Habitat and population fragmentation as a result of human disturbance in the form of human transportation and settlement corridors is affecting the viability of wildlife populations worldwide. I studied dispersal, inter-population movement and population fragmentation of grizzly bears near the southern extent of their North American range in southwestern Canada and northwestern U.S.A. This area represents the interior portion of the southern edge of grizzly bear distribution following 100 years of range contraction. I address whether anthropogenic fragmentation has affected grizzly bear populations in this vulnerable area. Human attitudes toward grizzly bears, and large carnivores in general, have experienced a paradigm shift from active persecution towards tolerance and respect. However, major forces underpinning range contraction, including human-caused mortality and fragmentation, may be still operating, albeit, more subtly and less intentionally. Checking further range contraction requires specific knowledge of the processes at work. Improvements have been made in managing and monitoring human-caused mortality, however, besides the obviously isolated populations (e.g. Yellowstone National Park), the status of fragmentation in this region was largely unknown. My goals were to use genetic analyses to explore bear movement and dispersal within and between the relictually inhabited mountain ranges in southwestern Canada and test whether or not the human environment associated with linear transportation and settlement corridors is fragmenting grizzly bear populations. I genetically sampled and generated 15-locus microsatellite genotypes for 835 bears across approximately 100,000 km2 in immediately adjacent geographic areas separated by various levels of human disturbance associated with highways and associated human development. I used population assignment techniques, parentage analysis, cluster analysis, multiple linear regression and several matrices of population genetics. I found evidence of natural and human-caused fragmentation, identified fragmenting forces, established population and sub-population boundaries in the region, identified small vulnerable sub-populations, and discussed these in relation to factors that make bears susceptible to fragmentation. Female movement was restricted by human transportation and settlement corridors, and male movement appeared to be reduced in some areas. Fragmentation by north/south-oriented human-settled valleys and by major east/west transportation corridors has resulted in a partially fragmented set of local sub-populations varying in size and intensity of fragmentation. I found one small isolated population (n < 100) in the southern Selkirk Mountains, several small sub-populations (n < 100), including a “female demographic island,” in the southern Purcell Mountains and several population sub-units that were relatively large (n > 300). Through multiple linear regression, I implicated human settlement patterns, human-caused mortality, and highway traffic volume as inhibiting inter-population movement. Because several fragmented sub-units are small, maintaining regional connectivity may be necessary to ensure long-term persistence. Despite grizzly bear vagility, their conservative dispersal behaviour and difficulty in living close to humans makes maintenance of regional connectivity challenging. This work demonstrates, at a regional scale, the impact that transportation corridors and their associated settlements can have on movements of animals, and highlights the ultimate effect this may have on populations. The historical mechanisms of range contraction (fragmentation and human-caused mortality) appear to still be operating and require mitigating management strategies. My results suggest that these strategies must focus on linkage zone development and highway crossing structures, as well as mortality management beyond the roadway and within adjacent populations.

Overview of International & Federal Activities

European Review of Habitat Fragmentation Due to Infrastructure

Hans Bekker, (Phone: +31 15 2518470, E-Mail: g.j.bekker@dww.rws.minvenw.nl), Program manager, chairman of COST 341 Infrastructure Environmental Affairs Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute Directorate-general of Public Works and Water Management, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, P.O. Box 5044, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands, Fax: + 31 152518555

Bjørn Iuell, (Phone. +47 22 07 30 19, E-Mail: bjorn.iuell@vegvesen.no) Biologist, vice-chairman of COST 341 Environmental Strategy Division Norwegian Public Roads Administration PO Box 8142 Dep N-0033 Oslo, Norway, Fax: +47 22 07 36 79

Habitat fragmentation, the splitting of natural habitats and ecosystems into smaller and more isolated patches, is recognised as one of the most important global threats to the conservation of biological diversity. Habitat fragmentation is mainly a result of changes in land use, but a major impact also results from the barrier effect caused by the construction and use of linear infrastructure of transportation systems. This problem has been recognised all over Europe, but the impact differs from country to country.

The project COST 341 Habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure started in 1998, and 16 European countries and one NGO (European Centre for Nature Conservation) have been officially involved in the initiative.
The main objectives of the action are:

• to promote a safe and sustainable pan-European transport infrastructure through recommending measures and planning procedures in order to conserve biodiversity and reduce vehicular accidents and fauna casualties
• to increase the awareness of the problem
• to offer practical solutions and to exchange knowledge and expertise through workshops and presentations
• to bring together the different groups involved

The first main product of the project is a European Review on habitat fragmentation on a European level, based on state-of-the-art-reports from the participating countries. The project found a strong awareness of the problem throughout Europe and that a diversity of approaches to counteract and solutions have been tested. However, there is still a need for yet a systematically approach, retrofitting existing infrastructure where necessary, and integrating concerns on fragmentation in the planning of new ones. And frequently asked questions are: ‘How do we do it?’, ‘How many passages are necessary?’, ‘When the problem is solved?’ and ‘Can it be cheaper?’. The conclusions and recommendations of the review will be presented.

The second important outcome of the project is the handbook Wildlife and traffic - A European handbook for identifying conflicts and designing solutions. This is a solution-orientated handbook, based upon the accumulated knowledge of a broad range of experts from the participating countries and from numerous international contacts. It gives practical guidance to the various actors involved in the planning, construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructures. The barrier-/ and fragmentation effects of infrastructure can be minimised during several phases of development and use, and often avoided if considered in the early phases of planning. It shows as well different solutions for the same problem in different countries. The handbook takes the reader through all the different phases, from the first steps of strategic planning, through the integration of roads in the landscape, the use of mitigation measures such as over- and underpasses for different animals, the developing field of compensatory measures, and to the use of different methods of monitoring and evaluation of the chosen solutions.

This paper presents the major findings of the European Review and an overview of the solutions recommended in the Handbook. The handbook will be published late 2003. The authors have been involved in coordinating the project and in writing the contents of the handbook.

IENE (Infra Eco Network Europe), a network of experts and authorities within the field of habitat fragmentation caused by construction and use of linear transportation infrastructure, was the applicant of COST 341. IENE is the framework in which the dissemination take place.
The results of COST action 341 will be presented in Brussels, Belgium, at 13 – 15 November 2003. See: www.iene.info

Cost 341: http://www.cordis.lu/cost-transport/src/cost-341.htm

COST = European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research

Results of the Scan Tour on Wildlife Connectivity Across European Highways

Mary Gray, (Phone: 360-753-9487, Email: mary.gray@fhwa.dot.gov), Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, 711 S. Capitol Way, Olympia, WA 98501

This presentation will summarize the findings from the International Scan Tour, Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways and the NCHRP report recently completed analyzing habitat fragmentation resulting from highways.

Transportation agencies around the globe must address impacts to wildlife and habitat resources when planning and implementing transportation improvements. How well these impacts are addressed and mitigated will be determined, in part, by how good the available data and information is.

The results of these two efforts provide a wide variety of excellent methods for addressing effects to fish and wildlife as well as the legal and scientific bases for addressing these impacts.

This summary will include ideas for fencing, overpasses, underpasses and culverts. However, it is widely recognized that these engineered solutions will not work with out the habitat. Therefore, strategies to acquire and preserving habitat to ensure connectivity will also be addressed

Funding is always an issue and as these topics are discussed funding strategies will be described.

Transportation Equity Act Reauthorization

Patricia A. White, (Phone: 202-682-9400, Email: twhite@defenders.org), Transportation Associate, Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, Fax: 202-682-1331

Congress is in the process of reauthorizing TEA-21, the six-year, $300 billion transportation bill, providing an excellent opportunity to integrate many of the ideals brought forth in ICOET into transportation policy. With appropriate federal guidance, such best practices in the areas of wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, water quality, and overall ecosystems management could become the standard. Likewise, without support within the new bill, many states and practitioners will find it more difficult to continue making positive strides in stewardship and resource protection.

Reauthorization issues that promise to be of interest to ICOET participants include:

1. Environmental Streamlining
2. Transportation Enhancements
3. Impact mitigation
4. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
5. Continuation of University Transportation Centers (UTC)
6. Cooperative Environmental Research Program (CERP)
7. Habitat connectivity across transportation corridors (aquatic and terrestrial)
8. Transportation on Federal lands
9. Landscape level transportation planning

Update on the Formation of the New Transportation Research Board Task Force on Ecology and Transportation

Thomas E. Linkous, (Phone: (614) 466-5075, Email: Thomas.Linkous@dot.state.oh.us), Environmental Liaison, Office of Environmental Services, Ohio Dept. of Transportation, 1980 West Broad Street, Columbus. OH 43229, Fax: (614) 728-7368

After two years of effort to reconstitute the group working toward a permanent place for ecological issues within the Transportation Research Board, the Task Force on Ecology and Transportation has been approved. There is still a long way to go to develop the task force’s role and mission and to demonstrate TRB’s need for a full committee to deal with what has become known as road ecology. The next few months will be critical to establish the membership who will take on the task on organizing and further refining the mission of the task force. ICOET participants have played a seminal role in getting the task force off the ground: in working to develop the proposal to TRB and putting together programs which helped to demonstrate the level of interest in ecology and transportation within TRB. ICOET itself has provided the substance which helped convince the leadership in TRB that there is a need for the task force.

ICOET 2003 included a business meeting with the Transportation Research Board to explore next steps and the technical requirements for being a task force. Also discussed was the conference session being developed for TRB’s annual meeting in January. This session is anticipated to bring some of the best new ideas from ICOET 2003 to the TRB audience and is a part of the task force’s goal to forge close ties between ICOET and TRB. Several paper sessions were evaluated for this TRB session. Trish White, Defenders of Wildlife, is heading up a working group from the task force organizers to develop the TRB conference session.

The role of this task force will be to foster communication about current research and new technology in the applied science of transportation ecology as well as to identify needed areas for research for the future.

Update on the Surface Transportation-Environmental Cooperative Research Program

Wayne W. Kober (Phone: 717-502-0179, Email: wwkpa@epix.net), President, Wayne W. Kober, Inc., 65 Brittany Lane, Dillsburg, PA 17019, Fax: 717-502-8180

The pending reauthorization of TEA-21 offers significant opportunities for the transportation and ecology communities to seek substantial amounts of Federal transportation funding for ecological research to meet transportation environmental stewardship challenges. Recently, the Surface Transportation Cooperative Research Advisory Board and the Future Strategic Highway Research Program Task Force independently recommended ecological and other environmental research for funding in the TEA-21 reauthorization. By pro-actively participating in the TEA-21 reauthorization deliberations, transportation and ecological professionals can inform Congress of the benefits of substantially increasing the funding levels for ecological research to enhance transportation program delivery and environmental stewardship. The presenter points out the ecological research funding opportunities offered by the TEA-21 reauthorization and actions to take to pursue them. Also, he recommends that a transportation and ecology research strategy be developed and adopted at the 2005 ICEOT.

Aquatic Ecosystems

Adverse Effects to Fish of Pile-Driving: Implications for ESA and EFH Consultations in Pacific Northwest

John H. Stadler, (Phone: (360)753-9576, Email: John.Stadler@noaa.gov), Fish Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503, Fax: (360)753-9517

Piles are integral components of many overwater and in-water structures, providing support for piers and bridges, functioning as fenders and dolphins to protect other structures, and are used to construct breakwaters and bulkheads. While treated-wood and concrete piles are commonly used for construction of these structures, there is a growing trend toward the use of hollow steel piles. In the Pacific Northwest, several recently-reported fish-kills that occurred during the installation of piles have raised concern among Federal and state agencies charged with protecting aquatic resources. Federal concern centers, primarily, on implementation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Injuries to fishes inflicted by pile driving are poorly studied, but include rupture of the swim bladder and internal hemorrhaging. The mechanism of injury appears to be the intense underwater pressure wave generated during some pile-driving activities. The type and intensity of the underwater sounds produced depend on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the type and size of the pile, the firmness of the substrate and depth of water into which the pile is being driven and the type and size of the pile-driving hammer. In general, driving steel piles with an impact hammer appears to generate pressure waves that are more harmful than those generated by impact-driving of concrete or wood piles, or by vibratory-hammer driving of any type of pile. Of the reported fish-kills, all have occurred during impact-driving of steel piles. However, conditions required to produce sound pressure waves that can injure or kill fishes are not presently understood.

Recent reports of fishes killed during pile driving are producing changes in the way that such activities are being viewed by the Washington State Habitat Branch of the National Marine Fisheries Service during ESA and EFH consultations. These changes include requirements for hydro-acoustic monitoring of the sound pressure levels generated during pile driving, and, if maximum thresholds are exceeded, the incorporation of measures to reduce those sound pressure levels. This presentation will discuss the approach taken by the Washington State Habitat Branch to address the uncertainties associated with pile driving and the adverse effects this activity may have on ESA-listed salmonids and EFH.

Aquatic Habitat Enhancement for Mad River and Beaver Pond Brook in Conjunction with the Reconstruction of I-84 in Waterbury, CT

David C. Nyman, P.E., (Phone: 978-589-3274, Email: dnyman@ensr.com), Senior Civil Engineer and Program Manager, ENSR International, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, MW 01886-3140, Fax: 978-589-3312

In conjunction with proposed highway improvements scheduled for I-84 in Waterbury, Connecticut, reaches of Mad River and Beaver Pond Brook will be relocated. A team of consulting engineers and ecological scientists provided analysis and design services for habitat enhancements for the affected river resources.

The existing watercourses affected by the highway project have been highly altered by previous urban development activity, which has degraded the habitat function of these streams. Therefore, the design focused on creation of a naturalized channel for each affected watercourse reach, with habitat features that replicate and, if possible, improve upon the functions observed in the current watercourses.

Design objectives included consideration of channel conveyance capacity and stability, channel improvements compatible with highway alignment and structural design, and provision of structural habitat features and other in-stream and riparian enhancements. The design project involved the application of “natural channel design” techniques and traditional hydraulic engineering and structural design approaches. The design addressed critical elements such as channel reaches that no longer have functional floodplains, potential scour at bridge structures, and removal of obstructions to fish passage at existing structures. One of the major features influencing design was the presence of a remnant dam spillway.

The design process involved analysis of geo-morphological characteristics and habitat features of existing river reaches. Relocated river segments incorporate appropriate pool-riffle sequence, substrate conditions, and other habitat structural elements. Riprap grade control structures were integrated into the habitat enhancements. Design also provided for introduction of riparian vegetation; culvert replacements and extensions incorporating fish passage features; and replacement of an existing inadequate fish-way structure previously constructed in a partially breached dam.

The design project demonstrated that natural channel design techniques, wetland and aquatic vegetation restoration techniques, and more traditional hydraulic and structural channel design engineering practices can be integrated to achieve a design conducive to the replication and enhancement of fisheries and riparian habitat functions in altered urban stream channels. The design process and design concepts developed in this project are adaptable to similar transportation improvement projects that involve impacts to existing stream and river resources.

Aquatic Organism Passage Design Process

Bob Gubernick Engineering Geologist, USDA-Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg, AK and Kozmo Ken Bates, Consulting Engineer in Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration, Olympia WA.

Stream simulation is a culvert design method to economically emulate the diversity and complexity of a natural channel inside a culvert. Gubernick et al (current volume) discuss evaluating site suitability for stream simulation culverts. That paper also describes site assessment procedures to gather the detailed information on the project site and reference reach that are needed to establish the design context and to design the culvert streambed and transitions to adjacent reaches.

In this paper, we discuss how interdisciplinary design teams use that geomorphic information to design culverts that ensure passage continuity for aquatic animals as well as water, sediment and debris, and that can be expected to maintain that continuity over the structure lifetime (barring extreme flood events). We recommend methods for determining design parameters for stream simulation culverts, including culvert size, slope, bed material size and arrangement, and channel transitions. The design process includes a bed stability analysis that depends on channel type and slope. Special issues such as steep channels, bedforms, and floodplain contraction are briefly discussed.

Collaborative Research and Watershed Management for Optimization of Forest Road Best Management Practices

Mark S. Riedel, (Phone: 828-524-2128 x113, Email: mriedel@fs.fed.us), Research Hydrologist and James M. Vose ( Phone: 828-524-2128 x114, Email: jvose@fs.fed.us), Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, 3160 Coweeta Lab Road, Otto, NC, 28734, Fax: 828-369-6768

The Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, USFS Southern Research Station, worked with state and local agencies and various organizations to provide guidance and tools to reduce sedimentation and facilitate restoration of the 1900 km2 Conasauga River watershed in northern Georgia and southern Tennessee. The Conasauga River has the most diverse aquatic ecosystem of any river in the region and is currently being considered for designation as a Federal wild and scenic river. The watershed is encircled and dissected by highways and roads, and receives intense recreational, industrial, and agricultural use from the surrounding human population.

Unpaved roads have been found to account for more than 80 % of stream sedimentation in the forested lands of this region. Collaborative efforts of research and management focused on developing sediment yield models, prioritizing road restoration, and reducing sediment yields from roads to streams. Model development facilitated identification of highly erosive roads and prediction of sediment yield reductions following reconstruction of forest roads.

We monitored sediment yield and transport from a wide variety of existing forest roads during the autumn, 2001. We used these data for model validation. We then used the model to characterize roads by erosion susceptibility and to prioritize roads for reconstruction. During the summer of 2002, we completed reconstruction and installation of best management practices along more than 20 miles of forest roads. We monitored sediment yield from these roads through autumn, 2002. Simulated estimates of sediment yield from the reconstructed roads were severely limited by the resolution and quality of available data and the sediment transport algorithms employed in the model. Despite a 46% increase in rainfall from the pre to post-treatment period, road reconstruction reduced sediment yield by 70%.

USDA Forest Service Large Scale Watershed Restoration Projects: http://www.fs.fed.us/largewatershedprojects/

Conasauga River Alliance: http://www.conasaugariver.net/

Construction Challenges and Case Studies

David Kim Johansen, (Phone: 541-225-6353, Email: kjohansen@fs.fed.us), Geotechnical Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Willamette and Siuslaw National Forests, 211 East 7th Avenue, P.O. Box 10607, Eugene Oregon, 97440, Fax: 541-225-6221

This paper presents guidance for constructing stream simulation structures capable of passing most aquatic organisms, amphibian and some terrestrial species. Bridges are not addressed specifically in this document but many of the construction details including the stream simulation bed, apply to bridges. To simulate a stream the structure must have been designed to fit well with and have minimal impact on stream dynamics and processes. Traditional construction methods are used for both embedded pipe and open bottom arch construction. In chronological order, the primary structure construction steps include prework meetings, surveys, traffic controls, dewatering, erosion control, clearing, excavation, foundations, bedding, pipe assembly, backfill and embankments, and rewatering. The single most important and unique detail to stream simulation structures is the simulated streambed inside the embedded pipe or open bottom arch. The bed is typically shaped to have a low water channel, margins, and banks and may include other large rocks added to simulate streambed roughness, stable banks and step pool. Bed construction requires unique effort and a combination of machinery and skilled hand labor to fit and arrange pieces to match the design interlock well and be durable. Protection of the aquatic environment is emphasized through minimizing turbidity and sedimentation. Additional aquatic organism protection can include collection and transport of species from the dewatered area, slow rewatering to avoid stranding, limiting toxic substances and noise, and reducing blasting effects. Communication among designers and contract administrators is emphasized to improve understanding of design objectives, maintaining a feedback loop to address site problems and transferring wisdom gained from the project’s construction.

Ecological Considerations in the Design of River and Stream Crossings

Scott D. Jackson, (Phone: 413 545-4743), Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst

As long linear ecosystems, rivers and streams are particularly vulnerable to fragmentation. There is growing concern about the role of road crossings – and especially culverts – in altering habitats and disrupting river and stream continuity. Most of the culverts currently in place were designed with the principal objective of moving water across a road alignment. Little consideration was given to ecosystem processes such as the natural hydrology, sediment transport, fish and wildlife passage, or the movement of woody debris. It is not surprising then that many culverts significantly disrupt the movement of aquatic organisms.

Survival of individual animals, facilitation of reproduction, and the maintenance of population continuity are important functions of movement at a population level. Dispersal of individuals provides a mechanism for regulating population density. These dispersing individuals maintain gene flow among populations and may supplement populations where recruitment is unable to keep pace with the loss of individuals. For many small species (especially invertebrates), dispersal of individuals provides a mechanism for colonizing habitat, allowing local populations to come and go as habitat is created or eliminated, while maintaining viable regional populations.

Much attention has been focused on passage for migratory fish, especially in the Northwestern U.S. In some cases, considerable resources have been invested in projects addressing fish passage only to find that accommodations made for adults did not address the needs of juvenile fish. Long-term conservation of fish resources will depend not only on passage for both adult and juvenile fish but also on maintenance of healthy stream and river ecosystems. Essential to this approach is a focus on habitat quality and strategies for aquatic organism passage based on communities rather than individual species. Without an ecosystem-based approach to river and stream crossings we will be at risk of facilitating passage for particular fish species while at the same time undermining the ecological integrity of the ecosystems on which these fish depend.

Stream Simulation is an approach to culvert design that both avoids flow constriction during normal conditions and creates a stream channel within culverts that resists scouring during flood events. Designing culverts to avoid channel constriction and maintain appropriate channel conditions within the structure, is a relatively simple and effective approach for accommodating the normal movements of aquatic organisms and preserving (or restoring) many ecosystem processes that maintain habitats and aquatic animal populations.

Road networks and river systems share several things in common. Both are long, linear features of the landscape. Transporting materials (and organisms) is fundamental to how they function. Connectivity is key to the continued functioning of both systems. Ultimately, our goal should be to create a transportation infrastructure that does not fragment or undermine the essential ecological infrastructure of the land.

Geomorphology and Site Assessment for Aquatic Organism Passage Design

Bob Gubernick Engineering Geologist, USDA-Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg, AK , Kim Clarkin, Hydrologist, USDA-Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, CA, and Michael J Furniss, Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Lab, Corvallis OR

Jackson (2004, current volume) described the types of damage to aquatic populations and metapopulations caused by barriers to aquatic species movement along stream corridors. Road-stream crossing culverts designed in the traditional way---sized for some rare flood flow---also have predictable detrimental effects on stream channels themselves. These occur not only during floods, when culverts may plug or be overtopped, but also over time if the culvert impedes downstream movement of woody debris and sediment.

This paper describes common stream responses to culverts, such as chronic aggradation and degradation; long-term changes in stream stability due to interruption of woody debris transport; and sedimentation sustained when culverts plug and fail, etc. It also describes the range of approaches to crossing design, from a culvert sized only to pass a certain flood to valley-spanning bridges and viaducts. Stream simulation is placed in the context of other design approaches that provide more or less biological and geomorphic connectivity. Biological and geomorphic priorities and risks must be weighed against site constraints and costs to select the appropriate level of continuity for each site.

Site assessment procedures for stream simulation design are then described. These include surveying and describing the longitudinal profile and valley cross-sections, bed material assessment, and reference reach selection. Channel stability interpretations needed for design are also discussed.

Guidance for the Selection of Compensatory Mitigation Options: Results from the NCHRP Project 25-16

Xavier Riva, (Phone: 484-533-2568, Email: xavier@admarble.com) Environmental Scientist, A.D. Marble & Company, Fax: 484-533-2599

Since the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, the volume of transportation projects being evaluated and designed has significantly increased. Over the past 3 years, funding for highway, bridge, and tunnel construction has steadily increased from $30 billion to just over $40 billion (Rubin et al.2001). This 33% increase may rise further as more of the record $198 billion surface transportation investments directed by TEA-21 is channeled into roadway projects. Paralleling this increase in roadway construction is a potential increase in the amount of impacts to the nation’s wetlands and, subsequently, an increase in the number of wetland mitigation projects. Therefore, it is critical that information be distributed to the state departments of transportation (DOTs) to assist them in developing wetland mitigation programs that not only streamline the compensatory mitigation process, but also improve the quality of mitigation sites. This report will help DOT wetland managers to better understand the status of DOT mitigation programs across the United States, while also providing the necessary information to evaluate mitigation options and modify their respective programs to incorporate options that are appropriate for the mitigation demands.

This report summarizes the results of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-16, “Guidance for Selecting Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Options.” This project was conducted in two phases. Phase I compares the success rates of the different wetland mitigation options. Phase II provides a decision-making tool to assist DOT wetland managers in developing comprehensive wetland mitigation programs that use multiple mitigation options. This objective was accomplished by illustrating the steps involved in developing a banking program, by developing eight case studies of state DOT wetland mitigation programs, and by evaluating existing banking agreements and guidelines.

Published in February 2001 as NCHRP Research Results Digest 251 (NCHRP 2001), Phase I results showed that the data on the relative success of mitigation options are incomplete and highly subjective. Available data on wetland mitigation currently deal primarily with project-specific mitigation, not with consolidated mitigation or with a comparison of the two. The data have consistently illustrated the problems with project-specific mitigation, including sites not being built, problems with grading, insufficient or excessive hydrology, incorrect plant communities, and large differences in the proposed and established mitigation types. No study has adequately investigated the success rate of consolidated mitigation or determined whether the procedures differ for establishing functioning project-specific and consolidated mitigation sites. The Phase I results also illustrated the following:

• Many state DOTs lack mitigation options.
• Inconsistencies in the quality and type of monitoring information collected by state
• DOTs make it impossible to determine whether the mitigation sites were actually successful.
• There is a perception that the success of project-specific and consolidated mitigation sites depend on
  better site selection, better coordination between designers and contractors, and more appropriate
  vegetation selection and planting techniques.
• There is a perception that consolidated mitigation offers more favorable results.

These results paralleled the recently completed National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses report (2001), which stated that the committee could not compare the success of mitigation options: “such an approach would have required the committee to identify a single mitigation target (‘or success criteria’) and then determine which mechanism would most likely meet it. There simply was no data that could be used for such an assessment.” The U.S. General Accounting Office’s 2001 report on the effectiveness of in-lieu fee mitigation also found that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) officials in 11 of 17 districts with fee-based mitigation programs believed that these programs were successful in mitigating wetland loss. The USACE officials maintained this belief despite having data that contradicted the belief (GAO 2001). These results demonstrated not only that there is a lack of data to compare mitigation options, but also that many resource agencies maintain the belief, despite a lack of scientific data, that consolidated mitigation is more successful than project-specific mitigation.

Phase I information helped to refine Phase II’s objectives. The NCHRP Project 25-16 research panel agreed that Phase II objectives would be accomplished with the development of case studies of sample DOT wetland mitigation programs across the United States. These case studies focus on the history of selected wetland mitigation programs and their use of consolidated mitigation options, as well as the successes and problems of their programs. Information is also provided on the language of banking agreements and on the wetland banking development process to further assist in the understanding and development of a banking program.

It is anticipated that the final report will provide guidance to state DOTs interested in expanding their mitigation programs to include consolidated mitigation options. The central issues regarding banking agreements are highlighted to provide the DOTs with an understanding about how a consensus can be built among resource agencies. Finally, it is hoped that this project will encourage DOTs to become more proactive in addressing their mitigation needs, to invest in consensus building among agencies, and to ultimately produce functional wetland mitigation projects whose benefits are maintained for the long term.

Additional Information:
URL for the NCHRP 25-16 information:
http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+25-16

The final report can be viewed at: http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_482.pdf

In-Lieu Fee Mitigation: A Public/Private Partnership for Improved Wetland Mitigation

Mary Gray, (Phone: 630-753-9487), Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, 711 South Capitol Way, Olympia, WA 98501

Quality wetland mitigation is very difficult to create. Good sites are few and far between. Rarely are all the ingredients available to insure success. Also, the price tag to create or even enhance is quite high. These issues can result in both significant increases in project development time and costs. In searching for ways to have both high value wetland mitigations and get rid of the delays associated with finding and obtaining the necessary land, a unique partnership was formed.

A partnership between has been formed between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Nature Conservancy, the Corps of Engineers (CORPS) and the Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD). A fund is set up by ITD to pay the Nature Conservancy to restore, create, enhance and preserve aquatic resources for them. This fund is utilized when ITD is required to compensate for impacts to waters of the US and aquatic resources protected by Executive Order 11990.

This partnership is a win win for all parties involved. ITD can effectively avoid project delays. FHWA and the CORPS are confident that the very best mitigation will be provided. Finally, the partnership funds the Nature Conservancy to do a job that they are so eminently qualified to do.

Many other states have similar partnerships. Hopefully, this partnership will become a model for many other states.

Inventory of Fish Passage at Selected Culverts on the Hoonah Ranger District, Tongass National Forest

Chris Riley (Phone: 406-682-4253, Email: criley01@fs.fed.us),USDA Forest Service, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Madison and Dillon Ranger Districts, Ennis, MT 59729, USA, Fax: 406-682-4233

In the month of July 1997, 38 culverts suspected of blocking upstream passage of juvenile salmonids were inventoried on the Hoonah Ranger District. Attributes measured included species/numbers of fish upstream and downstream of each culvert, in addition to physical characteristics such as outlet barrier height, culvert gradient, and upstream habitat. Thirty culverts exhibited some form of physical impediment (excessive barrier height and/or gradient) to the upstream migration of juvenile salmonids. Of the 30 barrier culverts, the height of the lower lip of the culvert outlet above the streambed ranged from 0 cm to 205 cm and averaged 36.5 cm. The gradient of these structures ranged from –0.5% to 14.5% and averaged 5.0%. Thirteen Class I (anadromous) culverts were sampled, of which nine lacked juvenile coho upstream of the culvert (no juvenile steelhead trout were trapped during the study). Boxplots of number of juvenile salmon trapped upstream of culverts relate a considerable reduction in distribution, median, and mean as compared to downstream. All thirteen culverts exhibited an outlet perched above the streambed, with barrier heights ranging from 10 cm to 99 cm, averaging 38.8 cm. Class I culvert gradient ranged from 0.5% to 9.5% and averaged 3.4%. Nineteen culverts were identified as Class II culverts (i.e., culverts in streams providing cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden charr habitat occupied upstream of anadromous habitat) during the survey, of which 17 exhibited some physical form of barrier to juvenile passage. Outlet barrier heights ranged from 0 cm to 205 cm, averaging 37.2 cm. Culvert gradient ranged from 2.0% to 9.0% and averaged 4.3%. Eight of the 19 Class II culverts had resident fish species trapped upstream of the culvert, six of which occurred above culverts exhibiting barrier characteristics such as outlet perch or excessive gradient. Boxplot distribution, median, and mean of height of outlet barrier and culvert gradient tended to be greater at Class I and Class II structures without fish trapped upstream as compared to culverts where fish were trapped upstream. This pattern was repeated for culvert length at Class I crossings, but was reversed for Class II structures. Overall, barrier culverts resulted in a loss of 8.11 km (16,534 m2) of fish habitat, comprised of 2.68 km (6,408 m2) of Class I and 5.42 km (10,126 m2) Class II habitat. Habitat lost per culvert at Class I crossings was 206 m (493 m2 by area), and 319 m (596 m2 by area) for Class II culverts. Roughly 37% of Class I fish habitat lost (determined by length) was of high-quality Floodplain process group reaches with an additional 47% comprised of moderate-quality Moderate Gradient–Mixed Control reaches. Class II habitat lost comprised about 41% Mixed-Moderate reaches, followed by 32% High Gradient-Contained and 17% Alluvial Fan process group reaches, both providing relatively low-quality fish habitat.

New York State Department of Transportation Soil Bioengineering and Biotechnical Engineering Design Guidance and Specifications

Mr. Gary Glath, (Phone: (518) 457-5286), Senior Landscape Architect, Mr. Stephen Radzyminski, (Phone: (518) 485-0969), Environmental Specialist, Mr. Robert Lohse, (Phone: (518) 457-3528), Principal Engineering Technician, and Mr. William Freehart, (Phone: (518) 485-2442), Civil Engineer, NYSDOT, Landscape Architecture Bureau, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12232

The Problem Statement
Highway construction activities often entail stripping of the topsoil, removal of existing vegetation, slope modification and other disturbances of the natural landscape that increase erosion of highway embankments and streambanks. In addition, suburban development is increasing the amount of impermeable surfaces throughout the natural landscape and a lack of adequate storm water management has lead to higher amounts of water draining into streams, speeding up erosion to a point of destruction to the stream environment.
Engineers have typically addressed these problems with hard structural solutions, such as rip-rap and concrete, which often lead to negative impacts to the environment and stream instability. There is, however, increasing pressure from regulatory agencies and citizen environmental groups to address the above issues with other more Aenvironmentally friendly@ and aesthetically pleasing methods.

The Project Objective
On July 15, 2002, NYSDOT issued Soil Bioengineering and Biotechnical Engineering Design Guidance and Specifications in order to provide designers with alternative techniques for erosion control and stabilization of disturbed sites, including cut/fill slope stabilization, small gully repair, earth embankment protection and streambank stabilization. Benefits of bioengineering/biotechnical engineering systems are their natural appearance, habitat development and potentially lower cost. In areas that have aesthetic and environmental concerns, soil bioengineering/biotechnical methods offer designers tools to address these concerns. Additional benefits associated with streams include more natural, productive riparian habitats, shade, addition of organic mater, cover for aquatic species and improved water quality.

Funding Sources and Total Budget
The funding source is from within the New York State Department of Transportation, Design and Construction Divisions.

Methodology
The Department=s Design Guidance procedures for Soil Bioengineering and Biotechnical Engineering will be discussed. In addition, examples of several NYSDOT projects will be discussed and a description of the following methods will be presented:

Soil Bioengineering:
$ Live cuttings/Live stakes
$ Brushlayering
$ Live Fascines
$ Brushmattressing
$ Branchpacking
$ Tree Revetment
$ Rootwad Revetment
$ Fiber Roll
Biotechnical Engineering:
$ Vegetated Gabion
$ Vegetated Crib Wall

Implications for Future Research/Policy Development
Post construction monitoring and assessments will focus on the evaluation of vegetative and structural components of soil bioengineering/biotechnical practices and their effectiveness to stabilize stream and highway embankments and reduce sediment and erosion. The assessments will also include a cost analysis comparing traditional hard structural systems to vegetation and natural structures for erosion control and slope protection. The overall objective is to reduce the reliance on hard structural solutions for future stream and highway bank stabilization project.

Protection of an Endangered Fish, TOR TOR and TOR Putitora Population Impacted by Transportation Networks in the Area of Tehri Dam Project, Garhwal Himalayas

Ramesh C. Sharma, D.Phil.; D.Sc., ( Tel/Fax: 01370:267740 (O); 01368:252622 (R); Email: drrameshcsharma@ yahoo.com), Head, Department of Environmental Sciences, H.N.B.Garhwal University, Post Box-67, Srinagar-Garhwal, 246174, Uttaranchal, INDIA

Sound ecological practices in development of roads and highways are essential to protect the fragile ecosystem of the Himalayan mountains in northern India. Evidence is growing that the expanding, poorly designed network of roads and trails is a major cause of habitat fragmentation and degradation of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. These effects have been quantified for two similar species of fish, collectively known as the Mahseer, which comprises Tor tor Hamilton and Tor putitora Hamilton, in the area of the construction of Tehri Dam Project, located in the Garhwal Himalaya, India. The Tehri Dam Project will be one of Asia’s highest dams (260.5 meters height), and fifth highest in the world. It is being constructed approximately 1.5 kilometers downstream of the confluence of the Bhagirathi and Bhilangana, which together form the Ganges River after meeting the Alaknanda River (30 degree, 23 minutes N; 78 degree 29 minutes E). The dam is a multipurpose project which costs more than 8,000 crores of Indian rupees (USD: 1,780 million). It will generate 2,400 M.W. of electricity, and irrigate 2.7 million hectares (6.6 million acres) of land, plus providing municipal drinking water to a large population. New roads have been constructed along the banks and in the riparian zone of the two rivers. This has introduced large amounts of woody debris and sediments into the waterways, resulting in drastic changes in the physico-chemical and biological profile of the aquatic ecosystem. Detrimental effects on transparency, current velocity, conductivity, substrate composition, dissolved oxygen and benthic communities have been documented. Feeding, spawning and migration routes of Mahseer have been degraded or destroyed. Subsequent to road development, standing crop estimates of Mahseer declined from a maximum mean monthly biomass of 0.492 g.m-2 (February) to 0.185 g.m-2, a 62% decrease, and a minimum monthly mean biomass (July-August) of 0.185 g.m-2 to 0.014 g.m-2, a 92% decrease. Annual productivity of Mahseer declined from 0.198 g.m-2.yr-1 to 0.054 g.m-2.yr-1 (73 percent). This decline is believed to have been caused by increase in turbidity, accompanied by a decline in dissolve oxygen, decrease in general benthic productivity, and loss of cover. We have recommended the following measures to restore habitat quality and connectivity for the Mahseer: Stream restoration and stream bank stabilization, gravel mining and dredging in the impacted sites, protecting of riparian vegetation, monitoring of water quality, enhancement of fish food reserves, rehabilitation of Mahseer in a hatchery / nursery, ecofriendly techniques for road development and maintenance, and the establishment of strong working partnership among civil engineers, environmental biologists and public.

Restoration of an 1,800-Acre Prairie Pothole Wetland complex in Northwestern Minnesota

Robert L. Jacobson, (Phone: 651-284-3767, Email: robert.jacobson@dot.state.mn.us), Transportation Program Supervisor Sr., Ecological Assistance & Planning Unit, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Services (MS 620), 395 John Ireland Blvd, St. Paul, MN 55155

In 1995 the Departments of Transportation in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas formed a partnership to develop and implement a plan to establish a national wildflower corridor from Canada to Mexico. Plan objectives included identification and protection of prairie remnants and rare species found in highway right-of-ways, establishing local origin native grasses and wildflowers to connect native remnants thus establishing a linear corridor; interpretation and educational efforts to increase awareness of natural and cultural prairie resources; assistance and cooperative efforts with communities along a designated and signed Prairie Passage route.

In 1995 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided a $50,000 grant to each of the six states to perform initial surveys and planning for the Prairie Passage. Implementation of each state’s plan is being accomplished through a variety of funding packages created by each state. From 1999 through 2003 Minnesota was funded by a $750,000, 20:80 match between the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources and TEA-21. Brochures, guide-books, posters, rest area kiosks, interpretive trails, and signage have been developed with this funding. Kansas and Oklahoma also received TEA-21 funding. Plantings have been established and interpretive materials are being developed. Iowa and Missouri have received other state funding.

Response to signage and distribution of interpretive materials in Minnesota has been enthusiastic and positive. Several communities on the signed route have proposed cooperative projects around Prairie Passage to further promote economic development and tourism in their areas. DOT district personnel have requested further information and training for use in planning and maintenance. It is hoped that other states will see similar results with materials and projects developed for their states.

Key words: Prairie Passage, TEA21, North American prairie, prairie restoration, wildflower, Legislative Commission On Minnesota Resources

Restoration of an Upper Headwaters Coldwater Ecosystem in Western Maryland Utilizing Passive Treatment Technologies

Andy Brookens and Terry Schmidt, Skelly and Loy, Inc., Dr. Raymond Morgan, Matthew Kline, Katie Kline, and Donna Gates, University of Maryland-Center for Environmental Studies, Appalachian Laboratory, Bill Branch, Maryland State Highway Administration

The utilization of passive treatment systems to mitigate the effects of acid mine drainage and acidic leachate discharge is a recent innovation in the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. During the construction of U.S. Route 48 (presently Interstate Route 68) and the Maryland Route 219 Interchange in Garrett County, Maryland, in approximately 1973, sulfide-bearing rock material was utilized as valley fill and for embankments on the eastern side of Keysers Ridge. The placement of this material affected the headwater areas of two tributaries to Lake Louise, an impoundment of Puzzley Run. The movement of water through the material induced biological and chemical processes to occur, resulting in acidic leachate discharge to the tributary streams. Degradation of the aquatic ecosystems in the tributaries and Lake Louise was documented in 1975. Watershed studies have since identified aluminum leaching, an artifact of the acidic leachate, as the probable source of impairment. The Maryland State Highway Administration constructed two passive treatment systems in 1996 employing successive alkalinity-producing technology to remediate the effects of the acidic leachate discharge. The ultimate objective of the passive treatment was to initiate the recovery process of Lake Louise and its affected tributaries. Extensive water quality analyses, phytoplankton and zooplankton community assessment, fish bioassays, and fish repatriation commenced in 1997, and will be continued through 2005. The biological sampling has documented improvements in the lake phytoplankton and zooplankton communities, as well as survival and growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) stockings. Young-of-the year brook trout were collected during 2002 in an impacted tributary, indicating the return of water quality and habitat conditions which support natural reproduction. Inflow, effluent, and biological monitoring completed to date have provided insight on the effectiveness and performance of these passive treatment systems for the restoration of the coldwater ecosystem.

Spooner Creek Restoration and Fish Ladder

Tom Moore, (Phone: 716-847-3811, Email: tmoore@dot.state.ny.us), Environmental Specialist II, New York State Department of Transportation, Region 5, 125 Main Street, Buffalo, New York, 14203, Fax: 716-847-3132

Spooner Creek is a dendritic 2nd order stream located in Erie County, New York, which flows into Cattaraugus Creek, a tributary of Lake Erie. Spooner Creek is identified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as a “very significant resource” within Western New York for migratory steelhead trout from Lake Erie.

In the early summer of 1998, a severe storm occurred along the southern portions of Erie County, impacting numerous streams along the Cattaraugus Creek Watershed. One of these impacted steams was Spooner Creek, in the proximity of NY Route 39, in the Town of Concord, Erie County New York. The current alignment of the existing culvert under Route 39 and the storm event resulted in severe streambed degradation, and erosion to the left and right channel banks. In addition, a large scour hole developed downstream of a grade stabilizing sheet pile wall. The depth of the scour hole combined with the height sheet pile wall created an impassable barrier for the upstream migration of steelhead trout.

To facilitate the migration of steelhead trout beyond the Route 39 structure, the NYSDOT constructed a fish ladder comprised of five (5) permanent sheet pile walls, along with the placement of extra heavy stone within the bed of the creek. A series of hydraulic jumps and resting pools were created from the five (5) sheet pile walls, and the placement of the extra heavy stone fill reconstructed a 200 meter section of Spooner Creek with a two (2) percent slope. In addition, a series of twelve (12) baffles were retrofitted within the concrete box culvert to increase water depths during periods of low flow to assist in the migration of fish through the structure. The riparian habitat of Spooner Creek damaged from the 1998 storm event and construction activities was restored and protected through the use of bioengineering and conventional engineering practices.

The Spooner Creek project was completed in the fall of 1999 for a cost of $400,000 utilizing Federal HBRR Funds. Based upon NYSDEC fisheries survey data, graduate studies by SUNY Fredonia, and from general observations, steelhead trout are migrating effortlessly beyond the structure and reproducing successfully in upstream nursery grounds. Bioengineering and conventional engineering methods are protecting the creek slopes from erosive forces, along with providing important habitat for fish and terrestrial fauna.

Strawberry Island Phase III: A Case Study in the Successful Application of In-Lieu Fee Mitigation

Timothy J. Spierto, (Phone: 716-851-7010, Email: tjspiert@gw.dec.state.ny.us), Sarah A. Lazazzero, (Phone: 716-851-7010 Email: salazazz@gw.dec.state.ny.us) and Patricia L. Nelson, (Phone: 716-851-7010 Email: plnelson@gw.dec.state.ny.us) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 9, Buffalo, NY 14203, Fax: 802-828-2334

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), together with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is conducting a riverine wetland restoration project at Strawberry Island. Strawberry Island is located at the divergence of the Tonawanda and Chippawa Channels of the Niagara River, near the City of Buffalo, in western New York. The majority of the funding for the project comes from New York’s 1996 Clean Water / Clean Air Bond Act, which was approved by voters and signed by Governor George E. Pataki. Additional funding was provided by NYSDOT as an in lieu fee solution to unavoidable impacts to freshwater wetlands.

The island, which was once more than 200 acres in size, has been severely impacted by sand and gravel mining as well as natural erosive forces. By 1993 the island had been reduced to less than six acres. Critical water levels, existing bottom topography, weather related impacts, and recreational and commercial boating along with utilization by fish and wildlife all need to be considered.

This paper describes the island history, design, regulatory approval process and construction activities utilized to protect /restore this ecologically sensitive site. Construction was completed in November 2001. Preliminary results suggest that erosion to the island has been halted and a flourishing wetland community is developing.

Texas Connects Watershed Protection and Erosion through Compost

Barrie Cogburn (Phone: 512-416-3086, Email: bcogburn@dot.state.tx.us), Landscape Architect, Texas Department of Transportation, 125 E. 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701 Fax: 512/416-3098

Scott McCoy (Phone: 512-239-6774, Email: smccoy@tceq.state.tx.us), Program Specialist Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711 Fax: 512/239-6763

Erosion control is an important issue that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must address on every construction and maintenance project. As topsoil sources have become depleted over the years, it has been observed that the most basic part of revegetation, a 4-inch topsoil seedbed, is actually soil with little or no organic material necessary to sustain plant growth. This has led to severe erosion on many projects. The consequences for failing to effectively control erosion are very costly. In addition to potential fines by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), repeated efforts to revegetate erosion-prone areas also increases the cost of projects. Erosion is costly and time-consuming from every aspect. If erosion occurs while the project is still under contract, the contractor must reapply topsoil, seed, fertilizer, and mulch and/or erosion control blankets. If erosion occurs on existing sections of highway, maintenance personnel are left to deal with the resulting problems which include re-working the soil and re-seeding, none of which they have the time or money to complete adequately.

TxDOT searched for an alternative method and quickly saw the benefits of utilizing compost as an erosion-control tool. The compost alternative, which is comparable in cost to the topsoil method, provides a more effective solution to the erosion problem by adding organic matter to poor soils as a soil amendment so that revegetation can occur. Erosion is avoided and TxDOT saves time and money that would have been expended for repeated topsoil applications where growth failed to occur.

In addition, highway construction practices have been viewed as potential contributors of nonpoint source pollution that is caused primarily by sediment runoff from improperly maintained or vegetated construction sites. Previous studies have shown that compost, a recycled material, can alleviate this problem by providing a barrier between rainfall and surface soil to dissipate the impact of rainfall and reduce erosion.

Wetland Mitigation Issues Related to the Reconstruction of U.S. Highway 93 on the Flathead Indian Reservation

Mary B. Price, (Phone: 406-675-2700 ext.7242, Email: maryp@cskt.org), Wetland/Riparian Ecologist Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, P.O. Box 278 Pablo, Montana 59855

U.S. Highway 93 traverses some of the most ecologically sensitive wetland, riparian and aquatic habitat on the Flathead Indian Reservation. In December 2000, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Montana Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for the Highway 93 Evaro to Polson Project. The MOA identifies the three governments’ preferred conceptual roadway improvements including alignment, lane configuration, design features, and mitigation concepts for 66.3 km (41.2 mi) of the project. The MOA also specifies a process for the environmental and final design phase of the project. The process, as it relates to wetlands, riparian and aquatic issues, highway design details, mitigation measures, and the integration of the MOA with Tribal, Federal and State environmental regulations, is presented. The MOA also commits the three governments to cooperate in the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 18.1 km (11.2 mi) of the highway traversing the Ninepipe pothole wetlands complex. A summary of the current status of the Highway 93 Ninepipe SEIS and design alternatives being evaluated is also presented.

Habitat Connectivity

Bridges and Wildlife: Issues and Solutions

Marion Carey, (Phone: 360-705-4704, Email: careym@WSDOT.wa.gov), ESA and Wildlife Team Lead, Environmental Affairs Office, Washington State Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 47331, Olympia Washington 98504

Problem Statement:
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) owns over 3,000 steel and concrete bridges many of which are occupied by wildlife. Species, which have been documented occupying bridges, range from birds of prey such as ospreys, peregrines and owls to mammals such as raccoons, bats and bushy tailed wood rats. While the bridges are placing an important role in providing habitat for wildlife, their presence can also lead to costly project delays.

Project Objective:
To develop a comprehensive approach to managing wildlife issues on bridges which will allow WSDOT to manage the bridges for wildlife where appropriate, and to address the regulatory issues which must be addressed for projects to proceed smoothly

Methods:
WSDOT has developed a comprehensive approach to addressing wildlife and bridge issues. The approach includes: 1. Education of bridge inspectors and maintenance workers on the species frequently seen on bridges, and the regulations, which protect them. 2. Maintenance of a database, which documents, by species, which bridges are inhabited by wildlife. 3. The development of guidelines for projects on how to avoid or minimize impacts to birds nesting on bridges. 4. Coordination with regulatory agencies (e.g. the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)) to obtain statewide permits for when eggs or young need to be removed due to a project.

Results:
The first step was to educate the bridge inspectors and maintenance folks about the species residing on the bridges, their identifying characteristics, life histories, and the applicable laws and regulations that applied to each species. In addition to the talks, species fact sheets were developed along with a Species on Bridges brochure. The species fact sheets were designed to fit into the bridge inspector’s notebooks, and each sheet includes information on a species, its identifying characteristics, its life history, and the laws that protect it.

WSDOT also added several fields to its existing bridge inspection report and bridge database, allowing inspectors to record information about the wildlife species observed on the bridge. This information is used by the bridge inspection office to schedule bridge inspections outside the nesting season for sensitive species like peregrines and ospreys, and to provide warnings to the inspectors about what they may encounter on the bridge, such as irate great horned owls. The regional project offices also use this information when planning and permitting projects involving the bridge as painting projects.

Guidelines were developed which explained the applicable regulations (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and state regulations) that must be meet in regards to birds and other protected species. The Guidelines focus on methods that can be used to avoid impacts to nesting birds through the use of timing windows, exclusion methods, work avoidance zones etc. Also included is a discussion of when and how to arrange for the removal of eggs or chicks for rearing at approved facilities if avoidance is not possible.

Since removal of eggs or young requires both federal and state permits, WSDOT is in the process of negotiating permits with the regulatory agencies that would allow for the removal of young or eggs when necessary. These permits will address how the removal will occur and the disposition of the eggs or young.

Application:
Currently WSDOT is using all of the tools that have been developed to help manage wildlife species residing on the bridges. Bridge inspectors and bridge maintenance personnel have been very enthusiastic about the training and about reporting wildlife that they encounter on the bridges. Project personnel are using the database tracking system to identify any Migratory Bird Treaty Act issues that may arise during a project.

Implications:
WSDOT biologists would like to develop additional opportunities for wildlife species on bridges through the use of wildlife structures. However, WSDOT is also concerned about maintaining the ability to inspect and repair the bridges as needed without violating any laws relating to wildlife. While the various tools that have been developed to date have helped address a number of these concerns, additional in-house coordination will be necessary to develop a working solution that will where appropriate, encourage wildlife on bridges, while maintaining maximum flexibility for inspection and repair work.

Conservation Strategies in the Florida Keys: Formula for Success

Roel R. Lopez, (Phone: 979-845-5777, Email: roel@tamu.edu), and NOVA J. SILVY (Phone: 979-845-5777, Email: n-silvy@tamu.edu), Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA

Catherine B. Owen, (Phone: 305-470-5399, Email: catherine.owen@dot.state.fl.us), and C. Leroy Irwin, (Phone: 850-410-5899, Email: leroy.irwin@dot.state.fl.us) Florida Department of Transportation, Environmental Management Office, Miami, FL 33172, USA,

The extensive and growing road network in the United States has substantial ecological, economic, and social impacts. In the case of the endangered Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), nearly 50% of the total mortality is attributed to deer-vehicle collisions. Over half of the deer-vehicle collisions occur on U. S. Highway 1, the only highway linking the Keys to the mainland. Since the early 1990’s, various agencies and stakeholders have been trying to address deer-vehicle collisions in the Florida Keys. Initially, underpasses in combination with fencing were chosen to address deer-vehicle collisions. An apparently simple solution, however, was complicated due to access management issues and environmental regulations related to urban development. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was instrumental in resolving many of these issues, and provided resources and expertise which served as a catalyst in this process. The FDOT’s U. S. Highway 1 improvement project, testing of a bridge grating system, and a Habitat Conservation Plan illustrate successful conservation strategies in the Florida Keys.

In the continental United States, roads and roadsides cover approximately 1% of the surface area, and impact 22% of it ecologically (Forman 2000). For species that readily cross roads, wildlife-vehicle collisions can have serious costs in several forms. For example, each year in the United States, deer-vehicle (Odocoileus virginianus) collisions cost $1.1 billion in property damage or losses, and cause an estimated 29,000 human injuries and 211 human fatalities (Conover et al. 1995). Continued urban sprawl and suburban development are likely to increase costs associated with deer-vehicle collisions.

Florida Key deer (O. v. clavium) occupy 20-25 islands in the lower Florida Keys and are the smallest sub-species of white-tailed deer in the United States (Hardin et al. 1984, Lopez 2001, Fig. 1). Approximately 75% of the overall population is found on Big Pine and No Name keys (Lopez et al. 2003a). Since 1960, urban development and habitat fragmentation have threatened the Key deer (Lopez 2001, Lopez et al. 2003c). In addition to a loss of habitat, an increase in urban development is of particular concern because highway mortality accounts for the majority of the total deer mortality. Over half of the deer-vehicle collisions occur on U. S. Highway 1 (US 1), the only highway linking the Keys to the mainland (Fig. 1, Lopez et al. 2003c). Since the late 1980’s, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and local residents have been trying to address deer-vehicle collisions on Big Pine Key (Lopez et al. 2003c). In 1993, FDOT began efforts to reduce Key deer mortality along the US 1 corridor on Big Pine Key. This proactive effort resulted in the formation of the Key Deer Ad-Hoc Committee in 1993. Based on recommendations from the committee, the Key Deer/Motorist Conflict Concept Study was initiated in 1995 to evaluate viable solutions in reducing Key deer mortality along US 1 (Calvo 1996, Calvo and Silvy 1996).

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossing Structures and Adapted Culverts on a Highway in Northwest Spain

C. Mata, (Phone: 91 397 80 11, Email: cristina.mata@uam.es) I. Hervàs, J. Herranz, F. Suàrez, and J.E. Malo, Dpto. Interuniversitario de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, E-28049 Madrid, Spain

J. Cachón, CETA, CEDEX, C/ Alfonso XII, 3. E-28014 Madrid, Spain

An intensive monitoring was carried out between June and September 2002 in different passage types across a highway in NW Spain in order to determine their use by terrestrial vertebrates. We used marble dust-beds to get footprints and a complementary photographic system to identify species which can not be distinguished by tracks.

Footprint data (820 passage-days) were collected from 82 passage structures (33 circular culverts, 10 adapted culverts, 14 wide underpasses, 7 wildlife underpasses, 16 overpasses and 2 ecoducts). The number of recorded vertebrates was high (1,424 tracks, 78.8% wildlife, and 21.2% related to human activity; and 490 photographic contacts, 54.3% and 45.7% respectively). Small mammals (mice, voles and shrews) was the group using passageways most frequently (414 tracks), followed by lagomorphs (Iberian hare, Lepus granatensis, and rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, N= 158), canids (Canis familiaris and C. lupus, N = 142), fox (Vulpes vulpes, N= 137) and lacertids (Lacerta spp. and Podarcis spp., N= 73). Underpasses and non wildlife- engineered overpasses were the most used structures. Differences were found in the selection of crossing structures by the two lagomorphs, hares selecting wildlife underpasses while rabbits did not show a significative preference. Anurans and ophidians (Fam. Colubridae and Viperidae) showed a clear preference for adapted culverts, avoiding overpasses. Lacertids and small mammals crossed most frequently through circular culverts, but generally used all passage types. Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) and Badger (Meles meles) always selected highway underpasses while small mustelids (Mustela nivalis plus M. erminea) used culverts exclusively. Finally, foxes used all types of crossing structures, showing a preference for wide underpasses. Red deer (Cervus elaphus) were found to use wide passages under or above the road, and more frequently ecoducts, but roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) were never detected in crossing structures though very abundant in the area.

Four recommendations arise from the study: (1) as a differential use among animal species has been found, it is necessary to keep several crossing structure types, (2) functional structures of the motorway (non wildlife-engineered) play an important role in the permeability of the road, and their adaptation for wildlife enhances their use by some taxa. Thus, the adaptation of structures related to human activity plays a key role in the achievement of the best solution from a benefit-to-cost point of view. (3) The set of passageways necessary to mitigate the barrier effect suffered by a known mammal community can be established taking into account the animal sizes and the wideness and relative position of crossing structures to the road (over vs. under), however (4) it seems that some species may not cross through structures up to 20 m wide and thus some of the passageways should be wider (in the form of tunnels and/or viaducts).

Human Transportation Network as an Ecological Barrier for Wildlife on Brazilian Pantanal-Cerrado Corridors

Wagner A. Fischer, (Phone/fax: +55 (061) 367-5912, Email: estradaviva@uol.com.br), Biologist (São Paulo University – USP), Msc. Ecology and Conservation (Mato Grosso do Sul Federal University – UFMS), President of NGO “Estrada Viva” / “Living Roads” SHIS QI 27 – CONJ.01 – C.14, Lago Sul/Brasília/ Brazil

Mario Barroso Ramos-Neto, (Email: m.barroso@conservation.org.br), Biologist, PhD Ecology (São Paulo University – USP),Cerrado Program Coordinator (Conservation International Institute – CI do Brasil)

Leandro Silveira, (Email: silveira@procarnivoros.org.br), Biologist, PhD Ecology (Goias Federal University – UFG), Cerrado and Pantanal Carnivores Conservation Ecology (Associação Pró-Carnívoros / Pro-Carnivores Association)

Anah T. A. Jácomo, (Email: jacomo@procarnivoros.org.br), Biologist, PhD Ecology (Goias Federal University – UFG), Cerrado and Pantanal Mammals Conservation Ecology (Associação Pró-Carnívoros / Pro-Carnivores Association)

Highway impacts on terrestrial fauna are known as a serious mortality source for several species around the World. Despite the international concerns about this issue, only recently this question has been included into Brazilian Policies of Transportation.

Brazilian Pantanal and Cerrado biomes and corridors are known as two of the broadest wildlife sanctuaries in South America and their fauna movements has been drastically affected by roads development. The last 13 years of road fauna-monitoring databases at Pantanal and Cerrado highways has shown a fast evolution of wildlife mortality caused by vehicle traffic.

Pantanal and Cerrado road fauna has been represented by more than 140 species, 16 of them are considered endangered by Brazilian Government as Chrysocyon brachyurus, Speothos venaticus, Leopardus pardalis, Oncifelis colocolo, Panthera onca, Puma concolor, Pteronura brasiliensis, Blastocerus dichotomus, and Myrmecophaga tridactyla, one of the most vulnerable species, reaching more than 200 road kills per year.

In Pantanal, highway mortality of wildlife was multiplied eight times in the last 10 years. Along 1,350km of federal roads around Pantanal (from Caceres/MT to Corumba/MS) road kill estimatives oscillated from 1,120 deaths/year in 1992 to 8,090 deaths/year in 2002. In Cerrado areas, road kill rate evolution takes the same tendency. On 310km of roads around Emas National Park, highway mortality of fauna was close to 405 deaths/year in 1999 and it reaches to 540 deaths/year at the end of 2002, that is, an increasing of 33% in three years.

We mapped the most relevant wildlife corridors for applying road fauna management and landscape design technologies to allow safe unevenness crossings between animal and human corridors (under or over passages).

Identifying the Best Locations to Provide Safe Highway Crossing Opportunities for Wildlife

Sarah A. Barnum (Phone 303-329-6429,sbarnum@carbon.cudenver.edu), Ph.D. program in Design and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, 1132 Jasmine St., Denver, CO 80220

Providing mid- and large-sized mammals with safe opportunities to cross roadways can reduce the impacts of highways on wildlife. To maximize effectiveness, this type of mitigation must be placed in locations where animals naturally approach and cross the highway. Results of a study funded by the Colorado Department of Transportation indicate that mid- and large sized mammals focus crossing activity at specific locations that are correlated to features of the surrounding habitat and the roadway itself. Therefore, both the design of a highway and its placement in the landscape should be considered when creating mitigation projects to help wildlife safely cross a highway.
It is important to note that no single set of variables identifies all preferred crossing locations.

Because every landscape and every highway is unique, identifying the best location for each mitigation project must be approached individually. However, the study results suggest a set of guidelines, comprised of the following: 1) Use habitat suitability as the primary indicator of crossing activity; 2) Consider how landscape structure interacts with habitat suitability to either increase or decrease the level of use an area of suitable habitat receives by a particular species; 3) Consider how the design of the existing highway interacts with habitat suitability and landscape structure to influence crossing behavior; 4) Synthesize this information by mapping the landscape and roadway features/conditions likely to be associated with crossing or that are attractive/repellant to the species present. Use these maps identify the most likely crossing locations. Finally, because the preferred habitat and behavior of a given species can vary across its range, it is important to employ professionals familiar with the landscapes and species of concern on the analysis team.

Influence of Predator and Prey Relationships on Wildlife Passage Evaluation

Stuart J. Little (Phone: 61-2-9762-8183, Email: stuart.little@planning.nsw.gov.au), Senior Environmental Policy Officer, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, GPO Box 3927 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

The influence of predator-prey systems and interactions on wildlife passage use by mammals has received little attention to date. Predator-prey systems vary throughout the world and across regions. Europe and North America are characterised largely by predator-prey systems in which predator and prey have coevolved. However, large predators are absent from many areas enabling prey species (e.g. ungulates) to range in predator-free environments. In mainland Australia, the main predator species are evolutionary novel and have not co-evolved with native prey. These fundamental differences in predator-prey systems potentially influence species’ behavior and, it is argued, species’ response to passage environments. Predator-prey systems also operate at different spatial scales. The spatial distribution of large mammals is influenced by regional scale predator-prey interactions that potentially influence the species encountering passages. Medium-sized and small mammals tend to operate at more refined geographical scales and passage avoidance or acceptance may be more influenced by localised predator-prey interactions and in response to the passage structure. Biotic interactions at passage approaches and within passage confines potentially influence the successful transit of the passage.

This paper examines the documented and potential influence of predator-prey interactions on wildlife passage use by mammals, and passage effects on predator and prey interactions. It considers predator-prey relationships relative to various spatial scales and takes into account biotic interactions that may occur at passage sites. The potential influences of relaxed selection and co-evolution of predator and prey on predator-prey systems and mammalian responses to passage environments are particularly addressed. It is concluded that extrapolation of management recommendations resulting from passage studies under different predator-prey systems need to be treated cautiously. The influence of predator-prey interactions on passage response by mammalian fauna appears to have been underestimated in passage studies to date and warrants further scientific investigation.

Innovative Partnerships that Address Highway Impacts to Wildlife Connectivity in the Northern Rockies

Deborah K. Davidson, (Phone: 406-586-8175, Email:dkmon@wildlands.org), American Wildlands, 40 East Main Street, Bozeman MT 59715, Fax: 406-586-8242

The U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains are comprised of three large and sparsely populated states. They are also exceedingly highway-oriented places, with one of the highest rates of rural travel in the country. High volumes of traffic along transportation corridors can block, deflect, or delay daily, seasonal and lifetime wildlife movements. Highways, and the vehicles that travel upon them are resulting in habitat fragmentation, habitat loss and direct mortality to the region’s signature species such as the grizzly bear, elk and lynx. American Wildlands’ Corridors of Life program has used scientifically defensible methodologies to identify over 100 wildlife migration corridors with the highest potential to serve as conduits of wildlife movement between the U.S. Northern Rockies’ core protected areas. U.S. Interstates or State Highways bisect the majority of these potential wildlife corridors.

In order to address the impacts that highways have upon habitat connectivity in the Northern Rockies, American Wildlands has organized an innovative multi-disciplinary working group to improve wildlife movement and human safety in a potential wildlife corridor in Montana. This working group has representatives from federal, state and county agencies as well as land trusts, independent biologists, conservation groups, and university researchers. The Bozeman Pass Working Group is focusing on a 30-mile stretch of I-90 in western Montana that serves as one of the only corridors between the Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide ecosystems. The goal of the Bozeman Pass Working Group is to address factors that limit wildlife movement across the landscape, improve highway safety, protect key parcels of private land and ensure public lands are managed in a way that promotes habitat connectivity. The members of the Bozeman Pass Working Group have developed scientific studies, using GIS and field biology tools with the objectives of identifying the highway’s impacts on wildlife. The findings from these scientific studies have been incorporated into private and public lands conservation efforts and highway mitigation initiatives. The Bozeman Pass Working Group has successfully secured funding for mitigation projects that will improve wildlife movement and human safety along I-90.

Investigating Wildlife Use of Underpasses Under I-87: Science and the Perils of Publicity

Justina Ray, (Phone: 718-220-5158, Email: jray@wcs.org), Jodi Hilty, (Phone: 718-220-5158, Email: jhilty@wcs.org), & William Weber, (Phone: 718-220-5158, Email: bweber@wcs.org), Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Blvd. Bronx, NY 10460

Roland Kays, (Phone: 518-486-3205, Email: rkays@mail.nysed.gov), New York State Museum, CEC 3140, Albany, NY 12230

Scott LaPoint, (Phone: 518-638-8393, Email: scott4406@yahoo.com), SUNY Environmental Science & Forestry, 1618 Mahaffy Rd., Fort Edward, NY 12828

The issue of connectivity in roaded landscapes is a controversial one. Conservationists argue for significant expenditures on wildlife-friendly highway designs, while opponents fight against such spending. A recent study evaluating wildlife use of underpasses in the Adirondack region of New York ran headlong into this controversy, inadvertently fueling a debate about the general efficacy of wildlife underpasses through misleading coverage of research results in the popular press. This poster will detail the road traveled by this project: from conception through implementation, to the publicizing of results and the subsequent media fallout, and will conclude with the steps taken to clarify the study conclusions and lessons learned about publicizing science that is of public and political interest.

Because the proposed construction of the “Rooftop Highway” between Interstates 81 and 87 could effectively complete the isolation of the 24,000 km2 Adirondack Park, measures to mitigate negative impacts on wildlife are a priority in the region. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the New York State Museum (NYSM) recently partnered on a small research project investigating the extent to which underpasses and culverts constructed under a nearby Adirondack highway (I-87) were utilized by wildlife. Although these structures were not explicitly designed for wildlife, they might still function as animal passageways. Interviews with NY DOT and other agency personnel strongly encouraged implementation of a study of this nature to help inform the design of new wildlife crossings.

During a 6-week period in spring 2002, we monitored 19 culverts and underpasses of various types along a 141-km stretch of I-87 using camera traps and supplemental footprint tracking. The results of this study, published in spring 2003 in the Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies, made it clear that culverts along I-87 benefited humans, but were rarely utilized by wildlife, pointing to the low conservation value of unplanned culverts for large Adirondack wildlife. A secondary message was that wildlife passages under future roads and highways should be designed to curb human use of such passages.

A draft press release by the authors accurately summarizing the study results was unintentionally distorted in institutional press releases from WCS and NYSM media offices. Local newspapers that picked up the story generally interviewed the authors and offered accurate coverage that focused on the costs and benefits of the proposed “Rooftop Highway.” This perspective was lost, however, in small pieces printed in the Washington Post and the New York Times. These stories distorted the study’s findings that almost no animals used the small I-87 culverts, by incorrectly claiming that wildlife underpasses universally do not work for wildlife. The lack of interviews for these national stories further deprived the authors of an opportunity to clarify this point.

While the full impact of the Washington Post article is difficult to judge, it has apparently been cited by some officials and decision-makers as evidence against the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses. This misrepresentation of our results was a blow to all those working to improve connectivity in roaded landscapes, including the authors. We describe the steps taken by the scientists and institutions involved in this study to move constructively forward from this point. We also draw attention to the political climate surrounding this particular issue and a large volume of email exchanges, both of which served to greatly magnify the impact of this relatively minor study.

Long-Term, Year-Road Monitoring of Wildlife Crossing Structures and the Importance of Temporal and Spatial Variability in Performance Studies

Anthony P. Clevenger, (Phone: 403-760-1371, Email: tony.clevenger@pc.gc.ca), 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.

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. The results of single species monitoring programs may fail to recognize the barrier effects imposed on other non-target species. Thus, systems can be severely compromised if land managers and transportation planners rely on simple extrapolation species.

In a previous analysis of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park (BNP), Canada, we found human influence consistently ranked high as a significant factor affecting species passage. Our results suggest that the physical dimensions of the underpasses had little effect on passage because animals may have adapted to the 12-year old underpasses. As a sequel to the above study, we examined a completely new set of recently constructed underpasses and overpasses which animals had little time to become familiar with.

We investigated the importance of temporal and spatial variability using data obtained from systematic, year-round monitoring of 13 newly-constructed wildlife crossing structures 34 months post-construction. Our results suggest that structural attributes best correlated to performance indices for both large predator and prey species, while landscape and human-related factors were of secondary importance. These findings underscore the importance of integrating temporal and spatial variability as a priori when addressing wildlife crossing structure efficacy, and the fact that species respond differently to crossing structure features. Thus mitigation planning in a multiple-species ecosystem is likely to be a challenging process.

The results from this work suggest that mitigation strategies need to be proactive at the site and landscape level to ensure that crossing structures remain functional over time, including human use management. Continuous long term monitoring of crossing structures will be key to ascertaining the strengths and weaknesses of design characteristics for a multi-species assemblage.

Monitoring the Use of Slaty Creek Wildlife Underpass in the Calder Freeway, Black Forest, Macedon, Victoria, Australia

Rodney N. Abson, (Phone:(03) 5444 7869,E-mail: r.abson@bendigo.latrobe.edu.au), Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities, La Trobe University, PO Box 199, Bendigo Australia 3550, Fax: (03) 5444 7848

Dr. Ruth E. Lawrence, (Phone:( 03) 5444 7267,E-mail: r.lawrence@bendigo.latrobe.edu.au), Department of Outdoor Education and Nature Tourism, La Trobe University, PO Box 199, Bendigo Australia 3550.
Fax: (03) 5444 7848

The Slaty Creek Wildlife Underpass was built into the Calder Freeway, Macedon, Victoria, to facilitate safe passage for species between forest blocks, now affected by this new section of freeway through the Black Forest.

A 12-month monitoring regime was established, consisting of 14 monitoring methods to detect a variety of animals. Intensive sampling was conducted for one week per month, within the underpass, and with two control sites on either side of the underpass, along the Slaty Creek.

The monitoring sampled for mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds, encountering a total of 116 species within the Black Forest region, with most of these also being detected within the underpass.

Mule Deer Response to an Underpass in Nugget Canyon, Wyoming

Kelly M. Gordon, (Phone: (307) 766-5415, Email: kgordon@uwyo.edu), Research Scientist, Stanley H. Anderson, Unit Leader, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Box 3166, Laramie, WY 82071 USA, Fax: (307) 766-5400

Underpasses have been found to be a valuable mitigation tool in increasing permeability of roads to wildlife while preventing roadside mortality. Underpasses are currently used in Wyoming on Interstate 80 near Arlington and Walcott Junction in conjunction with 2.4 meter high fencing to allow mule deer to pass under two stretches of road that bisect migration routes of mule deer. One experimental underpass has been installed in Nugget Canyon on U.S. Highway 30 between Kemmerer and Cokeville in western Wyoming to assess the effectiveness of underpasses in mitigating deer vehicle collisions along a 15-mile stretch of highway that bisects the migration route of a subunit of the Wyoming Range mule deer herd consisting of 14,000 animals. A monitoring study using 35 mm cameras activated by Trailmaster TM1500 infrared sensors was initiated in fall of 2001 to assess mule deer use of six underpasses on Interstate 80. Results from this study were used to inform a project examining the response of mule deer to manipulations of the openness ratio of the Nugget Canyon underpass which entailed video monitoring of the underpass to gather data on deer behavior. We found that of the six underpasses we monitored along Interstate 80, only one was consistently used by mule deer. This underpass had a high openness ratio and was located near a historic mule deer migration route. At the Nugget Canyon underpass, we found that percentage of mule deer repelling from the underpass was significantly correlated with underpass openness. Mule deer responded more to alterations in underpass width than height. Based on our results, we recommend that future underpasses constructed in Nugget Canyon be at least 20’ wide and 8’ tall and have an openness ratio of at least 0.8.

Planning for Wildlife Passages and Methods to Assess their Performances

Amanda Hardy, Western Transportation Institute, 416 Cobleigh Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717 USA.

Anthony P. Clevenger, 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

Marcel Huijser, Western Transportation Institute, 416 Cobleigh Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717 USA

Graham Neale, Garcia and Associates, 7550 Shedhorn Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715

Human activities often cause landscape habitat fragmentation and blockage of wildlife movements across landscapes and ecosystems today. North American and European Union initiatives such as the Transportation Equities Act and COST-341 program have heightened the importance of mitigating the negative effects of roads, such as animal-vehicle collisions and barrier effects. Wildlife crossing structures are being incorporated into some road construction and improvement projects in an attempt to reduce negative effects on wildlife populations. Transportation and resource agencies are becoming increasingly accountable and therefore concerned as to whether highway mitigation measures are functional and perform to expected standards. However, there are presently gaps in our knowledge regarding the effectiveness of wildlife crossings structure applications. One reason for the lack of available information is that relatively few mitigation projects implement rigid monitoring programs with sufficient experimental design. Thus, results obtained from most studies remain anecdotal or descriptive at best. With sufficient lead-time, experimental study designs can provide rigorous assessments of highway impacts and wildlife crossing structure performance pre- versus post-construction. Alternative methods of post-construction assessment can be used if time does not permit for data collection during the pre-construction period. We review past and current methods used to evaluate wildlife crossing structures and examine criteria to consider when evaluating wildlife passage effectiveness. We focus on methods to monitor mammals and summarize representative studies published international journals and conference proceedings. We examine pre- and post-mitigation study designs versus evaluations that base effectiveness solely on post-mitigation monitoring. We make suggestions for conducting quality scientific evaluations that will allow transportation agencies to address the question, “Do wildlife crossing structures work?”

Rapid Assessment Process for Determining Potential Wildlife, Fish and Plant Linkages for Highways

Bill Ruediger (Phone: 406-329-3100, E-mail: bruediger@fs.fed.us) Ecology Program Leader for Roads and Highways. USDA Forest Service, 200 E. Broadway, Missoula, MT. Fax: 406-29-3171

John Lloyd, (E-mail: jlloyd@selway.umt.edu), Wildlife Biologist, 2657 NW Raleigh, Portland, OR 9721
Geographic Information Provided By Ken and Robin Wall,( Phone:406-721-8865 Email: kwall@geodata-mt.com), Geodata Services, Inc., 104 South Ave. E., Missoula, MT. 59807, . www.geodata-mt.com

The authors developed and tested a rapid assessment fish and wildlife linkage process on Highway 93 in Western Montana. Highway 93 is a north-south route that traverses remote high mountain ranges and intensively managed and settled valleys from Canada to Idaho. Twenty-nine species were analyzed including large carnivores such as grizzly bear, black bear, mountain lion and wolves, five ungulates, numerous species of small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, plants and fish (including bull trout and cutthroat trout). The rapid assessment process uses a readily available public geographic information system data on vegetation, habitats, wildlife, fish, road kill, rare plant communities, topography, hydrology, land ownership patterns, existing conservation easements and point data on special habitats and species occurrences. An interagency group of local wildlife and fish experts was able to review approximately 200 miles of the 290-mile corridor in less than two days. Forty-eight potential wildlife and fish linkage areas were mapped and reported by milepost. The linkage areas are species and location specific. Some wildlife linkage areas were identified primarily from high vehicle collision rates with large ungulates (highway safety). The process is designed as a mid-scale analysis. It has value for initial determination of wildlife and fish linkage areas, potential wildlife and fish highway crossings, identification of key areas for wildlife and fish mitigation, potential areas for open space, conservations easements or land adjustments to benefit wildlife, fish and plant habitats. Involvement included county, state, federal agencies and non-profit conservation interests. Use of the process could substantially improve wildlife and fish coordination with highway planning throughout the United States and Canada. The process is cost effective, fast and accurate.

Strategies for Restoring Ecological Connectivity and Establishing Wildlife Passage for the Upgrade of Route 78 in Swanton, Vermont: An Overview

John M. Austin, Phone: (802)476-0199, Email: john.austin@anr.state.vt.us) Wildlife Biologist, Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, 5 Perry Street, Suite 40, Barre, Vermont 05641

Mark Ferguson, (Phone: (802)241-3700, Email: mark.ferguson@anr.state.vt.us) Zoologist, Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont 05671

Glenn Gingras, (Phone :(802) 8283979, Email: glenn.gingras@vtrans.state.vt.us), Environmental Specialist, Vermont Agency of Transportation, National Life Building, Drawer 33, Montpelier, Vermont 05633

Greg Bakos, ,(Phone: (603)644-0888) Transportation Engineer, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 6 Bedford Farms, Suite 607, Bedford, NH 03110-6532

Vermont Route 78 travels through one of the largest and most significant wetland complexes in the State of Vermont. This fact is exemplified by the presence of the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge and the Carmens Marsh State Wildlife Management Area as the primary landowners of this large wetland system. This mosaic of wetlands offers outstanding wildlife habitat for a myriad of resident and migratory species ranging from waterfowl (e.g., black ducks, wood ducks, goldeneyes) and wading birds (e.g., great blue herons, American bitterns, Virginia rail – the state’s largest colony of nesting great blue herons occurs in this wetland system), to rare, threatened and endangered species such as the black tern and spiny softshell turtle. Although black bear and moose are not the common species in this part of the state, vehicle collisions with those species have occurred in the project area. Each year, many white-tailed deer are killed by vehicle collisions in one area of this roadway alone. Numerous other species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians are killed by traffic in this area each year.

Route 78 is a relatively narrow, winding road with an increasing volume of traffic, most notably commercial truck traffic coming from and going to Canada. Public safety concerns regarding the high traffic volume and poor road conditions have caused the Vermont Agency of Transportation to pursue upgrade of the road along the Missisquoi River and through the Mississquoi wetland system and Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. In order to address safety issues related to the road conditions and the wildlife habitat and associated environmental concerns, a collaborative process was developed to identify issues and solutions. The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife in coordination with the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge and the Vermont Agency of Transportation identified impacts to wetland habitat, effects of traffic on sensitive wetland dependent wildlife, and the barrier effect of the existing road conditions as primary concerns related to this project. In order to address those concerns, we evaluated landscape and habitat conditions along the road project corridor, distribution of road-related wildlife mortality, animal movement information based on evidence of animal movements and activity in habitats near the road (e.g., tracks, observations of animals), and local knowledge of animal movements and animal vehicle collision areas from Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge biologists and Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Game Wardens.

Landscape analysis of this segment of route 78 indicates an isolated area of upland habitat surrounded by wetland habitat associated with an S-curve in the road known as Louis landing. Road-related wildlife mortality information indicates a high proportion of animal vehicle collisions along the S-curve by Louis landing suggesting that the upland habitat is serving as a primary travel corridor for many species of wildlife. Species that cross, or are likely to cross, within the wetland/upland complex along Route 78 such as deer, moose, black bear, mink, otter, beaver, muskrat, raccoon, coyotes, red fox, gray fox, other small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and some birds would utilize a transition zone between wetland and upland habitat which is provided by this area. As mentioned earlier, this is the only area where black bear and moose have tried to cross Route 78. In Vermont, we’ve found black bears are selective in their preference for locations to cross roads. This is a primary location where birds are struck by vehicles including hawks, owls, waterfowl and songbirds.

Additionally, we identified several other important wildlife linkage areas that traverse Route 78 as well as an important amphibian breeding area that requires large migrations of frogs to cross the road each year during spring spawning season.

Based on this evaluation, we developed a “Route 78 Permeability Plan for Fish, Wildlife, and Ecosystem Functions.” The purpose of this plan is to identify the most significant wildlife habitat linkage areas along the road project corridor and identify measures for resolving road-related conflicts with those areas. The plan proposes the following measures for restoring and mitigating wildlife movement and ecological functions within the Missisquoi wetland system:

A. Construction of a 500 foot long span bridge in an area identified as Louis Landing. This is the primary linkage are