Project Information

Background information

The Muddy River, a vital part of Boston’s Emerald Necklace, became one of the most polluted tributaries to the Charles River, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Originally a tidal estuary and recreational space designed by Frederick Law Olmstead, the river deteriorated over the next few decades due to urbanization and pollution. Historically, the Muddy River played a vital role in Boston’s waterway system, flowing from Jamaica pond through many neighborhoods before meeting the Charles River. However, the river became extremely polluted in the 19th century due to untreated sewage and industrial waste. Further urbanization and infrastructure development later lead to recurring issues, including major flooding in the 20th century. 

Present day river restoration efforts continue to present challenges; the U.S Army Corps of Engineers initiated significant restoration efforts in the early 2000’s, focusing on flood mitigation and ecosystem rehabilitation, though issues like water quality and sediment contamination persisted. Various organizations and advocacy groups around the area – such as Muddy Water Initiative (MWI), Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), and Emerald Necklace Conservancy (ENC) – launched efforts to restore the river through volunteer-driven projects. MWI’s project, such as the Watergoat trash barrier, worked to collect and reduce litter in the river; similarly, the CRWA monitored water quality and macroinvertebrate activity populations to assess habitat conditions. The ENC focused on preserving and improving the Emerald Necklace, including the Muddy River, with emphasis on the green space restoration and flood prevention. Many of these organizations leveraged Geographic Information System (GIS) to support environmental mapping, data storage and visualization to help deepen the understanding of the river’s complex issues– but this information is rarely public. 

Citizen science, an approach using volunteer efforts for data contributions, requires publicly accessible contributions due to its definition. Many citizen science projects lead to further investigations and broader discoveries. 

Planning/Methods

The goal of this project was to develop accessible, cost-effective methods to document the Muddy River’s flow patterns, water levels, and visual status, aimed to expand awareness and increase engagement in restoration efforts. We developed an ArcGIS StoryMap website to present the methods, findings, and highlight the importance of citizen science projects.  These contributions help assess the river’s overall health, enabling communication to local officials and community members about the impact of urbanization on local waterways. 

To accomplish this goal, we: 

1. Examined the current conditions of the Muddy River to identify areas of focus and underlying issues that require in-depth analysis.
2. Designed low-tech, affordable, and easy methods for collecting and sharing data about the issues on the Muddy River identified in the previous objective
3. Centralized the data collected through the methods in Objective 2 with the capability of future additions on data and visualizations along problematic areas of the river.
4. Developed a publicly accessible and interactive website for city officials and community members, serving as a reference for educational purposes and informing future projects while encouraging contributions and updates over time.

To accomplish these objectives, we ensured accessibility and focused on the criteria such as low-cost, reproducibility, safety, accuracy, validity and relevance. Onsite field surveys allowed us to observe river’s structure, water characteristics and flow patterns while documenting wildlife and debris. All data, including coordinates and photographs, was recorded to facilitate future replication. 

Stakeholder interviews with organizations and advocacy groups like the MWI, CRWA and ENC provided insights into ongoing restoration efforts and informed our data collection methods. Expert interviews guided our approach; Professor Mathisen recommended obtainable methods for measuring water depth, while GIS specialist, Trevor Tsang, advised on data handling in ArcGIS. Professor Berger shared his expertise on water contaminants, enhancing our understanding of the river’s challenges.

We adopted a GPS tracking method inspired by the Colleges of the Fenway (COF) group, using the Tracki devices to monitor river flow patterns through an app. For measuring water depth, we employed a hand weight with twine and wooden stakes across six bridges and eight banks along the Riverway and Back Bay Fens, ensuring consistent measurements with specific landmarks. 

We also utilized repeat photography to document changes in selected objects within the river, recording coordinates and angles to maintain accuracy for future comparisons. Using ArcGIS, we converted collected data into maps and layers, creating a comprehensive StoryMap that displayed detailed maps and visual data. Although ArcGIS is not universally accessible due to cost, there are many other softwares that are free to replicate this project.

Overall, the methods emphasized developing low-cost reproducible approaches to engage the community in river restoration. Tools like the StoryMap established a foundation for future contributions and can support informed decision making regarding the Muddy River’s health.

Results

We found that access to the Muddy River was obstructed by dense invasive plant life, particularly knotweed plants, and ongoing restoration projects. This became a limitation to our ability to place tracking devices and conduct depth measurements. Debris such as large woody debris and trash also obstructed the river and accumulated in bank areas. Consumption related litter along the banks also contributed to river blockages, aligning with the research linking high human activity to river pollution. 

The flow activity was significantly less than the previous group that executed this project when using plastic jars to house the tracking devices. This could be due to different seasonal

characteristics as our data collection period remained relatively dry and calm. There were also external factors – such as wildlife or wind – that may have interfered with the minimal movements we observed in the first three weeks. The use of Mason jars replaced the plastic jars, and immediately showed a visual difference in its floating status. With the Mason Jars, it was less likely to be influenced by outside factors, and introduced the idea of subsurface flow. Being able to observe more of what happens below the surface, we observed significant movements that exceeded the previous group’s observations. 

Generally, Riverway had greater changes in depth, while the Back Bay Fens had more consistent depths. The Riverway area had an average lower depth than the Back Bay Fens, which makes sense because dredging was done more recently in the Back Bay Fens. But, we found a lot more fluctuation and variability in both the Riverway Bank and Bridge measurements. This could partially be due to human error, but we also recognized that our small sample size of 12 could not rule out any of these outliers or variations. Generally, the Riverway data was more scattered, while the Back Bay Fens followed patterns of rise and fall of levels. These inconsistencies raise further questions about how flow and water depth affect the river’s circulation and water quality.

Recommendations

For potential future project groups to continue or replicate our techniques, we identified an array of recommendations pertaining to our methods and the logistics of reproducibility. First, a wider timeframe was necessary for a more comprehensive analysis, observing different weather conditions and allowing for more data collections. This would also create room for expanding the scope of the project like categorizing debris or differentiating surface vs. subsurface flow. Secondly, we recommend installing more continuous water depth gauges along the Muddy River to capture real time fluctuations. The USGS Brookline gauge was very helpful for monitoring this while we were not onsite, but would not be within the scope of citizen science. Third, using mobile apps for location pinpointing, compass, and Excel makes validation and documentation very accessible. 

Finally, each method could be refined for future users. Cost was a concern for the repeat photography method, using high tech equipment and no clear alternatives. Reproducibility was consistent in all methods, with only one recommendation to make clear visual markers at measurement locations. Safety was the biggest area for additions: proper protective equipment is necessary for micro contaminant exposure. Having two people to conduct the string weight method is precautionary to reduce fall risk, as well as having a longer wooden stake for bank measurements. Accuracy could be increased with location precision– more stationary landmarks for reference in photos and measurement locations. Both validity and relevance for all methods would be expanded with further method assessments.

Overall, these methods can be altered to be more applicable and accessible depending on future implementations. Citizen scientists can redesign these based on the targeted river behavior.