A Final Statement To Lead Us Into The Future

Over the past few weeks, we have learned much from engaging in this project and the innumerable resources it led us to find. After setting out with goals to identify problems surrounding our site, the ecological effects of major highways, and implications from previous studies, we sought offer some of the most viable of our own ideas that we hope one day could actually apply to the state of Vermont and this link of the Green Mountains. 

In a succinct and brief conclusion, we hope to wrap up our efforts on this blog, leave the information we gathered and presented to anyone who may come across it, and inspire the efforts of other engaged and determined individuals or groups. 

Between the three of us, we have agreed upon three perspectives of the issues to simplify and present our materials in the most digestible and honest way possible. So what did we learn in this process?

1. We said it once and we will repeat it as often as necessary: No landscape is permanent. This simple concept is crucial to nearly every aspect of our project and any other viable project that may find itself on Interstate 89 between Bolton and Waterbury in the future. To accept that the interstate has the sole right of presence on the land is to imagine the problem without insight. As we covered in some of our earliest posts, the stretch of highway that creates such a daunting task today for wildlife conservationists has only been in existence for about 50 years total. Just because it has been a lifetime fixture on the landscape for so many of us thus far does not mean it cannot be changed, adjusted, or rethought to match the needs of a new future. With this thought and hope, we hope to push forward efforts to change, adjust, and rethink  our relationship to the natural communities of this stretch of land and the six million acres that surrounds it as well.

2. There have been several studies in the recent past and there are likely to be many more in the near future regarding wildlife conservation and connectivity, especially throughout the state of Vermont. We cannot forget to include this site, no matter how daunting it may be in the context of a small state like Vermont, in the consideration for conservation. We cannot express this strongly enough: this area is important to recreationists, conservationists, the general public, and above all, several key populations of wildlife in the state. Our research shows the presence of populations such as coyotes, bobcats, bears, deer, moose, and numerous amphibians that could possibly utilize a north-south connection of the Green Mountains. Although there is still more extensive research to be done regarding how to connect populations inexpensively, it is clear that the task is necessary and immensely important in regard to bio/genetic diversity, healthy ecosystems, reducing traffic accidents, improving road management/location, and the value of these species to Vermont's wild and settled land. 

3. Looking toward the future, we found the most uplifting and promising aspects of the entire project to be some of the most simple. Education, sense of place, and cooperation. These are essentially the three pillars of the viability of any project regarding conservation in Vermont. The costs are surprisingly low (no bridges to construct or materials to buy) and the rewards are immense (a vast human community that understands and supports the efforts to connect our existence back to the land which, in the end, is what supports us all). And if these two aspects fail at reducing the intimidation of the task at hand, one can always rest back on the fact that cooperation is happening right now as we speak. There are those out there in the present day who, even without our dream of a widespread education, are working to link arms and form an effort greater than just one individual, one business, or one community. The possibilities, then, are endless.


It seems silly, at this point then, to wrap up our efforts with this. It seems pointless to claim that this is the end because it's not. While these posts may no longer be authored in the future, the blog remains as a resource, a connection to other professional and popular resources, and the world can add three more young minds to the challenge our world faces concerning conservation in the face of the explosion of human population.

For all three of us, Berrett, Mike, and Jack, this is not the end but simply the first venture into an expansive world of possibilities and chances to create new perspectives, change old ones, and make a true lasting change.

From all of us here at Conservation and Connectivity in the Heart of Vermont: Thank you. We hope you have delighted in our efforts as much as we have, and urge you to face this challenge with us. Together, we can realize this simple dream.

A Map of Our Area of Interest

Wildlife Use of Drainage Culverts as Road Crossings

Some video examples of research being done in Arizona in 2009 on the impacts of roads on wildlife and the means to reconnect habitats by quantifying the use of culverts by wildlife. Perhaps this method of conservation may be attempted by Vermont on Interstate 89.

Corridor Connectivity Comic Relief

                                    When wildlife gets behind the wheel, the game changes.

Restoring Wildlife Connectivity: Popular Article

There are similar projects being put in place through out the state.  An example of this can be seen on a section of route 78 that goes through the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge.

This area contains the largest significant wetland complex in the state.  The area is a transition between wetland and upland habitat.  This area offers habitat for resident and migratory waterfowl, deer, moose, black bear, min, otter, muskrat, raccoon, coyotes, red and gray fox, amphibians and reptiles.  The area also provides habitat for the endangered black tern and soft-shelled turtle.  To determine the correct management plan the landscape and habitat conditions, distribution or wildlife mortality, and animal movement will be evaluated.  After the data was collected the following management plan was constructed.  A 500 ft long underpass will be put in place at the primary linkage point (Louis Landing), this will reconnect ecological connectivity by providing a wildlife passage and improve public safety by reducing possible collisions.  The will be able to accommodate multiple species and utilize fences to direct large mammals.  As well the road will be moved 100 ft away from the Missisquoi River and the riparian area will be restored.  Four amphibian passage structures will also be constructed to reduce mortality and provide access to spawning grounds.  In the Carmens' Marsh area three large box culverts should also be put in place to restore the hydrology and allow the wetland dependent animals like muskrat, beaver, and otter to move with the wetland system.

This is not the only habitat linkage problem in the state, there are many others like our project on I-89.  A similar approach could be utilized at our site to evaluate the landscape and habitat conditions, and conduct research on wildlife movement and wildlife road mortality.  The data gathered can be used to calculate the best possible solution and reconnect the habitat on either side of I-89.

Austin, John M.; Ferguson, Mark; Gingras, Glenn; & Bakos, Greg. (2003). Strategies for restoring ecological connectivity and establishing wildlife passage for the upgrade of Route 78 in Swanton, Vermont: an overview. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/50q5q4m7

A Step-by-Step Action Plan

In cooperation with Utah State University and the Transportation Research Board, the United States Geologic Survey of Utah has crafted a website and decision guide regarding wildlife connectivity and roads. In their own words: "There is a core of 10 ecologists, engineers, and a webmaster that have made this site possible. These people in turn have worked with others who have assisted with this research. Our sponsoring organization, NCHRP of the National Academies oversees a panel of reviewers for this project as well." This decision guide provides recommended steps organizations should take when considering wildlife crossings, and is an invaluable resource that provokes analysis and reflection upon the site under question. 

Today, I hope to follow the guide in a step by step identification process, note the minor details that may have been missed, and arrive with our project's own drafted action plan. Other components of the process include: resource evaluation, construction, and monitoring, but for now we will focus purely on identification, as an initial movement towards the potential of work on Interstate 89. 

Step 1: Identify Species to Benefit from Potential Migration 

While this step may appear to be one of the most basic, it is extremely important in the process as a whole. The presence of species in the region does not guarantee the movement of species across regions. Therefore, species identification depends greatly upon movement patterns, habitat needs, and behavioral issues associated with traffic and roads. Furthermore, one must consider more than just one or many populations. Considering communities and community interactions within more expansive ecosystems is extremely important. If a crossing is designed to favor deer crossings, but not coyotes, an great unbalance will be created causing more problems than one hoped to originally solve. The goal is to emulate natural processes to the greatest extent. 

Identification of species is often done generally through behavioral commonalities throughout trophic levels. While this will never be an exact measurement, it is a good place to start. Herbivores, in our case moose and deer, are species that create necessary minimum measurements for crossings. We have been greatly considering an underpass toward the western region of our site, but were reminded by Ms. Rose Graves of behavioral patterns of ungulates. This site provides such a reminder as well. Why would any plant-feeding prey wish to enter a dark tunnel? Vulnerability is high. Therefore, it is clear our plan would have to involve necessary measurements of a larger, light-filled underpass. It is even more clear that more research is necessary regarding the measurements that would fit deer or moose populations here in Vermont. 

Carnivores, in our case: coyotes, bobcats, and bears, also have been known to utilize underpasses, but require a smaller space than most ungulates. To find a compatible size for both predator and prey is the key opportunity that would allow populations from both trophic levels to pass. The site refers to success of this task in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada with a few "select open underpasses". 

Other creatures, such as small amphibians or small sized mammals, have historically required smaller, wet spaces devoid of human presence. While it seems the easiest task to create small tunneling culverts below the Interstate site, location of these tunnels and whether or not they would truly be utilized by smaller creatures is something that also requires further research. 

One thing, however, is certain: with correct measurements and a compromise of space, species such as deer, moose, bobcat, coyote, and black bear should be able to utilize an underpass across I-89. 

Step 2: Identify Ecological Processes 

The most clear and apparent of all the ecological processes surrounding the site is the Winooski River. While some species of moose, deer, or bear would be likely to cross the water way, it is unlikely that smaller species such as bobcat or coyote would be as eager. There are, however, road crossings that are lifted from the water towards the far west and east of our site, and terrestrial species are also able to cross in more shallow locations of the river. In maintenance of the integrity of the project, I would claim any location where the river acts as a natural barrier is, in fact, just that - natural. It should not be tampered with. 

Step 3: Identify Landscape and Topographic Features that May Affect Movement and Mitigation

This step requires understanding of each species individually. How animals approach a crossing is just as, if not more, important as how they choose to cross. Regarding the location of this site and the wildlife in question, forested areas to the south and north are extremely important for cover and access to the crossings. This places special emphasis on conservation efforts surrounding the region. 

As the site mentions, guiding pathways such as lightly used trails (to start) would help populations find their way towards a potential crossing. Along these lines, placement of the crossing returns as an extremely important factor. 

Another less prominent landscape feature of the land are the rocky outcroppings that sit between the lanes of the highway (See Site Visit post). These regions of the site might provide difficulty of underpass, but possibly the start of a smaller overpass that continues across the remaining lanes to the north. This is without a doubt one of the more hopeful aspects of this project and requires much further consideration. 

Step 4: Identifying Engineering and Maintenance Concerns

These concerns are without a doubt some of the most important a project along the stretch of I-89 would end up dealing with. Consultations involving ecologists, civil engineers, transportation agents of the state, conservationists, and other financial supporters is completely necessary. Reasons why this project has continually been swept under the table in the past is due to costs, and it is undoubtedly going to be expensive. Bridges are known to be expensive projects of construction, then initiating/allowing flora to grow, and even underpasses would require a large effort to analyze and possibly even reconstruct sections of I-89 for stability. Other factors such as gradient of the road and gradient of the crossing are essential as well. 

At this point, I would once again return to our conversation with Rose Graves and how my partners and I came to the conclusion that education of the land was completely necessary. No project this large comparatively to the state of Vermont can exist without overwhelming support and understanding. 

Step 5: Weigh Cost Concerns With Potential Benefits 

If cost wasn't enough of a problem, weighing it against the potential benefits of a project can be even more daunting. In a simple statement, the costs of constructing wildlife crossings, whether bridges or culverts, is expensive. It is in the millions, at best. As mentioned in a previous post, however, it's not necessarily impossible to accrue those funds, especially when considering federal money distributed between wildlife issues and the recent damage from Irene (the latter would have to incorporate the Winooski River and its buffers to great extent). 

The real problem is understanding the issue well enough to know that it will actually work. The guide site reports on elk who refuse to pass through box culverts - 4 reported cases in 30 years! Teams and organizations working on this project will unfortunately find themselves wondering if they settle for cheap, efficient, and quick, intended populations will not use the crossing, the public will be furious with misallocated  funds, and there will exist a useless crossing that is likely to deteriorate after years lacking careful monitoring. 

The moral of this issue regarding wildlife crossing cost/benefit analysis: research extremely well, consult extremely well, construct extremely well, monitor extremely well. Projects such as these are too important to fail in the eyes of the public. 

Step 6: Identify Appropriate Wildlife Crossing 

At this point in the project, it is easy enough to rule out any form of "at-grade" wildlife crossings, which recommend only caution to the drivers and leave the danger up to the wildlife (or the drivers as well considering moose). Underpasses, however, are worth taking a look at, assuming wildlife bridges would be eliminated (for the time being) in a cost/benefit analysis. 

Considering the table laid out by the decision guide, what is likely to work in our location is a Class 2 Medium Underpass. These underpasses would not be long, but short across a few lanes, tall enough to fit the height of where the highway is already raised, and accommodate most all species in question. The only exception might be the moose, which would find the passage too small. This is truly an issue that must be considered. 

With these steps, our project hopes to set forth the initiation of further analysis and consideration for locations along our three-mile site. From a quick reflection of this work, it is all the more apparent how important education and true understanding of these ecological processes can be. We simply cannot allow ourselves to be contented with where we currently are, ignoring the possibilities of wildlife crossings, shunning the costs, and refusing to change. 

It might be a challenge, but it is one I have come to realize so many people from several disciplines across North America hope to tackle. To that list, you can surely add three students here at the University of Vermont and their futures beyond it. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information gathered by wildlifeandroads.org on work specific to the state of Vermont, please see: http://www.wildlifeandroads.org/search/search_results.cfm?state_prov=VT&Submit=Search

The site itself is also an invaluable resource and a great place to initiate any curiosity of wildlife crossings. Share it with others and always remember to consider how work and analysis all the way from Utah can be applied to a location near you. 

Freedom to Roam

Wildlife need space to migrate with the seasons, following sources of food, and return to places to birth and raise their young.  Even species that don't migrate still need space to roam to find food, and mates.  But as our population grows we fragment and isolate wildlife habitat.  When habitat becomes too small to support the the long term survival of the population we risk loosing our biodiversity.  A study done by Tom Lovejoy in the Amazon found that to keep all the biodiversity the area of land had to be 1,000 square kilometers.  When you do not have an area of land this size the next best thing is to connect sections of habitat with wildlife corridors.  This is the main idea for our project, to connect the habitat on either side of I-89 so wildlife can still have the freedom to roam

We're All In This Together

After engaging in this project for under a few weeks, I find it's easy to become overwhelmed. There are so many factors to consider, so many people to please, and so many possibilities for a better future of sustained conservation and connectivity in the heart of the Green Mountains. It can be difficult to imagine one individual or one group bringing forth all the necessary change even here in our humble state of just 6 million acres. 

But it should never be easy to imagine. 

This beautiful land enclosed in the borders of our state and even the land beyond that belongs to other states, nations, and continents is not under the stewardship of just one person or one organization, the task belongs to those who presently, historically, and will one day inhabit the Earth. And for the most part, there are so many factors to consider regarding conservation because there are so many different people associated with the land. It is so important, then, to embrace the diversity of interests rather than handling it as an inhibition. While everyone may not always have the same ideas or goals, in all likelihood, there will be common ground between several groups in one location. 

A local and relevant-to-our-site example of this is the Chittenden County Uplands Conservation Project. This initiative was begun back in 1999 as the product of just a few concerned locals and conservation leaders of the time. At the forefront of the vision stands Sue Morse, who resides in Jericho and believed in conserving and preventing development of the Uplands, consisting of Jericho, Bolton, Richmond, and Underhill. This region lies directly to the north and northwest of our site between Bolton and Duxbury, and happens to be a crucial region that helps conserve what Mount Mansfield State Forest to the northeast does not. Up to 8,000 acres have been conserved as of last year. 

Land protected by the Chittenden County Uplands Project marked in green. The site of this project is marked in red.

Because of the project's location, wildlife habitat is protected to new extents surrounding the valley and increases the importance of some connection across the barrier of I-89 and Route 2. 

But the moral of the story lies in what the future may bring. After the creation of the Uplands Conservation Project, the Vermont Land Trust showed full support of the vision and behind them stood several concerned citizens and other organizations with their own ideas for the land. All priorities are based on scientific study and work goes to extending hands to local landowners and other groups who wish to partner.

Currently, participants include: Vermont Land Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the Green Mountain Club, the Vermont Association for Snow Travel, the town of Bolton, the Climbing Resource Access Group, hikers, skiers, hunters, artists, and numerous other landowners. They may not all share the same ideas for how to use the land, but there is one thing to be agreed upon: the land needs to be protected from external threats and maintained in the name of sound ecological conservation and reduced impact enjoyment of the landscape so many of us call home. 

What began as a small meeting of concerned individuals grew into a movement which includes numerous organizations and individuals. In the words of Sue Morse: “Multiple organizations, multiple packages, all coming together with solutions. It’s exciting—and it works.” The product is something to be proud of: thousands of acres of conserved land with no end in sight so far. It may have seemed overwhelming at first, but 13 years later, the efforts of just a few people have gone on to affect millions of Vermont residents of the future, and equally important, the future habitat of wildlife who belong to the Green Mountains as well. 

Not only are cases like these important to the structure of conservation efforts, but they serve most importantly as inspiration, for this state, for this region, for this project, and for me...especially when I find myself overwhelmed with challenges. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post collected information and was inspired by the CCUP article in Vermont Land Trust's Spring 2011 newsletter. It, and other great articles, can be accessed through that link. 

There are several amazing partners in Vermont working together to make this state more habitable in the future for humans and wildlife alike. Their sites can be accessed below: 

Vermont Land Trust

The Nature Conservancy

Green Mountain Club

V.A.S.T.

C.R.A.G.

You Start With A Three-Mile Site...

Weeks ago, when we sat down to identify our site as a group, we were satisfied with the chosen location. Three miles, six major lanes, a good stretch of fences, one riparian corridor, and the direct habitat extending to the north and south forests. We were prepared to handle various wildlife populations, a major state highway, and even issues surrounding the Vermont Agency of Transportation, but we hadn't realized the implications of such a project, just from a three-mile site. 

After we had the chance to sit down with Rose Graves, Conservation Director of the Northeast Wilderness Trust, our sights extended beyond the rolling peaks of the Green Mountains and into a new and imaginative world that greets problems surrounding corridor connectivity with optimism and viable solutions. By the end of our conversation, we realized that this project, and ones like it, concern more than just a stretch of road and the hope to conserve land and wildlife - this project is about re-imagining what our society accepts as "normal", redesigning not only the roadways we travel, but the paths we take in our education, and redefining ourselves in the process. 

But first, we sought to clear up a few notable points with Ms. Graves. 

---To the north and south are Mount Mansfield State Forest and Camel's Hump State Park, respectively. We wondered what these two locations implied ecologically with their management and if the Northeast Wilderness Trust had any interest in conserving the land to connect what is one extensive corridor of mountains. We learned that the United States Geological Survey refers to areas of land under codes of "gap status". Depending on the land management, protection, and extraction, it is labelled with a status and often a sub-category that further defines the land use. One can read the full definitions of the gap labels through the International Union for Conservation of Nature's site. 

Mount Mansfield State Forest is considered Gap 3. While the majority of the area is permanently protected, it is still subject to extractive use such as logging (or even mining). Camel's Hump State Park is considered Gap 1. This status places the region under a mandated management plan, restricts extraction of any kind, and protects the area permanently. 

---Studying conflicts between the natural world and our own separate way of life is still a relatively new type of research. Because topics like road ecology are just beginning to emerge, the science behind them is just beginning. So far, what we know as a whole is based largely off assumptions, rather than data. Not to say data isn't out there, but it may be scattered compared with most scientific disciplines. It can be gathered through GIS analysis, roadway statistics, and tracking wildlife movement patterns, but finding a way to marry  these methods and learn from what has been recorded in the past as we look to the future is the real challenge.

Rose made it clear that a distinctive change in thought has taken place in the world of conservation. While it continues to evolve today, new ideas emerge constantly and questions are the vehicle through which change occurs. In the past, conservation of land was done in large chunks; it was assumed that the larger the protected land, the more biodiversity would be protected under the umbrella of policy. This has proven to be a confused point. Now, conservationists are looking more towards how to connect habitats instead of only protecting large swaths. It is an exciting time to be working with connectivity projects, but to reiterate the point, this work must be done based upon data rather than assumptions. Specific zones must be identified based off of traffic volume, speed, habitat analysis, and many other factors that may not even be considered at the moment.

---And the last point that leads nicely into the strongest point of conversation: the problem may very well be solved less through direct action and more through education, public awareness, and policy. Why? Because as this new science and research emerges, one must consider how eager the public or even the state would be to fund such large scale projects. Although this project's main goals are only to identify and understand implications and future options of our site, we still must keep in mind the most reasonable possibilities and collect our ideas in the name of realistic opportunity.

We learned from Rose how expensive the construction of a wildlife bridge would be, and how unlikely it would be that the state would fund a project without enough research behind the plan. This was, of course, expected, as populations of larger animals (such as moose and bear) are not as large or dense here as in the west where these bridges are beginning to pop up. We were slightly dismayed, however, to learn that the option of an underpass was also unlikely. One of the largest problems with connectivity is finding a way that connects all species instead of just a select few. Turtles and frogs may take the route of an underpass, but moose and bear are less likely to do so. Behavioral characteristics of each viable population must be taken into account, and to exclude any population in a plan is to waste funds.


So what can be done? It's easy to become discouraged by what seem to be 'dead ends' along the way, but each path remains a possibility when one considers what can be done now, and what the future holds as our ways of thinking begin to extend.

First off, the transportation system, as we discussed in earlier posts, remains one of the older conventions in the state of Vermont (as well as the rest of the nation), but it is never permanent. Roadways are subject to updating on a cycle of years, and in the recent history of the tropical storm Irene, many new plans are emerging seeking to redesign where we place our highways. Regarding our site specifically, Route 2 and Interstate 89 both run parallel to the Winooski River. While federal and state funds are limited and important to many families across the state, repairing a damaged riparian corridor is still an important service to all whom the river and its buffer zones effect. There is a high possibility of initially working through this effort, especially since federal money is also available specifically concerning wildlife management.

But the solution requires more than just federal dollars funneled through conservationists alone. The solution involves our culture, not just our way of planning roads, but our way of thinking as well. And why can't solutions be just as dynamic as the problems from which they arise? There is room for creativity and room for place-based answers, not just sweeping generalizations that don't involve the public.

Education, then, becomes the most important factor throughout the challenge. Increasing public awareness can only be done so efficiently in the present, but we must see value in what can be done for the future (while working on what we can directly in order to get to that future). The solution requires the public getting involved, understanding the ecological implications, and using their combined voices to necessitate a change in policy, planning, and ways of thinking. How can this be done? Ms. Graves shared this sentiment as our conversation began to ponder that question: "I am a firm believer in having people get to know their landscape". To connect people with their land, to have them gather a sense of place, and to make the world we inhabit personal is to create a future of understanding.

Yet that future is far from a dream. Apps are being developed which allow drivers to provide road mortality data on highways, programs and courses are being offered that teach a sense of being on the landscape, and more and more conservation organizations are reaching out to volunteers, private land-owners, and policy-makers alike in order to spread an understanding of our place in the natural world. Now more than ever, our neighbors, our mentors, or our employers are becoming involved in the action. It's an effort that hopes to span generations based upon inclusiveness. Now more than ever, the conservation movement requires supporters, not followers.

You start with just a three-mile site, then you find yourself re-imagining the future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack, Berrett, and Mike would like to extend a special thanks to Rose Graves for taking the time to speak with us and share some invaluable knowledge. We greatly appreciate the conversation and find ourselves even more excited to engage the challenges at hand.

The Northeast Wilderness Trust has been a wonderful resource and inspiration for this project. We encourage any and all who read this to get involved in their efforts, whether through subscribing to newsletters, donations, attending events, or volunteering time. Their work, among many excellent organizations, contributes greatly to the immense challenges we  have outlined in our project.
For more information, visit: http://www.newildernesstrust.org/get-involved/