and spoke to reporters, conveying her eagerness to start setting up active partnerships all along the river. Together, they generated a fair amount of enthusiasm for their vision of an improved river tended to by citizens, scientists and government officials working together on local “Watershed Teams” and local affiliated “Stream Teams.” But soon I discovered that, even more than the governor’s visit, a migrating resident of the river was the real catalyst for improvement.
Rainbow smelt, small, silvery fish that are fairly low on the food chain, appear every spring below the Baker Dam just above the Adams Street bridge. Fresh water, flowing from up to 27 miles away at the Neponset’s headwaters in Foxborough, pools up at the dam, then bubbles between old mill buildings and through a rocky gorge, getting thoroughly oxygenated in the process. I always felt drawn to the area when passing through, and would stop to admire the scene and listen to the river’s own song. But it was only through talking to others in the area, and being part of the stream team “Friends of the Neponset Estuary” that I learned about the amazing, centuries-old smelt run and its importance in both the fresh and marine ecosystems.
Because the Neponset was chosen as the state’s pilot river basin for trying out the new Watershed Initiative concept, many experts came to talk with citizens, volunteer, and school groups throughout the Neponset watershed over the years following that Weld-Coxe boat ride. These experts shared knowledge about anadromous fish, trees, invasive plants, toxic waste, GIS and planning tools, archeology, sewage outfalls, aquifers, stormwater, and many more topics. But the stream team folks were not lectured to; they were part of a steady learning process based on their own connections to the river and informal knowledge such as personal stories and observations. ‘What I remember about that area is…” was often the beginning of a person’s sharing. Some remembered catching smelt in the spring when they were easy to scoop from Gulliver’s Creek. Others were simply fascinated that these fish were still swimming up close to the dam to lay their eggs, even though passage to safer and healthier spawning grounds upstream had been blocked some 300 years earlier.
The stream team’s cumulative knowledge, combined with expertise from the state archaeologist, Thomas Mahlstedt, revealed the historic context of the lower Neponset River. Artifacts of Middle Archaic period date human activities here to around 8,000 years ago. These early hunters and the more modern native peoples gravitated to the area because of its rich estuarine fishing grounds, including the plentiful smelt, and for river transportation. The Neponset tribe of the Massachusett Nation was in residence during the European settlement period when the first known industrialist, Israel Stoughton, built a wooden gristmill in 1634. I was shocked to learn that the Neponset were systematically pushed first into a small reservation near town, then, in 1657, to a reservation in the Sharon-Stoughton area. More than a century later, America’s earliest chocolate mill was built on the foundation of Stoughton’s mill in 1764. Eventually, Walter Baker produced his famous Baker’s Chocolate in a complex of steam-powered industrial buildings that had grown up around the rapids of Lower Mills. Significantly, this industrial complex is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Lower Mill Falls Historic District. While an extensive historic and archaeological record like this cannot guarantee that a caring citizenry will emerge, the growing activism of the local stream team showed me that learning the combined human and natural history of an area can have a powerful and energizing effect.
 Members of the Neponset Watershed Team walk the Neponset salt marshes. - Photo credit N. Danforth |
Driven to learn how the smelt population could be strengthened, the watershed team sought the help of a marine biologist to study the area and inform them of what factors could be having a negative influence on the spawning success. Brad Chase, an expert in smelt biology, studied the egg deposits in the river and found that both the presence of the dam as well as spring “low flows” were the biggest deterrents to a thriving smelt population. Were these low flows due to industrial withdrawals upstream? If so, could the companies be persuaded to defer or cut down on their withdrawals during spawning time? And since the dam was no longer used for power, could it be removed or partially breached? The Friends of the Neponset Estuary, emboldened by Chase’s report and the Watershed Initiative’s technical assistance, would investigate both of these ideas in the months and years ahead.
At what point can a caring citizens’ group begin to affect physical change on the river itself? How can its members build their own milestone in the river’s ongoing history? My curiosity spurred me to attend a series of community meetings convened this winter by the state’s Riverways Program, part of the Division of Fisheries, Wildlife and Law Enforcement. Billed as “Visualizing the Alternatives,” the meetings attracted a standing-room-only crowd of residents in one of the renovated mill buildings beside the Baker Dam. Making room for the return of anadromous fish to the river’s ecosystem, after centuries of disrupted flow, was the remarkable topic of the evening. The crowd was given a summary of the basic biology and topography of the river, and shown photos of rainbow smelt, blueback herring and American shad. If these species were to return to the Neponset River, we learned, they would survive only if they could follow the spring flows of fresh water upstream to where a cobbled substrate, covered with bubbling oxygenated water, would afford them a safe haven for laying their eggs.
I could feel the excitement build in the audience, as several scenarios were shown of how to open up the river to these traveling, anadromous fish. In photos magically morphed by the skilled landscape architect, the river had shrunk from its current impoundment above the former dam, and riverbanks appeared, vegetated with young willows, buttonbush and red maple. Alongside the river, close to where our meeting was taking place, a fish ladder was depicted that zig-zagged up the grade of the newly-recovered riverbank. There were excited whispers when we were shown how we might walk or wheel out to admire the new riverscape on a special viewing platform. For the next hour, people examined the scenarios of river restoration through detailed slides. Questions from the audience were patiently addressed by the consultant, Jim MacBroom, who brought hydrology, biology and fisheries knowledge to the discussion. But scenarios are only tools and, in the end, the audience recognized that a major joint effort among residents, activists, scientists and government officials would be required to bring about the necessary changes.
The means to bringing back health to a rapidly urbanized river suddenly seemed within the grasp of this group of citizens. They responded with great interest and enthusiasm to the visioning process. Says Tom Palmer, a Milton resident and founding member of the Friends of the Neponset Estuary:
“There's something shocking about the notion of bringing sea-run fish back to the Neponset. It's shocking because after 200 years of damming and pollution, it's hard to imagine that the river could return to life…
It was the Riverways program which first suggested this notion, and nurtured and refined through dozens of events and discussions. Today nearly everyone who cares about the Neponset has hung their hearts on it. No longer a fantastic idea, it has become the thing we want most.”
 The Hoosic River valley is one of three subwatersheds of the Hudson located in Massachusetts. This Cheshire farm view looks to the steep east face of Mt. Greylock, which sheds water fast in a downpour. |
For aerial photos and more information on the dam removal process for the Neponset, go to the Riverways Program’s website: http://www.Riverways.org. Go to “River Restore” then click on the Neponset section.
After my initial experience in river advocacy with the Neponset, I continued to search for the key ingredients to effective activism on waterways along the east coast of Massachusetts. In 1997, I was assigned to work on outreach for a watershed in the far, northwest corner of the state. The state’s Watershed Initiative was in full operation; the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs had assigned a leader to head up the basin teams that had been formed in all the 27 watershed basins in Massachusetts.
I quickly found out on my first visits to North Adams that the main stem of the Hoosic River was so degraded as to be uninhabitable for more than two miles of its length. What had we humans done to create a dead river in a living, green valley? Again, I looked for the “hook” that would begin to bring people together, mostly as volunteers, to solve river and stream problems that were often complex and long-term in nature. And once again, I didn’t have to look any farther than the river itself.
 Hoosic River flood chute in North Adams. Water rarely fills the bottom, and is only a small stream in summer. - Copyright N. Danforth |
Thanks to monitoring required by the Clean Water Act and a marked change in public perception of the wild places in our midst, the unique plight of the Hoosic River became well recognized before 1997. Questions were nagging those who spent any time in or near the river. Are the chutes all necessary? Nearly 50 years have gone by, and no storm has come close to challenging the walls. Couldn’t the flood chutes be modified to accommodate the non-human species that depend on this water along with us? Water temperatures in the concrete sections can rise to a range of 80-100° Fahrenheit, we learned from the volunteer groups who had been out doing water quality testing, and from staff of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) who had been collecting data for the assessment study. How do we get the water in the urban areas cooler, vegetated and oxygenated?
The impetus for activism along the Hoosic turned out to be wild trout in the river, at the mouth of the tributaries, and mostly upstream of the dreaded flood chutes. Confirmed by citizens’ groups and scientific researchers alike, the existence of wild trout, both Brook and Brown, swimming and breeding in the Hoosic and its tributaries, was enough to galvanize citizen members of the Hoosic River Watershed Association, Trout Unlimited, and two stream teams. Officials at the state and federal levels became involved in the trout and aquatic habitat issues, as well.
 Brook Trout |
 Brook Trout |
 Brown Trout |
 Brown Trout |
|
Above four images courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Image Library
|
|||
One of the largest businesses and employers in Adams, a limestone mine called Specialty Minerals International, was dumping clean but warm water from its plant into the Hoosic River’s main stem. When the mine’s federal NPDES (National Pollution Discharge) permit had expired, company managers learned that they would not get an automatic renewal from the Environmental Protection Agency, especially due to the new information that was coming in about the trout and about water quality issues. Jobs were at stake, so solutions were sought from many interested parties. Cooling towers were proposed to bring the temperature down before discharge, but that idea was rejected due to cost. Everyone worried that the valley might lose a long-time employer.
In the late 90’s, the possibility arose that Specialty Minerals, through improvements in its operations, could get its permit and also advance the cause of river restoration to save the wild trout. The company was urged to find new ways to maintain its cooling water to a maximum of 87 degrees. At the same time, recognizing that the company is only one player along this degraded portion of river, the Watershed Initiative team asked the Army Corps of Engineers to take a fresh look at the flood control chutes and determine what could be done to modify them.
As officials worked with local citizens on restoration of the Neponset, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) involved the Hoosic watershed community in order to right the wrongs of the past and modify structures that have been proven harmful, inefficient or overbuilt. Wendy Goldstein Associates was hired to look at existing conditions and to propose designs for a new riverbed within the chutes.
As in the Neponset dam removal visioning process, Hoosic groups were given a chance to see several scenarios for what could be done to give aquatic life a foothold in the chutes:
1) clustering rocks and branches around pipe outfalls where streams enter the mainstem, to encourage the anchoring of plant roots in these locations.
2) digging a deeper channel within the floor of the chutes- and creating meanders in that channel.
3) stepping down the walls in several locations to allow for human interaction with the river, while still providing flood protection (see photo of Yokahama, Japan).
 Yokahama, Japan. Vegetated banks and recessed stairs were built into the flood chutes, allowing for much improved aesthetics, water quality and river habitat. - Photo by US Army Corps of Engineers |
 South Platte River, Colorado. Shown in the Draft Hoosic Screening Report of Alternatives by the US ACOE. - Photo by US Army Corps of Engineers |
The solution is nearly in hand after engineers from the Army Corp of Engineers studied the problem for two years, along with interested business owners and members of the public. A narrow channel would be cut to allow even summer passage of fish in deeper, cooler waters. Meanders, twists, turns and rocks of all sizes will be placed in the concrete riverbed to break up the flow and cause more oxygenation. Refugia, or hiding/resting places for fish and macro invertebrates will be made plentiful by the addition of these features. ACOE’s extensive study revealed that the concrete flood chutes can still withstand a 100-year flood safely because old calculations from the 1950’s were not as accurate as today’s calculations. The chutes may have been over-built for the actual average flow conditions after all. The Army Corp’s report, just published in January 2003, states:
Many natural streams have considerable sinuosity, overfalls and eddies that are not apparent on USGS topographic maps. Tendencies are therefore, to underestimate the length of the channels and overestimate average velocities through reaches….
 Members of the Hoosic Watershed Team get down in the mainstem to remove trash from a natural dam before breaking it up. - Photo by Nina Danforth |
The allowance of modifications to the river’s course within the concrete brought a feeling of victory and a sense of progress for the watershed groups, although no changes have yet been carried out.
Meanwhile, the managers at Specialty Minerals have come up with their own restoration idea: run the warm water discharged by their plant through an old, abandoned canal that is sited under high trees, where the water will lose heat. After the water emerges from the canal, reuse it by running it through another company as non-contact process water that will result in more cooling before the water’s final discharge into the river. The wild trout will fare better in colder water, and reusing the water will benefit the Hoosic River watershed through conservation.
At this writing, the Hoosic River story is not finished. The plight of the wild trout, combined with the economic downturn, has not yet galvanized enough concern in government officials to bring about the necessary bioengineering work in the concrete riverbed. The current economic troubles of the nation, state, and town will slow the restoration down, no doubt. But the joint progress made by government, business and citizens groups has been positive. I’m convinced that the wild trout themselves, struggling to survive their hazardous passages over concrete, remain a powerful force for ecosystem restoration.Chase, Bradford C. 1996. “Massachusetts Bay Smelt Spawning Habitat Monitoring Program, Preliminary Report on the Neponset River.” MA Division of Marine Fisheries, Salem MA 01970.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Offcie of Environmental Affairs, http://www.Mass.gov/envir. Also the Watershed Initiative information can be found at: http://www.state.ma.us/envir/mwi/watersheds.htm
Cooke, Ian; Danforth, Nina; Mirsky, Mark. 1995. The Explorer’s Guide to the Neponset River Watershed. Neponset River Watershed Association, Canton MA.
Laden, Greg, “Phase I Historic Documentation and Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Dorchester/Milton Lower Mills Heritage State Park,” Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 1982.
Although I cannot list them all, I learned from many colleagues at the state agencies who consistently put their best thoughts and talents into the Watershed Initiative over the past decade. Together we sailed into uncharted waters. Equally important were our determined and energetic non-government partners, some of whom were the inspiration for this article: Elizabeth Houghton and Ian Cooke, Neponset River Watershed Association; Tom Palmer and Jens Thornton, Friends of the Neponset Estuary; Lauren Stevens and Duncan Eccleston, Hoosic River Watershed Association.
NOTE: The author is Watershed Education Coordinator at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. Her views are her own and do not necessarily represent those of the agency.
The views and opinions expressed in all articles that appear in "Conservation Perspectives" are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NESCB.