Wampanoag Common Lands: Muddy Pond Restoration Project by MIT DUSP

1 Wampanoag Common Lands: Muddy Pond Restoration Project Final Report Alexandra Duprey, Husain Rizvi, Disha Trivedi, and Eleane Lema 11.S938 Indigenous Environmental Planning

2 Table of Contents Land KnowledgeIntroductionPurposeProjectResearcherAcknowledgement…………………………….……………………………………….….3Bios……………………………………………………………………………….…4Partners……………………………………………………………………………...….6oftheProject………………………………………………..…………………………8……………………………………………………………………………..….…..10Collection……………………………………………………………………….….12 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………..…….12 Site-Specific Knowledge……………...……………………………………………..…..29 Additional Sources…………………………………………………………………..…...33 The Future of Muddy Pond………………………………………………………………..…..39 Land Use Planning…………………………………………………………………..…..39 Programming……………………………………………………………………..………44 Perspectives in Land Management………………………………………………………..…...46 Conclusion…………………………………..………………………………………………......54 Recommendations…………………………...…………………………………………...54 StoryMap…………………………………………………………………………….…...58

We acknowledge Indigenous Peoples as the traditional stewards of the land, and the enduring relationship that exists between them and their traditional territories. The land on which MIT sits is the traditional unceded territory of the Wampanoag Nation. We acknowledge the painful history of genocide and forced occupation of their territory.

As we honor and respect the many diverse Indigenous peoples connected to this land from time immemorial, we seek to Indigenize our institution and the field of planning, offer space, leave Indigenous peoples in more empowered positions, and return more lands to their Indigenous stewards.

The 32-acre Muddy Pond site is the traditional land of the Wampanoag Nation and will be transferred from the Muddy Pond Trust Board to the Native Land Conservancy, an organization founded and led by members of the Wampanoag Nation. This project envisions possible futures after the land returns to its Wampanoag stewards.

Land Acknowledgement

Disha Trivedi (she/her): I’m interested in Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a complement to Western science in

Alexandra Duprey (she/her): I am interested in nature based adaptation methods for developing resilience. I have worked with a coastland conservation land manager in the past on developing a series of technical and policy recommendations focused on adapting a marshland for climate change. In this project, I’ve learned there are intersecting and diverting ideas of land restoration. I now realize more social and cultural aspects behind the way we choose to interact with the land, which are not by any means universal.

I am interested in the cultural knowledge and traditional practices of Indigenous peoples as they relate to environmental management, health, and well being. I also hope to develop more urban planning skills pertaining to water quality/access, food sustainability, and cost/benefit analysis. I have a lot of experience in community development and service work with health equity, food sustainability, environmental justice, and agricultural healing. Skills that I bring include community development and stakeholder engagement, deep listening and qualitative research (NVivo), report writing, and educational and community outreach. In this project, I was amazed to learn about how rich this 32 acre is in its cultural history, ecosystems, and future land use. I have also developed a renewed sense of nature and appreciate the many cultural and health benefits that our Earth provides us.

Researcher Bios Eleane Lema (she/her):

5 environmental policy and planning, particularly in New England. I study environmental pollution’s impact on New England public health. In the past, I’ve worked on UN biodiversity policy analysis, political campaigns and voter protection, and Boston area youth art education.

I’ve had some exposure to invasive species management in the Harvard Forest in Petersham, MA. One of my key takeaways from this experience is that a balance of candor and respect are necessary for fair and open stakeholder dialogue; with both, stakeholders with different conservation philosophies are able to candidly express their personal issue centered viewpoints and specific vocabulary while respectfully seeking shared values as common ground.

Husain Rizvi (they/them): I am interested in racial justice, Participatory Action Research (PAR), and understanding the effects of colonialism on people today. In the past, I’ve worked on multiple PAR projects including one with Wellness Empowerment for Brooklyn and have been an organizer for a mental health collective with The City School (a non profit youth political education organization in Dorchester) that focuses on collective community care work through artistic practice. In addition, I am running a participatory collaborative game design studio that aims to center the learning and exploration of digital arts by youth of color in the Boston area. Through this project, I learned the importance of organizations such as the Native Land Conservancy, which incorporate ideas of the history of the land and its original stewardship into their environmental restoration processes.

Chuckie Green (he/him): “Our kids could go in there and start restoring the environment. Bringing back the native plants that are no longer there and helping to remove some of the invasives that are there. So I mean, I see that as being a definite benefit to my kids: being able to explain to my kids why this is

Project Partners

Our primary contacts for the project were Leslie Jonas and Chuckie Green. Leslie is the Vice Chair of the Native Land Conservancy and the Building Committee Chair for the Wampanoag Nation Common Lands Cultural Education Center. Chuckie is a Culture Keeper for Preserving Our Homelands (POH) and the former Natural Resource Director for the Mashpee Wampanoag. Both Leslie and Chuckie are members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Nation. In our many conversations with both, including an in person site tour over Zoom, it became apparent how enthusiastic both Leslie and Chuckie are for the future of the Muddy Pond site. Below are quotes which we feel embody the restoration perspectives of our project partners in their approach to the Muddy Pond site.

Leslie Jonas (she/her): “Throughout this project, the hope is to inspire anyone getting involved with the site a visitor, a partner, or a member, or an attendee at an event to be a part of our desire to assist people in creating a connection with our Earth Mother, whether through [environmentally] restorative or cultural processes. Reuniting the Wampanoag Nation through this project is key. Whatever we do, the sole purpose is to have humans reconnect and fall back in love with our Earth Mother. ”

We have also included the Native Land Conservancy’s vision statement for the Muddy Pond site, which will, after the land is transferred to the NLC. This vision statement provides insight into NLC’s purpose and philosophy for the site.

With its acquisition and eco restoration of the Muddy Pond property, the Native Land Conservancy can rescue ancestral homelands and support Wampanoag Indigenous lifeways and cultural practices. The Wampanoag Nation Common Lands of Muddy Pond in Kingston MA will offer a new beginning for old ways through the creation of enriching programs for natives and the general population.

7 important, and then being able to bring in scientists to also tell them why this is important, why should we do this.”

The Native Land Conservancy’s Mission Statement for Muddy Pond

This project traces the history of a 32 acre site on Muddy Pond in Kingston, Massachusetts. This project also envisions possible ecological, cultural, and social futures for this site as it is restored by the Native Land Conservancy, becoming part of the Wampanoag Nation Common Lands. Our team, composed of the researchers listed above, worked this semester to make the history and future of Muddy Pond legible through this report. This project was accomplished primarily through conversations with stakeholders who, while holding differing land management philosophies, are working in collaboration to support the transition of this land to its original stewards: the Wampanoag Nation. As the reader goes through this report, it is crucial to keep in mind that the return of lands to Indigeous peoples is a key intent behind the Muddy Pond restoration. This return includes the agency for Indigenous peoples to decide how the land is restored, stewarded, and engaged with.

This project was carried out in collaboration with the Native Land Conservancy, which is led by members of the Wampanoag Nation. Overall, the project team aimed to document and synthesize the Native Land Conservancy’s efforts to integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge and STEM in restoring Muddy Pond’s social, ecological, and cultural systems. This was accomplished through the following actions:

1. processing stakeholder dialogue through interviews, presentations, and the site visit;

2. narrating the present state of the site through an interactive GIS StoryMap; and

3. recording the envisioned possible futures for the site through a final report.

Purpose of the Project

The following report focuses on a wide breadth of aspects to the site, but particularly emphasizes the historic land uses, invasive species, culturally significant species, and cultural programming of the site.

Introduction

1 Our project team has partnered with the NLC to document and support their work at the Muddy Pond restoration site. This location is a space of opportunity, with cultural programming taking center stage.

1 Native Land Conservancy. “Native Land Conservancy in Mashpee, MA.” Accessed April 7, 2021. http://www.nativelandconservancy.org/home.html

The Muddy Pond conservation area is approximately 32 acres in south Kingston, MA. The Muddy Pond restoration site is in the process of transitioning to the ownership of the Native Land Conservancy (NLC). The site borders Route 80 and is surrounded by 322 acres managed by the Northeast Wilderness Trust (NEWT). In the process of this project, much of the information about Muddy Pond has been shared through conversations, stories, and shared moments. For example, Tim Simmons, a conservation ecologist on the Muddy Pond Trust board who has been prominent in the transition to the NLC, explained the significance of Muddy Pond from his view. He told the team how a man who owned a local beer distributorship in the Kingston area had made an awful lot of money selling beer in the New England area. He cared greatly for the environment and wanted to give something back to the community that fostered his business. The donor’s intention was to return the land to its original stewards: the native peoples of the area.

The Native Land Conservancy (NLC) is the only Indigenous led land trust organization east of the Mississippi. It was founded in 2012 and attends to “the important work of protecting sacred spaces, habitat areas for our winged and four legged neighbors and other essential ecosystem resources to benefit Mother Earth and all human beings.”

Several main takeaways from this site visit include their perspectives on holistic land management, including the mechanical removal of invasive species, native species they see as culturally significant, and the importance of both local and Tribal community engagement.

On Saturday March 27th, Leslie Jonas gave our project team an in person tour of the Muddy Pond site. Upon arriving at Muddy Pond, our project team and teaching team stood with Leslie and shared our gratitude for our loved ones and the opportunity to be present on the site. As we followed Leslie’s walking tour, she provided valuable insight about the Wampanoag’s ancestral use of land in that area, benefits they perceive in the removal of herbaceous and woody plant invasive species, and the NLC’s plans for a community center and cultural programming.

Walking with Leslie and hearing her visions for the site, as well as engaging with the land itself, helped to ground our work in the living beings and surroundings of Muddy Pond.

In addition, we received recommendations for relevant books, papers, and web sources from our partners and the stakeholders we interviewed. We would like to thank Leslie Jonas, Chuckie Green, and Pete Westover for recommending some of the sources that we reviewed, notably Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants by Robin Wall Kimmerer and Sacred Ecology by Fikret Berkes.

Methodologically, much of the knowledge we reviewed was in the form of case studies or reviews of case studies, meaning that much of this knowledge was empirically determined, context specific, and largely not systematically coordinated nor systematically supported by environmental policies, regulation, and funding. Some of this literature also includes U.S. federal government and Massachusetts Commonwealth white papers, fact sheets, or regulatory sites of particular contextual use.

Literature Review

Knowledge Collection

Introduction

We conducted this literature review with a preliminary series of search words and search strings for each of the three primary topics surveyed: Indigenous land management, invasive species management, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge’s balance with Western science. We primarily found our sources through Google Scholar, while also running searches with the same search strings in Scopus and Web of Science to ensure that we were not missing key sources.

4 Lawler, Julia H., and Ryan C. L. Bullock. “A Case for Indigenous Community Forestry.” Journal of Forestry 115, no. 2 (March 22, 2017): 117 25. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16 038

We begin this review with important caveats. First, while we conducted reviews of academic literature, Indigenous knowledge particularly in the field of environmental policy and planning is underrepresented in academic publications, primarily because the role academia has played in marginalizing Indigenous scholarship.2 , 3 While we primarily focused on literature grounded in North American case studies, particularly those in the Eastern and Northeastern United States, this review also drew from work conducted in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. We acknowledge that reviewing work that is not located in Massachusetts, New England, nor the Northeastern United States comes with context specific limitations. Indigenous Land Management Land management and Indigenous land management as terms refer to an array of practices, ranging from limited influence to total sovereignty over land and natural resource use. Depending on the definition and implementation of such practices, case studies of Indigenous land management in North America have demonstrated that such management generates, at best, substantive benefits for Indigenous economies, ecologies, and cultures.4, 5, 6, 7

2 Reo, Nicholas J., Kyle Whyte, Darren Ranco, Jodi Brandt, Emily Blackmer, and Braden Elliott. “Invasive Species, Indigenous Stewards, and Vulnerability Discourse.” American Indian Quarterly 41, no. 3 (Summer 2017): 201 23. https://doi.org/10.5250/amerindiquar.41.3.0201

3 Hibbard, Michael, Marcus B. Lane, and Kathleen Rasmussen. “The Split Personality of Planning: Indigenous Peoples and Planning for Land and Resource Management.” Journal of Planning Literature 23, no. 2 (November 1, 2008): 136 51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412208322922.

5 Castro, Alfonso Peter, and Erik Nielsen. “Indigenous People and Co Management: Implications for Conflict Management.” Environmental Science & Policy 4, no. 4 (August 1, 2001): 229 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462 9011(01)00022 3 6 Jarvis, Diane, Natalie Stoeckl, Jane Addison, Silva Larson, Rosemary Hill, Petina Pert, Felecia Watkin Lui, et al. “Are Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs a Pathway to Indigenous Economic Independence?” The Rangeland Journal 40, no. 4 (August 27, 2018): 415 29. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ18051

7 Ens, Emilie, Mitchell. L. Scott, Yugul Mangi Rangers, Craig Moritz, and Rebecca Pirzl. “Putting Indigenous Conservation Policy into Practice Delivers Biodiversity and Cultural Benefits.” Biodiversity and Conservation 25, no. 14 (December 1, 2016): 2889 2906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531 016 1207 6

Amid global governance frameworks like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Environmental Program, Indigenous land management is loosely defined as “influence,” or stakeholder input on land management as the use and care of natural resources to fill material and cultural needs.8 In the United States and other post colonial states states in which settlers are majorities and Indigenous peoples are marginalized and racialized minorities relegating Indigenous peoples to roles of influence frames them as one of many local stakeholders.9 This undermines their unique, constitutionally recognized, government to government negotiating status with the U.S. federal government.10 “Co management” refers to the process of developing and implementing land management strategies between a settler colonial state and Tribal governments or bodies. In the United States, co management lies between tribal stakeholder influence and Tribal sovereignty.11,12,13 It expands beyond influence or stakeholder relationships, yet key limitations exist to building and maintaining equitable co management relationships. First, Indigenous recognition by the U.S. federal or state government is often a necessary first step for building a co-management 8 Garnett, Stephen T., Neil D. Burgess, John E. Fa, Álvaro Fernández Llamazares, Zsolt Molnár, Cathy J. Robinson, James E. M. Watson, et al. “A Spatial Overview of the Global Importance of Indigenous Lands for Conservation.”

13 Spak, Stella. “The Position of Indigenous Knowledge in Canadian Co Management Organizations.” Anthropologica 47, no. 2 (2005): 233 46.

Nature Sustainability 1, no. 7 (July 2018): 369 74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893 018 0100 6 9 East West Center | www.eastwestcenter.org. “Chiefs Today: Traditional Pacific Leadership and the Postcolonial State (c),” October 15, 2001. https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/chiefs today traditional pacific leadership and postcolonial state c. 10 Coombes, Brad, Jay T. Johnson, and Richard Howitt. “Indigenous Geographies I: Mere Resource Conflicts? The Complexities in Indigenous Land and Environmental Claims.” Progress in Human Geography 36, no. 6 (December 1, 2012): 810 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511431410

11 Castro, Alfonso Peter, and Erik Nielsen. “Indigenous People and Co Management: Implications for Conflict Management.” Environmental Science & Policy 4, no. 4 (August 1, 2001): 229 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462 9011(01)00022 3. 12 Spaeder, Joseph J., and Harvey A. Feit. “Co Management and Indigenous Communities: Barriers and Bridges to Decentralized Resource Management: Introduction.” Anthropologica 47, no. 2 (2005): 147 54. https://doi.org/10.2307/25606232

Indigenous primary authority, or sovereignty, over land management strategies has been shown to have local ecological, economic, and cultural benefits to Indigenous peoples and local communities. While community and local decision making in non Indigenous settings has been shown to generate “local decisions with local benefits,” closing the loop of natural resource use prevents benefits’ distribution far beyond their local source, the assumption of equitable local decision making and benefit sharing does not necessarily apply in all cases. Assuming such equity would be an oversimplification of local decision making’s benefits.

15 Coombes, Brad, Jay T. Johnson, and Richard Howitt. “Indigenous Geographies I: Mere Resource Conflicts? The Complexities in Indigenous Land and Environmental Claims.” Progress in Human Geography 36, no. 6 (December 1, 2012): 810 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511431410

16 Castro, Alfonso Peter, and Erik Nielsen. “Indigenous People and Co Management: Implications for Conflict Management.” Environmental Science & Policy 4, no. 4 (August 1, 2001): 229 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462 9011(01)00022 3 17 Coombes, Brad, Jay T. Johnson, and Richard Howitt. “Indigenous Geographies I: Mere Resource Conflicts? The Complexities in Indigenous Land and Environmental Claims.” Progress in Human Geography 36, no. 6 (December 1, 2012): 810 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511431410

17 Moreover, local or

14 Second, co management may require Indigenous peoples to conform to existing governance structures, often ones grounded in scientific rationalism that uses Western scientific and market based valuation to motivate land management strategies.15 Instead of resulting in aspirational power sharing, co management may crystallize state control, de-value Traditional Ecological Knowledge, continue to marginalize Indigenous peoples, and reduce Indigenous agency.

14 Rivard, Courtney. “Archival Recognition: The Pointe Au Chien’s and Isle de Jean Charles Band of the Biloxi Chitmacha Confederation of Muskogees’ Fight for Federal Recognition.” Settler Colonial Studies 5, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 117 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2014.957257

15 relationship between the U.S. settler colonial state and a Tribe. Yet significant barriers exist to gaining federal or state recognition, including archival process requirements for documenting written Indigenous history, though in many cases, the state itself mainly preserved the histories of Tribes with whom they had the greatest armed conflict, and such histories feature no guarantee of complete lineages or narratives.

Invasive Species Management

To expand our understanding of invasive species management, we briefly assessed the ecological, cultural, and social impacts of their presence or removal on the site. We present this review with the caveat that no review especially one as broad as this one nor any study we reviewed especially those based in habitats outside New England or on terrain that greatly differs from that of Muddy Pond can replace the insights of experienced natural resource managers, ecologists, and conservationists like those whom we partnered with and interviewed. Rather, this review supplemented those conversations and provided additional insights into fire based land management, which has been referenced as possibilities on the Muddy Pond site.

18 Lawler, Julia H., and Ryan C. L. Bullock. “A Case for Indigenous Community Forestry.” Journal of Forestry 115, no. 2 (March 22, 2017): 117 25. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16 038

The Origin of the Term and Concept of ‘Invasive Species’

16 community land management is not synonymous with ecologically sustainable management, nor is it synonymous with Indigenous land management. However, Indigenous land management can become a forum to engage non Native community members in cultural education and local decision making practices beyond those of land management.

We first reviewed the terminology of invasive species, as well as general philosophies of invasive species treatment, integration, or removal from sites that they suggest. We also make brief reference to the literature of rewilding and its interaction with invasive species management. We then reviewed a few woody and herbaceous species that were frequent topics of discussion between us, our partners, our stakeholders, and the teaching team: black locust, Norway spruce, and Japanese knotweed.

Extensive arguments exist that invasives terminology stems from a nativist, xenophobic perspective, particularly with respect to species with names that indicate Asian origins.22, 23, 24 Three species with names that indicate an Asian origin Japanese knotweed, Oriental bittersweet, and Japanese barberry are present on the Muddy Pond site, and the first two are species on which the in progress land management plan will focus.

22 Colautti, Robert I., and Hugh J. MacIsaac. “A Neutral Terminology to Define ‘Invasive’ Species.” Diversity and Distributions 10, no. 2 (2004): 135 41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366 9516.2004.00061.x

23 Simberloff, Daniel. “Confronting Introduced Species: A Form of Xenophobia?” Biological Invasions 5, no. 3 (September 1, 2003): 179 92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026164419010

24 Ross, Catriona. "Prolonged Symptoms of Cultural Anxiety: The Persistance of Narratives of Asian Invasion within Multicultural Australia." Journal of the Association for the Study of Australian Literature 5 (2006).

19 “System of Registries | US EPA.” Accessed May 19, ossaryName=Chesapeake%20Bay%20Glossaryhttps://sor.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?detai2021.ls=&gl 20 Murphy, Helen T., Jeremy VanDerWal, Lesley Lovett Doust, and Jon Lowtt Doust. "Invasiveness in exotic plants: immigration and naturalization in an ecological continuum." In Conceptual ecology and invasion biology: reciprocal approaches to nature, pp. 65 105. Springer, Dordrecht, 2006. 21 Brown, James H., and Dov F. Sax. “Biological Invasions and Scientific Objectivity: Reply to Cassey et al. (2005).” Austral Ecology 30, no. 4 (2005): 481 83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442 9993.2005.01504.x.

The term and concept of invasive species both have origins in Western scientific tradition and associated governance. Both the terminology to describe these species, as well as the associated definitions, vary widely. Though ecologists and policy makers debate the precise ‘evidence based’ definition of what constitutes an invasive species, for the purposes of this report, we define invasives using the US EPA definition: those species which were introduced intentionally or inadvertantly to a new environment through human action. The EPA terms them as equivalent to introduced species, exotic, alien, or non native species.19 Other sources call these species opportunist, immigrant, or naturalized species.20 The term ‘invasive’ carries negative associations which have been argued to spur scientific and public perception of these species as more negative ecological presences than their actual ecological contributions would suggest.

28 Gammon, Andrea R. “The Many Meanings of Rewilding: An Introduction and the Case for a Broad Conceptualisation.” Environmental Values 27, no. 4 (August 1, 2018): 331 50. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15251686827705

27 Rewilding: A Brief Foray

25 In reference to species that spread through historical and contemporary settler colonial practices, ‘invasive species’ as a term and as a physical ecological presence explicitly link ecology and colonialism by service as evidence of land theft and land disturbance.26 Naming species as ‘alien’ or ‘invasive’ provides a language for Indigenous peoples to voice a form of discrimination and make legible colonial land practices in a post colonial state.

25 Larson, Brendon M. H. “An Alien Approach to Invasive Species: Objectivity and Society in Invasion Biology.” Biological Invasions 9, no. 8 (December 1, 2007): 947 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530 007 9095 z 26 Menozzi, Filippo. “Invasive Species and the Territorial Machine: Shifting Interfaces between Ecology and the Postcolonial.” Ariel: A Review of International English Literature 44, no. 4 (2013): 181 204. https://doi.org/10.1353/ari.2013.0038

29 Watson, Alan E. “Human Relationships with Wilderness: The Fundamental Definition of Wilderness Character.” International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 4 7, 2004, 4 7.

30 Klyza, Christopher McGrory, ed. Wilderness comes home: Rewilding the Northeast. UPNE, 2001.

Efforts to alter ‘invasives’ terminology toward more ‘value neutral’ naming encourages an attitude of inaction against these species, which undermines many invasive species biologists’ inherently conservationist philosophy.

27 Comaroff, Jean, and L. Comaroff. “Naturing the Nation: Aliens, Apocalypse and the Postcolonial State.” Journal of Southern African Studies 27, no. 3 (September 1, 2001): 627 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430120074626.

The literature of rewilding presents no clear definition of this term, which instead refers to a series of conservation approaches. One major rewilding approach emphasizes hands off, intervention free, light to no human use of particular lands as a way to return these lands to wilderness, or uncultivated and uninhabited land.28 , 29 This approach, which favors lands’ natural evolution, is closely aligned with the philosophy of the Northeast Wilderness Trust. Depending on particular conservation practitioners, it may feature a hands off approach to invasive species that allows them to remain in place.30 Another major branch proposes the reintroduction of large

are known anthropogenic drivers of ecological change. Their introduction and settlement is widely associated with habitat destruction, succession, and loss of biodiversity, particularly for invasive species that outcompete native or endangered ones in a similar ecological niche.34, 35, 36 In some instances, invasive species’ initial introduction may impose a limited burden on native species, followed by later ecological succession that reduces

32 Corlett, Richard T. “Restoration, Reintroduction, and Rewilding in a Changing World.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31, no. 6 (June 1, 2016): 453 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.017.

31 Bakker, Elisabeth S., and Jens Christian Svenning. “Trophic Rewilding: Impact on Ecosystems under Global Change.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373, no. 1761 (December 5, 2018): 20170432. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0432.

33 Nogués Bravo, David, Daniel Simberloff, Carsten Rahbek, and Nathan James Sanders. “Rewilding Is the New Pandora’s Box in Conservation.” Current Biology 26, no. 3 (February 8, 2016): R87 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.044

Holistic Rationale for Invasives Management, Integration, or Removal

34 Vitousek, Peter M., Carla M. D'antonio, Lloyd L. Loope, Marcel Rejmanek, and Randy Westbrooks. "Introduced species: a significant component of human caused global change." New Zealand Journal of Ecology (1997): 1 16.

Invasive species pose significant risks to local communities’ biological, cultural, and economic well being. Invasive species management, whether through chemicals, fire, or manual practices, poses significant economic and ecological costs and benefits, many of which are not easily nor accurately

19 or apex predator species, or in the case of extinct species, their close proxies, to re constitute missing high up trophic levels.31 , 32, 33

35 Huxel, Gary R. “Rapid Displacement of Native Species by Invasive Species: Effects of Hybridization.” Biological Conservation 89, no. 2 (July 1, 1999): 143 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006 3207(98)00153 0 36 Ehrenfeld, Joan G., and Neal Scott. “Invasive Species and the Soil: Effects on Organisms and Ecosystem Processes1.” Ecological Applications 11, no. 5 (2001): 1259 60. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051 0761(2001)011[1259:ISATSE]2.0.CO;2

Ecologically,monetizable.invasivespecies

41 Olson, Lars J. “The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35, no. 1 (April 2006): 178 94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500010145.

42 Warziniack, Travis, Robert G. Haight, Denys Yemshanov, Jenny L. Apriesnig, Thomas P. Holmes, Amanda M. Countryman, John D. Rothlisberger, and Christopher Haberland. “Economics of Invasive Species.” In Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector, edited by Therese M. Poland, Toral Patel Weynand, Deborah M. Finch, Chelcy Ford Miniat, Deborah C. Hayes, and Vanessa M. Lopez, 305 20. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021.

38 Caceres Escobar, Hernan, Salit Kark, Scott C. Atkinson, Hugh P. Possingham, and Katrina J. Davis. “Integrating Local Knowledge to Prioritise Invasive Species Management.” People and Nature 1, no. 2 (2019): 220 33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.27

While some invasive species are economically innocuous, others disrupt ecosystem services with significant economic value, resulting in considerable economic costs, particularly to local economies that rely on native flora.38, 39, 40 Precise economic impacts are difficult to calculate, partly because ecosystem services have cultural and aesthetic values beyond those that can be monetized; terrestrial and invasive species management proves beneficial in protecting these services.41 The costs of controlling such invasive species monetary and environmental, if management methods feature extensive chemical use can also, however, be substantial. As of February 2021, U.S. federal agencies report spending, on average, half a billion dollars each year since 2000 on invasive species management activities.42 Long term invasive management activities can involve high labor and monetary costs with little to show for native biodiversity 37 Lankau, Richard A. “Coevolution between Invasive and Native Plants Driven by Chemical Competition and Soil Biota.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 28 (July 10, 2012): 11240 45. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201343109.

39 Holmes, Thomas P., Juliann E. Aukema, Betsy Von Holle, Andrew Liebhold, and Erin Sills. “Economic Impacts of Invasive Species in Forest Past, Present, and Future.” In: The Year In Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1162:18 38. 1162 (2009): 18 38.

20 native species diversity and population size, features invasive native species co evolution, or some combination of the two.37

40 Warziniack, Travis, Robert G. Haight, Denys Yemshanov, Jenny L. Apriesnig, Thomas P. Holmes, Amanda M. Countryman, John D. Rothlisberger, and Christopher Haberland. “Economics of Invasive Species.” In Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector, edited by Therese M. Poland, Toral Patel Weynand, Deborah M. Finch, Chelcy Ford Miniat, Deborah C. Hayes, and Vanessa M. Lopez, 305 20. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 3 030 45367 1_14.

These invasive species can negatively impact cultural practices; their removal paired with upkeep to maintain such removal may enable native species’ and associated cultural traditions’ restoration. Invasive species, particularly when introduced through settler colonial practices, can outcompete native species that have particular cultural importance in addition to ecological or economic importance. In her discussion of the invasive emerald ash borer’s decimation of Michigan’s native black ash population, Robin Wall Kimmerer depicts how this tree’s loss also constituted a loss to traditional Potawatomi black ash basketry, To most people, an invasive species represents losses in a landscape, the empty spaces to be filled by something else. To those who carry the responsibility of an ancient relationship, the empty niche means empty hands and a hole in the collective heart.44

If invasive species’ presence poses this form of threat to cultural practices, their management may pose significant benefits to those practices’ restoration. Management strategies could themselves be culturally significant; cultural burns could provide an opportunity for invasive management that reduces the from chemical or manual management methods. Cultural burns were prevalent in New England prior to the arrival of European settler colonists.

020 0579 5

45 43 Cordell, Susan, Rebecca Ostertag, Jené Michaud, and Laura Warman. “Quandaries of a Decade Long Restoration Experiment Trying to Reduce Invasive Species: Beat Them, Join Them, Give up, or Start Over?” Restoration Ecology 24, no. 2 (2016): 139 44. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12321

21 improvement; however, conservations seeking to bolster native species often desire some form of ‘return’ to a ‘past ecological state’ and therefore engage in repeated, long term invasive species removal to arrive at this ‘past state.’

44 Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions, 2013. 45 Roos, Christopher I. “Scale in the Study of Indigenous Burning.” Nature Sustainability 3, no. 11 (November 2020): 898 99. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893

Species Specific Findings

Drawing again from Kimmerer, as quoted in a communication from Leslie Jonas, to demonstrate fire’s cultural and ecological significance in Indigenous practice, The land gives us so many gifts; fire is a way we can give back. In modern times, the public thinks fire is only destructive, but they’ve forgotten, or simply never knew, how people used fire as a creative force. The fire stick was like a paintbrush on the landscape. Touch it here in a small dab and you’ve made a green meadow for elk; a light scatter there burns off the brush so the oaks make more acorns. Stipple it under the canopy and it thins the stand to prevent catastrophic fire. Draw the firebrush along the creek and the next spring it’s a thick stand of yellow willows. A wash over a grassy meadow turns it blue with camas. To make blueberries, let the paint dry for a few years and repeat. Our people were given the responsibility to use fire to make things beautiful and productive it was our art and our science.

22 Paleoecological work indicates that fire management practices likely contributed to centuries of pre colonial fire resistant native oak, hemlock, and chestnut populations, the last of which provided significant food value.46 Across North America, Indigenous fire practices were a key part of periodically preparing the land for the succession of berries, annuals, and perennials in post fire landscapes.

48 Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions, 2013.

46 Foster, David R., Susan Clayden, David A. Orwig, Brian Hall, and Sylvia Barry. “Oak, Chestnut and Fire: Climatic and Cultural Controls of Long Term Forest Dynamics in New England, USA.” Journal of Biogeography 29, no. 10 11 (2002): 1359 79. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365 2699.2002.00760.x 47 Berkes, F., 2012. Sacred ecology, “Chapter 4: Traditional Knowledge Systems in Practice,” Routledge.

50 As climate change alters temperatures to be closer to those present in black locusts’ native habitat in the mid-Atlantic and American South, they may proliferate and spread further north.

However, their adaptability also makes them competitors against more desirable species; black locust forest succession reduces species diversity and attracts other nitrophilic species not often found in New England native stands. Its seed based dispersal, rapid growth, and adaptation to poor soils makes it an ideal candidate for proliferation in the Muddy Pond site’s sand rich soil.

53 Ward, Jeffrey. Restoration of Damaged Stands: Dealing with the After Effects of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, 2002.

50 Benesperi, Renato, Claudia Giuliani, Silvana Zanetti, Matilde Gennai, Marta Mariotti Lippi, Tommaso Guidi, Juri Nascimbene, and Bruno Foggi. “Forest Plant Diversity Is Threatened by Robinia Pseudoacacia (Black Locust) Invasion.” Biodiversity and Conservation 21, no. 14 (December 1, 2012): 3555 68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531 012 0380 5. 51 Kurtz, Cassandra M., and Mark H. Hansen. “An Assessment of Black Locust in Northern U.S. Forests.” Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS RN 248 52 Foster, David R., and John D. Aber. Forests in time: the environmental consequences of 1,000 years of change in New England, “Chapter 3: Biogeochemistry,” Yale University Press, 2004.

Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). A tree species native to Appalachia and the American South, black locust stands are invasive to New England. As nitrogen fixers, black locusts adapt to a variety of soil environments and are thought to beneficially increase soil nitrogen reserves.

Norway spruce (Picea abies). An invasive species introduced during European colonization, Norway spruce joins native red spruce that are ordinarily found in the mid Atlantic region or limited to Massachusetts wetlands in proliferating across New England.52 With the spread of hemlock woolly adelgid and its subsequent decimation of native Eastern hemlock, upon infested hemlock removal, Norway spruce has been introduced as a coniferous alternative.53 Recent work indicates that Norway spruce forests attract similar bird species, and similar amounts of birds, 49 Vítková, Michaela, Jaroslav Tonika, and Jana Müllerová. “Black Locust Successful Invader of a Wide Range of Soil Conditions.” Science of The Total Environment 505 (February 1, 2015): 315 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.104.

24 compared to similarly sized native hemlock stands.54 Norway spruce are still prone to infestation by multiple species of beetles, though they have natural defenses against such pests.55, 56 Their ecological benefit as hemlock alternatives, paired with their resource intensive survival requirements and sequestration of nutrients away from other species, demonstrates that it is worth closely investigating the position that invasive species are axiomatically a net negative to environments.

57 Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica, synonyms Fallopia japonica and Polygonum cuspidatum). A flowering invasive species with global spread, including across the continental U.S. and Hawai’i, Japanese knotweed is a perennial species that takes root in sites that show signs of human habitation, rather than forests. It is also a plant that can be eaten.58 It is a rhizome forming species which alters soil chemistry in its favor, which can prove disadvantageous to neighboring plants.59 Invasive knotweed is a shrub often found in wetland or riparian habitats, like that of the Muddy Pond site, which are particularly prone to disturbance and invasive species intrusion.60 Japanese knotwood’s presence in New England habitats has been correlated with 54 Ritter, Calvin. “The Ecological Value of Spruce Plantations in Massachusetts.” Masters Theses, July 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.7275/17383805

58 Cite Chuckie talking to us about this an interview, also find another source about this 59 Lavoie, Claude. “The Impact of Invasive Knotweed Species (Reynoutria Spp.) on the Environment: Review and Research Perspectives.” Biological Invasions 19, no. 8 (August 1, 2017): 2319 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530 017 1444 y

55 Everaerts, Claude, Jean Claude Grégoire, and Joël Merlin. "The toxicity of Norway spruce monoterpenes to two bark beetle species and their associates." In Mechanisms of woody plant defenses against insects, pp. 335 344. Springer, New York, NY, 1988. 56 Chiu, Christine C., Christopher I. Keeling, and Joerg Bohlmann. "Toxicity of pine monoterpenes to mountain pine beetle." Scientific reports 7, no. 1 (2017): 1 8. 57 Goodenough, A. E. “Are the Ecological Impacts of Alien Species Misrepresented? A Review of the ‘Native Good, Alien Bad’ Philosophy.” Community Ecology 11, no. 1 (June 1, 2010): 13 21. https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.11.2010.1.3

60 Tickner, David P., Penelope G. Angold, Angela M. Gurnell, and J. Owen Mountford. “Riparian Plant Invasions: Hydrogeomorphological Control and Ecological Impacts.” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 25, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 22 52. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913330102500102

018 1684 5 62 Bailey, John P., Kateřina Bímová, and Bohumil Mandák. “Asexual Spread versus Sexual Reproduction and Evolution in Japanese Knotweed s.l. Sets the Stage for the ‘Battle of the Clones.’” Biological Invasions 11, no. 5 (May 1, 2009): 1189 1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530 008 9381 4 63 Jones, Daniel, Gareth Bruce, Mike S. Fowler, Rhyan Law Cooper, Ian Graham, Alan Abel, F. Alayne Street Perrott, and Daniel Eastwood. “Optimising Physiochemical Control of Invasive Japanese Knotweed.” Biological Invasions 20, no. 8 (August 1, 2018): 2091 2105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530

018 1684 5 64 Kimmerer, Robin Wall. “Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to Action.” BioScience 52, no. 5 (May 1, 2002): 432 38. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006 3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

decreased species diversity and nutrient cycling. Knotweed had significant negative impacts on native species diversity reduction.61 It spreads clonally, but can also sexually reproduce, which together makes it a challenging species to completely remove from a habitat, as residual rhizomes or shoots can serve as sources for new clones to grow.62 Removal often requires multiple physical and chemical strategies (tarp smothering, cutting, root removal, herbicide) at multiple seasons of the year, for multiple years. Glyphosate and other herbicides have had effects in prior management and removal strategies.63

While there is no one definition for Traditional Ecological Knowledge, we drew upon works from Fikret Berke and Robin Wall Kimmerer to define it here as “the knowledge, practice, and belief of living beings to one another and to the physical environment”: a rational, observational, and spiritual knowledge drawn from close contact with environments for multiple generations which is flexible, culturally transmitted, and open to reevaluation in light of new observations.64

TEK is not limited to Native American nor to Indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world. However, it is part of the knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples, which flows from 61 Jones, Daniel, Gareth Bruce, Mike S. Fowler, Rhyan Law Cooper, Ian Graham, Alan Abel, F. Alayne Street Perrott, and Daniel Eastwood. “Optimising Physiochemical Control of Invasive Japanese Knotweed.” Biological Invasions 20, no. 8 (August 1, 2018): 2091 2105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530

governance structures, social norms, spiritual beliefs, and historical and contemporary experiences of colonial dispossession and marginalization.

66 Many scientific practitioners in ecology and agriculture, pharmacology and medicine, and in other fields have grown to recognize the value and importance of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as an intellectual equal to Western science, an equality that is codified in the UN Environmental Program’s Convention on Biological Diversity.67 Scientists, planners, and policymakers have brought up Traditional Ecological Knowledge, with its understanding of seasonal connection and variability, as valuable for community adaptation and resilience in response to threats like climate change.68, 69

65 Wehi, Priscilla M., Hēmi Whaanga, and Tom Roa. “Missing in Translation: Maori Language and Oral Tradition in Scientific Analyses of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).” Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 39, no. 4 (December 1, 2009): 201 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510580.

66 Nalau, Johanna, Susanne Becken, Johanna Schliephack, Meg Parsons, Cilla Brown, and Brendan Mackey. “The Role of Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge in Ecosystem Based Adaptation: A Review of the Literature and Case Studies from the Pacific Islands.” Weather, Climate, and Society 10, no. 4 (October 1, 2018): 851 65. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS D 18 0032.1 67 [UNEP] United Nations Environment Programme. "Report of the fourth meeting of the parties to the convention on biodiversity." (1998). 68 Ruelle, Morgan L., and Karim Aly S. Kassam. “Diversity of Plant Knowledge as an Adaptive Asset: A Case Study with Standing Rock Elders.” Economic Botany 65, no. 3 (2011): 295 307.

26 information gathering to practices to the creation of physical and spiritual worldviews.

“Indigenous Knowledge” and “Traditional Knowledge” contain overlap but are not definitionally the same.65 This knowledge can include local natural resource management, sociocultural

Given the focus on balancing Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western science (which we and our partners refer to as “STEM”) within our partners and advisors’ previous experience, we conducted a brief review of literature of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and instances where it has been used alongside STEM studies of ecology and environment.

https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315315928

69 Maldonado, Julie, Heather Lazrus, Shiloh Kay Bennett, Karletta Chief, Carla May Dhillon, Bob Gough, Linda Kruger, Jeff Morisette, Stefan Petrovic, and Kyle Powys Whyte. “The Story of Rising Voices: Facilitating Collaboration between Indigenous and Western Ways of Knowing.” Responses to Disasters and Climate Change: Understanding Vulnerability and Fostering Resilience, January 1, 2016, 15 25.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge may be in different cultural linguistic terms than many scientists are used to, such as when the language ascribes agency and spirituality to animals and plants, elements, or entities such as water, landscapes, and ecosystems. Oral tradition, narrative based knowledge, and Indigenous storytelling are a key vehicle for passing Indigenous Knowledge in general.71 When ecological observations are embedded in stories, ceremonies, or prophesies, scientists do not often understand or see their contribution.

Because STEM practitioners often require TEK be made legible in Western scientific terms, recording TEK often requires social scientific methods, such as interview, ethnography, workshops, and fieldwork collaboration. Constructing the narrative of TEK therefore is a sizable project in itself, prior to its application alongside STEM.73 This project is complicated by the fact that Indigenous knowledge is often represented as homogenous within cultural groups, such as

73 Huntington, Henry P. “Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications.” Ecological Applications 10, no. 5 (2000): 1270 74. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051 0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2

70 Whyte, Kyle. “What Do Indigenous Knowledges Do for Indigenous Peoples?” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, January 27, 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2612715

71 Huntington, Henry P. “Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications.” Ecological Applications 10, no. 5 (2000): 1270 74. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051 0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2.

72 Whyte, Kyle. “What Do Indigenous Knowledges Do for Indigenous Peoples?” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, January 27, 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2612715

In partnerships with STEM, Traditional Ecological Knowledge is, and yet transcends being, “supplemental knowledge” that contributes information that Western scientific methods do not track, to contributing to Indigenous nation building. It therefore has both “supplemental” and “governance” value as a form of knowledge, which scientists trained in STEM should recognize, as such governance knowledge is key to Indigenous self determination and sovereignty.70

28 an individual tribe. However, there can be differences in knowledge within a single tribe.

Moreover, making such knowledge legible for scientists or Western academic practitioners devalues the importance of oral tradition and oral storytelling, resulting in knowledge lost in translation.

75 Wehi, Priscilla M., Hēmi Whaanga, and Tom Roa. “Missing in Translation: Maori Language and Oral Tradition in Scientific Analyses of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).” Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 39, no. 4 (December 1, 2009): 201 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510580

74 Ruelle, Morgan L., and Karim Aly S. Kassam. “Diversity of Plant Knowledge as an Adaptive Asset: A Case Study with Standing Rock Elders.” Economic Botany 65, no. 3 (2011): 295 307.

Muddy Pond was formerly a Catholic girls’ summer camp, called Camp Mishannock or Morningstar, owned and operated by the Sisters of Divine Providence.76 Upon consultation with Susan Aprill, an archivist from the Kingston Public Library, it appears that around May 1962, this camp was part of the Gurnett estate. The Plymouth Registry of Deeds shows that the Sisters of Divine Providence bought around 600 acres called the "Clearing Farm" from Mary E. Gurnett (1946 10 01, Book 1929, Pages 168 169). Prior to 1948 and this ownership by the Sisters, the site was reportedly a dairy farm. In fact, during our in-person visit to Muddy Pond, we came across a root cellar that could have been used to store dairy products. Additionally, the Jones River Village Historical Society (JRVHS) cites that during the 1700s, the area was once used as a sheep pasture.

Site-Specific Knowledge Site Land Use

77 As we walked through the trails on the Muddy Pond site, Leslie provided further insight that Indigenous ancestors most likely lived on the site in villages. She explained that the trails we walked were naturally made hundreds of years ago. Furthermore, the NLC website states that the 90 mile long river trip known as the Wampanoag Canoe Passage was used by Wampanoag people for thousands of years.78 Site specific land use issues to note include contention over fishing access in Muddy Pond and the erosion of the Pond banks due to use. Importantly, the 76 Rapid Ecological Assessment for Muddy Pond Camp Tract. Kingston, Massachusetts. By Tim Simmons of Simmons Stewardship Ecology. September 2020. 77 2003 an abstract of minutes of the Jones River Village Historical Society (JRVHS) 78 http://www.nativelandconservancy.org/projects.html

30 surrounding area of Kingston is expanding rapidly at a growth rate of almost 10% from 2010 to 2019.

The Muddy Pond conservation area is part of the Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens Ecoregion, a globally imperiled and rare ecosystem. It is a coastal plain pond shore habitat, which is a priority habitat for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. The Muddy Pond area is predominately kettle and kame topography, meaning it was formed primarily through glacial recession. There are four types of wetlands on the site and there is presence of vernal pools, which are seasonal and therefore temporary wetlands. The site is 60% forested with oak (northern red, black, scarlet, and white oak), red maple, white pine, and pitch pine. Non native trees include Norway Spruce and Japanese Larch. There are also 2.5 acres of mixed cultural and natural grasslands which are changing to ferns and milkweed. The site includes animal species such as the New England Bluet and the Eastern Box turtle, as well as several notable bat species. The Rapid Ecological Assessment found the site to be in exceptionally good condition in its ratio of native to non native species, especially when compared with surrounding site conditions.

Tim Simmons expressed to us that the site is of particular importance due to its convergence of geology, hydrology, and expressive flora. Most of the similar habitats present in Massachusetts are under severe stress due to over withdrawal of groundwater, overdevelopment, declining water quality, and invasive aquatic plants. Now there are just a handful of intact lands like this 79 Rapid Ecological Assessment for Muddy Pond Camp Tract. Kingston, Massachusetts. By Tim Simmons of Simmons Stewardship Ecology. September 2020.

79 Site Ecology

● Japanese knotweed: (See: Literature Review, Invasive Species Management).

Below is a list of invasive tree, shrub, and plant species. A review of invasive species literature (see: Literature Review), conversations with Leslie and Chuckie, maps of the site, and the site visit formed these interim observations about the site’s present and future species management.

Site Invasive Species

● Black locust: Multiple Black Locust groves are present on the site and are slated for removal. (See: Literature Review, Invasive Species Management).

● Norway spruce: Two groves of Norway spruce are present on the site. Preliminary findings indicate that some of these, along with a white oak, make up a root cellar present on the site (see: History). These groves are projected for removal to free resources for nearby herbaceous plants and native tree stands; however, teaching team discussions of such removal have made reference to possible bird species which, according to a recent study (see: Literature Review), rely on Norway spruce stands as replacements for declining Eastern hemlock. Leslie and Chuckie have discussed the possibility of

31 one that are under ownership of land trusts. Unfortunately, Tim noted that if one visits the other ones, one sees that “people love them to death” through trampling and overuse. Jon Leibowitz, Executive Director of the Northeast Wilderness Trust (NEWT) described how the NEWT managed surrounding Muddy Pond Wilderness Preserve experiences heavy human use, primarily because of ATVs, mountain bikers, and hikers. NEWT monitors this use and discourages it because of its negative ecological impact. Although the 32 acre Muddy Pond site has also experienced ATV and foot traffic from locals, it is still relatively preserved.

32 introducing white cedar to replace the removed Norway spruce. (See: Literature Review, Invasive Species Management). ● Oriental bittersweet ● Autumn olive ● Multifloral rose ● Japanese barberry ● Gray willow ● Yellow iris In addition, the following native species were recorded during the site visit and through conversations with Leslie and Chuckie. ● White oak ● White cedar ● Eastern Turtle Species, including endangered Northern Red Bellied Cooter

○ Sustainability

33 Additional Sources of Knowledge Stakeholder Interviews Our team conducted several interviews with stakeholders who are key players in the land transformation and community engagement aspects of the Muddy Pond project. Below is a list of our interviewees and their expertise areas: ● Leslie Jonas, Vice Chair of the Native Land Conservancy ○ Restoration and preservation of precious Lands and Water, Indigenous lifeways, native species, community engagement

○

●

● Chuckie Green, Assist. Natural Resources Director at Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe TEK and Stem, restorative rewilding, ecological POH youth engagement, ecological and land management Pete Westover, NLC Land Management Lead, Conservation management, technical land management incorporating for invasives management, TEK and STEM fusion

Works ○ Land

regenerating

plans,

● Tim Simmons, Conservation Ecologist

systems,

questions, invasives

natural/organic methods

● Peter Crawley, Sustainability Mgmnt. Consultant and Rep. for Muddy Pond practices, phased logistics, large project overseeing management, management and logistics, prepping site to hand over to NLC for cultural practice

Main

Invasive

○ Water and land co management practices, partnership building, wilderness conservation and rewilding, law (Memorandum of Understanding with the NLC)

34 ○ Invasive species, water quality, endangered species, questions from Rapid Ecological Assessment, controlled burns

Based on our interviews, it is very clear that all stakeholders involved in this project are enthusiastic about partnering with the NLC in transforming Muddy Pond. All interviewees expressed a desire to integrate Indigenous approaches to land conservation and recognized the significance of this site as an opportunity to return stolen land to Indigenous peoples. This dedication to Native communities is actually one of the reasons why the Muddy Pond Trust board chose to transfer the conservation site to the NLC, as stated by Peter Crawley. Learning about the origins of this partnership was insightful in understanding the intentions of both Native and non Native stakeholders, especially since this partnership is still at an early stage. Furthermore, these interviews were invaluable in creating opportunities for knowledge exchange and stronger partnership building. Asthe NLC continues to prioritize and finalize their vision for Muddy Pond, we hope that these analyses can help inform their next steps. Detailed below are the main takeaways from our interviews pertaining to the ecological and sociocultural use of Muddy Pond. Takeaways Species Management

● Jon Leibowitz, NEWT Executive Director

For over 100 years, the Muddy Pond site was seriously manipulated and disturbed. This abuse continues in the present day due to human trespassing and terrain vehicles that have created scars and manipulated natural land contours. Despite this mistreatment, the site is a special ecosystem because it is surrounded by virgin pine barren forest that haven’t been disturbed. This is very fascinating to note since old growth forests are extremely rare in the Northeast. As for land management strategies, Westover preferred natural regeneration over replanting native plants due to lower maintenance. When considering asphalt removal, he strongly encouraged covering

Peter Westover and Tim Simmons are ecologists and Chuckie Green is a natural resource manager, and each has vast experience in invasive species management. In context of the Muddy Pond site, Westover highlighted Black swallow wort, Oriental bittersweet, and Japanese Knotweed as invasive species that are very difficult to remove by natural methods (e.g. cutting, burning, goats, etc.) due to excessive labor and time required. He also stated that use of herbicides (triclopyr, glyphosate, foliar spray) are valuable if used carefully to prevent contamination into water ecosystems. Tim Simmons also recommended careful application of herbicides through his “cut and drip” method which kills only targeted plants through their stems. Phragmites is a harmful invasive that is not present on the site currently, however, Simmons expects it to show up in the next decade and stressed the importance of detecting it early. Chuckie Green spoke about the ecological and cultural importance of small burns for species removal. Even though there are many benefits to removing invasives especially through fire ecology, Chuckie Green referenced a few invasive uses, such as Japanese knotweed as a food source and the Black locust wood for harvesting.

Land Use & Management

Cultural Education Center

Our non Native interviewees spoke very candidly about TEK and expressed interest in learning more about Native traditions and perspective on land. Westover referred to TEK as an “entire philosophy of managing land” and Crawley shared his appreciation for the simple light touch of Native lifeways through their small scale planting and traditional wetu structures. Chuckie Green, as the Culture Keeper of POH, is very knowledgeable about the value of TEK in recording knowledge through traditional oral stories. One example is the “Maushop the Giant” Wampanoag legend that describes the builder of the islands and protector of tribes.80 He describes how this story references a glacier that was involved in forming the Massachusetts landscape. In this way, TEK complements Western science in illustrating the geological and cultural history of the Wampanoag Nation. The NLC recognizes the wisdom and importance of both sets of knowledge and how they can inform land conservation approaches.

36 the land and allowing plants to cover the area to prevent erosion. For higher level management, Westover and Simmons emphasized the importance of regular species monitoring and conducting biological, cultural, historical, hydrological, and soils inventories. Doing this effectively and early can help the NLC be adaptive and inform their next steps.

TEK and STEM

An important part of Muddy Pond's use would be to support community needs through a cultural education center that can be a key location for cultural programming. Some of the potential uses 80 Moshup the Giant A Wampanoag Legend. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP Html Legends/Moshup the Giant Wampanoag.html 20 May 2021

Accessed

As a sustainability expert, Peter Crawley spoke about the plans to green the future building. The building will be a net zero energy project and will include solar PV installations, battery storage, sustainably sourced wood and natural materials. In addition, the building will have well water and lots of ventilation with little/to no air conditioning. Crawley is excited about the prospects of this new sustainable building that will serve the NLC well in the long term.

Youth Engagement

Additionally, there will be a steward living on the land year round in an apartment close to the cultural education center. The steward will not only be an active community member with knowledge on the restoration process of the Wampanoag Nation Common Lands, but will also make sure that the site is being used in an environmentally responsible way. The steward will also assist with the various community events on site.

In tandem with the land management plan, our interviewees supported opportunities for youth engagement and environmental education. Part of the core values of the Muddy Pond restoration project is to restore community space, and youth engagement is crucial to the continuation and cohesiveness of the Wampanoag Nation.

37 for the center include: Wampanoag Nation social events, cultural practices, and educational sessions for youth on land, food and foraging, gardening, and Wampanoag language. The space will also be made available for the Wampanoag Nation to use and to hold inter community and inter Tribal gatherings. As for non Native people, the NLC is considering possible visitation access for non Native peoples, including in cultural education programming, as well as restrictions that should be in place to preserve the site for its intended uses.

Climate Change

Westover suggested plant or bird monitoring as a potential activity but also warned about keeping this inventory internal to NLC. As someone who has fond childhood memories on the site, Crawley enthusiastically recommended programmed time and natural play time for youth to appreciate the land’s ecology. He also suggested teaching youth about flora and fauna, species behavior, vernal pools, climate change, and methods to monitor water and air quality as part of a community or citizen science project.

According to Pete Westover, storm damage is a serious issue because the site is mostly (approximately 75%) invasive white pine, stands of which might be unrecoverable if extensive storm damage occurs. Tim Simmons also spoke about intense flooding and precipitation, which has already eradicated three species populations, including the Northeast boneset and fungal associations, from the site. Fortunately, the site’s dynamic habitat and period floods make it hard for invasives to thrive. The rise of ticks is also a major climate change issue that our team experienced first hand when we visited the site in person. According to Simmons, deer reduction/hunting is the most efficient solution to getting rid of ticks. Tick management is an important public health issue for NLC to consider for community members visiting the site. Multiple invasive Lone Star ticks were found during our site visit. It is also possible that fire management practices, if feasible on site, may aid in tick reduction.

The Future of Muddy Pond Land Use The Cultural Education Center

To facilitate cultural gatherings within the Muddy Pond area, the Native Land Conservancy is in the process of planning a multi use community center for members of the Wampanoag Nation and non Native visitors. The center is planned for completion in August 2022. It will feature classrooms and learning areas for members of the Wampanoag Nation, particularly Wampanoag youth, to participate in cultural education programming. Such programming will include, but is not limited to, language workshops, cultural education, food preparation, traditional gardening, place based practices, tribal social events, and the Preserving Our Homelands camp. Also as stated by Peter Crawley in his interview, sustainable infrastructure and locally sourced materials will be incorporated in the center’s construction (solar PVs, battery storage, ventilation, etc.). Below are schematics of its placement in the 32 acre site and its internal rooms.

The “NWT” label, indicated in the diagram above, will be a designated space for a NEWT representative to be there part time. Jon Leibowitz is enthusiastic about this office serving as space to continue strengthening the partnership between NEWT and the NLC. This office may serve as a visible space to cement and demonstrate this unique partnership between NEWT and the NLC, the first of its kind between a Native founded, Native run land trust and a non Native land trust. As our team has witnessed while interviewing Jon and Leslie together, their partnership is currently in a productive phase of determining shared values, after which it will proceed to determining shared actions they each can take in managing their neighboring lands. This NEWT

White oak is also a medicinal species; making tea with its bark helps to improve digestion and reduce symptoms of arthritis.

Culturally Significant Species

For NEWT, which views the neighboring Muddy Pond Wilderness Preserve as an “ambassadorial” site for its frequent human traversal and presence next to a populous area, this office will be beneficial in monitoring the land to keep off ATVs, reduce human trespassing, and ensure a safe use of the site.

Northern Sweetgrass: A native perennial grass with important ceremonial and medicinal uses for the Mashpee Wampanoag, sweetgrass is a plant which would serve a key cultural use.

White oak: This tree has a harder wood that is used for burning. Traditionally, ancestral Wampanoag peoples might have used the tree for dugouts, mus8oons (mush-oons) or canoes.

Traditionally, this plant is burned for ceremonies and used for braiding and weaving into

42 office will be an asset in allowing both stakeholders to continue sharing their philosophies and finding common ground, though its specific uses are still to be determined.

In our investigation of relevant literature, site visit, and numerous conversations with Leslie and Chuckie, we learned about the cultural and ecological importance of particular native species which the Wampanoag Nation has used, or uses, frequently. The following is a synthesis of Leslie and Chuckie's descriptions of these.

White Cedar: In contrast to white oak, white cedar has softer wood that is used for building funeral cedar beds. The wood poles can also be bent to construct traditional wetus.

In addition to these culturally important plant species, the following animals have particular cultural importance as well. Some of these animal descriptors encompass multiple species that are local to the Muddy Pond area.

43 different fabrics or materials, such as pouch or pocket book materials. As the name suggests, this plant has a sweet smell when dried and soaked for weaving.81 Sassafras: A popular eastern woodland plant. This plant has a licorice like taste and is used medicinally as tea, particularly in the summer.

81 “Conserving the Sweetgrass Tradition | NRCS Massachusetts.” Accessed May 10, 82https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ma/newsroom/stories/?cid=nrcseprd14646892021. Byrne, Bill. “Northern Red Bellied Cooter,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 2.

Other culturally important animal species include: Deer, Yellow Bass, Red Tailed Hawks, Owls, Racoons, Rabbits

Eastern Turtle Species, such as Northern Red Bellied Cooter: A federally and state recognized threatened or endangered species, the Northern Red Bellied Cooter is found only in Plymouth County, MA.82 One was spotted during the site visit.

Other culturally important plant species include: Wild Berries, Cattails, Milkweed, Eastern Red Cedar, Pines.

Youth engagement is a particularly important part of the site restoration project and our final report. Part of the core values of the restoration project is to restore community space, and to Leslie and Chuckie, youth engagement and education is crucial to the continuation and cohesiveness of their community. Our goal is to build upon their current youth engagement programming and plans while also proposing additional tools for overall community engagement and Currently,transparency.Chuckie is heavily involved in the Preserving our Homelands (POH) summer camp. The Preserving our Homelands (POH) program is a 4 week summer environmental science camp for 3rd to 5th grade Indigenous youth. The camp is run by the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s Natural Resources and Education Departments. The goals of the camp are to educate Indigenous youth in land stewardship practices that are both embedded in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and environmental science, as well as to create deeper practical knowledge of climate change and its effects. As of now, Kitty Hendricks (POH Co Coordinator) and Chuckie (POH Culture Keeper) are in discussion with the NLC about activities for POH youth within the Muddy Pond area and the upcoming Cultural Education Center. In making Muddy Pond and its cultural education center accessible to POH, the NLC’s goals are to facilitate a deeper youth understanding of invasive species effects, practice restorative land management that incorporates both TEK and STEM, and potentially collaborate with other Indigenous led youth education initiatives to facilitate the

44 Programming Youth Engagement

To add to the NLC’s existing body of work with POH, we have created the framework for a StoryMap as a digital exploration tool of the environmental restoration process, with reference to culturally important species and invasive removal. Chuckie also mentioned that creating another POH film to document the youth’s activities on the site would be core to helping bring awareness to the program for more funding. This new video could also be included in future iterations of a StoryMap and serve as a project for a future class team or professional videography service to work on. In the near future, we hope that the NLC will collaborate with Chuckie, the Sassafras Earth Education Group (an Indigenous-led organization based in Aquinnah Wampanoag territory) and its founders David and Saskia Vanderhoop, and Kitty Hendricks to build upon previous facilitation techniques and youth engagement activities.

45 sharing of this knowledge across communities. While POH is normally a summer camp, Chuckie and Leslie were excited to consider the Muddy Pond site for year round programming if funding was able to be secured.

Chuckie and Leslie are still considering when the youth can visit the Muddy Pond site. Some possible setbacks to introducing them this summer would be the safety and construction times for the cultural education center. As of now, the site has many Lone Star ticks, which can cause severe allergic reactions to red meat in humans. While the site might not be ready for visitation by this summer, it will certainly be open to programming (at least within the cultural education center) by next summer.

Perspectives in Land Management

Throughout this project, it became clear that our project partners and the stakeholders we interviewed each had a perspective or philosophy on land management which continuously shapes the collective vision for the Muddy Pond site. Some of these philosophies include significant overlaps, while others feature points of difference that could, in future dialogue, become points of possible tension. Moreover, these actors have formed not only their personal perspectives, but also opinions on the perspectives of others in regard to land management.

This section of the report functions to distill the differences and similarities between these views of land management as they surfaced through interviews, casual discussion, and moments of realization in conversations between partners and stakeholders. All of these actors support the restoration of ecosystems and Native life ways to return ownership of the land to Indigenous people.

The Native Land Conservancy

The NLC’s philosophy is self expressed in the organization’s vision statement for the Muddy Pond site, which is reproduced below. With its acquisition and eco restoration of the Muddy Pond property, the Native Land Conservancy can rescue ancestral homelands and support Wampanoag Indigenous lifeways and cultural practices. The Wampanoag Nation Common Lands of Muddy Pond in Kingston MA will offer a new beginning for old ways through the creation of enriching programs for natives and the general population.

In order to reflect on our positionality as a student team, we also include our understanding of the MIT Indigenous Environmental Planning faculty’s land management philosophy. Although the STEM field is often projected in everyday society as if objective, non normative, and completely removed from social constructs, the student team felt there may be biases in our collective understandings of what beneficial ecological restoration looks like, even in our course discussions. As a result, we found ourselves frequently in discussion with our faculty advisors as to whether their perspectives on land management are as objectively necessary as they may seem, or if their status is more ambiguous.

MIT Teaching Team

The NLC has every intention of removing invasive species from the Muddy Pond site. They do not see ecological restoration as an attempt to return the land to a fixed moment in time, a conception that is sometimes present in Western scientific conservation practices. Rather, the NLC seeks to reinstate native species that hold cultural significance and ecological value for the future of the site. Land stewardship is not a new, expert driven, Western scientific practice alone. Rather, the NLC sees their relationship with the land within an Indigenous framework of stories and histories. The NLC has a holistic perspective on how they manage Muddy Pond that includes social and cultural interactions and Traditional Ecological Knowledge. They believe respectful and thoughtful human interactions are a major part of supporting the landscape. They are skeptical of using synthetic or chemical treatments on the land, and are open to considering cultural fire practices, if appropriate on the size of the site.

Northeast Wilderness Trust (NEWT) As the surrounding neighbor on Muddy Pond, NEWT is a significant stakeholder in the NLC’s restoration project. NEWT follows a mission based in “rewilding,” a land conservation practice

An example of this occured when the MIT teaching team provided feedback that complicated the notion of invasive species to push beyond the binary of invasive species as net negatives to the land. Discussions with the teaching team indicated that their philosophy could potentially make room for ecologically useful invasives, and they particularly urged us to consider the cost of removing particular species to others in the ecosystem, such as the impact of Norway spruce removal on native New England bird species which use these spruces as a home. Such considerations have importance, as they demonstrate the complicated nature of removing any species from an existing ecological framework.

They also have experience with conservation practices that seek to return ecological sites to a previous history, time point, or ecological succession pattern of the land. They noted that there would be issues with our project partners attempting to return to a fixed moment in time, if that was their intention. However, as discussed above, the NLC’s philosophy is not in line with the Western conservation philosophy of returning to some time point in the past that is regarded as exemplary. Rather, the NLC seeks to remove invasive species to create land that is 1) habitable for native species and 2) culturally important for future ecological and cultural use cases. In our conversations with Leslie, she has clearly stated that Muddy Pond can never truly return to its original state, nor is that the intention of the NLC’s work at this site, but that restoring the cultural use of the site can help preserve Indigenous lifeways for future generations.

Other Environmental

49 that functions without human alteration of the land as part of a return to uncultivated, uninhabited land capable of designation as wilderness. Practitioners of this form of rewilding (see: Literature Review) believe that human intervention in the natural environment has done significantly more harm than good, and that nature can best rebound with the complete removal of human impact. The principle of “rewilding” corresponds with a value of untrammeled land, a term derived from the Wilderness Act of 1964. The concept extends beyond the bounds of land conservation: it is a mindset. As expressed by Jon Leibowitz, NEWT says that as we “rewild” our landscape, “we ourselves become wild.”

In Leibowitz’s perspective, invasive species are better considered “opportunists” that can exist in the landscapes set aside by NEWT. NEWT will not remove invasives, conduct controlled burns, or use any chemical treatments though the organization conducts lively internal debates about the possibility of using prescribed burns on some of their sites. Although this philosophy of rewilding and acceptance of invasive species may initially seem in conflict with the NLC’s goals, there is some overlap. Leslie acknowledged that, historically, there were sacred spaces reserved by Indigenous peoples for ceremonial and spiritual purposes, where travel and extraction was limited or completely forbidden. Such spaces may align with NEWT’s value of wilderness, which is land that is untouched, and perhaps has been untouched prior to colonization, land theft, and settlement. In a conversation which the team recorded, Jon and Leslie suggested that NEWT and the NLC may, perhaps, be using different vocabulary to discuss a shared value for such sacred spaces or untrammeled land. Stakeholders

● Did not believe fire should be used on the site, given its size.

● Emphasized the importance of combining TEK and STEM.

● Emphasizes that the land has been disturbed, but is still a rare old growth forest site

● Emphasized the importance of maintaining water quality.

● Noted the importance of returning lands to Indigenous peoples.

Peter Crawley Sustainability Consultant and Rep. for Muddy Pond

● Encouraged the removal of invasive species through a combination of controlled chemical application and mechanical removal.

Pete Westover Conservation Works and NLC Land Management Lead

● Noted the significance of social and cultural aspects of the land.

● Encouraged the removal of invasive species through a combination of controlled chemical application and mechanical removal.

● Invasive species removal should focus on small plants and shrubs.

Tim Simmons - Muddy Pond Trust Board Member and Conservation Ecologist

● Mentioned possible use of controlled burns and demonstrated the significance of controlled burns in the New England region.

● Emphasized the presence of endangered species on the site.

● Noted the importance of returning lands to Indigenous peoples.

As a student team, we decided that we are neither objective observers nor outside experts that can give prescriptive advice to an Indigenous group. Reflexively, we understand the normative quality of the very language we just used to describe our positionality in the previous paragraph and elsewhere in this report. Regardless, we did have the unique opportunity of listening to

It was striking that, in our communications with those involved in this project, how personal the care of the natural environment can become. At times, ecological language held symbolic value for those whom we spoke with. As posed in the literature review section, the attributed status of a species can indicate its relationship with the speaker. For example, NEWT informed us that their organization uses the term “opportunists” when discussing invasive species, which they plan to leave alone to grow and spread at their own agency. Our project partners, on the other hand, have no hesitation in using the term “invasive” with full negative force and the intent of eradicating them. We found this discrepancy noteworthy, for the language of “opportunist” seems to remove the negative association of the “invasive” term. Invasive indicates intrusion, conjuring an image of a foreign organism settling in vulnerable soil. Opportunist has an entrepreneurial swing to it: these are organisms that see an open space and take hold with eager will. Our team, however, finds this term deceiving. While these organisms are definitely opportunity seekers, they are often harmful to the ecosystems they join. They take over, often promoting ecological homogeneity and diminishing biodiversity. Without the fortifying qualities of biodiversity, there are vast repercussions for the ecological web.

51 ● Suggests prioritizing a removal of selective invasive species.

Discussion

Althoughproject.ourteam

In addition to refuting the “rewilding” concept, our team sees fire as a potentially powerful and useful cultural tool for land management. We would look forward to seeing prescribed burning

is composed of individual voices, we felt similarly in regard to some of the perspectives we gathered on land management practices. For one, we are skeptical of the concept of “rewilding” that is put forth by the Northeast Wilderness Trust (NEWT). While our project partners and our team agree with NEWT that it is important to have preserved spaces that could be termed sacred or untrammeled, our team is hesitant in agreeing with how the concept came to be. There seems to be the sentiment wrapped into the “rewilding” concept that humans are innately detrimental to their environments that the way to mitigate environmental damage is through the removal of the human factor. While it is understandable why one might equate humans with destruction, given the contemporary ecological crisis we face in light of climate change and other threats, there may be greater value in teaching humans methods to respectfully interact with and give back to their environments, rather than barring them from all but the lightest possible connection. After all, as our project partners have pointed out to us, there are people who have had healthy relationships with Earth’s natural systems since time immemorial.

To cast all of humanity as holding a parasitic relationship with the Earth seems to ignore the populations of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color who have pushed against the extractive capitalist practices, spread through white settler colonialism, that have truly contributed to the contemporary climate, environmental, and ecological crisis.

52 people associated with this project expand on their views, which helped to inform our approach to this

53 mechanisms, if feasible in the size of the site, used to manage invasive species and regenerate the Lastly,landscape.we see a need for these entities to consider the role of climate change in altering the way we address land management, with the potential for ecosystems to look vastly different in the upcoming decades. It will be crucial for land management organizations to begin this dialogue in order to have adequate time for the implementation of adaptive actions. While we acknowledge and respect that climate change and its effects were precipitated by non Indigenous peoples’ extractive practices, these changes will affect the lands which will return to the Wampanoag Nation and serve as an important community space. With consideration to effective invasive species and climate change planning, our team sees a significant need for regional efforts that acknowledge the transboundary nature of land management.

Recommendations for Future Research and Engagement

The following is a brief series of recommendations for future research and engagement. We envision that the NLC, perhaps in partnership with existing stakeholders, other organizations, or future iterations of the Indigenous Environmental Planning course, may consider this report as a possible jumping off point for next steps.

Consider federally- or state-recognized species protection and possible associated land designations or benefits.

Example: Protection of the Northern Red Bellied Cooter

The Muddy Pond site is a known habitat for the Northern Red Bellied Cooter, which the U.S. federal and Massachusetts state wildlife management services list as a threatened or endangered species that requires conservation. Conversations with Leslie raised the possibility of designing a coastal habitat restoration plan in a way that created favorable conditions for Eastern turtle

Conclusion In summary, the intersection of ecological restoration, Indigenous knowledge, and community building is central to this project. The land management plan is evolving through these themes, such as in the management of invasive species on the site and the reintroduction of native species, endangered species, and species important to Wampanoag culture. This project also functioned to make the land management process communicable and accessible to the community through youth and cultural programming. We hope this final report and StoryMap contribute to both the land management plan as well as its community engagement possibilities.

Expanding youth programming materials.

As referenced in our first recommendation, youth programming could include building upon existing educational materials. These may include materials from the Wampanoag Language Restoration Project or the Preserving Our Homelands Camp. Culturally important species could be included as black and white, fill in diagrams in a custom children’s coloring book, alongside information about these species’ traditional importance and associated cultural practices.

Stakeholders who interact or collaborate with the NLC have expressed their interest in expanding their species and resource monitoring efforts. Pete Westover is excited about possibly setting up bird monitoring, or other ecological and environmental monitoring efforts, on the site. Bird

Exploring ecological and environmental monitoring options that blend TEK and STEM, perhaps in partnership with other local organizations and youth volunteers.

55 nesting grounds along the pond shoreline. Considering these next steps would require discussion with NEWT, because of the transboundary nature of this species, under the NEWT NLC Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, we propose that youth engagement, community center signage, or other educational materials include information about this species and their habitat. Investigating land designations or other benefits accorded to rare species habitats would also require weighing the impact of regulations or restrictions on land use that may be required to protect that species.

Examples: Educational booklets, coloring books, digital leaflets, or picture books

Examples: Grants or proposals with NLC ecologists, consultancies, or universities toward building such monitoring programs with scientists and volunteers.

Species and resource monitoring may also provide an opportunity for local youth, both Wampanoag and non Native, to learn ecological skills by recording species and resource observations as part of volunteer monitoring efforts. Such work could dovetail with the Preserving Our Homelands camp, which focuses on training Native youth in TEK and STEM practices in tandem, so that they feel better connected to their knowledge of ancestral lands and better prepared for K 12 STEM education and futures in science. To facilitate such observational efforts, the NLC could also invite students from the neighboring school to partake in volunteer observational science. Jon Leibowitz discussed NEWT’s existing monitoring efforts, noting that their monitoring has primarily focused on ensuring light land use and preventing the presence of ATVs, mountain bikes, and other high intensity human uses from impacting the Muddy Pond Wilderness Preserve. If the Muddy Pond site were to undergo species and resource monitoring before, during, and after invasive species management practices, such monitoring would provide insights into the differences between NEWT’s hands off rewilding approach and the NLC’s invasive species management practices. NEWT is especially interested in monitoring the aftereffects of cultural burns, if used as part of invasives management or other land management practices on the Muddy Pond site. In other New England land tracts that they steward, NEWT members are

56 monitoring efforts could work in tandem with Mass Audubon bird monitoring surveys of the area, which are surveys that the course faculty noted as worth exploring before and after the removal of invasive Norway spruce stands. Moreover, opportunities exist for proposing studies or monitoring programs that blend TEK with STEM practices, perhaps in partnership with environmental scientists.

Examples: A preliminary film storyboard and grant proposal.

57 engaged in lively internal debates about whether prescribed burns would be beneficial on particular sites despite their hands off approach to letting the land evolve by itself, without human intervention. NLC fire management practices, if used on the site, could provide a side by side observational study of the impact of fire management in the future Wampanoag Nation Common Lands alongside the rewilding approach on the neighboring Wilderness Preserve.

Our interview with Chuckie Green indicated that he hopes to expand Preserving Our Homelands into a multi season, year round camp, given funding, visibility, and support. The previous POH film, made with the US Geological Survey (USGS), increased such support and visibility, and Chuckie would like to make another.83 Given the NLC’s unique story as the first Native-run land trust in the Eastern United States, making a short film about their story would also be a unique opportunity to expand their profile. MIT funding and film equipment could be available if such a film were made in partnership with future iterations of this course.

83 USGS. Native Youth in Science Preserving Our Homelands, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqgsZOB_a_A&ab_channel=USGS2013.

However, it’s also equally worth exploring the value of keeping monitoring information private, shared internally within the NLC alone, or shared with stakeholders or neighbors like NEWT rather than immediately added to public knowledge. Create art about the Wampanoag Nation Common Lands and their development from the present day Muddy Pond site.

StoryMap

A final deliverable our team has identified in collaboration with Leslie and Chuckie is an ArcGIS StoryMap. StoryMaps enable creators to add layers of text, audio, and video to a guided digital tour of a mapped region. We believe a StoryMap would be particularly impactful for this project as it contains the ability to include narrative as well as geographical information in an online

Examples: Wampanoag Nation oral storytelling events. As reiterated by Chuckie Green, storytelling is a vital aspect of TEK and record keeping of Wampanoag ancestral history over generations. In tandem with the community engagement aspect of this project, community wide storytelling events held in the cultural education center may provide opportunities for Wampanoag Nation members to actively engage with Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices. To help preserve these stories, podcasts and other audio mediums could be utilized to archive Indigenous knowledge for future reference, especially for collaborating scientists that work with the NLC. Based on conversations with Chuckie Green on the importance of oral storytelling as a method of conveying TEK, we would suggest in person oral tradition events over digital archival methods. However, STEM practitioners partnering with TEK experts may benefit from private, selectively shared archives of recorded knowledge.

Augment traditional oral storytelling through live events and consider possible TEK digitization practices.

Discussing and determining whether and how to build a platform for TEK and STEM to be exchanged and processed may be invaluable for Muddy Pond and NLC’s efforts to balance and partner these two knowledge systems.

59 link. Such work would be easily accessible and shareable for people who cannot not physically come to the site, as well as to youth who may be more inclined to use digital tools to educate themselves. This StoryMap aims to crystallize the narrative of the restoration of Muddy Pond in order to support its ecological, cultural, and social evolution. To do so, the StoryMap would explain how Muddy Pond came to be, explain the mission of the Native Land Conservancy, and showcase the envisioned Future of Muddy Pond. Here is a link to our complete content for this StoryMap. We are currently in the process of having this content reviewed by Leslie Jonas before placing it live in this draft version of the map, which is not yet ready for distribution.

Wampanoag Common Lands: Muddy Pond Restoration Project

Articles inside

Project Partners

Site-Specific Knowledge

StoryMap