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/
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/
No comments:
Post a Comment