WILDLIFE CROSSINGS: The Case for a Nationwide Commitment to a Systematic Network of Highway Crossings for Wildlife

Acknowledgements We thank the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET) for allowing the ARC Solution’s Crossings and Culture Forum to be part of ICOET’s biennial conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, in June 2013. During the Forum, the number one recommended next step was to develop a white paper to educate the public and policy makers on wildlife crossings and their proven effectiveness in reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and improving habitat connectivity. In May 2014, ARC Solutions and the Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University (WTI) co-hosted a follow-up workshop to draft that white paper in Bozeman, Montana. What you see here is the result of that endeavor. We greatly appreciate the guidance provided by the ARC Solutions’ Steering Committee, including Steve Albert, WTI; Terry Brennan and Sandra Jacobson, U.S. Forest Service; and Jeremy Guth, Woodcock Foundation, and their support and funding for the Crossings and Culture Forum, the May 2014 workshop, and this project. We also are grateful to Steve Suder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Roger Surdahl, Federal Highways Administration, for recognizing the need for this paper and for their review and support for this project. The expertise and counsel provided by these individuals has been invaluable to the execution of the project. Finally, we would like to thank Christine Green, WTI, for her extraordinary efforts to put on a world-class workshop on a shoe-string budget, and her grace under pressure.

Cover photo: Concept design for the winning entry in the 2010 ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition by HNTB with Michael Van Valkenburgh & Associates. For more information on the competition, visit: http://arc-solutions.org/

i

May 2014 Workshop Participants Rob Ament, Montana State University, Western Transportation Institute Richard Bostwick, Maine Department of Transportation Terry Brennan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Renee Callahan, ARC Solutions and Center for Large Landscape Conservation Tony Clevenger, Montana State University, Western Transportation Institute Tim Dexter, Massachusetts Department of Transportation Norris Dodd, Arizona Department of Transportation Marcel Huijser, Montana State University, Western Transportation Institute Sandra Jacobson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Angela Kociolek, Montana State University, Western Transportation Institute Caleb Lakey, Idaho Transportation Department Melissa Marinovich, Nebraska Department of Roads Darin Martens, U.S. Forest Service, Wyoming Department of Transportation Liaison Brooke Stansberry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Roger Surdahl, Federal Highways Administration, Central Federal Lands Deb Wambach, Montana Department of Transportation

Authors [Include names & logos upon confirmation]

Disclaimer This is a collaborative work by individuals who, in their roles in federal, state, public and private institutions, have expertise in the realm of road ecology, engineering, wildlife biology, and/or design of wildlife crossing structures. The words and ideas contained herein are solely a product of the authors themselves and not necessarily of the agencies they represent. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 WHY THE NEED TO TRANSFORM THE U.S. ROAD NETWORK? ...................................... 1-1 CHAPTER 2 THE BASICS, COSTS AND BENEFITS OF WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES................. 2-3 What is a Wildlife Crossing Structure? ............................................................... 2-3 What are the Costs of Installing (or Not Installing) Wildlife Crossing Structures? .................................................................. 2-8 Do Wildlife Crossing Structures Work and How Do They Benefit People? ............................................................... 2-11 What Type of Wildlife Crossing Structure is Best? ............................................ 2-16 Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-18 CHAPTER 3 WHAT ARE THE KEY CHALLENGES TO TRANSFORMING THE U.S. ROAD NETWORK AND HOW CAN WE SOLVE THEM? ......................................... 3-19 CHAPTER 4 HOW CAN WE STRENGTHEN LEGAL AND POLICY SUPPORT FOR WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES? ............................................................................ 4-25 CHAPTER 5 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? ................................................................................ 5-29

i

Chapter 1 Why the Need to Transform the U.S. Road Network? “We spend $8 billion a year running over wildlife. If we took that cost and quartered it, we could build 200 animal crossings a year, and the problem of roadkill would disappear within a generation.” Ted Zoli, Bridge Engineer and MacArthur Fellow A quick glance at a United States (U.S.) road map reminds us it’s an amazing example of engineered infrastructure. Stretching from coast to coast and Canada to Mexico, this network allows us to transport ourselves and goods that sustain our collective way of life. Forming a vast and relatively seamless conglomeration of municipal, state, tribal and federal roads, the U.S. road network is a source of American pride. Despite being an asset for people, this same network is a major source of disruption for native wildlife that coexist on the landscape with us. We know this tension exists. In 2005, the U.S. Congress, under the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a national study, which found that wildlife-vehicle collisions “are a growing problem and represent an increasing percentage of the accidents on our roads.” In 2012, the U.S. Transportation Act, known as the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), authorized federal, state, municipal and tribal highway officials to spend transportation dollars to reduce collisions between motorists and wildlife, and to maintain habitat connectivity across roadways (23 USC §§ 101 et seq. (2012)). To achieve fewer roadway casualties and to allow wildlife to safely cross over or under roadways requires us as a society to transform our collective thinking and the U.S. road network as we know it. We can transform it from a network exclusively designed to serve the needs of people to one that also proactively and consciously accounts for the needs of wildlife. This will require continued strong leadership, coordinated long-range planning among agencies, and a dedicated funding stream. Although there is no question we as a nation have the technological expertise and the financial wherewithal to make these changes, the more relevant question is: Will we choose to do so, before it’s too late? The purpose of this paper is to present the case for why it makes good sense to set our minds, efforts and money towards a nationwide commitment to a systematic network of wildlife crossing structures. Healthy wildlife populations and connected habitats are the goal. Wildlife crossing structures are the tools. The result: A transformed U.S. road network that benefits people and is sensitive to the needs of wildlife. This is not a design manual and we did not seek to replicate the growing body of work that substantiates the conservation value of wildlife crossing structures. This paper represents a truly collaborative work of engineers, ecologists, biologists, landscape architects and policy experts to: (1) Illuminate the ecological, economic, social and safety benefits of wildlife crossing structures; and 1-1

(2) Identify policy implications, funding mechanisms and partnerships that hinder or promote wildlife crossing structures as a standard practice, where they are needed. Why now? Because the consequences of not acting are to continue to risk the loss of human lives, increasing wildlife mortality, and over $8 billion dollars a year in collision-related expenses, not to mention jeopardizing the rich wildlife heritage we as a nation treasure. We have a limited timeframe in which to act to ensure that wildlife are given the opportunity to thrive despite continued fragmentation of wildlife populations and their habitat. Now is the time to build on the efforts of Congress, proactive transportation officials who are already doing this work within their jurisdictions, and concerned and dedicated citizenry across the country. The idea for this paper was born at the ARC Solutions’ Crossings and Culture Forum held at the 2013 International Conference for Ecology and Transportation in Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S. The forum was comprised of international, interdisciplinary experts from multiple jurisdictions. One key issue that emerged at the Forum was the lack of a systematic approach to reduce the effect of U.S. and North American roads on wildlife and their habitats.

Figure 1. Getting started: Capturing key components of a nationwide commitment to a systematic network of wildlife crossing structures during a May 2014 workshop co-hosted by ARC Solutions and WTI (sketch courtesy of Darin Martens, workshop participant).

1-2

Chapter 2 The Basics, Costs and Benefits of Wildlife Crossing Structures “Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife are in fact plans to protect man.” – Stewart Udall, former U.S. Secretary of Interior For many years now, transportation planners and wildlife biologists have sought effective solutions to the issues of wildlife-vehicle collisions and the barrier effect of highways on wildlife. First attempts at solutions included simple warning signs advising drivers to be cautious, but these were found to be generally ineffective at modifying driver behavior. Another early proposed solution was to fence the highway to keep animals off the road. Although this resulted in fewer collisions, it blocked animals from their habitats and resources necessary for survival.

Road Ecology – the study of the interaction between humanbuilt infrastructure and the natural environment – is a constantly evolving science that melds the interests and missions of multiple disciplines and agencies.

Initially, transportation departments were reluctant to invest taxpayer funds to build wildlife crossing structures with no guarantee that animals would use them. The public and even many biologists originally believed that most animals would not use the structures. However, in the last 20 years, studies have increasingly shown the successes of wildlife crossing structures in reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and allowing wild animals to safely cross highways.

What is a Wildlife Crossing Structure? The term wildlife crossing structure describes a variety of structures that are designed or retrofitted to provide safe passage for wildlife above or below a highway. Structures are often used in combination with fencing to increase their effectiveness. Structures range from the large and expansive to the small and obscure, hardly noticeable to drivers. They are designed for a diverse suite of wildlife, from grizzly bears, moose and bobcats to frogs, squirrels and in some locations slow-moving snails and slugs. Each is designed to serve the target species for that specific location or accommodate the majority of species in an area. Wildlife crossing structures also may be designed for target species from a motorist safety standpoint - large wildlife like moose, elk, or deer; or for the species with the highest conservation concern, i.e., Florida panther. Although wildlife crossing structures are not standardized designs, they can be categorized as two major types: overpasses and underpasses.

2-3

It is often a misconception that wildlife crossing structures can be prey traps where predators lurk at the entrances and have easy access to prey. Studies have shown this does not occur. Although predators and prey may use the same crossing structures, research suggests they use them at different times.

Wildlife Overpasses Wildlife overpasses are some of the largest wildlife crossing structures, and are considered to be the most effective means of re-connecting habitat fragmented by roads. Because they mimic and link to surrounding habitats, overpasses allow for movement of a wide range of wildlife from large mammals to reptiles to mice and insects. Even forest-dwelling birds have been shown to cross highways using overpasses more than areas without overpasses.

Figure 2. The Wolverine Overpass on the TransCanada Highway in Banff National Park, part of the most studied series of wildlife crossing structures in the world (photograph courtesy of Adam Ford, WTI).

2-4

Wildlife Underpasses A wildlife underpass is essentially a “wildlife tunnel” or passage structure below a highway. Existing bridges and culverts can be replaced or retrofitted to enhance passage by terrestrial or aquatic organisms. Long-span bridges typically span at least 20 feet across a waterway. Culverts come in many shapes, sizes and materials and some have natural open bottoms. Both bridges and culverts can be placed on waterways, which serve as important passages for both terrestrial and stream-dwelling wildlife, including fish.

Case History: Idaho’s State Highway 21 near Lucky Peak Reservoir was identified as a high priority wildlife migration and habitat corridor with over 100 deervehicle collisions each year. With help from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Boise River Wildlife Linkage Partnership succeeded in building a 30 x 16 ft. bridge. Almost immediately, deer and elk were using the structure to cross safely under the highway.

Figure 3. Elk using a highway underpass (photograph courtesy of Adam Ford, WTI).

2-5

Figure 4. Examples of the wide range of wildlife crossing solutions (sketch courtesy of Darin Martens).

2-6

The larger the underpass, the greater the diversity of wildlife able to use them. Large underpasses are effective for deer, elk, moose, bears and wolves. Medium underpasses typically accommodate foxes, badgers, and raccoons, although larger animals such as bears can also use them. Small underpasses are used by species such as frogs, salamanders and squirrels and, for some, may be the only safe way to cross a highway.

Some species require very specialized crossing structures: 

Flying squirrels are true forest-dwellers, rarely touch the ground, and travel by trees. Canopy crossings consist of rope or steel cables that span across roads and link forested habitats separated by roads.



Some salamanders require a view of the night sky to navigate. A grated culvert cover allows for the same ambient conditions the salamander would encounter in its natural habitat.

Case History: This extended bridge on the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon accommodates both vehicle traffic and wildlife and maintains floodplain conditions. It accesses a visitor center and has the highest amount of traffic during summer days, when animals are not using it.

(Photograph courtesy of Darin Martens)

2-7

What are the Costs of Installing (or Not Installing) Wildlife Crossing Structures? Direct monetary costs of ungulate-vehicle collisions Ungulates such as deer, elk, and moose are the source of over 90 percent of wildlife-vehicle collisions with large animals and their related costs in North America. Table 1 shows the average cost per collision that ranges from $6,617 (deer) to $30,769 (moose). Table 1. Summary of the monetary costs (2007 U.S. Dollar costs) of the average wildlife-vehicle collision in North America for three common ungulates (adapted from Huijser et al. 2009).

Costs

Deer

Elk

Moose

Vehicle repair costs

$2,622

$4,550

$5,600

Human injuries

$2,702

$5,403

$10,807

Human fatalities

$1,002

$6,683

$13,366

Towing, accident attendance, and investigation

$125

$375

$500

Hunting value

$116

$397

$387

$50

$75

$100

$6,617

$17,483

$30,760

Carcass removal and disposal Total

Cost effectiveness thresholds For mitigation to be cost effective, it has to meet a break-even point or a dollar value threshold. Because we know the cost of different mitigation measures per year (Table 2) and their effectiveness at reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions (Huijser et al. 2007), we can calculate the break-even point for sections of highway with high wildlife-vehicle collisions rates. Huijser et al. (2009) compared the number of deer-, elk-, and moose-vehicle collisions per kilometer per year to the actual cost of different mitigation measures and the realized effectiveness of each technique. For example, the average cost of building and maintaining a wildlife passage with fencing is $18,123 per year. A threshold of 3.2 deer-vehicle collisions per km per year (~7 deer collisions per mile per year) is sufficient to justify installing fencing and one wildlife underpass so that the annual cost savings from the reduced collisions equals the annualized cost of constructing and maintaining the mitigation measures. The threshold value for collision rates with elk and moose are even less, 1.2 and 0.7 collisions per km per year (~2.6 elk/mile/year and ~1.5 moose/mile/year), respectively.

2-8

Table 2. Threshold values for different mitigation measures used to reduce deer-vehicle collisions by >80%. The discount rate used is 3% (adapted from Huijser et al. 2009).

Mitigation Measure

$U.S. (2007)/yr

Threshold/Break-Even point: Deer/km/yr

$6,304

1.1

Fence, underpass & jump-outs

$18,123

3.2

Fence, under & overpass, jump-outs

$24,230

4.3

Animal Detection System

$37,014

6.4

Gap, ADS & jump-outs

$28,150

4.9

Fence

Note: These values exclude values not easily monetized, such as the existence value of wildlife or peace of mind for motorists. Considering these values would lower the thresholds. Also, these threshold values are specific to one study area. Each mitigation measure has a different cost to implement and maintain, and thus the selection of the appropriate mitigation measure should take into account the different safety and conservation goals as well as its effectiveness in reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions.

Overpasses are the most costly of wildlife crossing structure types, but we know from the ARC International Wildlife Infrastructure Design Competition that they can be built today . for much less than current construction costs. ARC has inspired new and innovative designs that we expect to continue to save implementation costs into the future. (www.arc-solutions.org)

2-9

Case History: Figuring out how to put dollars to work! Highway 3 in the Crowsnest Pass of Alberta and British Columbia has high rates of wildlifevehicle collisions. A mitigation assessment using the cost-benefit model above found that half of the high collision sites along Highway 3 have estimated annual costs in excess of the threshold cost. In these cases, installing a mitigation measure actually saves society money over the long run, compared to doing nothing! Similar highway mitigation assessments were conducted on the Trans-Canada Highway east of Canmore, Alberta; for three road segments in Jackson Hole, Wyoming; and for a highway segment in northern Idaho. All studies identified locations where the savings provided by investing in wildlife mitigation exceeded the costs of doing nothing.

Suggested reading ARC Partnership http://arc-solutions.org/ Clevenger, A.P., C. Apps, T. Lee, M. Quinn, D. Paton, D. Poulton, and R. Ament. 2010. Highway 3: Transportation mitigation for wildlife and connectivity in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Report prepared for Woodcock, Wilburforce and Calgary Foundations. 54pp. Huijser, M.P., P. McGowen, J. Fuller, A. Hardy, A. Kociolek, A.P. Clevenger, D. Smith and R. Ament. 2007. Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study. Report to U.S. Congress. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecosystems/wvc/index.asp Huijser, M.P., J. W. Duffield, A.P. Clevenger, R.J. Ament and P.T. McGowen. 2009. Cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in North America; a decision support tool. Ecology and Society 14(2): 15, [online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art15/ES-2009-3000.pdf Lee, T., A.P. Clevenger and R.A. Ament. 2012. Highway wildlife mitigation opportunities for the Oregon DOT photo credit. NEEDS PleaseReport re-send permission. Trans-Canada Highway in the Bow PHOTO. River Valley. to with Alberta Ecotrust Foundation, Calgary, Alberta. 70pp.

2-10

Do Wildlife Crossing Structures Work and How Do They Benefit People? Wildlife crossing structures have a proven track record for promoting safe passage across highways in North America: 

More than 15,000 crossings by 16 species of animals were recorded at six underpasses along State Route (SR) 260 in Arizona over a seven-year period.



More than 49,000 crossings by mule deer were recorded at seven large culvert underpasses along U.S. 30 in Wyoming in the first three years of post-construction monitoring.



More than 4,300 desert bighorn sheep crossed three overpasses on U.S. 93 in Arizona in just over two years.



More than 150,000 crossings by 11 species of large mammals were detected between 19962014 at over two dozen crossing structures on the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park, Alberta.

Figure 5. A poster created by the Works Progress Administration for the National Park Service in the 1930s.

2-11

Benefits of wildlife crossing structures: Increased motorist safety Wildlife-vehicle collisions are a serious and growing source of human injuries, deaths, and tremendous property loss. There are an estimated 1-2 million wildlife-vehicle collisions each year in the U.S., resulting in 26,000 human injuries and 200 human deaths annually; the total economic impact exceeds $8 billion/year. As such, motorist safety is the primary driver of many projects mitigating highway impacts to wildlife. Wildlife crossing structures (in combination with fencing) have a proven track record of reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions: 

Crossing structures and fencing on the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park reduced wildlife-vehicle collisions involving all large mammals by over 80% and for those involving ungulates, by more than 94%, when comparing a two-year pre-construction period to a two-year post-construction period.



A retrofit fencing project linking three existing crossing structures on Arizona SR 260 reduced elk-vehicle collisions by 98% over six years.



Seven small underpasses and fencing on U.S. 30 in Wyoming reduced mule deer-vehicle collisions by 81% in the three years after installation.

Monetary Savings As the rates of wildlife-vehicle collisions have increased over the past two decades, agencies are increasingly seeking to mitigate highways in more cost-effective ways. Wildlife crossing structures reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions, thus effectively reducing the many costs to society, as discussed above. One study estimates the annual benefits from reduced wildlife-vehicle collisions have exceeded $200,000/mile (Dodd et al. 2012). Road networks are one of the most conspicuous and pervasive human-made features on our planet. Their environmental impacts extend well beyond what happens on the pavement and have been estimated to affect 20% of the land area of the U.S. Wildlife crossing structures protect individual animals from death or injury and help keep wildlife populations intact by allowing individuals free movement to access important habitats and resources, thus enhancing long-term survival and population viability.

Wildlife Protection With 1-2 million large wild animals killed by cars every year, wildlife mortality can significantly impact populations and threaten long-term population persistence, especially for threatened and endangered species. Highways are the leading cause of mortality for some wide-ranging mammals, such as the Florida panther, and some bear and bighorn sheep populations. They are also responsible for population declines among many amphibian populations. By physically separating wildlife from traffic, crossing structures protect individual wild animals from death or injury. 2-12

Connected Habitats Habitat connectivity is the degree to which habitats are linked on the landscape to facilitate wildlife movement and access to important resources for eating and mating. Permeability is the degree to which the roadway features offer safe crossing opportunities for wildlife to access habitats on the other side. High-traffic highways with average daily traffic greater than 7,000 vehicles/day constitute near-total barriers to wildlife passage. Wildlife crossing structures and fencing can greatly lessen the impact of traffic because, together, they provide safe linkages across highways, helping ensure stable local and regional wildlife populations. Case History: Arizona SR 260 research provides some of the best evidence that wellspaced crossing structures and fencing can actually promote permeability for white-tailed deer and elk, even though fencing itself constitutes a barrier to animal passage. This research demonstrates how wildlife crossing structures and fencing function together to promote highway permeability and habitat connectivity (Dodd et al. 2012). Genetically Viable Wildlife Populations Highways can act as barriers that isolate wildlife populations and alter gene flow and diversity. A system of wildlife crossing structures can allow individual animals to disperse and mate with individuals in other populations, thereby, promoting genetic diversity needed for maintaining genetically viable populations. Grizzly bear populations across western Canada and the northern U.S. have been documented as being genetically isolated by highways (Proctor et al. 2012).

Recent research conducted in Banff National Park along the Trans-Canada Highway provided compelling evidence that wildlife crossing structures are effectively helping maintain genetically healthy populations of black and grizzly bears that otherwise would be isolated by the bustling highway (Sawaya et al. 2014).

Resiliency to Climate Change With changing climatic patterns and increasingly frequent extreme weather events that wreak havoc on transportation infrastructure, especially drainage structures, wildlife crossing structures can help increase resiliency. The installation of oversized drainage structures can help accommodate increasingly frequent and large flood events, while at the same time serving as effective wildlife crossing structures that promote highway permeability and habitat connectivity. Increasing landscape connectivity has been recognized as the top strategy for helping species respond to a changing climate. Social Values The trauma associated with wildlife-vehicle collisions, especially those with large ungulates like elk and moose, often transcends the tangible impact associated with human injury and economic impact. Promoting safer highways can create a sense of motorist well-being and lessened worry when traveling highways. Further, the public repeatedly places an intrinsic value on public investments where our natural resources are protected and preserved, especially in the context of creating environmentally sensitive transportation enhancements that meet the dual needs of safe highways and wildlife passage. And lastly, the realm of “citizen science” is gaining traction as the 2-13

general public takes an active interest in the outcomes from wildlife crossing structure projects, volunteering their time to monitor wildlife use of crossing structures. This citizen engagement increases awareness and builds public support for future projects. Suggested reading Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe, A. Manzo and R.E. Schweinshurg. 2007. Evaluation of measures to minimize wildlife-vehicle collisions and maintain permeability across highways. Final Report 540, prepared for the Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe, K. Ogren and R.E. Shweinshurg. 2012. Wildlife-vehicle collision mitigation for safer wildlife movement across highways: State Route 260. Final Report, FHWA-AZ-12-603. Research Center, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. Lee, T., M.S. Quinn, and D. Duke. 2006. Citizens, science, highways and wildlife: using a webbased GIS to engage citizens in collecting wildlife information. Ecology and Society 11(1): 11, [online] URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art11/ Highway wilding: Wildlife monitoring and research collaborative in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, [online] URL: http://www.highwaywilding.org/ Proctor, M.F., D. Paetkau, B.N. Mclellan, G.B. Stenhouse, K.C. Kendall, R.D. Mace, W.F. Kasworm, C. Servheen, C.L. Lausen, M.L. Gibeau, W.L. Wakkinen, M.A. Haroldson, G. Mowat, C.D. Apps, M. Ciarniello, R.M.R. Barclay, M.S. Boyce, C.C. Schwartz and C. Strobeck. 2012. Population fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in western Canada and the northern United States. Wildlife Monographs, 180:1-46. Sawaya, M., S. Kalinowski and A.P. Clevenger, 2014. Genetic connectivity for two bear species at wildlife crossing structures in Banff National Park. Proceedings of the Royal Society (B) 281:20113170. U.S. 93 People’s Way Partnership, [online] URL: http://www.peopleswaywildlifecrossings.org/

2-14

Figure 6. Black bear using an underpass on U.S. Highway 93 on the Flathead Indian Reservation in western Montana (photograph courtesy of Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Montana Department of Transportation, WTI).

2-15

What Type of Wildlife Crossing Structure is Best? It depends! The two main objectives of most, if not all, wildlife crossing mitigation are: 1) to connect habitats for wildlife populations and 2) reduce mortality of wildlife on roads. That said, no two projects mitigating highways for wildlife are the same. Each project has its own unique set of components – wildlife, landscape, management objectives and politics – specific to that locale; hence, there is no standardized solution that engineers can economically implement. After nearly two decades of monitoring and research, however, here are some lessons learned: 

Wildlife crossing structure design, size, and placement are important considerations that influence how different species respond to structures. There is no “one size fits all” solution, because many design considerations are site- and species-specific.



Species exhibit preferences for certain types of crossing structures. Some species (grizzly bears, moose, wolves, elk, deer, desert bighorn sheep) tend to use large, open structures, while others (black bears, cougars) use more constricted structures with less light.



Wildlife crossing structures designed and managed for multiple species help maximize biodiversity conservation.



It takes time for wildlife to find, learn and habituate to new crossing structures. This “learning curve” can be several years for even the most adaptable species such as deer. Thus, monitoring must be of sufficient duration to properly evaluate the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures.



How well a wildlife crossing structure performs is partly dependent upon the land management that surrounds them. Transportation and land management agencies need to coordinate in the short- and long-term to ensure that tracts of suitable habitat are available adjacent to wildlife crossing structures.



Fencing is a critical component of a successful mitigation strategy involving wildlife crossing structures because fencing deters animals from entering the highway and directs them to the structures. Without fencing, crossings are much less effective. At the same time, fencing alone is typically not recommended because of the barrier effect.

Case History: Wildlife crossing structures have been a part of transportation projects as far back as the 1950s, when one of the first underpasses in North America was built for black bears in Florida.

2-16

Prioritizing and Planning To be effective, wildlife crossing structures and fencing cannot be haphazardly or inexpertly placed. Prioritization is essential to focus limited resources on locations exhibiting the highest collision risk and conservation priority. A recent policy by the Western Governors’ Association to “protect wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the West” sets a management directive for western states to integrate future transportation planning across jurisdictional boundaries with wildlife habitat conservation at the systems level. State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are beginning to use west-wide Crucial Habitat Assessment Tools (CHATs) to more efficiently and effectively inform transportation and conservation planning across the West. Non-western state wildlife agencies possess similar tools and digital data in the form of wildlife habitat conservation maps. In the case of smaller scale projects with shorter planning horizons, overlaying these habitat tools with a state’s comprehensive list of planned surface transportation projects, known as its “Statewide Transportation Improvement Program” or “STIP,” may help facilitate the integration and coordination of transportation and wildlife habitat networks during subsequent planning. In the case of larger scale projects, which may have been in the works for several years to several decades, engaging once a project is listed in the STIP is likely to be too late. As a result, state leaders in wildlife mitigation are seeking opportunities to include wildlife considerations earlier, such as during pre-STIP planning, programming, project scoping and development. Arizona, for example, is exploring a 10-year STIP (as opposed to the usual 4-year timeframe), to improve its ability to identify and address wildlife connectivity needs earlier during the long-term planning and programming process. By prioritizing conservation improvements as early as possible using consistent, data-based planning, state DOTs can better and more cost effectively address state and regional conservation needs in the short- and long-term. Today, whether for motorist safety or wildlife conservation purposes, transportation and natural resource management agencies are increasingly integrating planning and implementation of crossing structures into their standard operating procedures.

Case History: In a project that widened U.S. 97 to four lanes, adding two wildlife underpasses enabled Oregon DOT and the U.S. Forest Service to mitigate an existing problem. Migratory deer cross U.S. 97 twice yearly from the high Cascade Mountains where they have lush summer forage, to and from their snow-free winter range. Deer-vehicle collisions were common, so safety was an objective for this project. As the collisions increased, it became apparent that the interruption of deer movement and the high mortalities they suffered were also causing a decline in herd numbers. In contrast, other animals in the area were common and not experiencing population declines from vehicle collisions. Ultimately, three project objectives were identified: (1) decrease deer-vehicle collisions as a safety measure, (2) restore the migratory deer herd to its former numbers by allowing it to make safe seasonal movements, and (3) provide concurrent passage opportunities for other species in the area to maintain genetic interchange.

2-17

Suggested Reading Clevenger, T. and M.P. Huijser. 2011. Handbook for Design and Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing Structures in North America. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., U.S., [online] URL: http://www.cflhd.gov/programs/techDevelopment/wildlife/documents/01_Wildlife_Crossing_Str uctures_Handbook.pdf Western Governors’ Association, Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool, Mapping Fish and Wildlife Across the West, [online] URL: http://westgovchat.org/

Summary Wildlife crossing structures (in combination with fencing) are the most proven, cost-effective mitigation tool for separating animals from traffic while allowing for safe crossing opportunities over or under the road. Benefits include: 

Increased highway safety for people and animals;



Sustained ecological integrity because habitats remain connected at the local scale and, if enough wildlife crossing structures are built as a network in a given area, ecosystems remain more intact at the landscape scale;



Greater chance for viability of wildlife populations and adaptability to climate change;



Smart use of dollars that pay for increased safety and ecological services upfront (rather than paying for damages after wildlife-vehicle collisions happen, thereby losing wildlifebased revenue streams and risking permanent loss of human and animal lives and wildlife populations); and



Priceless social values, including stewardship over public resources, education and citizen engagement.

Although there are guidelines for what is currently known to work best, there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to wildlife crossing structures. The site- and species-specific needs will ultimately dictate the “best” choice, based on the enduring interdisciplinary principles of engineering, ecology and design.

.

2-18

Chapter 3 What are the Key Challenges to Transforming the U.S. Road Network and How Can We Solve Them? “The secret is to gang up on the problem, rather than each other.” – Thomas Stallkamp A systematic approach to mitigating wildlife impacts from highways is challenging because, to date, no single agency is responsible for sustaining movement of animals across the landscape. Adhering to agency missions often creates a “silo” approach, making it difficult for agencies to collaborate. To accomplish the goal of maintaining healthy wildlife populations through reduced vehicle collisions and improved habitat connectivity often requires local, state, tribal, and federal agencies to work collaboratively on projects. We include below a number of perceived CHALLENGES and possible solutions, identified by a panel of international, inter-jurisdictional and interdisciplinary experts at the ARC Solution’s Crossings and Culture Forum held at the 2013 International Conference for Ecology and Transportation in Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S.

FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES SUCH AS THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE MANAGE THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES OF EXCELLENT WILDLIFE HABITAT IN THE UNITED STATES. ALTHOUGH HIGHWAYS TRAVERSE ALL NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE COUNTRY, THEY ARE OFTEN MANAGED BY ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY OR A STATE DOT. FEDERAL AND STATE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES HAVE MISSIONS AND APPROACHES THAT MAY NOT OVERLAP. Despite differences in missions, these agencies can create crucial partnerships to foster safe passage across highways. Each agency brings unique yet complementary skills to the table. DOTs, for example, have excellent engineering design skills and resources, while the natural resource agencies are experts in wildlife movements and behavior needed to design effective mitigation.

GENERALLY, LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE WILDLIFE CROSSING PROVISIONS. SIMILARLY, LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS RARELY INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR WILDLIFE MOVEMENT ACROSS HIGHWAYS. These omissions could be overcome by implementing standardized wildlife conservation clauses in Memoranda of Understandings (MOU) between transportation and land management agencies, and by incorporating provisions for safe passage within transportation and land/resource management plans.

FEDERAL OR

STATE NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES ARE OFTEN TOO RESOURCE-CONSTRAINED TO EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN EARLY COORDINATION WITH TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES, WHICH

3-19

DELAYS THE RESOURCE REVIEW UNTIL MORE COMPLETE PLANS ARE PROVIDED FOR PERMITTING AND REGULATORY PURPOSES.

Early coordination among state and federal agencies could lead to more efficient scheduling of projects as well as increased opportunities for mitigation. States could encourage more timely and useful natural resource agency participation in the planning process by providing standardized and more easily interpretable Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs). State could also identify and expand opportunities to consider wildlife earlier, for example, during preSTIP planning, programming, project scoping and development. Another option would be to adopt a pre-screening process that requires consultation with federal and state wildlife or natural resource agencies and other affected stakeholders prior to inclusion of a project on the STIP.

TIMELINES

VARY GREATLY AMONG AGENCIES AND SCHEDULES FOR PLANNING, PROJECTS, AND FUNDING ARE OFTEN MISALIGNED, SUCH THAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE MISSED.

States that include wildlife connectivity goals in their State Wildlife Action Plan increase their opportunity to identify and prioritize wildlife corridors that intersect with busy roads.

WHILE FEDERAL FUNDS CAN PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES, STATES BEAR THE COST BURDEN OF MAINTENANCE. BECAUSE MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR NEW AND AGING INFRASTRUCTURE IS INCREASINGLY LIMITED, STATES ARE RELUCTANT TO ADD TO THEIR MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD WITH WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES. Depending on their sufficiency rating, aging infrastructure may be eligible for rehabilitation funds under the surface transportation authorization legislation administered by the Federal Highway Administration. If states were able to include the cost of maintaining wildlife crossing structures in funding proposals for new construction, it would reduce the cost burden on the state.

CURRENTLY, NO OVERARCHING POLICY OR REGULATION REQUIRES INTERAGENCY INTEGRATION OF MITIGATION TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN WILDLIFE OR FISH SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. WHILE GUIDANCE ON, AND INCENTIVES FOR, INTERAGENCY COOPERATION DO APPEAR IN VARIOUS STATE AND FEDERAL MOUS AND AGREEMENTS, GENERALLY, SUCH GUIDANCE IS LESS BINDING THAN OVERALL MISSION OBJECTIVES, AND MAY BE TRUMPED BY COMPETING REGULATIONS. EVEN THOUGH WILDLIFE DO NOT RECOGNIZE JURISDICTIONAL BORDERS, STATES HAVE LITTLE INCENTIVE TO WORK ACROSS STATE BOUNDARIES. WORSE YET, SOME MAY EVEN BE PROHIBITED FROM WORKING ACROSS BORDERS. Federal agencies have a major opportunity to help facilitate seamless coordination among adjacent states much in the way the Western Governors’ Association and its Wildlife Corridors Initiative is striving to do for its member states.

3-20

MULTIPLE AGENCIES RESULT IN MULTIPLE MISSIONS AND PRIORITIES. AGENCIES MAY HAVE CONTRADICTORY OR CONFLICTING LAWS, REGULATIONS AND MANDATES. Agencies with good working relationships can creatively and legally leverage funding and opportunities to accomplish implementation of wildlife crossings, even though funding for planning and implementing highway projects may be vastly unequal among those agencies.

Examples of Different Federal and State Agency Mission Statements (and a brief summary of their focus, to aid in comparisons) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: The mission of the FHWA is to improve mobility on our Nation’s highways through national leadership, innovation, and program delivery. (Focused on improving the transportation network, the agency can use innovation to minimize impacts to wildlife/environment.) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: The mission of the USFWS is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. (Focused on conserving wildlife and the environment and protecting wildlife from the impacts of transportation network.) U.S. FOREST SERVICE: The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. (Focused on forest and grassland management with an emphasis on science-based decision making to foster wise and sustainable use of the resources.) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: The mission of the NPS is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. (Focused on natural and cultural preservation, while at the same time providing for visitor access via its transportation systems.) STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION: State missions vary, but typically they emphasize safety, efficiency, cost effectiveness and quality of life, if not explicitly environmental responsibility. (Focused on a transportation system that maintains a safe and effective transportation network, which ties into quality of life, and can include wildlife and the environment.)

3-21

Melding Missions Natural resource, land management and transportation agencies do have several overlapping areas of interest that can be used to dovetail transportation goals with wildlife connectivity objectives, including the use of wildlife crossing structures. All agencies can agree that mitigating transportation corridors for wildlife serves the public through increased safety, reduced crashes, improved habitat connectivity, and more cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars – all of which enhance quality of life.

Case History: Eco-Logical: A bold attempt at interagency collaboration on environmental issues in highway development projects. In 2006, the FHWA and numerous other agencies embarked on an effort to help solve the many issues that arise from agencies working independently rather than collaborating. Eco-Logical is a process that encourages agencies to begin working together early on highway projects in a formalized manner that allows for all stakeholder missions to be considered as part of the project objectives. Since its inception, the FHWA has encouraged interagency and public-private partnerships to engage in more frequent cooperative efforts, data sharing, and more streamlined projects with better environmental outcomes.

Power in Partnerships Partnerships can be an effective tool to advance wildlife crossing structures. As the case studies throughout this document illustrate, people and agencies are engaged and seek to make these projects happen. It is crucial to also identify public and private interests and engage them to expand support, as well as achieve stakeholder “buy-in,” of wildlife crossing structures. We identify six main components of a collaborative process framework below. 1. Purpose – There should be a well-defined problem and purpose. This will allow all parties

to know what to expect. However, it should be flexible enough to allow the purpose to expand, especially to the extent doing so builds a stronger partnership. 2. Members – Invite members who are affected by and interested in the outcome of the

collaboration. Members should have the appropriate authority to make decisions. 3. Activities – Clearly identify what will be looked at, what data is needed, and what gaps in

information exist that need to be filled. Pick activities germane to the issues at hand. 4. Key Obstacles – Identify points of potential friction early and actual needs of participants.

Strive for unity, rather than attacking the other participants based on small differences. 5. Process – Structure the meetings (workshop, lecture, etc.) to use time efficiently and

maintain interest. Set up a time frame for completion so the process does not drag out and cause participants to lose interest.

3-22

6. Products – Identify a common goal. Define what the group wants as the outcome, and

recognize when you have reached the goal or a good compromise. Case History: A partnership process was developed for the Togwotee Corridor

reconstruction, a 38-mile highway reconstruction at a major gateway to Yellowstone National Park. That project constructed five large wildlife crossing structures and seven smaller structures in addition to approximately 30 upsized and embedded culverts throughout the corridor. The extremely successful partnership included:  Willing transportation agencies (state and federal) made up of diverse specialists within the departments (i.e., environmental services, geology, bridge programs)  Willing land management agencies (local, state, federal)  Willing state wildlife management agency, in coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service  Local Chamber of Commerce/local interested business involvement  Local non-governmental organizations (i.e., wildlife interest groups, such as local development or conservation groups, as well as other interest groups, such as pathways or trail advocacy groups, that may have potentially competing needs)  Local county engineer and planning departments  A local land trust group for conservation easements  A neutral facilitator(s) and core group to carry the process In this case study, the core group/facilitators were a Wyoming DOT (WYDOT) Environmental Specialist and the US Forest Service/WYDOT/Federal Highways Project Liaison.

3-23

Figure 7. Togwotee Corridor reconstruction, 50’ diameter arch wildlife crossing structure (photograph courtesy of Darin Martens).

3-24

Chapter 4 How Can We Strengthen Legal and Policy Support for Wildlife Crossing Structures? “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” ― George Bernard Shaw In 2012, Congress and the President broke new ground when they enacted the current surface transportation law, known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, 23 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (MAP-21). A watershed event, MAP-21 is the first national transportation law to weave throughout its programs explicit authority for state, federal and tribal managers to reduce the number of motorist collisions with wildlife and ensure connectivity among habitats disrupted by roads. As summarized below, although these provisions may be used to support the construction of wildlife crossing structures, they do not require it. Nor does MAP-21 authorize a dedicated source of funding for environmental mitigation, let alone for wildlife crossing structures. The following MAP-21 programs allow managers to use program dollars to fund wildlife-related mitigation, including the construction of wildlife crossing structures: 

Surface Transportation Program (§ 1108) – Eligible projects under the Surface Transportation Program include activities to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife.



Highway Safety Improvement Program (§ 1112) – Eligible projects under the Highway Safety Improvement Program include the addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures (including the construction of wildlife crossing structures themselves) to eliminate or reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.



Tribal and Federal Lands Transportation Programs (§ 1119) – Funding from these two programs may be used to pay for environmental mitigation in or adjacent to tribal land or Federal public lands, respectively, to improve public safety and reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity; or to mitigate the damage to wildlife, aquatic organism passage, habitat, and ecosystem connectivity, including the costs of constructing, maintaining, replacing, or removing culverts and bridges, as appropriate. The Federal Lands Transportation Program includes a restrictive cap of $10 million per fiscal year for eligible environmental mitigation activities.



Federal Lands Access Program (§ 1119) – Funding from this program may be used to pay for environmental mitigation on land (owned or maintained by a state, tribal, or local government) in or adjacent to, or that provides access to, Federal land to improve public safety and reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.

4-25



Transportation Alternatives (§ 1122) – Funding from the Transportation Alternatives Program may be used for a program or project activity to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.

MAP-21 also requires state and metropolitan long-range transportation plans to include a discussion of the types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities – such as wildlife crossing structures – that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan (§§ 1201-1202). A new option for mitigation that is now available under MAP-21 is the development of programmatic mitigation plans (§ 1311). Although relatively untested, the statute provides that programmatic mitigation plans may be developed on a regional, ecosystem, watershed, or statewide scale and may focus on a specific resource, such as wildlife habitat. Therefore, it appears that a systematic approach to mitigate the effect of future transportation projects using wildlife crossing structures could be developed using this new provision. Opportunities to Strengthen Support for Wildlife Crossing Structures Despite being a watershed event, there are various improvements to enhance motorist safety, reduce wildlife mortality and conserve habitat connections that would balance the nation’s goal of providing for the safe, efficient movement of goods and people, with its need to mitigate the effect of roads on valuable natural resources. 1. Develop a standardized methodology for collecting and reporting wildlife-vehicle collision and carcass data and ensure public access to that data. In some states, transportation agencies collect no wildlife-vehicle collision or carcass data at all. In others, data are collected inconsistently and haphazardly, using different methods. As a result, none of the three national databases for collecting crash information provides a reliable, standardized assessment of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Nor is there a national database for wildlife carcass data. The Report to Congress (Huijser et al. 2007) recommended that the U.S. consider implementing a systematic, nationwide approach to reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions. Improving the consistency and precision of data collection on wildlife-vehicle collisions is also a necessary first step in establishing performance metrics to ensure that funds allocated to curb this mounting safety hazard are utilized effectively. 4-26

2. Institute an Annual $70 million Wildlife Demonstration Program (Wild Demo and Wilder Demo). The Wild Demo program would prioritize 10 or more wildlife mitigation pilot demonstration projects annually on lands owned by state or local governments that are in, adjacent to, or provide access to federal lands, as part of the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), up to a total allocation of $50 million per year. In addition, Wilder Demo would prioritize 10 or more wildlife mitigation pilot demonstration projects annually within the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) and Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), up to a total allocation of $20 million per year. Each selected project would provide for one or more types of wildlife mitigation, including but not limited to wildlife underpasses and/or overpasses, span bridges, culverts, and animal detection systems, aimed at reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and/or maintaining or improving fish and wildlife habitat connectivity. Criteria for project evaluation and selection could consider the extent to which the project is likely to (1) protect motorists and wildlife; (2) leverage Federal investment by encouraging private funding; (3) support local economic development; and (4) incorporate innovative technologies. Funding for both Wild Demo and Wilder Demo would be in addition to current FLAP, FLTP and TTP funding levels. The division of funds among projects would be left to the discretion of forthcoming FHWA guidelines, as long as the minimum number of priority projects were met (10 each for Wild Demo and Wilder Demo, a minimum of 20 total). Ideally, not less than 60 percent of the amounts made available would be for eligible projects located in rural areas or rural states. In addition, at least one wildlife demonstration project each year would be awarded for tribal lands. 3. Enhance the ability of the Federal Land Management Agencies to meet MAP-21’s directive to mitigate wildlife-highway conflicts. FLTP improves multi-modal access within national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers facilities. It focuses on the transportation infrastructure owned and maintained by Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) and can be used to pay for environmental mitigation in or adjacent to eligible Federal lands to improve public safety, reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality and mitigate other harmful effects of roads. There is, however, a cap of $10 million per fiscal year for eligible activities. This limitation hinders the ability of FLMAs to fulfill MAP-21’s directive to mitigate wildlife-highway conflicts. 4. Enhance funding for present FLTP and FLAP and future programs to reduce the effect of highways on wildlife. Since 2005, transportation funding for FLMAs has also lost ground to inflation, budgetary cuts, and restructured or eliminated programs. Despite the fact that federal agencies are managing the same amount of public lands, generally at increased visitation levels, the passage of MAP-21 eliminated a number of discretionary funding sources, including projects eligible under the Transit in Parks (TRIP), the Public Lands Highway Discretionary and the National Scenic Byways programs, without a reciprocal increase in funding elsewhere. Over roughly the same period, the cumulative rate of inflation, based on the U.S. government’s Consumer Price Index, was over 16%, effectively reducing the buying power of FLMA transportation dollars even more. Including an inflation adjustment for FLTP and FLAP as well as taking steps to provide sufficient funds will enable federal land managers to fulfill MAP-21’s directives, including environmental mitigation. 4-27

Suggested Reading Huijser, M.P., P. McGowen, J. Fuller, A. Hardy, A. Kociolek, A.P. Clevenger, D. Smith & R. Ament. 2007. Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study. Report to Congress. No. FHWA-HRT08-034. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., U.S., [online] URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/index.cfm NPS (National Park Service). 2013. National Park Service, Transportation Reauthorization Resource Paper, May, 2013. Federal Lands Transportation Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., [online] URL: http://www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/NPS_Reauthorization_Resource_Paper.pdf

Figure 8. Herd of elk crossing over Dry Creek Road less than one mile from US Highway 89 in Paradise Valley, Montana. US 89 provides access to the iconic Roosevelt Arch entrance to Yellowstone National Park (photograph courtesy of Renee Callahan).

4-28

Chapter 5 Where Do We Go from Here? “…there are no rules here – we’re trying to accomplish something.” –Thomas A. Edison The Path Forward Focusing on the following measures would lead us to a transformed U.S. road network that benefits people and is sensitive to the needs of wildlife: 

Develop guidelines governing deployment of wildlife crossing structures. Science and research to date support the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures. Development of guidelines to identify and prioritize wildlife mitigation projects would pave the way for deploying these proven solutions. Guidelines would further articulate the criteria for prioritizing problematic wildlife-vehicle collision areas, key wildlife habitat corridors and other important locations for wildlife mitigation. Inclusion of pre- and post-construction monitoring and evaluation will enable policy makers to gauge the successes and failures of deployment and provide the information necessary to adjust and adapt strategies to realize an accountable and methodical approach for wildlife mitigation.



Implement funded demonstration projects such as the Wild Demo and Wilder Demo. Funding for demonstration crossings in the early years of a new long-term transportation act would likely foster wider implementation of wildlife mitigation measures in the later years of the legislation and during the future.



Acknowledge that multiple applications of fine-scale local support of connectivity has large-scale impacts. The most prevalent recommendation by scientists and ecologists to help wildlife adapt to climate disruption is to maintain landscape connectivity, so they can move and adjust to changing circumstances. Policy makers can help combat the effects of climate change by ensuring that future transportation policies provide safe passage for wildlife across roads, no matter the political jurisdiction.



Coordinate a common path forward among agencies. By providing direction and offering creative and inspired guidance, top ranking agency officials can aid in aligning goals and objectives of the many, often disparate, transportation, wildlife, land management and environmental agencies involved in transportation planning and projects.



Support investment in research and development (R&D). Assuring an adequate percentage of each highway program is allocated to R&D could easily resolve this issue. Similarly, for the private sector, if it becomes well established that transportation and natural resource agencies are making a concerted effort to deploy mitigation for wildlife, then innovation for smarter, less expensive, more effective measures will be rewarded.

5-29



Establish a standard metric to measure performance. To ensure that increasing investments in a more permeable transportation network for wildlife lead to concomitant reductions in wildlife-vehicle collisions and improvements in habitat connectivity, it will be necessary to establish performance metrics to ensure that funds allocated to curb this mounting safety hazard are utilized effectively.



Work to increase awareness and understanding across many key groups in society, such as administrative leaders, politicians, transportation practitioners and the general public. Broadly speaking, all of these groups need to more fully understand the scientific, social and economic advantages to a systematic approach to wildlife mitigation and the application of wildlife crossing structures as a proven solution.



Educate and cross-train students and professionals. Educational opportunities, both for the current workforce, and for engineers and natural resource students preparing for their careers at U.S. universities and other institutions of higher learning, need to be broadened. Workforce training for those already in professional careers is currently sparse and sporadic for understanding the impacts of roads on wildlife and the solutions. Similarly, engineers, ecologists and planners receiving a university education, by and large, do not have courses, or portions of courses, dedicated to road ecology principles and practices.

A Solution to the Funding Conundrum The lack of funding is always raised as a major impediment to wildlife crossing construction. Under the current paradigm, wildlife mitigation competes with all the other needs of highway programs – replacement and maintenance of an increasingly aging infrastructure, safety improvements, road expansions – and numerous other priorities. And in particular, when competing for safety improvement program dollars, the dilemma is that wildlife-vehicle collisions have a much lower severity ranking (i.e., fatality rates, serious injury rates) than other causes of crashes. Therefore, road segments with high wildlife-vehicle collision rates do not necessarily receive prioritization for safety dollars, compared to roads that have high fatality or injury rates. It is apparent that seeking adjustments to the current system of highway programs will prove futile and will never be able to address the millions of miles of road in the U.S. system that were built without, or with minimal, consideration for wildlife. One solution is to defuse the funding issue by making wildlife mitigation an independent highway program. If wildlife-vehicle collisions cost American drivers an estimated $8 billion a year, then having a highway wildlife program with funding at a level that allows transportation agencies to adequately address and reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and provide for connectivity would appear to be a prudent and rationale investment of public funds. Some estimate that the problem could be completely addressed in one generation. For example, if $1 billion a year were invested over the next 20 years, 1,000 million-dollar crossings could be built each year, resulting in 20,000 crossings in a generation. This would make the U.S. surface transportation system highly permeable and safer for wildlife and drivers, alike. One possible revenue stream for this new highway program could be for a portion of each insurance claim that was made due to a crash with an animal be put in to a wildlife mitigation fund for the program. An agreeable portion (e.g., $10, $100) of each insurance claim would be sent to 5-30

the fund by the insurer. Given there are an estimated 1-2 million wildlife-vehicle collisions each year, many resulting in insurance claims, this has the potential to generate billions of dollars for wildlife over a generation. Of course, as the program is implemented, the need for funding will decrease at the same time as monies generated by wildlife-vehicle collisions insurance claims will also be reduced. Why Delay Until Tomorrow What We Can Accomplish Today? Why now, you might ask? Aren’t there higher priorities, like our crumbling infrastructure? Won’t smarter car technologies, that automatically avoid collisions, fix this problem over time? Although competing priorities do exist, and new technologies may help greatly in the coming decades in more urban areas, we as a society cannot wait for every other priority to be satisfied, nor can we rely upon possible solutions that, at the end of the day, may – or may not – work. This is especially true given that we have proven solutions to solve this problem today. There is simply no time like the present to take on the challenge of protecting the 200 drivers that will die in 2015 as a result of a collision with wildlife, not to mention the tens of thousands of injured motorists, billions of dollars in property damage and millions of wildlife deaths. Everyone has a role to play in the transformation of the U.S. road network as we know it. From the concerned citizen to the most brilliant scientist or engineer, and all manner of experts and interested parties in between, everyone has a stake, and everyone can make a difference. It is also the responsibility of agencies in the road-wildlife-landscape interface to consider and work toward mitigating the impacts of roads on wildlife. A variety of state and national policies already support the use of transportation dollars for this purpose. A dedicated funding stream will build on the investments already made and make it easier for more transportation practitioners and agencies to join in partnership towards the new norm of building wildlife crossing structures as a standard practice wherever they are needed across the U.S. To resolve this issue, we, as a nation, simply need the personal courage, political will, and adequate funding. Creating a transportation system capable of co-existing with nature is a powerful gift to our nation’s – and the world’s – future.

5-31

Figure 9. Juvenile black bear using a small (4-foot) wildlife crossing structure on Route 161 near Caribou, Maine (photograph courtesy of Maine Department of Transportation).

5-32