Potential Solutions to Transportation-Wildlife Conflicts An Overview. Tony Clevenger WTI Montana State University

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Potential Solutions to Transportation-Wildlife Conflicts An Overview. Tony Clevenger WTI Montana State University"

Marion Allen
5 years ago
Views:

1 Potential Solutions to Transportation-Wildlife Conflicts An Overview Tony Clevenger WTI Montana State University

2 Effects on wildlife Habitat loss Wildlife mortality Decrease habitat quality Habitat fragmentation Photo: M Huijser

3 Effects of roads on population viability Mortality and Barrier Effects Road Traffic Mortality Behavioural or Physical Barrier Reduced Local Population Size Reduced Landscape Connectivity Reduced Regional Population Size and Persistence Forman et al. 2003

4 What triggers action? Human safety Sensitive or endangered species Population survival probability Negative effect on population level Mass mortality

5 Mitigation is good. But not the only solution Negative impacts of infrastructure Avoid Mitigate Compensate Source: Cuperus et al., 1999

6 Road effect zone Habitat Mitigate

7 Habitat connectivity Road effect zone Compensate Habitat Mitigate Avoid

8 Mitigation is good. But not the only solution Examples Avoid (or reduce density) Rarely done Mitigate Most and many transportation projects Compensate Often associated with wetland habitats Source: Cuperus et al., 1999

9 Creative Solutions Bridge conversion to wildlife overpass - Belgium Decommissioning - Belgium Photos: N Newhouse, T Clevenger Coal Canyon, CA

10 Let s Mitigate! (For what??) Need to identify project goals/objectives: Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions (Motorist Safety) - Reduce Connectivity (Habitat/Population) Improve Both WVCs & Connectivity Combination Weighting their importance? Important for design stds & evaluating performance

11 Mitigation Planning Where s the Highway (or Bypass) go? Determining Alignment Can we minimize the impacts?

12 Mitigation Planning Minimizing Impacts in Alignment Selection Clevenger et al 2002

13 Highway Alignment Decided Next: Siting of Wildlife Crossings Where are best locations for reducing wildlife mortalities and barrier effects? Mitigation Planning

Mitigation is Permanent & Long-Term 70-80 years Ecosystems are dynamic Structures are static Wildlife

14 Mitigation is Permanent & Long-Term years Ecosystems are dynamic Structures are static Wildlife Crossings should be planned for their life-span Specific design and objectives Land management beyond hwy corridor

15 Beyond the Highway Corridor Ecological Integration & Land Mgt Coordination Mitigation strategies must be contemplated at 2 scales: 1. Site level or local-scale impact in design and development 2. Regional-scale: Fitting into a viable regional corridor network.

16 Siting of Wildlife Crossings Data requirements and Landscape type Data needs Less Landscapes Urban/Agricultural Semi-urban/Rural More Natural/Semi-natural

17 Siting/Placement Approaches Methodologies Road-kill vs Real Crossings Radio-tracking (not high resolution) Transects & Surveys (seasonally limited) GIS-based models No Data nothing to go on Expert-based models Rapid assessments Local knowledge

18 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 1. Pre-Construction Location Data 2. Data available Not systematically collected 3. No Data at All

19 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 1. Pre-Construction Location Data* Road crossings (above and below-grade) Mortality *Allows for post-construction evaluations

20 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 1. Pre-Construction Location Data Examples: SR 260 Arizona (Elk - Dodd et al.) Hwy 64, North Carolina (Black bear - Van Manen et al.) Hwy XX, Arizona, (Bighorn sheep XX) I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East, Washington (Multispecies( - Long)

21 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 2. Data available Not systematically collected Mortalities Road-kill/Carcass data Observations Visuals (anecdotal) Telemetry Not road-focused or GPS-based - Data for developing movement models

22 Methods for Guiding WC Placement Examples: Trans-Canada Hwy, Banff NP (Multispecies( - Clevenger et al.) US 93, Montana (Multispecies( - Becker)

LOCAL SCALE MOVEMENT MODELS BANFF NP Habitat surface (Telem data) 21 variables 10-m resolution Simulated movements Rules based on habitat & topography 12

23 LOCAL SCALE MOVEMENT MODELS BANFF NP Habitat surface (Telem data) 21 variables 10-m resolution Simulated movements Rules based on habitat & topography 12 Entry-Exit points all combinations Analysis Pathway intersections with TCH Validation Observed crossings and mortalities Grizzly Bear, Black Bear, Wolf, Elk, Moose

kilometers 2 *Clevenger & Wierzchowski 2006.

24 Known crossing/mortality locations High-frequency crossing zones 0 1 kilometers 2 *Clevenger & Wierzchowski Pp , in Connectivity Conservation Cambridge Univ Press

25 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on Mortality data only GIS-Expert-based models GIS Habitat linkage models Habitat assessments/surveys Rapid assessments Local knowledge

26 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on Mortality data only GIS-Expert-based models GIS Habitat linkage models Habitat assessments/surveys Rapid assessments Local knowledge

27 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on Mortality data only Successful and unsuccessful TCH crossing locations not associated Location of TCH Crossings <> WVCs (n=222 crossings; n=45 WVCs)* Spatial accuracy addressed Further research needed *Clevenger et al. 2002

28 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on GIS-Expert-based models Conservation Biology 16 (2002) 3 Black bear habitat models Empirical data Expert-literature Expert-opinion Empirical used as yardstick Expert models are useful tools for mgrs

29 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on GIS-Expert-based models Example: I-65 I Kentucky

30 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on GIS Habitat linkage models Habitat assessments/surveys Widely used today

31 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on Rapid assessments Mapping key linkages w/ stakeholders High proportion of hwy is key linkage No weighting procedures DOTs left w/o any guidance Examples: Utah Idaho District 7 US93 Montana

32 Methods for Guiding WC Placement 3. No Data nothing to go on Local knowledge Long history in area Know the land Frequently observe wildlife (dead & alive) Example: US 93 Montana

33 Mitigation Expectations 1. Reductions in WVCs (good) Demographic benefits 2. Movement across roads (better) Demographic/genetic benefits? Possibly 3. Survival & Breeding (best) Dispersal Functional connectivity Healthy viable populations I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Project

34 Summary Solutions to Wildlife-Transportation Conflicts Science poorly developed (if at all) yrs ago Today advances in technologies Modelling; Genetic tools; Telemetry Amount of data for decision-making increasing Solutions for many projects, even w/o data Transportation agency buy-in Policy? Where is it in Canada? EU Yes US Yes. Wash Exec. Order, T-bill, others

35 EU Code of Practice Biological and Landscape Considerations in Transportation Planning WSDOT Executive Order Habitat Connectivity

41 Siting/Placement Approaches Where should they go? INSIDE-OUT Project-based Project-level needs & focus w/o ecosystem planning OUTSIDE-IN Ecosystem-based Intersection of transportation & ecological corridors

42 J Stetz Restauración de Habitats Soluciones para grandes mamíferos Tony Clevenger Western Transportation Institute Montana State University

Conserving Large Landscapes One Highway at a Time

Conserving Large Landscapes One Highway at a Time Alex Taylor Tony Clevenger Western Transportation Institute Montana State University T Clevenger Content 1. Conserving Large Landscapes - Challenges 2.