CX Appendix C Burro Movem

1 B. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 2 Name and Address of Applicant or Applicant Organization: 3 Arizona Game and Fish Department 4 5000 W. Carefree Highway 5 Phoenix, AZ 85086 6 Evaluation of Burro Movements and Collisions along Roads Near Lake Pleasant 7 Herd Management Area 8 With burro populations above acceptable Herd Management Area (HMA) levels, burro- 9 vehicle collisions (BVC) have become an increasing problem for the travelling public on 10 roads in proximity to Lake Pleasant (LP) HMA. BVC in and around the LPHMA have 11 increased dramatically and exceeded 35 between October 1, 2015 and December 7, 12 2015, and will continue to pose a hazard to motorists. The Bureau of Land Management 13 (BLM) and its partners are seeking solutions to return the population to acceptable HMA 14 levels. Current BLM burro removal efforts cannot keep pace with the herd’s population 15 growth. Until long-term burro reduction strategies are implemented, there is an ever 16 increasing risk to the safety of both motorists and burros. The Arizona Department of 17 Transportation (ADOT) shoulders a bulk of the liability associated with BVCs. To help 18 mitigate risks to motorists and burros, an evaluation of burro movements and collision 19 locations is warranted. We propose to gather information on burro movements along 20 roads within and adjacent to LPHMA through the collection of 1) GPS movement data, 21 2) BVC hotspots and associated variables, and 3) burro roadway access point camera 22 data collection. Our analysis of this Information will 1) provide recommendations for 23 strategic reduction in BVCs while considering implications to wildlife connectivity and 2) 24 identify additional areas for burro removal efforts. The Arizona Game and Fish 25 Department (AGFD) working alongside ADOT has substantial experience in evaluating 26 and implementing measures for reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions throughout Arizona. 27 GPS data from this study will complement data gathered through a concurrent USGS 28 burro demographic study. Collaborators will include local law enforcement and ADOT 29 maintenance personnel. 30 Name, official title, department, project responsibilities and time commitment: 31 Jeff Gagnon, Regional Supervisor, AGFD: project oversight, study design, data 32 collection, data interpretation, reports (15%) 33 Scott Sprague, Senior Project Manager, AGFD: project oversight, study design, data 34 collection, data interpretation, reports (15%) 35 Chad Loberger, Wildlife Specialist II, AGFD: field implementation, camera installation 36 and data collection, accident site analysis, reports (10%) 37 Kari Ogren, Wildlife Technician, AGFD: Camera data collection and review, field 38 implementation (15%). 39 Colin Beach, Wildlife Technician, AGFD: Camera data collection, field data collection 40 and digitizing, GIS analysis, assistance with captures, reports (25%). 41 Sue Boe, GIS Specialist, AGFD: Oversight of GPS analysis and GIS project 42 components (5%). BLM_AGFD_Burro_Study_Research Proposal_4-28-16 FINAL.docx 2 43 C. RESEARCH PROPOSAL 44 45 BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program 46 Proposal for Collaborative Research Effort 47 48 1. Goals / Objectives / Hypotheses: 49 Goal: 50 The goal of our collaborative study with ADOT is to evaluate burro movements along 51 roadways within and adjacent to the Lake Pleasant Herd Management Area (LPHMA), 52 and determine possible reasons for burro road crossings and collisions. The information 53 gathered from this study will provide guidance in the development of strategies to 54 reduce burro-vehicle collisions (BCVs). This project will also dovetail with the concurrent 55 USGS demographic and survey studies; thus, allowing the studies to complement and 56 bolster each other by increasing the sample size of collared burros, which in turn will 57 result in more robust results for Schoenecker (2015) 58 Objectives: 59 Gather information on burro movements along roadways within and around the 60 Lake Pleasant HMA. Evaluate location, frequency, and variables related to 61 high burro crossing locations. Use movement data to supplement concurrent 62 USGS study (Schoenecker 2015) 63 Compile historic data on BCVs and combine with additional data throughout 64 the study. Evaluate location, frequency, and variables related to high BCV 65 locations. Work with local agencies to ensure consistent data collection 66 methodologies. 67 Collect camera data to document burros accessing roadways. 68 Combine information from collars, collisions, and cameras to provide 69 recommendations to reduce BCVs while still providing for wildlife connectivity. 70 Identify additional burro removal areas for future capture efforts. 71 Hypothesis: 72 We anticipate that this study will include the opportunity to test specific hypotheses as 73 well as include descriptive study components. 74 Hypothesis Statement: Burro movements along roads and incidence of BVC are not 75 spatially and temporally random. 76 77 To test this alternative hypothesis we will evaluate factors associated with burro 78 movements and collision locations adjacent to LPHMA through the specific aims, 79 objectives, and methods outlined below. 80 81 2. Specific Aims: 82 Year 1 (August 2016-September 2017) 83 a) Purchase collars and cameras 84 b) Coordinate with BLM and USGS to conduct burro collaring during existing 85 capture efforts. Place 25-30 collars on burro jennies beginning in October 2016. 86 c) Compile BCV data from all agencies. Conduct AGFD Road Kill App training for 87 all agencies to ensure accurate and consistent data collection. BLM_AGFD_Burro_Study_Research Proposal_4-28-16 FINAL.docx 3 88 d) Install cameras at known burro problem locations. 89 e) Inventory fences along roads within the study area. 90 f) Identify burro crossing locations and collect information at these locations. 91 g) Begin evaluation of historic and current BCV hotspots and collect information at 92 these hotspots. Where obvious solutions exist (e.g. fence repairs), work with the 93 responsible agency to ensure concerns are addressed. Continue monitoring 94 these locations for reoccurrence. 95 h) Provide progress reports. 96 Year 2-3 (October 2017-September 2019) 97 a) Continue collecting data: GPS movement, collision and crossing and collision 98 location variables. 99 b) Continue camera data collection at problem locations. 100 c) Monitor areas where solutions to burro collisions and crossings have been 101 implemented to determine effectiveness. 102 d) Continue to provide recommendations for solutions to reducing burro access to 103 roads while still providing for wildlife connectivity. 104 e) Provide progress reports. 105 Year 4 (October 2019-September 2020) 106 a) Final meetings with TAC, complete data analysis and draft final report. 107 Year 5 (October 2020-September 2021) 108 a) Initial review by ADOT Research Center and Federal Highway Administration 109 (one year required). BLM review? 110 b) Revision and final review, publish final report. 111 c) Peer-reviewed publication(s) if appropriate. 112 113 3. Background and Significance/Preliminary Studies: (Not to exceed 4 pages) 114 As Arizona’s human population also grows, along with the associated increase in use of 115 its roadways, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is faced with the task of 116 providing the continued safe conveyance of motorists. A growing challenge relates to 117 the rising incidence of collisions between vehicles and animals, especially livestock, 118 burros, and large wildlife (e.g. elk (Cervus canadensis) and deer (Odocoileus spp.)), 119 causing millions of dollars in property damage, human injury, and loss of life in Arizona 120 and the U. S. each year (Huijser et al. 2008). Liability concerns associated with wildlife- 121 vehicle collisions have been heightened as the result of a jury award for a 1998 elk- 122 vehicle collision along Interstate 40 (Booth v. State of Arizona, 2002). Burros (Equus 123 asinus), being large animals, may provide a similar potential liability for the State of 124 Arizona and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 125 With the limited ability to accurately detect burros during surveys, estimating actual 126 numbers can be difficult; however, it appears that burro populations are well above 127 acceptable Herd Management Area (HMA) levels (Griffin 2015). These increased levels 128 also appear to be related to the expansion of burros residing outside of the HMA. The 129 risk of burro-vehicle collisions (BVC) along multiple state, city, and county roads (Loop 130 303, Interstate-17, State Route 74, New River Road, and Castle Hot Springs Road) 131 around the Lake Pleasant (LP) HMA have increased for the travelling public. Burro BLM_AGFD_Burro_Study_Research Proposal_4-28-16 FINAL.docx 4 132 removal efforts by the BLM, are ongoing but cannot keep pace with the ever expanding 133 burro population. Burro-vehicle conflicts in and around the LPHMA have been 134 increasing dramatically (35 conflicts between October 1, 2015 and December 7, 2015) 135 and are on track to exceed 140 BVCs in FY 16. They will likely continue to pose a 136 hazard to motorists traveling around the LPHMA (BLM unpublished data). 137 The BLM and its partners are seeking solutions to return the population to acceptable 138 levels within the HMA. However, in the interim, there is an increased risk to the safety 139 for both motorists and burros. Minimal information exists in the scientific literature on 140 burros (See Schoenecker et al. 2015 Proposal - Demography of 2 wild burro 141 populations in

Load more