Mystic Watershed Collaborative
Steering Committee Meeting
December 17, 2003

Present: Nancy Hammett, Chelsea Bardot, Patrick Johnston, Lisa Brukilacchio, Jennifer Hill, Dale Bryan, Janet Kovner, Julian Agyeman, John Durant, Meg Muckenhaupt

1&2. Introductions and brief announcements (all):

Chelsea-planning to work more on MWC goals next semester, especially working to address communication issues. Proposes that the list serve be used to post progress on projects, ideas, etc. between meetings. Would like to work on a Mystic Movers & Shakers party, to provide opportunities for networking and to celebrate, awards and maybe even dancing. Also has submitted a business plan to the Frigon Family Prize with an EJ focus.

Patrick-Has talked with Gentle Giant rowing about working with Everett and Malden Recreation directors, with hopes to have high school rowing teams. Mystic Crossing has a website— www.geocities/mysticcrossing2004 . Requested if anyone on MWC can do HTML work; referred to Lisa Waters. Also described the Charlestown haul road proposal (between Medford St and the Mystic there is an old rail right of way (ROW). Planning to create a truck route to get traffic off Medford St. This could open up public access to the water or create a connection from Schrafts site to the Navy Yard.

Nancy-Talked about the watershed action plan and the open space report, both being completed and that she has written EJ into both of them.

Dale- Applying for academic technology (AT) grant at Tufts- could be $30K of tech support for web development for AWSEAM. This would be linked with MyRWA.

Lisa- EJ story will be in Boston Globe the Sunday after Christmas.

Jennifer- Will meet 12/18 with Julia O’Brian from DCR about promoting access to the river, refreshing the boathouse charrette ideas from the end of June. Also will try to find out what is happening to the Mystic Master Plan.

3.Review of Community Organizations Survey by Lisa and Janet

A Community Group Survey was developed by Janet and Lisa and sent by email to 30-40 groups that are on MyRWA’s list of community organizations. This was an effort to increase outreach and connection to a wider range of groups in the watershed that might also be addressing elements of the MWC goals. Responses received from 12 groups. Compilation of responses passed out for review (needs to updated with Charlestown data).

Questions included:
• What is the focus of your group?
• What might your agency or group be interested in bringing to the attention of the MWC for possible collaboration?
• What do you imagine the benefits would be to your group to work with the MWC?
• What do you imagine the challenges of working with MWC?
• Would your group be interested in partnering with the MWC and/or having a representative on the MWC Steering Committee?
• Are there other groups in your town or area that are working in the watershed, perhaps with interests beyond directly environmental issues, that we should be aware of?

Discussion followed with questions and/or suggestions for next steps:
-How to follow up? How to build on the information gathered?
-How to get out to the next layer of groups, beyond the usual suspects?
-How to communicate to communities? (Goal or issue-oriented relationship?)
-What does it mean to be working in communities? (Shirley Mark and Lisa examining this at UCCPS as develop work plans)
-What can Tufts do? What can groups do?
-What is the scope of what MWC can take on? Move to issues beyond watershed topics?
No distinct resolution of these questions, but generally agreed that there needs to be some form of follow-up to these groups and potentially others as well.

4. Discussion of annual objectives and/or criteria for selecting MWC projects

Lisa passed around a draft form for possible criteria for selection of MWC projects for the next semester/year. It was described that these were generated by a combination of looking at the written MWC goals of achieving fishable and swimmable status by 2010, of creating equitable public access, and implementing environmental justice. Others were developed from a meeting of the MWC student representatives- support need for sustainable funding for all partners, engage Tufts students, staff, faculty and organizations; address concerns of residents and engage citizens in community based research; promote communications and connections across the watershed, engage officials and decision makers.

The primary feedback was if were to be used it would need to list items in some sense of prioritization, with the “address concerns of residents” generally moved to the top position on list. Other suggestions included: adding “recreation” to public access, adding language about water quality to the fishable and swimmable goal)

5. Prioritization of MWC involvement in events or projects proposed

Discussion moved directly from above agenda item into practicing using the criteria to test a few suggested activities. A quick brainstorm of potential events/activities resulted in a list of: EJAM, EMPACT, River Use, Movers and Shakers, Mystic Flotilla, Mystic Crossing, Island End Restoration, Blessing of the Bay, Herring Run, Mystic wiki or blog. Discussion was introduced about projects that MWC might support (for example, to write a letter of support for such as Mystic Crossing) versus become an active party. (It was decided that MWC would send a letter of support to Mystic Crossing, delegated to Lisa.)

Chelsea and Lisa offered that they had trialed the above criteria looking at the proposal of a Mystic Movers and Shakers event, using a 1-3 scale for low/medium/high. This resulted in a “low” ranking for the first four items on the list, with medium for addressing resident concerns, and three “high” rankings for “engaging Tufts”, “promoting communication”, and “engaging officials/decision makers”. If given a numeric score, the Movers and Shakers would get a “15” on this scale. A second test of a Mystic flotilla resulted in a “13” and introduced the options for a “0” score and a negative ranking for funding if it would cost money but bring in none. If there are eight criteria used and a raw ranking on a 1-3 scale, a “top” score would be a “24”.

Due to time constraints, no final decisions were made on the prioritizing of projects or events for MWC. Nancy suggested that she will send out a list of the prioritized research projects being identified by MyRWA for possible interns or research at Tufts. She also recommended that we practice applying criteria to specific projects that arise as a way to begin the process.

No next meeting date was set as academic schedules were not yet determined for next semester. Roughly planning to meet in last Jan/early February. Lisa will send out notice to folks to set a date.

Adjourned.

Submitted by Lisa Brukilacchio