In a highly publicized report released this week, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has highlighted a number of projects being funded under Congress's stimulus bill in an attempt to pose a "second opinion" on economic recovery. Specifically, Senator Coburn outlines 100 projects funded by the bill that he deems examples of wasteful government spending and that are "likely to fail."

At number five on Senator Coburn's list is the Lake Jackson Ecopassage, an extensive construction project along U.S. Highway 27 near Tallahassee, Florida. The ecopassage has been in the works for nearly a decade, designed to mitigate turtle mortality along a portion of Highway 27 - a stretch of blacktop that has exhibited an incredibly high level of mortality for nearly 60 wildlife species (including turtles) in the past due to vehicle traffic.

The premise behind the ecopassage is simple: a wall is built along the roadway to "funnel" turtles into a set of three culverts passing underneath the roadway (and thus away from passing motorists). But the logistics and cost are not that simple; roadbuilding is an incredibly expensive undertaking, and the cost of materials, traffic diversion, and manpower has brought the ecopassage price tag to around $6 million, $3.4 million of which has been allotted under the stimulus bill. Senator Coburn and others immediately used the project as one of its primary targets of government spending. Tuesday evening, Sean Hannity called it "unbelievable." Coburn, using a photo of a degraded concrete culvert plastered with graffiti for empahsis, asked whimsically, "Why did the turtle cross the road? To get to the other side of the stimulus money."

As a fellow herpetologist in the South, it's immediately obvious where my biases lie. Road mortality is a major threat to many animals, but especially so for slow-moving turtles, basking snakes and migrating amphibians. Many such species are already imperiled and/or threatened due to human impacts, and any steps we can take to lessen those impacts obviously have value.

But as a taxpayer, I can also see the criticism elicited by Coburn and others on the opposing side of this argument - at least on the surface. $3.4 million certainly is a lot of money, and without a back story, spending that amount for turtles can seem a bit absurd. After all, with the country in the grips of a recession and everyone having to cut back, we should be as frugal as possible. Simply throwing millions at a tunnel championed by "local community activists" certainly goes against this thinking, right?

The answer isn't as simple as it seems.

The Lake Jackson "turtle tunnel" example highlights what is perhaps a larger misunderstanding by the public of just how wildlife conservation projects are funded. Such projects make easy scapegoats for critics of government spending, but they are not funded overnight. The Lake Jackson project, for example, has taken nearly a decade to come to fruition and has required the unanimous support of local government leaders, as well as endorsement by the state Department of Transportation. According to the project's website, the number of supporters of the project combined with those in supporting organizations totals over 13 million people. Any conservationist knows just how hard swaying this kind of public opinion can be, not to mention the hours of meticulous work put into writing grants that, more times than not, will go unfunded. In the case of the ecopassage, the need for funds (and public support) has existed long before any stimulus money was ever conceived.

Despite the arguments over cost, projects such as the Lake Jackson Ecopassage have value, not just for wildlife but for the safety of passing motorists, the Lake Jackson ecosystem, and society as a whole. Those behind the ecopassage should be commended for their success in growing a grassroots cause into a tangible conservation project that enjoys the support of most of the community. Such a project is rare, and actually seeing it through to completion is much rarer. Careful scrutiny and contructive criticism of any expensive project should be welcomed by conservationists, as it will likely only provide benefits in the long term. But distilling a project such as this one down into an oversimplified, unneeded debacle simply doesn't work.