DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 20 - Wildlife Crossings Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 - Revised 12/12 CHAPTER 20

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 20 - Wildlife Crossings Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 - Revised 12/12 CHAPTER 20 Chapter 20 - Wildlife Crossings Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 - Revised 12/12 CHAPTER 20 WILDLIFE CROSSINGS 20.0 INTRODUCTION The linear nature of surface transportation systems creates a suite of concerns for transportation and natural resource management agencies as they seek to provide safe and efficient transportation infrastructure and to reduce the impacts of their projects on environmental resources. Techniques have been developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts. However, the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts used may not always provide the greatest environmental benefit, or may do very little to promote ecosystem sustainability. This concern, along with a 1995 Memorandum of Understanding, between 14 Federal Departments and Agencies, to foster an ecosystem approach mobilized an interagency Steering Team to collaborate over a three-year period to write Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. Eco-Logical presents a framework for achieving greater interagency cooperative conservation. Eco-Logical provides a nonprescriptive approach that enables Federal, State, tribal and local partners involved in infrastructure planning, design, review and construction to work together to make infrastructure more sensitive to wildlife and their ecosystems. Following this approach, this chapter provides guidance to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's (PennDOT's) District Offices in determining the appropriateness of a Wildlife Crossing or an exclusionary device associated with transportation improvements in the Commonwealth. This section provides guidance should an Engineering District elect to study and construct a crossing or exclusionary device. There is no intent to direct or mandate the use of such devices by the Engineering Districts. PennDOT reserves the discretion to deviate from this guidance if the circumstances are warranted. The construction of such devices is at the sole discretion of the Department. This guidance is for information purposes only; it is not regulatory. This guidance is to ensure that the Department is aware that there are strategies available to avoid vehicular and wildlife conflicts. Most of the information in this guidance was derived from The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects and Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook Design and Evaluation in North America. 20.1 DEFINITIONS A. Fragmentation. Splitting up or separation of a habitat, landscape or ecosystem into smaller parcels. B. Habitat Connectivity. The state of structural landscape features being connected, enabling access between places via a continuous route. C. Target Species. A species that has been identified as the subject of conservation or monitoring actions. D. Travel Corridors. Features that connect two or more otherwise isolated patches of habitat that allow animals to travel safely from one area to another, but may also provide food or other necessities as well. E. Ungulates. A large group of mammals all of which have hooves (e.g., Deer and Elk). F. Wildlife Crossing. Structures that allow animals to cross human-made barriers safely. G. Wildlife Fencing. Fence designed and built to keep animals from accessing right-of-way habitat and road surface, or to funnel animal movement to safe crossing locations (e.g., wildlife crossing structures). 20 - 1 Chapter 20 - Wildlife Crossings Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 - Revised 12/12 20.2 BACKGROUND Wildlife crossings are structures that allow animals to cross human-made barriers safely. Wildlife crossings may include underpass tunnels, viaducts, and overpasses (mainly for large or herd-type animals); amphibian tunnels; culverts (for small mammals such as otters, mink, and porcupine). Wildlife crossings are a practice allowing connections or reconnections between habitats and assist in avoiding collisions between vehicles and animal. Each year in the United States, an estimated 200 human deaths and 29,000 injuries result from crashes involving animals (i.e., deaths from a direct motor vehicle (MV) animal collision or from a crash in which a driver tried to avoid an animal and ran off the roadway) (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002). Accidents from drivers trying to avoid animals are especially true for the low mobility mammals, amphibians and reptiles (groundhog, river otter, salamander and turtles). Additionally, 1.5 million traffic accidents involving deer in the United States cause an estimated $1.1 billion in vehicle damage each year (Donaldson, 2005). Pennsylvania ranks third in the nation, behind only Texas and Wisconsin in fatalities resulting from deer accidents. From 2006 to 2010 Pennsylvania has seen an average of over 4,200 deer collisions and 12 fatalities a year and this number is expected to keep rising. In 2010 alone, there were 4,668 collisions and 10 fatalities. The costs of these incidents to Pennsylvania are rising as well. Repairs due to deer collisions cost the state $14,484,804. When you factor in the fatalities that number soars to $58,168,480. Studies have also shown that mortality from vehicles is a threat to wildlife populations when population numbers are already low or when vital habitats occur near roadways due to fragmentation. PennDOT recognizes the importance of reducing impacts to wildlife and improving, or at the very least, maintaining habitat connectivity. However, the emphasis on public safety is paramount and cannot be overstated. As a transportation agency, the function of PennDOT is first and foremost to provide a safe and efficient transportation infrastructure for the traveling public. 20.3 WILDLIFE CROSSING TYPES (for descriptive purposes only.) Follow PennDOT design guidelines when choosing the appropriate type. A. Overpass Design. See Figure 20.1 for an example of an overpass design. 1. Landscape Bridge. Designed exclusively for wildlife use. Due to their large size they are used by the greatest diversity of wildlife and can be adapted for amphibian and reptile passage. 2. Wildlife Overpass. Smaller than landscape bridges, these overpass structures are designed exclusively to meet needs of a wide range of wildlife from small to large. 3. Multi-use Overpass. Generally the smallest of the wildlife overpasses. Designed for mixed wildlife- human use. This wildlife crossing type is best adapted in human disturbed environments and will benefit generalist type species adapted to regular amounts of human activity and disturbance. Figure 20.1 Example of Overpass Design 20 - 2 Chapter 20 - Wildlife Crossings Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 - Revised 12/12 B. Underpass Design. 1. Viaduct or Flyover. This underpass design is the largest of underpass structures. The large span and vertical clearance of viaducts allow for use by a wide range of wildlife. Structures can be adapted for amphibian and reptiles, semi-aquatic and semi-arboreal species. These work well because of the large open natural areas. This design should not be constructed exclusively for wildlife movement. The Viaduct or Flyover will be included in the design of a transportation project if warranted to meet the project needs based on the topography of the area. Figure 20.2 provides an example of an underpass, viaduct design. Figure 20.2 Example of Underpass, Viaduct Design 2. Large Mammal Underpass. Not as large as most viaducts, but the largest of underpass structures designed specifically for wildlife use. Designed for large mammals but small- and medium-sized mammals use readily as well. The large mammal underpass should be included in the design of a transportation project if warranted to meet the project needs based on the topography of the area. Figure 20.3 provides an example of an underpass, viaduct design. Figure 20.3 Example of Large Mammal Underpass 3. Multi-Use Underpass. Design similar to large mammal underpass; however, management objective is co- use between wildlife and humans. Design is generally smaller than a large mammal underpass because of type of wildlife using the structures along with human use. These structures may not be adequate for all wildlife but usually results in use by generalist species common in human-dominated environments (e.g., urban or peri- urban habitats). Large structures may be constructed to accommodate the need for more physical space for humans and habitat generalist species. 4. Underpass with Water Flow. An underpass structure designed to accommodate the needs of moving water and wildlife. These underpass structures are frequently used by some large mammal species, but their use depends largely on how it is adapted for their specific crossing needs. Small- and medium-sized mammals generally utilize these structures, particularly if riparian habitat or cover is retained within the underpass. Figure 20.4 provides an example of an underpass with water flow design. 20 - 3 Chapter 20 - Wildlife Crossings Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 - Revised 12/12 Figure 20.4 Example of Underpass with Water Flow 5. Small- to Medium-Sized Mammal Underpass. One of the smaller wildlife crossing structures. Primarily designed for small- and medium-sized mammals, but species use will depend largely on how it may be adapted for their specific crossing needs. Figure 20.5 provides an example of a small- to medium-sized mammal underpass. Square or Rectangular Multiple Chamber Figure 20.5 Example of Small- to Medium-Sized Mammal Underpass 6. Amphibian and Reptile Tunnels. Crossing designed specifically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wildlife Crossings of Florida 1-75
    54 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1279 Wildlife Crossings of Florida 1-75 GARY L. LlVINK The Florida Department of Transportation is constructing 1-75 The Interstate highway would run 40 mi across the center of across the SR-84 (Alligator Alley) alignment in south Florida. the remaining habitat for the only known population of Flor­ This alignment crosses approximately 40 mi of habitat of the only ida panther. The panthers would need to cross the highway known population of the endangered Florida panther. Panther in order to provide food during periods of deteriorating hab­ movement and behavior are being monitored by radio tracking. Radio-collared panthers have been crossing the alignment, pro­ itat during wet seasons, to permit dispersals of young pan­ viding information on locations of crossings and habitat type being thers, and to maintain the genetic viability of the population. used. This information was used to develop measures to provide Therefore, measures to provide safe crossing of I-75 for the safe crossings of 1-75 for the panther. Measures taken include panthers were evaluated. creation of L3 wildlife crossings, which are lUU ft long and 8 ft Fortunately, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Com­ high, and the extension of 13 existing bridges to provide 40 ft of mission (FGFWFC) in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and land along the drainage canals under the bridges. The spacing of the crossings is roughly 1 mi apart. Fencing to cause animals to Wildlife Service had ongoing studies of panther behavior and use the crossings will be 10 ft high with outriggers and three movement in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Banff Wildlife Crossing Research by Numbers
    Banff wildlife crossing research by numbers One - The number of long-term research projects on highway mitigation research 1.7 – Average number of kilometers between wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH) Phases 1, 2, 3A and 3B Two - Banff and Yoho National Parks are the only national parks in North America that have a major multi-lane highway running through them Three – The number of seconds, on average, a vehicle passes on the TCH at 25,000 vehicles per day Four – The number of phases of TCH twinning (expansion from 2 to 4 lanes) in Banff National Park since 1980 Five - The number of distinct crossing design types in Banff Six – The number of wildlife overpasses on the TCH after completion of phase 3B in 2013; the most anywhere in the world for one single stretch of highway Ten – The number of times wolverines have used the Banff crossings (as of February 2012) 10-15 - Percent of phase 1 and 2 twinning project budget dedicated to “environmental mitigations” 15 – The number of years that the Banff research has been conducted so far… 35 – Percent of phase 3A twinning project budget dedicated to “environmental mitigations” 39 – The number of wildlife underpasses on 83 km of the TCH after completion of phase 3B in 2013- the most anywhere in the world for one single stretch of highway 40-45 - Percent of phase 3B twinning project budget dedicated to “environmental mitigations” 50 - The number of miles of TCH in Banff National Park (east gate of Banff National Park to Kicking Horse Pass/B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Human-Black Bear Conflict a Review of the Most Common Management Practices
    HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT A REVIEW OF THE MOST COMMON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A black bear in Lake Tahoe, NV. Photo courtesy Urbanbearfootage.com 1 A black bear patrols downtown Carson City, NV. Photo courtesy Heiko De Groot 2 Authors Carl W. Lackey (Nevada Department of Wildlife) Stewart W. Breck (USDA-WS-National Wildlife Research Center) Brian Wakeling (Nevada Department of Wildlife; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) Bryant White (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) 3 Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction . The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and human-bear conflicts . “I Hold the Smoking Gun” by Chris Parmeter Status of the American Black Bear . Historic and Current distribution . Population estimates and human-bear conflict data Status of Human-Black Bear Conflict . Quantifying Conflict . Definition of Terms Associated with Human-Bear Management Methods to Address Human-Bear Conflicts . Public Education . Law and Ordinance Enforcement . Exclusionary Methods . Capture and Release . Aversive Conditioning . Repellents . Damage Compensation Programs . Supplemental & Diversionary Feeding . Depredation (Kill) Permits . Management Bears (Agency Kill) . Privatized Conflict Management Population Management . Regulated Hunting and Trapping . Control of Non-Hunting Mortality . Fertility Control . Habitat Management . No Intervention Agency Policy Literature Cited 4 Abstract Most human-black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict occurs when people make anthropogenic foods (that is, foods of human origin like trash, dog food, domestic poultry, or fruit trees) available to bears. Bears change their behavior to take advantage of these resources and in the process may damage property or cause public safety concerns. Managers are often forced to focus efforts on reactive non-lethal and lethal bear management techniques to solve immediate problems, which do little to address root causes of human-bear conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • GETTING up to SPEED: a Conservationist's Guide to Wildlife
    DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. Defenders launched the Habitat and Highways Campaign in 2000 to reduce the impacts of GETTING UP TO SPEED: surface transportation on our nation’s wildlife and natural resources. Author: Patricia A. White A Conservationist’s Guide Director, Habitat and Highways Campaign Research: Jesse Feinberg To Wildlife and Highways Technical Review: Alex Levy Editing: Krista Schlyer Design: 202design ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Defenders of Wildlife is grateful to the Surdna Foundation for their generous support of our Habitat and Highways Campaign and this publication. We also thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Ann Adler Kerri Gray Yates Opperman Steve Albert Chris Haney Terry Pelster Paul J. Baicich Jennifer Leigh Hopwood Jim Pissot Bill Branch Sandy Jacobson Robert Puentes Arnold Burnham Noah Kahn John Rowen Josh Burnim Julia Kintsch Bill Ruediger Carolyn Campbell Keith Knapp Inga Sedlovsky Barbara Charry Dianne Kresich Shari Shaftlein Gabriella Chavarria Michael Leahy Chris Slesar Patricia Cramer Alex Levy Richard Solomon Kim Davitt Laura Loomis Allison Srinivas Monique DiGiorgio Bonnie Harper Lore Graham Stroh Bridget Donaldson Laurie MacDonald Stephen Tonjes Bob Dreher Noah Matson Rodney Vaughn Gary Evink Kevin McCarty Marie Venner Emily Ferry Jim McElfish Paul Wagner Elizabeth Fleming Gary McVoy Jen Watkins Richard Forman Louisa Moore Mark Watson Kathy Fuller Jim Motavalli Jessica Wilkinson Chester Fung Carroll Muffett Kathleen Wolf Sean Furniss Siobhan Nordhaugen Paul Garrett Leni Oman © 2007 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. | Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Highways Through Habitats: the Banff Wildlife Crossings Project
    P HOTO : T The Trans-Canada ONY C Highway bisects the LEVENGER Bow River Valley, Alberta, a World –WTI Heritage Site. HIGHWAYS Through Habitats The Banff Wildlife Crossings Project TONY CLEVENGER anff National Park and its environs in The author is Research Alberta, Canada, are among the world’s best Wildlife Biologist with testing sites for innovative passageways to the Road Ecology mitigate the effects of roads on wildlife. The Program, Western Bmajor commercial Trans-Canada Highway (TCH) Transportation Institute bisects the park, but a range of engineered mitigation at Montana State measures—including a variety of wildlife under- University, Bozeman. passes and overpasses—has helped maintain large mammal populations for the past 25 years and has allowed the gathering of valuable data. Push for Research Less than 100 years ago, the first car to reach Banff National Park traveled a dusty, narrow road from Cal- gary. By the early 1970s, four paved lanes of the TCH linked Calgary to the park’s east gate. In the park, vehi- cles funnelled onto a two-lane highway section. As P traffic increased, so did the accidents. HOTO : J In 1978, therefore, Public Works Canada proposed EFF S “twinning” the highway—that is, expanding it to four TETZ lanes—from the east gate to the Banff town site. A sec- One of two overpasses constructed on the Trans- TR NEWS 249 MARCH–APRIL 2007 ond proposal followed, to twin the highway from Banff Canada Highway in Banff National Park to maintain 14 town site to the Sunshine Road. This provoked a wildlife connectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • THE USE of WILDLIFE UNDERPASSES and the BARRIER EFFECT of WILDLIFE GUARDS for DEER and BLACK BEAR by Tiffany Doré Holland Alle
    THE USE OF WILDLIFE UNDERPASSES AND THE BARRIER EFFECT OF WILDLIFE GUARDS FOR DEER AND BLACK BEAR by Tiffany Doré Holland Allen A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana April 2011 ©COPYRIGHT by Tiffany Doré Holland Allen 2011 All Rights Reserved ii APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Tiffany Doré Holland Allen This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citation, bibliographic style, and consistency and is ready for submission to The Graduate School. Dr. Scott Creel Dr. Marcel P. Huijser Approved for the Department of Ecology Dr. David Roberts Approved for The Graduate School Dr. Carl A. Fox iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. Tiffany Doré Holland Allen April 2011 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and S&K Electronics for funding this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Crossing Data for the New Mexico Highlands Wildlands Network
    Wildlife Crossing data for New Mexico Highlands Wildlands Network. Use of Underpasses in general ¨“. Parks Canada has constructed several underpasses, or large culverts under the highway, as well as a couple of overpasses, about 50 metres wide. ‘At best, it’s been a mixed result,’ states [Paul] Paquet. While coyotes, elk, and some deer have found the passageways useful, wolves and grizzlies have not. The highway for them is still a barrier.” (Hunt, S. 1999. “Ecologist urges Banff National Park to take the ‘high road’. <http://www.discovery.ca/Stories/1999/05/25/59.asp>) ¨ “In south Florida, the Department of Transportation (DOT) built nearly 30 underpasses in 1993 to allow panthers safe passage under the divided four-lane I-75 highway. DOT also developed and installed a smaller design suited for two-lane highways on State Road 29 north of I-75. So far, no panthers have been killed where crossings are in place, although habitat continuity has not been completely restored. Female panthers are reluctant to cross major roads, even using the underpasses.” (Cerulean, S. 2002. Killer Roads. http://www.defenders.org/defendersmag/issues/winter02/killerroads.html) ¨“From 1 January 1995 to 30 June 1998 (excluding 1 April to 31 October 1996) 14,592 large-mammal underpass visits were recorded. Ungulates were 78% of this total, carnivores 5%, and human-related activities 17% (Table 2). Individual underpasses ranged from 373 visits to 2548 visits. Specific to wildlife, elk were the most frequently observed species (n = 8959, 74% of all wildlife), followed by deer (n = 2411, 20%), and then wolves (n = 311, 2.5%).
    [Show full text]
  • Hwy 17 Wildlife Passage
    HIGHWAY 17 WILDLIFE PASSAGE AND BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL CROSSING Lexington Study Area Safe Passage for Wildlife and Humans on Highway 17 Highways can be dangerous places for both people and wildlife. State Highway 17—from the southern border of the Town of Los Gatos to the Bear Creek Road overcrossing has been identifi ed as a “road kill hot spot”, a place that is dangerous to both wildlife and people who try to navigate an increasingly busy stretch of narrow highway. This section of Hwy 17 lacks wildlife accessible culverts and bridges that can often provide safe crossing for wildlife. As a result, over the last nine years, 82 animals have been killed in this section of Hwy 17, including 51 deer, 5 mountain lions and numerous small and medium mammals. These collisions (and near collisions) are also extremely dangerous for motorists and their passengers. Wildlife Connectivity — between Los Gatos and Bear Creek Road overcrossing Lexington Hills The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) is leading this locally, regionally and nationally important project and will collaborate with many partners to complete this work. Currently, Midpen is at the initial phase of developing a wildlife passage across Hwy 17, between Los Gatos and Bear Creek Road. This passage was identifi ed as a high-priority project by the public and is part of Midpen’s adopted Vision Plan which is partially funded by Measure AA, a bond measure approved by voters in 2014. Hwy 17 has fragmented thousands of acres of open space in the Santa Cruz Mountains limiting the ability of wildlife to fi nd food, mates and habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing Plan
    Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing Plan Assessment of Solutions to Improve Traversability of State Highway 17 Dec ember 2012 Preface This plan was developed on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to improve wildlife crossing across state highway 17, between Los Gatos and Lexington Hills. Several mountain lions, bobcats and deer have died along highway 17 due to collisions with vehicles. There are currently very few opportunities for wildlife to safely cross highway 17 along its entire length. This condition, combined with a concrete median barrier and high traffic levels means that highway 17 is a quantifiable barrier, isolating wildlife on the peninsula from the Central Coast and other eco-regions. This extremely significant ecological indication will cause local species endangerment, disruption of prey-predator relationships, and genetic/population fragmentation. Caltrans is conducting projects along highway 17 and thus can make improvements for wildlife crossing as part of these projects. This plan is intended to inform those project improvements. The Authors Tanya Diamond is the founder and co-owner of Connectivity for Wildlife, a research organization specializing in studying and re-connecting wildlife and landscape. Ms. Diamond received her MSc in Wildlife Biology from San Jose State University. Zara McDonald is the founder of Felidae Conservation Fund, a scientific research, education and conservation organization dedicated to the protection of in situ wild felid populations throughout the world. Fraser Shilling is a road ecologist at the University of California, Davis. He and his center, the Road Ecology Center, specialize in studying landscape connectivity and wildlife movement. Dr. Shilling received his PhD from the University of Southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage a Vision for a Resilient, Multi-Benefit Landscape
    Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage A Vision for a Resilient, Multi-benefit Landscape December 2017 Prepared by the with the SANTA CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INSTITUTE The Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority conserves the natural environment, supports agriculture, and connects people to nature, by protecting open spaces, natural areas, and working farms and ranches for future generations. OpenSpaceAuthority.org The Conservation Biology Instituteprovides scientific expertise to support conservation and recovery of biological diversity in its natural state through applied research, education, planning, and community service. consbio.org Open Space Authority Linkage Planning Team Matt Freeman, M.C.R.P., Assistant General Manager Galli Basson, M.S., Resource Management Specialist Jake Smith, M.S., Conservation GIS Coordinator Suggested Citation Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority and Conservation Biology Institute. 2017. Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage: A Vision for a Resilient, Multi-benefit Landscape. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, San José, CA. 74p. Photo credits: Patty Eaton, Janell Hillman, Cait Hutnik, Stephen Joseph, Tom Ingram, William K. Matthias, Deborah Mills, Derek Neumann, Pathways for Wildlife, Ryan Phillips, and Stuart Weiss. Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage A Vision for a Resilient, Multi-benefit Landscape December 2017 Foreword In 2014, the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority released the Santa Clara Valley Greenprint, its 30-year roadmap which identifies goals, priorities, and
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term, Year-Round Monitoring of Wildlife Crossing Structures and the Importance of Temporal and Spatial Variability in Performance Studies
    LONG-TERM, YEAR-ROUND MONITORING OF WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL VARIABILITY IN PERFORMANCE STUDIES Anthony P. Clevenger (Phone: 403-760-1371, Email: [email protected]), Western Transportation Institute, 416 Cobleigh Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA and Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4 Canada, Fax: 403-762-3240 Nigel Waltho, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario M3J 1P3 Canada. Abstract: Maintaining landscape connectivity where habitat linkages or animal migrations intersect roads requires some form of mitigation to increase permeability. Wildlife crossing structures are now being designed and incorporated into numerous road construction projects to mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation. For them to be functional they must promote immigration and population viability. There has been a limited amount of research and information on what constitutes effective structural designs. One reason for the lack of information is because few mitigation programs implemented monitoring programs with sufficient experimental design into pre- and post-construction. Thus, results obtained from most studies remain observational at best. Furthermore, studies that did collect data in more robust manners generally failed to address the need for wildlife habituation to such large-scale landscape change. Such habituation periods can take several years depending on the species as they experience, learn and adjust their own behaviours to the wildlife structures. Also, the brief monitoring periods frequently incorporated are simply insufficient to draw on reliable conclusions. Earlier studies focused primarily on single-species crossing structure relationships, paying limited attention to ecosystem-level phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Banff National Park, Alberta, Road-Related Research: Nov 1996 – Present
    Date Sep 2012 Current research – Banff National Park, Alberta, Road-related research: Nov 1996 – present. ~ Published articles and books ~ SUBMITTED OR IN PREPARATION Sawaya, M, S Kalinowski, AP Clevenger. Submitted. Gene flow at wildlife crossing structures in Banff National Park. Molecular Ecology. Gunson, K., A.P. Clevenger, A.T. Ford, B. Chruszcz, C. Mata, F. Caryl. Submitted. The influence of analytical scale and landscape on factors explaining ungulate-vehicle collisions in a forested mountain ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology. Ford, AT, AP Clevenger. Submitted. Permeability of culverts and highway exclusion fencing for small mammal movement. Transportation Research Part D. Clevenger, AP, A Kociolek. Submitted. Potential impacts of highway median barriers on wildlife: State of the practice and gap analysis. Environmental Management. Clevenger, AP. Submitted. Mitigating highways with wildlife passages: Guidelines for planning, design and assessments. Revista Biológica Tropical. Clevenger, AP. Submitted. Mitigating highways for a ghost: Data collection challenges and implications for managing wolverines and transportation corridors. Northwest Science. PUBLISHED (or ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION) Sawaya, M, AP Clevenger, S Kalinowski. In press. Wildlife crossing structures connect Ursid populations in Banff National Park. Conservation Biology. Clevenger, AP. 2012. Mitigating continental scale bottlenecks: How small-scale highway mitigation has large-scale impacts. Ecological Restoration 30:300-307. Sawaya, M, J Stetz, AP Clevenger, M Gibeau, S Kalinowski. 2012. Estimating grizzly and black bear population abundance and trend in Banff National Park using noninvasive genetic sampling. PLoS ONE 7(5): e34777. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034777 Clevenger, AP. 2012. Leçons tirées de l’étude des passages fauniques enjambant une autoroute dans le parc national de Banff.
    [Show full text]