Habitat Connectivity: Planning and Assessment Assessing
Transcription
Habitat Connectivity: Planning and Assessment Assessing
Click on the paper title below to link directly to it. Habitat Connectivity: Planning and Assessment Assessing the Impact of Roads on Animal Population Viability, Edgar Van der Grift............................................173 Human Transportation Network as Ecological Barrier for Wildlife on Brazilian Pantanal-Cerrado Corridors, W. Fischer, M. Ramos-Neto, L. Silveira and A. Jácomo.............................................................182 Innovative Partnerships that Address Highway Impacts to Wildlife Habitat Connectivity in the Northern Rockies, Deborah Davidson...................................................................................................195 Measures Applied to Mitigate Habitat Fragmentation in Spain, Carme Rosell......................................................204 A Rapid Assessment Process for Determining Potential Wildlife, Fish and Plant Linkages for Highways, Bill Ruediger and John Lloyd.................................................................................................206 Resolving Landscape Level Highway Impacts on the Florida Black Bear and Other Listed Wildlife Species, L. Neal, T. Gilbert, T. Eason, L. Grant and T. Roberts......................................................227 Wildlife Linkage Areas: An Integrated Approach for Canada Lynx, J. Claar, T. Bertram, R. Naney, N. Warren, and W. Ruediger........................................................................................................235 Chapter 6 ..........................................................Habitat Connectivity Planning & Assessment ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF ROADS ON ANIMAL POPULATION VIABILITY Edgar A. van der Grift (Phone: 317-477-7948, Email: [email protected]), Jana Verboom and Rogier Pouwels, Alterra, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands Abstract: Different tools have been developed to study the potential effects of spatial developments, such as the construction of roads, on the viability of animal populations. For instance, with dynamic (meta)population models the impacts of spatial developments can be accurately quantified. However, these models are often species specific and require detailed field research to validate the parameters used. If a multi-species analyses is needed, the use of such models is often impractical and expensive. In that case, an expert system, in which analyses of different species can be aggregated, may be a better tool to assess these kinds of impacts. Pros and cons of both types of tools are illustrated with (1) the ex-ante analyses of badger (Meles meles) population viability in central Limburg (The Netherlands) after the (proposed) construction of highway A73, and (2) the multi-species analyses of high priority locations to restore habitat connectivity across main roads in The Netherlands. Introduction Ever expanding urban areas, and the continuous construction of new infrastructure in between, reduces both the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat (Reijnen et al. 2000). Formerly continuous habitat becomes highly fragmented, leaving small habitat patches scattered throughout the landscape. Populations in such small, isolated habitat patches have an increased risk to become extinct, while simultaneously the chance of (re)colonisation is reduced (Opdam 1991, Hanski 1999). Therefore, there is an increasing need to predict the environmental impact of spatial developments, such as the construction of roads, on animal population viability or even the survival of a species. Different tools have been developed to conduct population viability analyses (PVA) for a variety of species. Some of these PVA-tools are suitable to analyse the (potential) impacts of roads (Piepers et al. 2003). These PVA-tools can be divided into (meta)population models and expert systems. Metapopulation models simulate population dynamics using birth, death and migration dynamics in relation to habitat size, quality and connectivity. It is an advantage when the model is spatially explicit. Metapopulation models are usually speciesspecific. Expert systems are usually rule-based models, using thresholds to determine whether a population will be viable or not. Generally, these types of PVA-tools are based on thematic landscape databases (e.g., habitat map, land use map, road barrier map), and are suitable to analyse population viability for different species. In this paper two PVA-tools are presented, which have been successfully used in solving road-related fragmentation issues: (1) the metapopulation model DASSIM, and (2) the expert system LARCH. Pros and cons of both types of tools will be illustrated with two cases. Case 1 is the analysis of badger population viability in central Limburg (The Netherlands), using DASSIM, after the (proposed) construction of highway 73. Case 2 describes the multi-species analysis with LARCH of high-priority locations to restore habitat connectivity across main roads in the Netherlands. Similar analyses have been done for railroads and main waterways, but these will not be addressed in this paper (Van der Grift et al. 2003). The aim of presenting these tools and cases is to illustrate how population viability assessments can play a key role in careful spatial planning and are vital in prioritizing defragmentation initiatives. The cases emphasize the differences in both the approach and application of the two described PVA-tools. The Model Dassim DASSIM is a dynamic (meta)population model for the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) (Lankester 1989, Lankester et al. 1991). The model is able to simulate population dynamics for this species in both space and time. It has the ability to distinguish individual badgers, badger clans, local populations (i.e., clusters of badger clans, in which random mating occurs) and metapopulations (i.e., clusters of local populations, connected by dispersal) (Levins 1970, Andrewartha and Birch 1984). Local populations are spatially explicit, which is expressed in differences in the exchange probability between local populations, i.e., the likeliness that a badger from local population A will reach local population B. In addition, differences in mortality probability between local populations due to high or low road densities or differences in traffic volume can be applied. Other characteristics of DASSIM are the inclusion of demographic stochasticity, the ability to distinguish male and ICOET 2003 Proceedings 173 Making Connections female badgers in two age classes (juvenile and adult), and the ability to include knowledge about the social structure of badger populations, i.e., badgers living in social groups (clans) in which not all individuals take part in reproduction. For further reading about the model DASSIM we refer to Verboom (1996) and Van Apeldoorn et al. (1997). Case 1: Simulating Badger Survival After Highway Construction The model DASSIM was used for the assessment of badger population viability after the proposed construction of the southern stretch of highway 73 in central Limburg, The Netherlands (Van der Grift and Verboom 2001). Initiator of the project was the Division Limburg of the Directorate-General of Public Works and Water Management, part of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. After completing the Environmental Impact Assessment (Heidemij 1993), the Division Limburg worked out a plan for mitigating and compensating the negative impacts of the construction of highway 73 that could not be avoided (Van der Molen et al. 1999, De Beijer and Van der Molen 1999). One of the problems is that the new road will intersect core badger habitat. Badgers are known to be sensitive to habitat fragmentation by roads (Van Apeldoorn and Kalkhoven 1991, Van der Zee et al. 1992). Annually almost a quarter of the whole badger population in the Netherlands is killed on roads (Broekhuizen et al. 1994, Anonymous 2002, Anonymous 2003). Furthermore, road construction will destroy setts and feeding areas, and if no measures are taken the highway may be a considerable barrier to badger movements (Clarke et al. 1998). All these impacts will affect population viability and may result in local extinction of the species. The mitigation and compensation plan included the construction of wildlife passages (mostly badger pipes; see figure 1) and fences to keep the animals from entering the road. Furthermore, the plan contained proposals for habitat restoration and the development of small-scale linear landscape elements (e.g., hedges, strips of woodland). The aim of the latter was to improve connectivity between foraging areas and sett sites, and to guide the animals to the wildlife passages. The question that remained was: Will the proposed set of mitigating and compensating measures be sufficient to ensure the survival of badgers in the area? We used the simulation model DASSIM to conduct a PVA in order to answer this question. Fig. 1. Badger pipes have proven to be effective road crossing structures for badgers. Photograph: Edgar van der Grift. The PVA focused on three scenarios for highway construction, which differ in the amount of mitigation and compensation measures taken, and the expected effectiveness of these measures (100 percent versus 50 percent effectiveness, i.e., half the wildlife tunnels cannot be used and half the fences are defective). These scenarios were compared with the situation that no highway is constructed. Basic information about the configuration of the badger population (position and size of local populations and network populations) was derived from recent sett and habitat surveys, and knowledge about the ecology and dispersal capacity of badgers. The simulation with DASSIM is schematically summarised in figure 2. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 174 Making Connections start year 1 n male juv n female juv n male n female 2 male 2 female year 100 etc (100 runs) reproduction mortality migration: within / between local populations Fig. 2. Schematic overview of the simulation of Fig. 2. Schematic overviewpopulation of the simulation of badger with population dynamics with DASSIM. badger dynamics DASSIM. The study showed that highway construction is not necessarily bad for the viability of badger The study showed that highway badpassages for the badger populations in populationsconstruction in the region. Thatisis,not if allnecessarily proposed wildlife andviability fences areof constructed all these measures functional, all wildlife can be usedand year-round and measures remain the region; that is, if all and proposed wildliferemain passages andi.e.fences aretunnels constructed all these fences show no failures. Properyear-round management ofand measures appears to beno of decisive functional, i.e. all wildlife tunnels can be used fences show failures. Proper management importance to the survival of the species in the region: if only half of the measures is effective of measures appears tothe bebadger of decisive importance to the survival of the species in the region: if only half of population is likely to disappear (fig. 3). If no construction of the highway takes the measures is effective theandbadger population is likely to are disappear (fig. 3).autonomous If no construction of the highway place, consequently no mitigation measures installed, expected increase in traffic volume at local and measures regional roadsare would result in high badger mortality. That is takes place, and consequently no mitigation installed, expected autonomous increases in traffic why badger population to be lower for this scenario in casebadger the volume at local and regional roads wouldviability resultisinexpected high badger mortality. Thatthan is why population viability highway, including all wildlife measures, is constructed. is expected to be lower for this scenario than in the case where the highway, including all wildlife measures, is constructed. 1 60 dassen Numberaantal of badgers 1 40 Mitigation measures 100% effective a u to n o om m et, a lle 1 20 1 00 m itig a tie 80 Mitigation a u to n o om m et, 5 0 % e ffe c tivite it 50% measures effective 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 10 0 Years tijd (ja ar) Fig. 3. With DASSIM simulated trends in badger numbers after highway construction in central Limburg (The Netherlands) for two scenarios: (1) all mitigation measures function well, (2) only half of the proposed mitigation measures function well. 4 Expert System Larch LARCH (Landscape ecological Analysis and Rules for the Configuration of Habitat) is an expert system that assesses the sustainability of habitat networks for a variety of species (Pouwels et al. 2002a). Input for the assessment is a habitat map. For each habitat patch the carrying capacity for the species concerned is calculated, based on size and habitat quality of the patch. Then LARCH analyses the configuration of the population, i.e., what habitat patches are occupied by individuals of the same local population and which local populations belong to the same metapopulation, using rules for maximum distances between local populations and metapopulations. Total carrying capacity of a metapopulation is compared with thresholds for a minimum viable metapopulation (MVMP) in order to determine whether a metapopulation is expected to be viable or not. Thresholds differ, dependent on the configuration of the metapopulation. When the metapopulation includes a key population, i.e., a relative large local population which is viable under the condition of one immigrant per generation, the threshold for a MVP can be considerably lower than in the case where no key population is present (Verboom et al. 2001). LARCH is able to include the barrier effect of roads in the analyses. The presence of roads may result in a decreased probability that an animal reaches a neighboring local population, and consequently to the split up ICOET 2003 Proceedings 175 Making Connections of (meta)populations. The extent to which the road is a barrier is species-specific and can be gradually adjusted in the model, differing from no barrier at all to an absolute barrier. For a more comprehensive explanation of LARCH and the argumentation behind the rules and thresholds used in this expert system, we refer to Verboom et al. (2001), Pouwels et al. (2002a), Opdam et al. (2003) and Verboom & Pouwels (in press). Case 2: Assessing Priority Locations for Defragmentation In the Netherlands, high human population densities result in high road densities. Population density is on average 470 people/km2. Paved road density is 3.4km/km2, which is one of the highest in the world (fig. 4). Consequently habitat fragmentation is a widespread problem. Both core natural areas and ecological corridors are frequently intersected by roads. In addition planned habitat restoration areas or ecological linkages, such as the Robust Ecological Corridors, are crossed by roads as well, which may affect proper functioning of these measures to improve wildlife viability (Anonymous 2000). Fig. 4. Road network in the Netherlands. In the last decade many bottleneck analyses have been carried out to assess the locations where roads impact ecological networks within the Netherlands. The methods used in these assessments often differed, as well as the method to set priorities in solving the fragmentation problems. Some studies determined bottleneck locations by means of comparing the road network with existing or proposed ecological networks (Duel et al. 1992). Others used data on wildlife mortality due to collisions with cars to assess defragmentation locations, or mitigation sites were based on the ecology (e.g., migration routes) of certain species, such as otter (Lutra lutra), badger, roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) or red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Creemer et al. 1991, Bekker et al. 1995, Winter and Smit 1997). In other studies a combination of methods was used (e.g., Reitsma and Smit 1994, Den Held and Van Rij 1994, Krekels 1996). This resulted in a variety of maps with bottleneck locations and proposed mitigation sites, which partly overlap and partly are complementary to each other. It was the desire of both the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management and the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment to produce a complete overview of mitigation sites, determined by means of an assessment of changes in population viability due to the presence of roads. Furthermore, setting priorities was needed, based on the ecological profit of defragmentation measures. We used the model LARCH to assess potential habitat configuration and network population viability for ten focal species in the situation with and without roads (Van der Grift et al. 2003). The latter can be interpreted as the situation in which all fragmentation effects by roads are mitigated. Each focal species represents a ICOET 2003 Proceedings 176 Making Connections group of species, sensitive to roads as barriers, with similar habitat requirements and dispersal capacity. The selected focal species represent the different main habitat types in the Netherlands: forests, heartland and dunes, wetlands, and lowland creek tributaries. By comparing the two population viability analyses (with and without roads) defragmentation locations were identified for each species’ group. Defragmentation locations were distinguished at road transects where network population viability shifted either from non-viable (extinction probability >5% in 100 years) towards viable (extinction probability 1-5% in 100 years) or highly viable (extinction probability <1% in 100 years), or from viable to highly viable, solely due to the removal of road barriers. Priorities were set by calculating the increase in population viability as a result of defragmentation. High-priority locations were defined as locations where the increase in carrying capacity exceed the threshold for a sustainable habitat network with a key patch, i.e., a habitat network that sustains a minimum viable metapopulation in configurations with a key population. For main roads a total of 840 defragmentation locations were identified and mapped. At about 75 percent of the locations mitigation measures will result in an immediate increase in population viability. At the other locations similar results may be achieved, but only if other bottleneck locations are addressed first. In 23 percent of the cases the location is a bottleneck for two or more species groups at the same time. The maximum number of species groups for which one location is identified as bottleneck is five. About 24 percent of the identified defragmentation locations were labeled high-priority for the construction of wildlife passages and restoring habitat connectivity. Comparison of PVA-Tools With dynamic (meta)population models such as DASSIM impacts of spatial developments can be accurately quantified. Hence such models are powerful tools to predict trends in population development. However, these models are often species specific and require detailed field research to validate the parameters used. If a multi-species analysis is needed, the use of such models is often impractical and expensive. In that case, an expert system, such as LARCH, may be a better tool to assess ecological impacts of changes in land use. While dynamic (meta)population models focus on changes over time, e.g., population growth, expert systems usually focus on spatial patterns at a certain moment in time. Consequently, the number of necessary parameters in an expert system is more limited. Furthermore, the parameter values in expert systems may be based on estimations by experts, especially in early development stages of such an expert system, hence are not always based on empirical research. Both the limited number of parameters and the less underpinned estimations of parameter values simplifies the implementation of a multitude of species in expert systems. Expert systems are usually more suitable to aggregate analyses of different species due to the more simple model design. The downside of expert systems is that they are static and hence evaluate the viability of populations for only a certain moment in time. The use of thresholds in expert systems also results in discrete classifications as “viable” or “not viable;” trends in population viability cannot be visualized. Both tools facilitate the comparison of different scenarios and thus support decision-making. Application of PVA-Tools DASSIM has been applied in three studies: the description of management perspectives for badger populations in fragmented landscapes (Lankester et al. 1991), the comparison of scenarios for spatial development in the central regions of the Netherlands (Van Apeldoorn et al. 1998), and the above-described simulation of badger population dynamics in relation to highway construction scenarios (Van der Grift and Verboom 2001). LARCH has been used in a large number of studies, such as environmental impact assessments (Wieman et al. 2000), the development of national and regional plans for spatial development (Broekmeyer et al. 2000), the design of ecological networks or corridors (Reijnen and Koolstra 1998, Foppen et al. 1999, Reijnen et al. 2001, Groot Bruinderink et al. 2003, Van der Sluis et al. 2003), mitigation and compensation projects in relation to habitat fragmentation by transportation corridors (Van der Grift and Koolstra 2001, Van der Grift et al. 2003), plans for habitat development and habitat restoration (Groot Bruinderink et al. 2000), demarcation proposals for protected nature areas or landscapes (Pelk et al. 1999), species protection plans (Foppen et al. 1998, Van Apeldoorn and Nieuwenhuizen 1998), nature management plans (Nieuwenhuizen et al. 2000, Nijhof and Van Apeldoorn 2001, Pouwels et al. 2002b), urban ecology plans (Snep et al. 2001), and evaluations of the efficacy of nature policy (Anonymous 2002). Conclusions Road planning more and more requires the assessment of impacts on nature and the environment. Although impacts on individual animals have to be addressed, e.g. expected road kill rates, more emphasis should be put on the impacts of road construction and road use on the viability of populations. Models and expert systems may be helpful tools to assess population viability. These tools give the possibility to predict changes in viability, or even threats to the (local) survival of a species, before road construction is started and thus may ICOET 2003 Proceedings 177 Making Connections play a key role in comparing scenarios and in decision making. Impacts of roads can be best analysed with spatially explicit (meta)population models. However, these models require extended information about the biology and ecology of a species, which is often not available. Expert systems may be a practical alternative, facilitating rather easy, rule-based analyses of population viability for a variety of species. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to the Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE) and the U.S. Department of Transportation, in particular for the invitation and financial support to present this paper at the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation in Lake Placid, New York, USA. Financial support for the study on badger viability was provided by the Division Limburg of the DirectorateGeneral of Public Works and Water Management, part of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. The assessment of defragmentation locations in The Netherlands was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment, and the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Thanks also to Beno Koolstra (Alterra), Vanya Simeonova (Alterra) and Marcel Huijser (Western Transportation Institute), who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Biographical Sketches: Edgar A. van der Grift has been working in the field of road ecology for over ten years. As a research ecologist at Alterra, he was involved in a multitude of studies that focussed on the ecological impacts of roads and railroads, the effectiveness of mitigation measures such as wildlife crossing structures, and the implementation of ecological knowledge in national and regional transportation policy. Jana Verboom works as a senior-scientist in the field of landscape ecology at Alterra. She specialises in the design and development of (meta)population models and expert systems. She played a key role in the development of both DASSIM and LARCH. The modelling of fragmented populations, in relation to landscape planning, receives most of her attention and, consequently, was the subject of her Ph.D. dissertation. Rogier Pouwels is a landscape ecologist at Alterra. His work mainly focuses on the further development and application of the expert system LARCH. He was involved in a large number of studies in which this expert system was successfully used, including research on the impacts of habitat fragmentation by transportation corridors. References Andrewartha, H.G. & L.C. Birch (eds.) 1984. The ecological web: more on the distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. Anonymous 2000. Natuur voor mensen, mensen voor natuur. Nota natuur, bos en landschap in de 21e eeuw. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Den Haag, The Netherlands. Anonymous 2002. Natuurbalans 2002. Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau, Bilthoven/Wageningen, The Netherlands. Anonymous 2003. Natuurcompendium 2003. Natuur in cijfers. Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau, Bilthoven/ Wageningen and Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Heerlen, The Netherlands. Bekker, H., B. van den Hengel, H. van Bohemen and H. van der Sluijs 1995. Nature across motorways. Rijkswaterstaat, Dienst Weg- en Waterbouwkunde, Delft, The Netherlands. Broekhuizen, S., G.J.D.M. Müskens and K. Sandidorf 1994. Invloed van sterfte door verkeer op de voortplanting bij dassen. IBN-report 055. DLO-Instituut voor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Broekmeyer, M., H. Dijkstra, H. Farjon, M. Goossen, R. Reijnen, J. Roos-Klein Lankhorst, S. de Vries, R. Alkemade and F. Bethe 2000. Effecten van ongewijzigd ruimtelijk beleid op natuur, landschap en recreatie 1995-2020: Achtergrond document methode VIJNO toets fase 1. Alterra-report 047. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Clarke, G.P., P.C.L. White and S. Harris 1998. Effects of roads on badger (Meles meles) populations in southwest England. Biological Conservation 86:117-124. Creemer, M., R. Krekels and R. Hoeve 1991. Dassen in Overijssel. Voorstellen voor de bescherming van de das (Meles meles) en zijn leefomgeving in Overijssel. Dassenberaad Overijssel, Zwolle. De Beijer, R. and P. van der Molen 1999. Natuurcompensatieplan Rijksweg 73-Zuid (concept). Rapport 3. Dienst Landelijk gebied Limburg, Roermond, The Netherlands. Den Held, J.J. and K.C. van Rij 1994. Van snippen en snippers – Ontsnipperingsmaatregelen voor de natuur langs rijkswegen in Gelderland. Heidemij Advies, Arnhem, The Netherlands. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 178 Making Connections Duel, H., G.A. Morel and B.P.M. Specken 1992. Versnippering van de Ecologische Hoofdstructuur door de droge en natte infrastructuur. DWW-Versnipperingsreeks no. 6-17. TNO Beleidsstudies / Rijkswaterstaat Dienst Weg- en Waterbouwkunde, Delft, The Netherlands. Foppen, R., J. Graveland, M. de Jong and A. Beintema 1998. Naar levensvatbare populaties moerasvogels; achtergrond document voor ‘Beschermingsplan Moerasvogels’ van Vogelbescherming Nederland. IBNreport 393. Instituut voor Bos - en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Foppen, R., N. Geilen and T. van der Sluis 1999. Towards a coherent habitat network for the Rhine. Presentation of a method for the evaluation of functional river corridors. IBN-report 99/1. Instituut voor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Groot Bruinderink, G.W.T.A., D.R. Lammertsma and R. Pouwels 2000. De geschiktheid van natuurgebieden in Noord-Brabant en Limburg als leefgebied voor edelhert en wild zwijn. Alterra-report 086. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Groot Bruinderink, G.W.T.A., T. van der Sluis, D. Lammertsma, P. Opdam & R. Pouwels 2003. Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in northwestern Europe. Biological Conservation 17 (2): 549-557. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Heidemij 1993. Projectnota/MER Rijksweg 73-Zuid; alternatiefrapport oostoever. Rijkswaterstaat Directie Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Krekels, R.F.M. 1996. Faunaleefgebieden in de invloedsfeer van de A1 en A35/N35. Een knelpuntenanalyse met speciale aandacht voor een ecoduct nabij Rijssen. Natuurbalans, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Lankester, K. 1989. Effecten van habitatversnippering voor de das (Meles meles); een modelbenadering. RINreport 89/13. Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheer, Leersum, The Netherlands. Lankester, K., R.C. van Apeldoorn, E. Meelis and J. Verboom 1991. Management perspectives for populations of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 28: 561573. Levins, R. 1970. Extinctions. In: M. Gerstenhaber (ed.). Some mathematical problems in biology: 77-107. American Mathematical Society, Providence, USA. Nieuwenhuizen, W., M.J.J. La Haye and F. Mertens 2000. De noordse woelmuis in Fryslân; naar een duurzame instandhouding. Alterra-report 149. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Nijhof, B.S.J. and R.C. van Apeldoorn 2001. De noordse woelmuis in Noord-Holland Midden. Heden en toekomst. Alterra-report 576. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Opdam, P.F.M. 1991. Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a review of holarctic breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology 5: 93-106. Opdam, P.F.M., J. Verboom and R. Pouwels 2003. Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18: 113-126. Pelk, M.L.H., R. van Etteger, D. Bal and E. Wieman 1999. Schetsboek. Nederland vanuit drie invalshoeken: biodiversiteit, mensen-wensen en kenmerkendheid-identiteit. IKC Natuurbeheer / Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Piepers, A., G. Alvarez, I.M. Bouwma, J.G. de Vries and A. Seiler 2003. Minimising fragmentation through appropriate planning. In: M. Trocmé, S. Cahill, J.G. de Vries, H. Farrall, L. Folkeson, G. Fry, C. Hicks & J. Peymen (eds.). Habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure – The European review: 115-128. COST Action 341. European Commision, Directorate-General for Research, Brussels, Belgium. Pouwels, R.R. Jochem, M.J.S.M. Reijnen, S.R. Hensen and J.G.M. van der Greft 2002a. LARCH voor ruimtelijk ecologische beoordelingen van landschappen. Alterra-report 492. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 179 Making Connections Pouwels, R., G.W.T.A. Groot Bruinderink and H. Kuipers 2002b. Ecologisch rendement van ontsnippering: de casestudie edelhert en wild zwijn Veluwe. Alterra-report 533. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Reijnen, R. and B. Koolstra 1998. Evaluatie van de ecologische verbindingszones in de provincie Gelderland. IBN-report 372. Instituut voor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Reijnen, R., E. van der Grift, M. van der Veen, M. Pelk, A. Lüchtenborg and D. Bal 2000. De weg mét de minste weerstand. Opgave Ontsnippering. Expertisecentrum LNV / Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Reijnen, R., R. Jochem, M. de Jong and M. de Heer 2001. LARCH Vogels Nationaal; een expertsysteem voor het beoordelen van de ruimtelijke samenhang en de duurzaamheid van broedvogelpopulaties in Nederland. Alterra-report 235. Expertisecentrum LNV / Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Reitsma, J.M. and G.F.J. Smit 1994. Versnippering door rijkswegen in Flevoland. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg, The Netherlands. Snep, R.P.H., R.G.M. Kwak, H. Timmermans and W. Timmermans 2001. Landschapsecologische analyse van het Rotterdamse havengebied: LARCH-scenariostudie naar natuurpotenties van braakliggende terreinen en leidingstroken. Alterra-report 231. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen Van Apeldoorn, R.C. and J. Kalkhoven 1991. De relatie tussen zoogdieren en infrastructuur; de effecten van habitatfragmentatie en verstoring. Report 91/22. DLO-Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheer, Leersum, The Netherlands. Van Apeldoorn, R.C., J. Verboom and W. Nieuwenhuizen 1997. DASSIM, een simulatiemodel voor de evaluatie van verkeersscenario’s: calibratie en validatie. Report W-DWW-97-027. DLO-Instituut voor Bosen Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen / Rijkswaterstaat Dienst Weg-en Waterbouwkunde, Delft, The Netherlands. Van Apeldoorn, R.C. & W. Nieuwenhuizen 1998. Overlevingsplan hamster (Cricetus cricetus): analyse van knelpunten, oplossingsrichtingen en voorwaarden voor een duurzame toekomst in Limburg. IBN-report 380. Instituut voor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Van Apeldoorn, R.C., J.P. Knaapen, P. Schippers, J. Verboom, H. Van Engen and H. Meeuwsen 1998. Applying ecological knowledge in landscape planning: a simulation model as a tool to evaluate scenarios for the badger in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 41: 57-69. Van der Grift, E.A. and B.J.H. Koolstra (ed.) 2001. Toets natuurontwikkelingsplan en natuurbrug Zanderij Crailo: nut en noodzaak van de ecologische verbinding, effectiviteit van de natuurbrug en toetsing herinrichting sportpark. Alterra-report 168. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Van der Grift, E.A. and J. Verboom 2001. Levensvatbaarheid van de dassenpopulatie in Midden-Limburg na aanleg van Rijksweg 73-Zuid. Alterra-report 099. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Van der Grift, E.A., R. Pouwels and R. Reijnen 2003. Meerjarenprogramma Ontsnippering – Knelpuntenanalyse. Alterra-report 768. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Van der Molen, P., M. Kalsbeek and R. de Beijer 1999. Natuurcompensatieplan Rijksweg 73-Zuid (concept). Tussenrapport 1: technische achtergrond. Dienst Landelijk Gebied Limburg, Roermond, The Netherlands. Van der Sluis, T., H. Baveco, G. Corridore, H. Kuipers, F. Knauer, B. Pedroli, R. Jochems and J. Dirksen 2003. Corridors for LIFE: Ecological network analysis Regione Abruzzo. Alterra-report 697. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Van der Zee, F.F., J. Wiertz, C.F.J. ter Braak, R.C. van Apeldoorn and J. Vink 1992. Landscape change as a possible cause of the badger Meles meles L. decline in The Netherlands. Biological Conservation 61: 17-22. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 180 Making Connections Verboom, J. 1996. Modelling fragmented populations: between theory and application in landscape planning. IBN Scientific Contributions 3. DLO-Instituut voor Bos- en Natuurbeheer, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Verboom, J., R. Foppen, J.P. Chardon, P.F.M. Opdam and P.C. Luttikhuizen 2001. Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biological Conservation 100 (1): 89-100. Verboom, J. and R. Pouwels, in press. Ecological functioning of ecological networks: a species perspective. In: Jongman en Pungetti (eds.). Ecological Networks and Greenways: concept, design, implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Wieman, E.A.P., R.J.F. Bugter, E.A. Van der Grift, A.G.M. Schotman, C.C. Vos and S.S.H. Ligthart 2000. Beoordeling ecologische effecten reactivering ‘IJzeren Rijn” op het gebied de Meinweg. Een toetsing in het kader van de EU-Vogelrichtlijn en EU-Habitatrichtlijn. Alterra-report 81. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Winter, L. and M.D. Smit 1997. De otter terug in Overijssel – Onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden voor een levensvatbare otterpopulatie in de provincie Overijssel. Werkgroep Otter Overijssel & Stichting Otterstation Nederland, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 181 Making Connections HUMAN TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AS ECOLOGICAL BARRIER FOR WILDLIFE ON BRAZILIAN PANTANAL-CERRADO CORRIDORS Wagner A. Fischer (Phone/fax: +55 (061) 367-5912, Email: [email protected]), 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: [email protected]), Biologist, Ph.D. Ecology (São Paulo University – USP),Cerrado Program Coordinator (Conservation International Institute – CI do Brasil) Leandro Silveira (Email: [email protected]), Biologist, Ph.D. Ecology (Goias Federal University – UFG), Cerrado and Pantanal Carnivores Conservation Ecology (Associação Pró-Carnívoros / Pro-Carnivores Association) Anah T. A. Jácomo (Email: [email protected]), Biologist, PhD Ecology (Goias Federal University – UFG), Cerrado and Pantanal Mammals Conservation Ecology (Associação Pró-Carnívoros / Pro Carnivores Association) Abstract: 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 has this question been included in 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 road 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 multiplied eight times in the last 10 years. Along 1,350km of federal roads around Pantanal (from Caceres/MT to Corumba/MS) road kill estimate escalated from 1,120 deaths/year in 1992 to 8,090 deaths/year in 2002. In Cerrado areas, road kill rate evolution takes the same pattern. On 310km of roads around Emas National Park, highway mortality of fauna was close to 405 deaths/year in 1999, and it reached 540 deaths/year at the end of 2002, that is, an increase of 33 percent in three years. We mapped the most relevant wildlife corridors for applying road fauna management and landscape design technologies to allow safe crossings between animal and human corridors (under or over passages). Introduction Road impacts on terrestrial vertebrates are one of the most serious mortality causes for several animal species around the world (ICOET 2001, KERLEY et al. 2002). Mammal species such as large carnivores are known for their natural low population densities, and are often considered rare and endangered in many Brazilian regions. Besides the Amazon in the northern South America continent, Central Brazil also has two other biomes that broadly help to support large mammal species in healthy populations, such as Cerrado and Pantanal (fig. 1). ICOET 2003 Proceedings 182 Making Connections Fig. 1. South America and Brazilian map showing Cerrado and Pantanal area. Cerrado is the Brazilian name for the Neotropical Savanna located in Central Brazil, occupying 2,064,676 square kilometers (= 800,000 miles2). It corresponds to approximately 15 times the Florida State area. Brazilian law officially protects only 3.1 percent of Cerrado core area. Pantanal is known as the world’s largest wetland, also located in western Brazil at the middle of South America. Its area corresponds to 154,884 square kilometers (= 60,000 miles2), nearly the size of Florida State and it also represents four times the Everglades biome area (Florida wetland). Legally protected areas in Pantanal correspond only to 1.6% percent of all this biome. As seen in figure 1, both biomes occupy strategic positions in South America, showing the highest Neotropical diversity of fauna. Principally Cerrado is a convergence area for large animal species. Cerrado makes the natural connection among other important biomes such as Amazon, Caatinga, Atlantic Forest, Pantanal and other wetlands like South American Chacos in Bolivia and Paraguay (Redford and Fonseca 1986). Despite their importance, Pantanal and Cerrado are threatened by human activities and movements (urbanization, farming and transportation). The few existing conservation units are in progressive isolation, and several wild animal species have been endangered by environmental disturbances and losses. Road building and development increasing these impacts, essentialy because they prmote habitat fragmentation and animal mortality by vehicle traffic (ICOET 2001). Public and private organizations in Brazil (coordinated by Conservation International Institute) have developed a broad and long-term project called Cerrado-Pantanal Ecological Corridors (CPEC). Its main objective involves many environmental research works and institutional policy actions to establish huge land reconnection as a continuous corridor. This proposal intends to link natural fragments and reserves from different sizes and preservation conditions and to guarantee their protection and conservation, and also their connectivity restoration (see figure 2). Road kills of terrestrial wildlife are one of the key questions to be included in the conservation equation for Cerrado-Pantanal Corridor success (Fischer 2003). Figure 3 shows the Brazilian transportation network (rail and highways) along Cerrado and Pantanal areas. Traditional roads and railways may easily interrupt all habitat reconnections proposed by CPEC. So, road fauna management is a primary issue to be discussed, and it is the greatest CPEC challenge for biodiversity conservation in Central Brazil (see Sullivan 1996). ICOET 2003 Proceedings 183 Making Connections Fig. 2. Brazilian priorities for conservation that must be reconnected by CerradoPantanal Ecological Corridors Project. (Source: Conservation International.) Fig. 3. Brazilian transportation network that represents ecological barriers for CPEC Project. (Source: Transportation Ministry, Federal Government, Brazil.) ICOET 2003 Proceedings 184 Making Connections Objectives Our objectives in this paper are: 1) To give a general overview of fauna road kills at Pantanal and Cerrado biomes. 2) To define critical road spots for wildlife movements as pilot-areas for monitoring and testing fauna management technologies. 3) To establish environmental indicators for reconnecting and protecting natural fauna corridors. 4) To recommend effective mitigation actions and technologies for existing roads on Cerrado and Pantanal ecosystems. In addition, we have developed a specific proposal to complement two running project statements presented in this paper. Our priority is to allow safe animal crossings over some specific South Pantanal and Emas National Park (Cerrado) road spots. Also, we must extend our investigation to every relevant road on the CPEC area, as part of the global project. The estimated costs to execute a preliminary project for wildlife management at CPEC roadspots must reach approximately USD $200,000. Methods During the last eight years, we have consolidated a consistent road fauna-monitoring database at Pantanal and Cerrado highways. We have conducted two specific monitoring projects that show a fast evolution of wildlife mortality caused by vehicle traffic. The first running project cited above has been executed in the Cerrado biome since 1996, involving fauna ecology and management in all human transportation routes around Emas National Park, Goias State, and its border limits with Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul States (Jácomo et al. 1996, Ramos-Neto 1998, Silviera 1999; Fischer 2003). The second running project takes place in South Pantanal at its federal main road (BR262), between Campo Grande and Corumba cities (FISCHER, 1996, 1997, and 1999). This work also started in 1996; however, we used historical data from BR-262 road fauna collected since 1989 by other researchers in Pantanal (R. Herrera, pers. comm.). In both, South Pantanal and Emas National Park roads, our methods consistof fortnightly monitoring animal activities and mortalities on all lanes. When possible, local driver interviews and historical data about road fauna are useful to help estimate highway mortality index increasing. Databases were overlaid on satellite images for landscape analysis, dividing roads in segments, according to their environmental characteristics (geomorphology, biogeography, conservation status, etc). We use rare, endemic and/or endangered animal species occurrences to detect wildlife corridors and critical road spots of animal-vehicle collisions. Also, we define structures, equipments and strategic actions to integrate roads and railways to the natural environment, including public and private reserves around them. Results Pantanal and Cerrado road fauna has been represented by more than 140 species of mammals, avian, reptiles and amphibians (Fischer 1999, 2003). From the road fauna list (tables 1, 2 and 3), sixteen species are officially considered endangered (MMA 2003): Penelope obscura (dusky-legged-guan), Crax fasciolata (curassow), Chrysocyon brachyurus (manned-wolf), Pseudalopex vetulus (short-eared-fox), Speothos venaticus (bush-dog), Leopardus spp. (ocelot and margay), Oncifelis colocolo (wild-cat), Panthera onca (jaguar), Puma concolor (puma), Pteronura brasiliensis (giant-otter), Blastocerus dichotomus (marsh-deer), Priodontes maximus (giant-armadillo), and Myrmecophaga tridactyla (giant-anteater). Also, the giant anteater and shorteared-fox are two of the most threatened species commonly found on Pantanal and Cerrado roads (see figures 4, 5 and 6). Besides the giant anteater and short-eared-fox, other common road kill species are Bufo marinus (marinetoad), Ameiva ameiva (common-ameiva), Caiman crocodilus yacare (yacare-caiman), Eunectes notaeus (yellow-anaconda), Rhea americana (greater-rhea), Cariama cristata (red-legged-seriema), Poliborus plancus (crested-caracara), Cerdocyon thous (crab-eating-fox), Procyon cancrivorous (crab-eating-raccoon), Dasypus novencinctus (nine-banded-armadillo), Euphractus sexcinctus (yellow-armadillo), Tamandua tetradactyla (collared-anteater), field-deer (Ozotocerus bezoarticus) and Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris (capybara). In general, mammal occurrences represent more than 70 percent of all animal road kills, followed by avian, reptiles and amphibians, respectively. Also, the highway mortality rate on Pantanal and Cerrado routes has significantly increased. In Pantanal, highway mortality of wildlife multiplied eight times in the last 10 years. Along 1,350km of federal roads from Caceres (MT) to Corumba (MS), road kill estimates escalated from 1,120 deaths/year in 1992 to 8,090 ICOET 2003 Proceedings 185 Making Connections deaths/year in 2002. In Emas National Park, road kill rate evolution takes the same pattern. On 310km of roads around Emas, highway mortality of fauna was close to 405 deaths/year in 1999, and it reached 540 deaths/year at the end of 2002, that is, an increase of 33 percent in three years (Fischer 2003). Our global estimate for animal-vehicle collisions on all Cerrado-Pantanal corridors is more than 15,000 wild animals killed this year (2003), 10,000 of them representing mammal species. Table 1. Herpetofauna road killed species in Cerrado and Pantanal transportation network, Brazil. (+)=rarely road killed; (++)=eventually road killed; (+++)=frequently road killed. TAXA AMPHIBIA Anura REPTILE Chelonia Crocodylia Squamata Sauria Ofidia Family Species Vulgar Name Cerrado Pantanal Bufonidae Hylidae Leptodactylidae Bufo spp. Hyla spp. Leptodactylus spp. Physalaemus sp. Pseudis paradoxa Toad Tree-frog Rana Rana Paradox-frog +++ Phrynops sp. Acanthochelis sp. Geochelone carbonaria Caiman crocodilus yacare Caiman latirostris Toad-headed-turtle Turtle Red-foot-tortoise Yacare-caiman Broad-nosed-yacare Iguana iguana Ameiva ameiva Tupinambis spp. Dracaena paraguayensis Tropidurus spp. Boa constrictor Eunectes spp. Apostolepis sp. Chironius spp. Clelia occipitolutea Dipsas sp. Drymarchon corais Erythrolamprus sp. Helicops leopardinus Hydrodynastes gigas Leptodeira annulata Liophis spp. Mastigodrias bifossatus Oxyrhopus sp. Philodryas spp. Pseudoboa sp. Spilotes pullatus Thamnodynastes strigilis Waglaerophis merremi Micrurus sp. Leptotyphlops sp. Bothrops spp. Crotalus durissus Green-iguana Green-ameiva Tegu Paraguay-caiman-lizard Lizard Common-boa Anaconda Ground-snake Tree-snake Musuranna Slug-eating-snake Indigo-snake False-coral False-water-snake False-water-cobra Cat-eyed-snake Liophis Water-snake False-coral Mato-grosso-racer False-coral Tiger-ratsnake Brazilian-snake Brazilian-boipeva Coral-snake Blindsnake Viper Rattlesnake Pseudidae Chelidae Testudinidae Alligatoridae Iguanidae Teiidae Tropiduridae Boidae Colubridae Elapidae Leptotyphlopidae Viperidae + + +++ +++ + ++ + + + +++ +++ ++ ++ + + + + + + ++ ++ ++ + + +++ +++ + ++ ++ +++ + + ++ ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ ++ + +++ + ++ *In bold, the most threatened species in both biomes. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 186 Making Connections Table 2. Avifauna road-killed species in the Cerrado and Pantanal transportation network, Brazil. (+)=rarely road killed; (++)=eventually road killed; (+++)=frequently road killed; @=Brazilian red list species (MMA 2003). Order Rheiformes Tinamiformes Pelicaniformes Ciconiiformes Falconiformes Anseriformes Galliformes Charadriiformes Gruiformes Columbiformes Family Rheidae Tinamidae Species Rhea americana Nothura spp. Tinamus spp. Crypturellus spp. Rhynchotus rufescens Phalacocoracidae Phalacrocorax olivaceus Ardeidae Ardea cocoi Botaurus pinnatus Bubulcus ibis Butorides striatus Casmerodius albus Egretta thula Tigrisoma lineatum Ciconiidae Euxenura maguari Jabiru mycteria Threskionithidae Ajaia ajaja Phimosus infuscatus Theristicus caudatus Accipitridae Accipiter striatus Bursarellus nigricollis Buteo albicaudatus Buteo brachyurus Buteo magnirostris Buteogallus urubitinga Elanus leucurus Harpyaliaetus coronatus Heterospizias meridionalis Milvago chimachima Parabuteo unicinctus Cathartidae Cathartes aura Cathartes burrovianus Coragyps atratus Sarcoramphus papa Falconidae Falco sparverius Micrastur gilvicollis Micrastur ruficollis Polyborus plancus Anatidae Anas spp. Mergus octosetaceus Netta erythrophthalma Sarkidiornis melanotos Cracidae Crax fasciolata Penelope spp. Charadriidae Charadrius collaris Vanellus cayanus Vanellus chilensis Jacanidae Jacana jacana Aramidae Aramus guarauna Cariamidae Cariama cristata Rallidae Aramides sp. Rallus sp. Columbidae Columba spp. Columbina spp. Geotrygon sp. Scardafella squammata Zenaida auriculata Vulgar Name Greater-rhea Nothura @ Tinamou Tinamou @ Red-winged-tinamou Neotropic-cormorant White-necked-heron Pinnated-bittern Cattle-egret Striated-heron Great-egret Snowy-egret Rufescent-tiger-heron Maguari-stork Jabiru Roseate-spoonbill Bare-faced-ibis Buff-necked-ibis Sharp-shinned-hawk Black-collared-hawk White-tailed-hawk Short-tailed-hawk Roadside-hawk Great-black-hawk White-tailed-kite Crowned-eagle @ Savanna-hawk Yellow-head-caracara Harri´s-hawk Turkey-vulture Yellow-headed-vulture Black-vulture King-vulture Sparrow-hawk Lined-forest-falcon Barred-forest-falcon Crested-caracara Pintail Brazilian-merganser @ Pochard Comb-duck Curassow @ Guan @ Plover Lapwing Lapwing Jaçanã Limpkin Seriema Rail Rail Pigeon Dove Dove Scaled-dove Eared-dove Cerrado +++ +++ + ++ ++ Pantanal ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ + +++ + ++ +++ +++ + ++ + ++ +++ + + + +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + *In bold, the most threatened species in both biomes. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 187 Making Connections Table 2. Continuation. Order Psittaciformes Cuculiformes Strigiformes Caprimulgiforme Apodiformes Family Psittacidae Cuculidae Strigidae Tytonidae Caprimulgidae Nyctibiidae Apodidae Trochilidae Coraciiformes Alcedinidae Trogoniformes Piciformes Trogonidae Bucconidae Galbulidae Picidae Passeriformes Ramphastidae Corvidae Fringilidae Furnariidae Hirundinidae Icteridae Mimidae Ploceidae Thraupidae Trogloditidae Turdidae Tyrannidae ICOET 2003 Proceedings Species Amazona sp. Anodorhincus hyacinthinus Ara ararauna Ara maracana Aratinga sp. Brotogeris chiriri Nandayus nenday Pionus maximiliani Pyrrhura sp. Crotophaga ani Crotophaga major Guira guira Piaya cayana Athene cunicularia Bubo virginianus Glaucidium brasilianum Glaucidium minutissimum Rhinoptynx clamator Pulsatrix perspicillata Tyto alba Caprimulgus spp. Nyctibius spp. Cypseloides senex Reinarda squamata Colibri semirrostris Glaucis hirsuta Heliothryx aurita Phaetornis spp. Thalurania furcata Ceryle torquata Chloroceryle americana Trogon sp. Nonnula sp. Galbula sp. Celeus flavescens Colaptes campestris Picoides mixtus Veniliornis sp. Ramphastos toco Cyanocorax spp. Paroaria spp. Furnarius rufus Notiochelidon cyanoleuca Riparia riparia Tachycineta albiventer Gnorimopsar chopi Mimus saturninus Passer domesticus Ammodramus humeralis Sporophila spp. Thraupis sayaca Volatinia jacarina Zonotrichia capensis Cistophorus platensis Turdus rufiventris Turdus amaurochalinus Myiozetetes cayanenis Pitangus sulphuratus 188 Vulgar Name Parrot Blue-macaw @ Blue-and-yellow-macaw Blue-winged-macaw Parakeet Parakeet Black-hooded-parakeet Parrot Parakeet Smooth-billed-ani Greater-ani Guira-cuckoo Squirrel-cuckoo Burrowing-owl Great-horned-owl Ferruginous-pigmy-owl Least-pigmy-owl Striped-owl Spectacled-owl Barn-owl Nightjar Potoo Great-dusky-swift Palm-swift Violetear Hermit Fairy Hermit Violetear Ringed-kingfisher Green-kingfisher Trogon Nunlet Jacamar Blond-crest-woodpecker Campo-flicker Checkered-woodpecker Woodpecker Toco-toucan Jay Cardinal Rufous-hornero Blue-white-swallow Bank-swallow White-winged-swallow Blackbird Mocking-bird House-sparrow Grassland-sparrow Seedeater Tanager Grassquit Rufous-collared-sparrow Grass-wren Rufous-bellied-trush Creamy-bellied-trush Flycatcher Great-kiskadee Cerrado Pantanal + + ++ +++ ++ + + +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ + + + + ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ ++ + ++ + Making Connections Table 3. Mastofauna road-killed species in the Cerrado and Pantanal transportation network, Brazil. (+)=rarely road killed; (++)=eventually road killed; (+++)=frequently road killed; @=Brazilian red list species (MMA 2003). Order Rodentia Family Agoutidae Caviidae Dasyproctidae Erethizontidae Hydrochaeridae Muridae Marsupialia Didelphidae Artiodactyla Cervidae Tayassuidae Perissodatyla Edentata Tapiridae Bradypodidae Dasypodidae Myrmecophagidae Lagomorfa Primata Leporidae Atelidae Callitrichidae Cebidae Canidae Carnivora Felidae Mustelidae Procyonidae Chiroptera Molossidae Noctilionidae Phyllostomidae Vespertilionidae Species Agouti paca Cavia aperea Dasyprocta azarae Coendou prehensilis Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris Holochilus brasiliensis Nectomys sp. Oecmys spp. Oryzomys spp. Caluromys philander Didelphis spp. Micoureus cinereus Blastocerus dichotomus Mazama americana Mazama goazoubira Ozotocerus bezoarticus Tayassu pecari Tayassu tajacu Sus scropha Tapirus terrestris Bradypus variegatus Cabassous unicinctus Dasypus novencinctus Euphractus sexcinctus Priodontes maximus Myrmecophaga tridactyla Tamandua tetradactyla Sylvilagus brasiliensis Alouatta caraya Alouatta fusca Callithrix penicillata Cebus apella Cerdocyon thous Chrysocyon brachyurus Pseudalopex vetulus Speothos venaticus Herpailurus yagouarondi Leopardus pardalis Leopardus tigrina Leopardus wiedii Oncifelis colocolo Panthera onca Puma concolor Conepatus semistriatus Eira bárbara Galictis cuja Lutra longicaudis Pteronura brasiliensis Nasua nasua Procyon cancrivorous Molossus spp. Noctilio leporinus Anoura spp. Artibeus spp. Carollia spp. Desmodus rotundus Myotis spp. Vulgar Name Paca Preá Agouti Porcupine Capybara Marsh-rat Water-rat Rice-rat Rice-rat Wooly opossum Common-opossum Mouse-opossum Marsh-deer @ Red-deer Gray-deer Field-deer White-lipped-peccary Collared-pecary Wild pig Tapir Sloth Naked-tailed-armadillo Common-armadillo Yellow-armadillo Giant-armadillo @ Giant-anteater @ Collared-anteater Brazilian-rabbit Black-howler-monkey Red-howler-monkey Marmoset Brown-capuchin-monkey Crab-eating-fox Manned-wolf @ Brazilian-field-fox @ Bush-dog @ Jaguarundi Ocelot @ Oncilla @ Margay @ Grass-wild-cat @ Jaguar @ Puma @ Skunk Tayra Grison Common-otter Giant-otter @ Coati Crab-eating-raccoon Mastiff-bat Fishing-bat Long-tonged-bat Fruit-eating-bat Short-tailed-bat Common-vampire Little-brown-bat Cerrado ++ ++ + ++ + +++ + + + + ++ + + + + + +++ + ++ ++ ++ + + + + ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ +++ ++ +++ +++ + + + + +++ ++ +++ + ++ + + + ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ + ++ +++ ++ +++ + ++ ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ +++ + ++ + ++ +++ + ++ + + *In bold, the most threatened species in both biomes. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 189 Making Connections Fig. 4. Avian road-killed in CPEC (top-bottom; left-right): Gray-egret; Nightjar; Seriema; Stripedowl; Toco-toucan; Spectacled-owl; Crested-caracara; Sparrow-hawk; Savanna-hawk; Jabiru. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 190 Making Connections Fig. 5. Mammal road-killed species in CPEC (top-bottom; left-right): Capybara (adult); Capybara (offspring); Crab-eating-raccoon; Giant-anteater (female and offspring); Capybara and Black vulture; Coati; Yellow-armadillo; Common-armadillo; Naked-tailed-armadillo; Collared-anteater. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 191 Making Connections Fig. 6. Mammal and reptile road-killed species in CPEC (top-bottom; left-right): Fielddeer; Jaguar; Grass-wild-cat; Common-otter; Brown-capuchin-monkey; Ocelot; Yellow-anaconda; Crab-eating-fox; Tegu-lizard; Yacare-caiman. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 192 Making Connections Conclusions Human terrestrial ways cause ecological impacts throughout natural ecosystems. Railways are less aggressive to wildlife than highways through relevant ecosystems (lower traffic, lower rail side disturbance, lower pollution, more economic, etc). See Fischer (2002). In relevant biomes such as Brazilian Cerrado and Pantanal, traditional roads promote pollution (sonorous, atmospheric, environmental); irregular roadside occupation; environment degradation and fragmentation; border effects on native vegetation; and new environmental features like roadside corridors (secondary vegetation and artificial water ponds) that attracts animals close to the road lanes, increasing animal-vehicle collisions (Fischer 1997; Fischer et al. 2000). Habitat fragmentation and highway mortality are the most visible impacts produced by roads. Meanwhile, other indirect and invisible effects of roads must strongly concern conservationist policies about terrestrial transportation systems, such as the break of wild animal metapopulation structure. As ecological barriers, roads promote animal population isolation that in turn promotes local extinctions, then regional extinctions, and, finally, general extinctions. In relevant biomes with a high diversity and density of wild animal populations, wildlife passages under or over roads must be implemented. Riparian and gallery forests in Cerrado areas may be a useful indicator for animal corridors along road landscape (Redford and Fonseca 1986, Naiman et al. 1993). Also, animal movements monitoring may help to determine mitigation efforts (Romin and Bissonette 1996). Where human and animal corridors intersect, under and overpasses are among the best ways to avoid animalvehicle collisions. Specific wildlife passages or some adaptions of non-wildlife structures like bridges and culverts, may be used successfully for safe animal crossings on railways and roads (Foster and Humphrey 1995, Rodriguez and Delibes 1996). Road fauna management is the primary step to guarantee CPEC project viability for protecting animal species, especially those endangered. Serious and ambitious projects like CPEC passes will be successful only to the extent that wildlife mortality on transportation corridors can be drastically reduced. It is urgent and imperative that policies reflect the true value of our fauna and promote their destiny. Recommendations • In the case of traditional roads, mitigation efforts must be applied to allow suitable reconnection of ecological corridors, including safe and fauna passages at crossing points. • Regional study of forest reserves and fauna corridors; characterization and census of local and regional fauna; survey of agricultural production in the neighborhood region; hierarchic definition of vital zones for local fauna — all these investigations must be carried out for establishing road management and mitigation. • Fauna passages must prioritize areas with continuous natural ecosystems, still preserved or in good condition of conservation; • Dimension, location and vegetation corridor recovery definitions for fauna passages implementation and a research program for monitoring animal passages, fauna diversity and frequency of use must always be conducted by fauna specialists, principally in tropical areas with high diversity of competitors and prey-predator relationships. • Permanent environmental education for drivers and permanent control of speed limits and vehicle traffic for human and wildlife safety must be applied along the roads, specially on road spots for fauna. • Partnerships must be celebrated with local communities, associations of nature protection, NGOs, universities and other research institutions to support and to legitimize all actions. Acknowledgements: Cerrado-Pantanal Ecological Corridor project is supported by Conservation International Brazil, EMAS Foundation, FUNATURA, BIODIVERSITAS Foundation, Alfred Jurzykowski Foundation, BRADESCO, World Bank, USAID, GEF, CNPq, MCT and MMA. Emas National Park project is supported by Conservation International (CI Cerrado/Brazil), EMAS Foundation, Pro-Carnivores Association, and IBAMA. “Estrada Viva” (“Living Roads”) Program is supported by Boticario Foundation (FBPN), Macarthur Foundation, World Wildlife Fund (WWF Brazil), Conservation International (CI Pantanal/Brazil), US Fish and Wildlife Service, Earthwatch Institute, CAPES, CNPq, Ministry of Transport (Federal Government), IBAMA, Mato Grosso do Sul Federal University (UFMS). Biographical Sketch: Wagner Fischer earned a biology degree from São Paulo University (USP - São Paulo/SP), in 1993. He then earned a master of science in ecology and conservation from Mato Grosso do Federal University (UFMS - Campo Grande/MS) in 19961997. Between 1998 and 2000 he worked as a researcher/high professor of UFMS Biology graduation course (discipline “Ecology and Conservation”) Wagner also worked as a coordinator of the road fauna monitoring and management project at South Pantanal between 1996-2002. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 193 Making Connections In 1998 he started as a coordinator of “Estrada Viva: BR-262,” a road and environmental managing plan for South Pantanal roads (BR262 highway, park roads and secondary roads), by Convenio of Ministry of Transportation, UFMS and NGO “Estrada Viva.” In 1999 he became President of the NGO “Estrada Viva.” Some projects that Wagner has been involved with include: Road fauna management at Belem road project, Amazon (Belem-PA); Ecological corridor management at Ferronorte Railway in Central Brazil (MS-GO); Road fauna management around Emas National Park, Central Brazil (GO). Consulant in, Management Plans of several Conservation Units (National and State Parks, Biological Reserves, Ecological Station, Environmental Protection Areas) in Brazil at Cerrado (Jalapão and Chapada dos Veadeiros), Caatinga (Seridó) and Atlantic Forest (Guaribas and Saltinho); Environmental studies of several waterways, hydro-electric and termo-electric energy projects in Brazil; and a conservation biology consulant. References Fischer, W. A. 1996. Efeitos do tráfego e a fauna silvestre associada às estradas: o caso da estrada-parque MS-228 (Curva do Leque-Porto Manga), Pantanal-MS. In: Resumos-II Simpósio sobre Recursos Naturais e Sócio-econômicos do Pantanal - Manejo e Conservação. CPAP/EMBRAPA, Corumbá, MS, Brazil. pp. 154-5 Fischer, W. A. 1997. Efeitos da BR-262 na mortalidade de vertebrados silvestres: síntese naturalística para a conservação da região do Pantanal-MS. Master Thesis. Mato Grosso do Sul Federal University – UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil. 44pp. Fischer, W.A. (coord.) 1999. Programa Estrada Viva - Volumes 1 e 2: Impactos da BR-262 sobre a Vida Selvagem e Proposta de Intervenção (Technical Report). GEIPOT (Conv. Min.Tranportes/UFMS), Brasília, DF, Brazil.100+127pp. Fischer, W.A., Arruda, R.S. and Fonseca, P.A.L. 2000. Fruit-eating mammals and palm distribution along South Pantanal Highway: Implications for wildlife conservation and landscape management. 3rd International Symposium-Workshop on Frugivores and Seed Dispersal. São Pedro, SP, Brazil. Fischer, W.A. 2002. Corredor Ecológico do Córrego São Luís – FERRONORTE, KM 326. Technical Report. IBAMA, Brasília, DF, Brazil. 36pp. Foster, M.L. and Humphrey, S.R. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1): 95-100 ICOET – Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Tranportation. 2001. CD-ROM. Center for Transportation and the Environment, NC State University, Keystone, Colorado, USA. September/2001. Jácomo, A.T.A.; Silveira, L. and Crenshaw, P.G. 1996. Impacto da rodovia estadual GO.341 sobre a fauna do Parque Nacional das Emas, Goiás. Anais 3o. Congresso de Ecologia do Brasil. Brasília, DF, Brazil. p.174 Kerley, L.L.; Goodrich, J.M.; Miquelle, D.G.; Smirnov, E.N.; Quigley, H.B. and Hornocker, M.G. 2002. Effects of roads and human disturbance on Amur Tigers. Conservation Biology 16(1): 97-108. Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H. and Pollack, M. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3(2): 209-12 MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2003. Lista Oficial de Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção. Instrução Normativa N° 3 - Maio/2003. MMA, Brasília, DF, Brazil. Ramos-Neto, M.B. 1998. Monitoramento de Fauna das Estradas no Entorno do Parque Nacional das Emas/ GO. Technical Report. FERRONORTE, Mineiros, GO, Brazil. Redford,K.H. & Fonseca, G.A.B. 1986. The role of gallery forests in the zoogeography of the cerrado’s nonvolant mammalian fauna. Biotropica 18(2): 126-35 Rodriguez, A.G.C. and Delibes, M. 1996. Use of non-wildlife passages across a high-speed railway by terrestrial vertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1527-40 Romin,L.A. and Bissonette, J.A. 1996. Deer-vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2): 276-83 Silveira, L. 1999. Ecologia e conservação dos mamíferos carnívoros do Parque Nacional das Emas, Goiás. Master Thesis. Goias Federal University – UFG, Goiânia, GO, Brazil. 117pp. Sullivan, R. 1996. Tying the landscape together: the need for wildlife movement corridors. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Florida, USA. 14pp. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 194 Making Connections INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS THAT ADDRESS HIGHWAY IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE HABITAT CONNECTIVITY IN THE NORTHERN ROCKIES Deborah K. Davidson (Phone: 406-586-8175, Email:[email protected]), American Wildlands, 40 East Main Street, Bozeman MT 59715, Fax: 406-586-8242 Abstract; 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. Problem Statement The U.S. Northern Rockies, which includes western Montana, central and northern Idaho, and northwestern Wyoming, has three fairly intact ecosystems: the Northern Continental Divide, the Salmon-Selway and the Greater Yellowstone. These ecosystems have generally maintained their wild character, charismatic megafauna and ecosystem function. Due to these fairly intact ecosystems, the U.S. Northern Rockies is still home to most of the native species that existed when Lewis and Clark arrived, such as wolf, bison, lynx, wolverine, fisher, marten, goshawk, eagle, grizzly and black bear and mountain lions. It is believed that “the best opportunity for management of a functional carnivore community in North America is the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States and the Southern Rocky Mountains of Canada. It may be the last place in the lower 48 states where this opportunity exists” (Ruediger 1999). With increasing human development, wildlife habitat in the region is becoming extremely fragmented. Habitat loss and fragmentation at a variety of spatial scales has been widely acknowledged as a primary cause of the decline of numerous species throughout the world (Ehrlich 1986). Fragmentation from human development, roads, off-road vehicle development and other activities is rapidly shrinking, dividing, and isolating the ecosystems of critical habitat in the Northern Rockies. Projections are for this trend of habitat fragmentation to continue and accelerate, as the Northern Rockies is one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S. (Quigley et al. 1996). Human built structures, such as roads, eliminate connectivity as well as decrease habitat quality and are extremely destructive to small populations that are already threatened (McKelvey et al. 2002). Roads are one of the leading causes of habitat destruction and loss of connectivity throughout the world. One result of the regional scale fragmentation in the Northern Rockies is particularly evident with the current situation of the grizzly bear, which is now isolated in a handful of remnant isolated populations. The bear populations are centered in large, relatively undeveloped and undisturbed areas, including the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and, to a much lesser degree, in the mountains of northern Idaho and northwest Montana (USFWS 1993). Gene flow and movement between core areas of wildlife habitat is essential to decrease their probability for extinction (Soule 1987, Harrison 1994, and Hanski 1999). Without habitat links, these park and wilderness islands will become mere holding pens for the rich native wildlife of the Northern Rockies. American Wildlands (AWL) Corridors of Life Program has used Geographic Information systems (GIS) to identify the least-cost path for wildlife movement between the northern Rockies core areas (Walker and Craighead 1997). The Corridors of Life model has identified over 100 potential wildlife migration corridors throughout the Northern Rockies. Almost every major potential wildlife corridor identified by AWL is bisected by four-lane interstates, two-lane highways or other major roads. These highways traverse a variety of landscapes and human communities and rich wildlife habitat, and have taken their toll on wildlife populations in the Northern ICOET 2003 Proceedings 195 Making Connections Rockies. High volumes of traffic along transportation corridors block, deflect, or delay daily, seasonal and lifetime wildlife movements. Species most vulnerable to habitat fragmentation caused by roads are those with large home ranges and low population numbers, including large mammals and, in particular, carnivores (Haas 2000). Some examples of species directly affected by roads are grizzly bears, black bears, gray wolves, mountain lions, lynx. The effects of roads are so detrimental to connectivity, in fact, that studies have shown that gray wolves that migrated from Canada to reestablish in Montana stopped when they reached Interstate90. Specifically, Defenders of Wildlife gives the following impacts of roads on wildlife: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mortality from road construction Mortality from collisions with vehicles Modification of animal behavior Alteration of the physical environment (including soil, temperature, light, etc.) Alteration of the chemical environment (including metals, salts, nutrients, etc.) Spread of exotics Increased use of areas by humans In addition, it is widely known that highways and roads have far-reaching effects outside of the highway corridor, leading to avoidance of roads and adjacent habitat, and degradation of habitat quality. An estimated 15-20 percent of the United States is ecologically impacted by roads (Foreman 1998). In the U.S. alone, 4.8 million hectares of land have been directly destroyed by road construction (Trombulak and Frissell 1999). This is land that used to support flora and fauna that are now experiencing the effects of habitat fragmentation and unnatural threats such as roadkill (Trombulak and Frissell 1999). In fact, in order to determine the actual amount of suitable habitat for wildlife, one must superimpose a map of the road system in the U.S. on the areas that seem to be suitable habitat; almost always, habitat boundaries are dictated by road locations (Devlin 1998). Along with road construction and vehicle traffic comes an increase in development and resource extraction in areas that were formerly undisturbed habitat (Cerulean 2002). Thus, it is not surprising that, according to Bill Ruediger, U.S. Forest Service’s ecology program leader for highways “[the impact of highways on wildlife] is the conservation issue of the 21st century” (Devlin 1998). It is estimated that one million vertebrates are killed every day on roads in the United States (Lowy 2001). In the Northern Rockies, the amount of wildlife killed in wildlife-vehicle collisions has not been calculated, but one study may be an indication of the extent of mortality. In a 30-mile wildlife corridor in Montana, 127 ungulates and carnivores were killed during the year 2001 by vehicles along I-90 (Craighead et al. 2001). Wildlife-vehicle collisions also have a great potential of causing injury or death to humans and property damage to vehicles. Montana Department of Transportation’s annual traffic and safety report for the year 2002 found that there were 1,796 reported wildlife-vehicle collisions and three of these were fatal, and in 2001 there were 1,643 wildlife-vehicle collisions and three were fatal. Two-hundred people are killed and 29,000 are injured in the United States each year in deer-vehicle collisions alone (Conover et al. 1995). Western Transportation Institute estimates that annually in the United States there are 725,000-1,500,000 animal-vehicle crashes that cost society $1 billion in property damage (WTI 2003). In 2000, the insurance industry estimated the average vehicle repair expense for a collision with a large animal was $2,000, thus contributing to an annual animal/ vehicle societal expense of $200 million (U.S. Dept. of Transportation 2000). In some states in the U.S., 6 to 8 cents of every insurance dollar goes toward paying for wildlife-related claims (Lowy 2001). Nationwide, in 2001 vehicle-wildlife collisions were responsible for an estimated 29,000 human injuries and 177 human fatalities (Forman 2003, STPP 2001). Since road construction is not showing any signs of slowing and vehicular travel is only becoming a more integral part of the American culture, it is crucial that solutions are found to decrease the impacts that wildlifevehicle collisions are having on wildlife populations and human safety. American Wildlands and our partners have been pursuing an innovate approach to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and increase wildlife movement over one busy section of Interstate 90 in Montana. Methodology In 1996, American Wildlands realized that there was a growing awareness of the need for habitat connectivity, and created a scientifically based model to identify the location of the wildlife migration corridors in the Northern Rockies. In order to advance scientific modeling methods for habitat connectivity analysis, the Corridors of Life Program at American Wildlands was developed to assess and delineate wildlife corridors according to a conservation biology model, at a regional scale, in a specific geographic area. Using GIS, the best available spatial habitat data and careful consideration for the habitat preferences of three select umbrella species, we have modeled potential regional-scale wildlife corridors between core protected areas in the Northern Rockies region of the United States. AWL’s approach offers a comprehensive, biologically ICOET 2003 Proceedings 196 Making Connections defensible assessment of probable corridor routes, and suggests a method, the least-cost-path, of estimating the relative connectivity of alternative routes (Walker et. al. 1997) The least-cost-path model delineates landscape routes offering the best chance of success for wildlife moving among the three large core ecosystems in the Northern Rockies -- the Salmon-Selway, Northern Continental Divide, and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystems. Using ARC/GRID and Montana Gap Analysis data, habitat suitability models were derived for three umbrella species, and combined with road density information to create kilometer-scale cost surfaces of movement. For each of the three species, grizzly bear, elk, and cougar, a least-cost-path analysis to locate broad potential corridor routes was performed. From this first approximation we identified probable movement routes, as well as critical barriers, bottlenecks, and filters where corridor routes intersected with high risk habitat (Walker et. al. 1997). (See figure 1, Corridors of Life Regional Model Results) Fig. 1. Corridors of Life Model Results. 1. Corridors of Life Modelhave Resultsupon wildlife habitat connectivity in the Northern Rockies, In order to address theFigure impacts that highways American Wildlands has organized an innovative multi-disciplinary working group to improve wildlife habitat In order to address the impacts that highways have upon wildlife habitat connectivity in the connectivity and highway safety in aAmerican priority Wildlands potential that themulti-disciplinary Corridors ofworking Life model identified. This Northern Rockies, hascorridors organized innovative groups to improvefrom wildlife habitat connectivity andcounty highwayagencies safety in a priority potential working group has representatives federal, state and as well as land trusts, independent corridors that the Corridors of Life model identified. This working group has representatives biologists, conservation groups, and university research institutes. The Bozeman Pass Working Group is from federal, state and county agencies as well as land trusts, independent biologists, focused on maintaining and enhancing of the only institutes. wildlife corridors theis Greater Yellowstone conservation groups, andone university research The Bozemanthat Pass connects Working Group focused onDivide maintaining and enhancing one of theother only wildlife corridors that connects the and the Northern Continental Ecosystems. Three working groups have been organized for (1) Yellowstone and the Northern Divide Three other working McArthur Lake WildlifeGreater Corridor, an 11-mile stretchContinental of Highway 95Ecosystems. in northern Idaho that serves as the only groups have been organized for 1) McArthur Lake Wildlife Corridor, an 11-mile stretch of remaining wildlife corridor between the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems, (2) Monida Pass, a key corridor Highway 95 in northern Idaho that serves as the only remaining wildlife corridor between the connecting the GreaterSelkirk Yellowstone and Salmon Selway Ecosystems, and connecting (3) the I-90/Fish and Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems, 2) Monida Pass, a key corridor the Greater Creek west of and Salmon Ecosystems, and 3) the I-90/Fish Creek westYaak of Missoula, MT, Missoula, MT, a seriesYellowstone of corridors linkingSelway the Salmon Selway and the Cabinet Ecosystems. series of corridors the Salmon Cabinet Yaak Ecosystems. Bozeman Pass Wildlifea Corridor lies inlinking between the Selway townsand ofthe Bozeman and Livingston in southwestern Montana, and is 40 miles north of Yellowstone National Park (figure 1). Bozeman Pass Wildlife Corridor encompasses approximately 908km2 /223,917 acres and5 includes the cities of Bozeman on the western edge and Livingston on the eastern edge. Interstate 90 bisects the area between Bozeman to Livingston, and the Montana Rail Link runs parallel to the freeway. The distance between Bozeman and Livingston is approximately 33.6km (21 miles). The area comprises a mosaic of residential, agricultural and public lands owned by the U.S. Forest Service and Montana State Department of Lands. The landscape varies from shrubgrassland communities near Bozeman and Livingston to coniferous forests in the middle section of Bozeman Pass. Elevation varies from 1,398 meters at its low point near Livingston to 1,733 meters at the top of the pass. Wildlife habitat is fragmented by human development and transportation routes between the Gallatin and Absaroka mountain ranges in the south to the Bridger and Bangtail Mountains in the north. The Corridors of Life model and others have identified Bozeman Pass as an important wildlife corridor or linkage connecting important wildlife habitat between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Northern Continental Divide ICOET 2003 Proceedings 197 Making Connections (Walker and Craighead 1997, Ruediger et. al. 1999). Species that are common in the area include moose, elk, black bear, coyote, mule and white-tailed deer, and the occasional wolf. Wildlife migrations and habitat connectivity compete with residential and commercial development, Interstate 90 and frontage roads, and the Montana Rail Link train track. I-90 runs through the middle of this wildlife corridor with traffic volumes having increased from an average annual daily rate of 1,620 vehicles in 1983 to 8,700 in 1993, to 12,130 vehicles in 2002 (MDOT 2003). The Montana Rail Link train track has an estimated 25 trains a day rolling through the Pass. The lands owned by the Gallatin National Forest have remnant logging roads on them, and ever-increasing motorized recreation use. The bulk of land, privately owned has been subdivided in a rural manner, with many of the large sections of private land remaining threatened by subdivisions. A total of 18,000 acres of the Pass were recently leased by J.M. Huber company for coal-bed methane, a highly intense oil and gas development process. Realizing there exists a limited window of opportunity to protect, maintain and restore wildlife habitat connectivity in Bozeman Pass, American Wildlands decided to devote time and energy to maintain and restore the habitat connectivity of the area. We started by approaching Montana Department of Transportation about partnering to address the highway component of this corridor. They were not interested in such a partnership at that time, since we had not demonstrated broad-based public and agency support for addressing wildlife movement in this area, and we had failed to show that there were scientific data to back up the fact that wildlife were being limited from moving north to south due to Interstate 90. We reevaluated our approach and took the following steps. Step One: Building Public Support American Wildlands determined that the best way to build public and agency support was to develop a constituency of public, NGOs and agencies that would work together to address wildlife movement in Bozeman Pass. We determined that this could best be done by organizing a working group. To develop the working group, we looked at the three main factors that were limiting habitat connectivity at Bozeman Pass: public and private lands, and I-90. It was apparent that the only way to make change was to bring everyone related to these issues to the table to determine if any common ground existed among the various parties. What resulted was a diverse group of parties including American Wildlands, Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University, Craighead Environmental Research Institute, Montana Department of Transportation, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, Trust for Public Lands, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Forest Service, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Gallatin County Planning Office. American Wildlands has acted as the facilitator and organizer of this working group. The initial steps taken by the Bozeman Pass Working Group included the following items. 1) Group members identified the work they were doing in Bozeman Pass. 2) Group members established common goals and mission statement. -Identify wildlife crossing areas and incorporate appropriate mitigations into I-90. -Increase human safety on this 30-mile stretch of I-90 by decreasing wildlife-vehicle collisions. -Protect wildlife habitat on both private and public lands. Restore wildlife movement from the Gallatin to Bridger Bangtail Mountain Ranges. 3) Group members established action steps. -Create a scientific study to determine I-90’s impacts to wildlife. -Identify opportunities for habitat protection on private and public lands. -Explore highway mitigation opportunities. Step Two: Scientific Study- GIS and Field Biology The majority of the scientific study was conducted by the Craighead Environmental Research Institute (CERI), with support from American Wildlands (AWL) and Western Transportation Institute (WTI). The objectives of the study were to (1) develop geographic information systems (GIS) and file biology tools that could accurately predict where wildlife are crossing highways (in this case I-90), (2) determine priority areas for wildlife habitat protection, (3) determine appropriate sites for potential underpasses, overpasses, fencing and other mitigation for wildlife movement across the highway, 4) provide input for highway construction and planning. AWL and CERI cooperatively developed a least-cost-path, landscape-level GIS model to determine areas of highway quality movement habitat in the wildlife corridor. (For full details of the model see Proceedings from 2001 ICOET - Craighead et. al). Modeling methods were based upon the American Wildlands Corridor of Life Model discussed earlier in this paper (Walker 1997), though it had a building density variable added. Four variables were used: habitat suitability, habitat complexity, weighted road density, and building density. Unlike ICOET 2003 Proceedings 198 Making Connections the original regional scale model, the Bozeman Pass analysis was completed to achieve a landscape level view of wildlife movement. The cell size used for analysis, therefore, was smaller than the regional model, 30 x 30 meters instead of 1 x 1 kilometers. All spatial analysis, was done in Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) ArcInfoTM software. The model was designed to assess the movement potential of wildlife through the Bozeman Pass. Wildlife species were split into two groups: forest carnivores and ungulate species. The forest carnivore group included black bear, grizzly bear, mountain lion and wolf species. Ungulate species group included moose, elk, mule deer and whitetail deer. The differences between the forest carnivore model and the ungulate model were due primarily to differences in habitat values assigned to each group, and secondarily to using an additive rather than multiplicative algorithm (Craighead et. al. 2001). Results of the landscape-level model are displayed in figures 2 and 3. Fig. 2. Bozeman Pass ungulate results. Fig. 3. Bozeman Pass forest carnivore results. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 199 Making Connections The Craighead Environmental Research Institute (CERI) took the lead on developing the field biology study for which the objective was to determine as accurately as possible the routes that animals use as they attempt to traverse the highway at Bozeman Pass. This study is briefly summarized here. Details on this study can be found in the ICOET proceedings for 2001 (see Craighead et al. 2001). In addition, biological data were used for ground-truthing the GIS model results. There were three field methods used in this study: road-kill collection, remote cameras and track surveys. Road-kill Collection and Results: From January 2001 to summer 2002, biologists at CERI and volunteers drove along Interstate 90 over Bozeman Pass between Bozeman and Livingston and recorded the date, location to the closest milepost in tenths of a mile, and species of road-kills observed. Sex was recorded for carnivores, if possible. Volunteers typically traveled Bozeman Pass during weekdays and CERI personnel drove the pass during the weekends. Unusual road-kills (those other than raccoon, mule and whitetail deer) were further investigated by CERI personnel. In addition, searches of agency records were conducted to provide additional vehicle-wildlife collision data, such as road-kill data from Montana Department of Transportation and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Results of the road-kill collection resulted in 184 individual ungulate kills reported between 2001 and 2002. A wide variety of species were killed along I-90, including black bear, mountain lion, wolf, coyote, red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and American marten. Ungulate species killed included mule deer, whitetail deer, and elk, and moose. Seventy-one percent of all forest carnivore kills were along a five-mile section near Bear Canyon and 41 percent of ungulates and 45 percent of all species identified were found within the same section. Track surveys and results: During the winters of 2001- 2003, tracking surveys were implemented to determine where animals were crossing I-90. Locations for track surveys were based on the two locations where existing roadway crossing structures already existed. The goal of the track surveys was to determine if wildlife were using the underpasses or moving up to cross I-90. Several ungulate crossing areas were determined from track surveys. No carnivore tracks were observed to cross the highway. Successful crossing areas corresponded with areas of road-kill locations. Tracks which crossed the highway were located using GPS, and other track behavior, such as approaches to the highway, or movement parallel to the highway was recorded. Species were identified, when possible. All data points were entered into a GIS database. Remote camera and results: Remote cameras were posted in the summer of 2001 within three culverts, chosen based upon the existence of a culvert at each location. Data from the cameras were used to identify use of these structures by wildlife in the study area. If useful to wildlife movement, enhancement of these culverts could be an easy first step for wildlife mitigation efforts. Data from these cameras were collected through the summer of 2002. Several species were recorded using culverts to traverse the Interstate. These include raccoons, rabbits, marmots, mink, weasel, mule deer and black bear. Step 3: Taking Science and Applying it on the Ground Once the GIS models and field biology data were collected, the working group was ready to use this information to pinpoint the most important areas for restoring and maintaining habitat connectivity. Specifically, the model results and biological data, coupled with local knowledge, were used to identify places that wildlife were trying to cross I-90 and identify the key public and private lands to work to conserve. This information has been used to guide the work to increase wildlife movement across Interstate 90 in a number of ways. The Bozeman Pass Working Group first assessed the transportation mitigation opportunities to identify if there is an overlap between the wildlife crossing locations and planned highway construction projects or existing crossing structures that could be retrofitted to better allow for wildlife movement. The working group was fortunate that there was a resurfacing and bridge replacement project proposed for the area results (Bear Canyon) that had been found in field biology work to have the highest number of road-kill/track and camera. The working group developed a mitigation project to take advantage of a planned construction project to re-build a highway bridge over a railroad track at Bear Canyon. If there had been no planned projects or existing structures to tie into, as is the case for many highways, new dedicated wildlife crossing structures or other mitigation would have to be considered for the key wildlife crossing location. Montana Department of Transportation agreed to install fencing and moose guards so the wildlife could be re-directed underneath Interstate 90 through the existing bridges and culverts at Bear Canyon. The fencing project will be constructed in 2005. Once the fencing project had been committed to, funds for the project had to be secured. At Bozeman Pass this was done through private foundations, Montana Department of Transportation (who is covering the fencing component and some wildlife monitoring), and through congressional appropriations. Certain members of the working group have been involved in developing the engineering, design and construction plans for the project (Western Transportation Institute and Craighead Environmental have been mainly involved). In addition, monitoring plans have to be created for pre and post construction to determine the fencing project’s effectiveness. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 200 Making Connections Monitoring before and after mitigation efforts is vital to identify whether mitigation measures are successful. These data will help support future proposals and in communicating the value and importance of such projects to the public and decision makers. Another project that the working group has developed to decrease wildlife-vehicle collisions and hopefully increase habitat connectivity is the Bozeman Pass Wildlife Channelization ITS project. Montana Department of Transportation was granted funding, through the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill, to use Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to address wildlife-vehicle conflicts and habitat connectivity on Bozeman Pass (ITS Deployment Program Project ID Number VIL.H.24, entitled Bozeman Pass Wildlife Channelization ITS Project). This project, managed by Western Transportation Institute (one of the working group members) focuses on using ITS, in conjunction with wildlife fencing, to reduce wildlife collisions and maintain and improve wildlife movements and also uses wildlife monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the ITS work. The project, which started in the fall of 2003, will use changeable message signs and highway advisory radio to inform Bozeman Pass motorists about wildlife movements and wildlife-vehicle conflicts. WTI will assess the effectiveness of using these two ITS applications as mitigation measures to increase public awareness, reduce driver speeds and reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. In terms of private lands conservation, the working group has used a variety of private land conservation efforts to protect wildlife habitat in the Pass. The working group members identified wildlife habitat that should be the top priority of private lands conservation efforts in Bozeman Pass based on the landscape-level model and field data. The working group has used these results to develop a number of habitat protection measures. The land trusts involved in the working group have successfully secured conservation easements adjacent to and near Bear Canyon (where fencing project is located) on over 2,000 acres and are in the process of finalizing more. These conservation easements have helped reassure to the Montana Department of Transportation that the funds devoted to the fencing project are being used on wildlife habitat that is going to stay intact. Another initiative that the working group has been involved in is a citizen initiated zoning district for 20,000 acres in the Bozeman Pass corridor. The working group also helped to support the efforts to fight the development of coalbed methane that was proposed for 18,000 acres of the Pass. Finally, the working group has been actively working with Gallatin County planning staff and developers to limit the impacts that new subdivisions have on wildlife habitat in the Pass. All of these efforts have been successful due to the field biology and model’s validation of the need to protect this area for wildlife habitat and connectivity. In terms of increasing habitat connectivity on the Gallatin National Forest, the working group has primarily been focused on the Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan Revision process. Using the landscape-level model and field data, the working group was able to focus on a few particular areas to determine the impacts travel management was having on habitat connectivity. One of these areas is the Bear Canyon area, south of the highway fencing project, which has significant motorized recreation and fairly high road density that is impacting wildlife movement. The Gallatin National Forest has developed an action alternative (#6) that specifically addresses the connectivity issues in Bozeman Pass. Discussion and Conclusions The Bozeman Pass Working Group is a unique approach to the conservation of wildlife habitat and habitat connectivity that may be applied to other areas. This working group has been successful for a number of reasons, but primarily due to the approach of involving all applicable parties and focusing on common goals. The working group’s work was significantly strengthened by the ability to develop a scientific study to identify key parcels of land to protect and sections of Interstate 90 on which to focus mitigation efforts. Another wise approach of the working group is the tying together of all of the initiatives. In order to secure a future for wildlife to move across the Bozeman Pass wildlife corridor, the approach had to be holistic and look at the area and all the various factors that were limiting wildlife movement, and systematically address all of them. An example of this was the manner in which private and public land conservation efforts focused on the section of I-90 where mitigation measures were to take place. This resulted in a pathway of private and public conservation north and south of the highway. The Bozeman Pass Working Group had two main advantages on their side — a very supportive community (including individuals and county government) and the threat of 18,000 acres of coal-bed methane wells, which mobilized and unified the community and educated them on the importance of this area for wildlife. Finally, the success of the working group is also attributed to the fact that the individuals involved have tackled work that pertains to their specialty, rather than every member of the group dealing with every issue. All conservation efforts have their associated challenges, and this one is no exception. The most notable challenge was the time commitment required for members to participate and the need for clear leadership and facilitation. Probably the most challenging issue for this group, initially, was the need for individuals and groups, who are not normally allies, to sit down at a table together and work towards a common goal. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 201 Making Connections The Bozeman Pass Working Group principles have been duplicated at McArthur Lake, and are just beginning to be implemented in three other areas: Fish Creek area, Monida Pass and Raynolds Pass. This model of collaboration could successfully be applied to other key wildlife migration corridors throughout the country as a way to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and maintain habitat connectivity. Implications for future research and policy development include state departments of transportation incorporating wildlife connectivity needs into their statewide planning. In addition the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century could include more funding for projects of this type. Biographical Sketch: Deb Kmon Davidson is the lands program coordinator for American Wildlands. Her education includes a B.S. from St. Lawrence University and an M.S. from the University of Montana. For five years Deb was an environmental educator throughout New England and Montana. She served two internships as a research intern in Kenya and at the Alliance for the Wild Rockies as a Forest Watch advocate. Before joining American Wildlands almost four years ago, Deb worked for The Ecology Center and Wilderness Watch, both in Missoula, MT. She worked on public lands policy and issues for both organizations. Her master’s thesis detailed problems with federal land exchange policy and its impacts on local ecosystems in the N. Rockies. References Cerulean, S. 2002. Killer roads: road-kill, habitat destruction and fragmentation count among the harms roads inflict on wildlife. Defenders Magazine, Defenders of Wildlife, Winter 2002 Issue. Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. DuBow, W.A. Sanborn. 1995. Review of human injuries, illnesses and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 407-414. Craighead, A., F.L. Craighead, E. Roberts. 2001. Bozeman Pass Wildlife Linkage and Highway Safety Study. Proceedings from the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Keystone, CO, September 24-28, 2001. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, NC State University (March 2002). pp. 397-405. Defenders of Wildlife. Habitat and Highways Campaign <http://defenders.org/habitat/highways> Devlin, S. 1998. Highways are a road to ruin for endangered species, research shows. Missoulian July 16, 1998. <lynx.uio.no/lynx/nancy/news/mojy986j.htm> Erlich, P.R. 1986. The Loss of Diversity. In: E.O. Wilson (ed.) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. pp. 21-27. Forman, R.T., D. Sperling, et al. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington D.C. Island Press, 2003. pp. 116-117. Foreman, R.T., and Alexander, L.E. 1998. Roads and their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 29:207-231. Haas, D. 2000. Distribution, relative abundance and roadway underpass responses of carnivores throughout the Puente-Chino Hills. M.S. Thesis. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA. Hanski, I., and M. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:3-16. Harrison, S. 1994. Metapopulations and conservation. Pages 111-128 in P.J. Edwards, R.M. May and N.R. Webb, eds. Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. Blackwell Scientific Press, Oxford, UK. Idaho Department of Transportation, 1998. Traffic statistics. <www2.state.id.us/itd> Lowy, J. 2001. A better answer to ‘why did the critter cross the road’. Naples Daily News April 1, 2001. McKelvey, K.S., M.K. Schwartz, L.F. Ruggiero. 2002. Why is connectivity important for wildlife conservation? <www.wildlifecrossings.info> Montana Department of Transportation. 2002. Traffic Safety Problem Identification Paper- Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004. Montana Department of Transportation. 2003. Average Annual Daily Traffic Summary. Traffic Data Collection Section, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT. Montana Department of Transportation Website. 2003.<www.mdt.state.mt.us/map/fastfact.htm> ICOET 2003 Proceedings 202 Making Connections Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham (eds.) 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR382. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. pp. 165-167. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, and J. Gore. 1999. Restoration of carnivore habitat connectivity in northern Rocky Mountains. Unpublished paper, USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubrey, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.F. Zielinski (Eds.) 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine, in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 133 pp. Sielecki, L.E. 2000. WARS 2000: Wildlife accident reporting system, 2000 annual report. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Environmental Services Section. Victoria, B.C., Canada. Soule, M. E., editor. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York. STPP Analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database, 2001. Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 1999. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14 (1): 18-30. Turrentine, T., K. Heanue, D. Sperling. 2001. Road and vehicle system. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Sept. 24-28, 2001, Keystone, Colorado. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Office of Natural Environment, February, 2000. Critter Crossings: Linking Habitats and Reducing Road-kill, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 31 pp. USFWS. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 181pp. Walker, R., and L. Craighead. 1997. Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. Environmental Sciences Research Institute. Proceedings of the 1997 International ESRI Users Conference. Western Transportation Institute. <http://www.coe.montana.edu/wti.wwwshare/yellowstone/ TRB%20wildlife%20handout%20pg%201n21.pdf> ICOET 2003 Proceedings 203 Making Connections MEASURES APPLIED TO MITIGATE HABITAT FRAGMENTATION IN SPAIN Carme Rosell (Phone: 34 938-675-708, Email: [email protected]), Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. Gran Via de San Francisco, 4, 28005 - Madrid and Alvarez, Georgina, Minuartia, Estudis Ambientals. Ptge. Domènech, 3, 08470 Sant Celoni (Barcelona). Coordinators of COST 341 Action Habitat Fragmentation due to Transportation Infrastructures and Infra Eco Network Europe (IENE) in Spain, Doctors in Biological Science Abstract: The PanEuropean Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity identifies habitat fragmentation as the main cause of biodiversity loss in Europe. The expansion of urban and agricultural spaces is the factor that has traditionally caused the fragmentation of the natural habitats. But the development of transport networks that is becoming increasingly significant must be added to these previous factors. At present, the compatibility between the construction of new infrastructures and the conservation of biodiversity constitutes a challenge for those involved, since for the period 2000–2010 Spain expects to see the construction of around 6,000km of new transport infrastructures, the majority being motorways and high speed railways, which will add to the 700,000km of existing transportation network. In addition, it should be pointed out that this significant expansion of infrastructure networks will affect a highly sensitive landscape, since Spain constitutes an enclave of interesting biodiversity within the European context, including the representation of various biogeographical regions from Alpine to Mediterranean habitats. The importance of the conservation of the flora and fauna in the country can be measured by looking at data that show there are 1,500 species of endemic flowers, and 41 endemic vertebrates, including some species which are in danger of extinction and highly sensitive to the fragmentation of their habitat such as the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). The mitigation of habitat fragmentation due to roads and railways is mainly developed during the process of environmental impact assessment (EIA), which analyses the effects of each project and designs measures destined to mitigate the environmental effects. In the near future and with a basis in a recently approved European Directive, the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) will also be applied which will evaluate the plans of infrastructures including several projects together as a whole. The application of measures to facilitate wildlife crossings and to reduce mortality caused by traffic collisions has been developed throughout the last decade. The first fauna passages merely consisted of adapted culverts or places that combined the fauna passage with forestry roads or streams. From 1997, specific wildlife passages began to be constructed. However, the measures to mitigate habitat fragmentation are still not widely applied, and it is necessary to increase the awareness of the technicians and decision makers involved and to encourage the dissemination of knowledge about the measures to mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation. With these aims, in 1998, Spain joined the Action COST 341 Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructures, and a work program coordinated by the Ministry of Environment was set up. Within the framework of this initiative, intensive work has been carried out and includes: • The production of a database containing information on 250 references of publications and unpublished reports about the subject (included in the IENE database; see www.iene.info). • The production of an inventory which includes data on 140 measures: wildlife crossings and other measures applied to avoid fauna casualties. • A report on the state of the art in the country (currently in press) which compiles data about the extention of the problem, the measures which are applied, and the results of the monitoring programs; see www.mma.es/conserv_nat/acciones/paisaje/paisaje.htm). But one of the most relevant aspects that has been carried out within the framework of the COST Action is the creation of the Working Group (WG): Fragmentation of Habitat Due to Transportation Infrastructures. This brings together technicians who are responsible for the administration of transport and environment in Spain and the 19 Autonomous Communities (regions with autonomous government). The aim of this group is to increase awareness and to exchange knowledge, and there are plans to carry out specific objectives in the future such as the editing of a Technical Normative for the construction of wildlife crossings. This will standardize technical criteria in order to make the fauna passages more effective and make sure that they comply with the function they are designed for. Another future objective is the translation and adaptation of the report COST 341. Wildlife and Traffic. A Handbook on Identifying Conflicts and Designing Solutions. One of the most outstanding achievements of the group is the cooperation between transport and environmental professionals that has encouraged the reconciliation of different stances with the common objective that the planning, construction and maintenance of transport infrastructures increasingly integrates criteria of prevention of those impacts which affect biological diversity. Biographical Sketch: Carme Rosell is the Spanish coordinator of the Infra-Eco Network of Europe (IENE) Project, COST 341 – Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transport Infrastructures. She has coordinated the inventory of measures to mitigate habitat fragmentation in Spain (charged by the Ministry of Environment) and is also the author of a handbook on fauna passages. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 204 Making Connections A RAPID ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL WILDLIFE, FISH AND PLANT LINKAGES FOR HIGHWAYS Bill Ruediger (Phone: 406-329-3100, E-mail: [email protected]) Ecology Program Leader for Roads and Highways. USDA Forest Service, 200 E. Broadway, Missoula, MT. Fax 406-29-3171 John Lloyd (E-mail: [email protected]), Wildlife Biologist, 2657 NW Raleigh, Portland, OR 97210 Geographic Information Provided By Ken and Robin Wall (Phone: 406-721-8865, Email: [email protected]), Geodata Services, Inc., 104 South Ave. E., Missoula, MT 59807 Abstract: 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 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. Introduction Since 1996 when the first International Conference on Wildlife Mortality was held in Orlando, Florida, great strides have been made by many transportation agencies towards coordinating highways with wildlife and fish resources. In many states, wildlife crossings and wildlife habitat linkage analysis has become a “standard procedure” when building new highways, or whenever major construction is planned. Two situations often stand in the way of making further progress. First, most major highway projects often have significant resources expended before wildlife and fish habitat linkage information is known. Second, defining wildlife and fish habitat linkages far ahead of project designs was expensive and usually not provided until long after the information was needed. As a result, most highway projects in most states are developed without knowledge of where wildlife and fish crossings, as well as other mitigation, should be focused. Many wildlife and fish crossing opportunities are lost because the basic biological information needed does not exist and has previously been too expensive to obtain. In several situations, highway projects have been delayed or have cost above planned budgets. The principle author of this study looked at opportunities to use existing mapped physical and biological information, plus available knowledge of biologists, highway planners and others, to provide accurate information on where most of the critical wildlife and fish habitat linkages are located. While not 100 percent accurate, the process developed allows highway agencies, wildlife agencies and land management agencies to integrate their existing information on highway collisions with wildlife, wildlife occurrence, habitat mapping, hydrology and topography into habitat linkage maps for significant lengths of highways that can be produced for a few thousand dollars and a few days of staff time . The authors believe it would be possible to provide rapid assessment wildlife and fish linkage maps for all major highways for an entire state for a relatively small amount of financial and personnel resources. The benefit of doing this would be: (1) much better integration of wildlife and fish resource information early in highway project designs, (2) better understanding of highway project costs, including total mitigation costs, (3) less potential for wildlife and fish resource “surprises” coming up late in the project design, or worse, the project implementation phases, (4) the information also has ancillary benefits such as providing key information for county, state and Federal agencies, as well as private nonprofit groups, concerned with wildlife habitat, wildlife habitat connectivity, highway safety, open space planning and other land management concerns. Wildlife Habitat Connectivity – Why It Is Critical To Conservation Identifying areas where fish and wildlife may safely move between habitats separated by highways is important for several reasons. First, mortality from collision with vehicles can limit wildlife populations, especially of rare species (Forman and Alexander 1998, Ruediger 1998). Highways can be significant barriers to the movement of wildlife, either because individuals avoid crossing highways or because those that do attempt to cross are ICOET 2003 Proceedings 205 Making Connections killed or wounded in collisions with vehicles (reviewed in Forman and Alexander 1998, Spellerberg 1998, Trombulak and Frisell 2000, Rondini and Doncaster 2002). The passage of fish and other aquatic animals can be restricted at road crossings by improperly designed or maintained culverts and other stream crossing structures, and create barriers to movement in aquatic habitats (Furniss et al. 1991, Thomas 1998). For many species, highways fragment populations into smaller, isolated subpopulations (e.g., Reh and Seitz 1990) that have a higher potential to be extirpated (Richter-Dyn and Goel 1972, Leigh 1981, Lande 1988). Last, collisions with large wildlife are a major concern to motorist safety, and can also result in significant economic costs related to these collisions (Groot Bruinderink and Hazebroek 1996). Identifying habitat linkages for fish and wildlife is important for mitigating the effects of highway development on fish and wildlife populations and habitat as well as for ensuring motorist safety. The Process For Rapid Assessment of Highway Wildlife and Fish Linkages The process of identifying fish and wildlife linkages is based on the use of spatially explicit, computerized data contained within a geographic information system (GIS). GIS data layers are available from most state GAP databases (US Fish and Wildlife Service), U.S. Forest Service, State Fish and Wildlife Departments, State Natural Heritage Programs, State Departments of Transportations, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and several other sources. In the test example for Highway 93, Montana, we worked with Geodata Services, Inc., to determine the various wildlife and physical data to include in our model, based on the quality and quantity of public GIS data available in Montana. For other states, the specific GIS data used as well as its sources would likely vary. The GIS coverage spanned four miles on either side of Highway 93, a scale sufficient to ensure that the occurrence of wide-ranging species such as elk, moose, and mid- and large-sized carnivores would be identified in the corridor. The physical attributes of the model included data on vegetation type; elevation; presence of streams, lakes, and wetlands; land ownership; and site-specific data (by milepost) on the frequency of road-kill of large animals (Appendix A). The occurrence of 29 species of fish and wildlife was analyzed in the model (Appendix B); species were included because they were either representative of habitats along Highway 93 or were of special interest to the public or government agencies. These species were selected by Bill Ruediger and Ken Wall as being representative of fauna along Highway 93 and for which adequate information was available. To avoid biasing the selection of potential linkage areas, the list included large, wide-ranging animals, small animals with limited mobility, and fish. To highlight potentially important natural areas along Highway 93, data were obtained on bird abundance, points of special concern, and the presence of rare plants or animals not otherwise included in our model (e.g., location of common loon nesting sites). Although these data are not relevant to the location of potential highway crossings, they do serve to highlight areas in which special attempts could be made to mitigate highway effects on rare plants and animals in adjacent habitat. After selecting species and data to include in the GIS output, two technical teams were selected to review the data and select the most appropriate wildlife and fish linkages along Highway 93 (see Appendix C). The members were selected from agencies with management authority for wildlife, fish or plants; for wildlife or fish habitat; who had local knowledge of species and habitats; or who had special knowledge of wildlife in a particular area. The first group to meet was the South Highway 93 Team, which reviewed and recommended wildlife and fish linkages from Lookout Pass at the Idaho/Montana border to Evaro Hill on the Flathead Indian Reservation (wildlife crossings for the proposed North Highway 93 expansion were not changed, nor were other wildlife crossings already planned for the Highway 93 expansions in the Bitterroot Valley). The second group to meet was the North Highway 93 Team, which made recommendations for wildlife and fish linkages from Polson to the Canadian Border. Each team started at one end of the assigned Highway 93 corridor and moved segment by segment. Rigid criteria were not established for the selection of potential linkage areas, but instead, selections were based on discussion of the GIS data and input from team members with experience working in the segment under review. Linkage areas were added only after the committee reached consensus. After some initial start-up discussions and questioning, each team was able to rapidly decide if a given segment was suitable as a wildlife or fish linkage, and for which species it would likely be appropriate. Data on public and private land ownership patterns (including plated or existing subdivisions and private lands with existing conservation easements) were used to determine whether existing conditions were suitable to link habitat across Highway 93. Each team took approximately six hours to thoroughly discuss each major segment (approximately 100 miles in length) and come to consensus as to: (1) whether or not a specific area was suitable for wildlife or fish linkage; (2) what species it was appropriate for; (3) accurately define the boundaries of the linkage area; and (4) provide valuable information on characteristics relevant to the linkage area, such as, public land ownership, existing conservation easements, number of landowners and size of private land blocks, association with major or ICOET 2003 Proceedings 206 Making Connections minor riparian habitats, etc. Each major segment was approximately 100 miles in length. Subsequent tests of the methodology with other groups suggest that the process productivity was similar to the original test group. Providing that adequate GIS information is available, a group of biologists and planners familiar with the process could accurately provide wildlife and fish linkages for 100-200 miles of highway per day. Highway 93, NW Montana: Test Location and Landscape Highway 93 starts at Lost Trail Pass on the Idaho-Montana border and winds north for approximately 263 miles to the US/Canada border a few miles north of Eureka, Montana. In doing so, it is the major highway connector for Darby, Hamilton, Victor, Stevensville, Lolo, Missoula, Arlee, Ravalli, Ronan, Polson, Lakeside, Kalispell, Whitefish and Eureka. In addition to Lost Trail Pass, it crosses mountainous country around Evaro Hill, along the shoreline of Flathead Lake, and through the Stillwater-Dickey Lake country of northwestern Montana. The mountainous country around Highway 93 is generally part of either the Flathead Indian Reservation or the National Forest system. Much of the intervening area is low valleys (Bitterroot, Missoula, Flathead and Tobacco Plains) that are generally privately owned or part of the Flathead Indian Reservation. These valleys are heavily populated with people and are among the fastest growing areas in Montana. Fish and Wildlife Along Highway 93, Montana Wildlife along Highway 93 is diverse and unique in the lower 48 states. Areas along Highway 93 support rare carnivores, such as grizzly bear, gray wolf, lynx and wolverine (scientific names can be found in Appendix B). Carnivores, such as bobcat, coyote, striped skunk, raccoon, American badger, mink, northern river otter, and weasels, are relatively common along Highway 93. Game species are abundant throughout the highway corridor and include elk, moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep and black bear. Mallard, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, northern shoveller, gadwall, common golden-eye, American widgeon, common merganser, ruddy duck, wood duck, and Canada goose all nest in the vicinity of the highway, and Fig. 1. Highway 93 vicinity map. Highway 93 is also one of the few highways in the United States where a traveler might encounter nesting common loons on one of the adjacent lakes. The diversity of non-game birds in general is high because Highway 93 passes through a variety of habitats, ranging from high-elevation conifer forests to deciduous riparian forests and even remnants of Palouse prairie. For example, a Breeding Bird Survey route near Highway 93 in the Bitterroot Valley has recorded over 90 species of birds, excluding waterfowl. Amphibians and reptiles resident in the Bitterroot, Clark Fork and Flathead Valleys include long-toed salamander, Rocky Mountain tailed frog, boreal toad, western toad, bullfrog, Columbia spotted frog, northern leopard frog, boreal chorus frog, Pacific tree frog, northern alligator lizard, western skink, rubber boa, gopher snake, western terrestrial garter snake, and common garter snake. Native fish species in the Highway 93 corridor include northern pike-minnow, longnose sucker, largescale sucker, mountain whitefish, cutthroat trout, bull trout, slimy sculpin, and shorthead sculpin. Introduced species include rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, northern pike, yellow perch, largemouth bass, and smallmouth bass. Applying the Process: Identification of Fish and Wildlife Linkages on Highway 93 Note: The milepost descriptions start at Lost Trail Pass and go north to the Canadian border. Montana Department of Transportation mileposts start at Lost Trail and go to I-90, then start over again at I-90 and got to the Canadian border. To minimize the confusion of having two similar mileposts at different places on Highway 93, this report uses approximate miles from the Lost Trail (Idaho Border) as milepost descriptions. Southern Highway 93 1. Lost Trail Pass (Milepost 1) Provides a linkage for a variety of carnivores including lynx, wolverine, American marten, gray wolf, and potentially grizzly bear. Some of the common larger mammals that may ICOET 2003 Proceedings 207 Making Connections cross the highway at Lost Trail Pass include elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear, and mountain lion. Northern bog lemming, a mammal of special interest, is found in bogs near Lost Trail Pass. Lost Trail Pass is believed to be a pivotal wildlife habitat linkage because the Bitterroot Mountains, Pintlar Mountains, and Big Hole Mountains converge at the pass. 2. Camp Creek (Milepost 7) This area provides habitat connectivity for many species. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Bitterroot National Forest consider this area to be critical elk winter range, but elk must cross Highway 93 to fully utilize this habitat. A lowland meadow complex follows Camp Creek, and is important habitat for small mammals and amphibians, as well as for whitetailed deer and other animals. Fig. 2. Linkage areas along the first segment of Highway 93 from Lost Trail Pass to Big Creek. For details, see corresponding numbers in text. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 208 Making Connections Fig. 3. Linkage areas along the second segment of Highway 93 from McCalla Creek to the Evaro Railroad Crossing. For details, see corresponding numbers in text. 3. Sula Canyon (Milepost 13) The area adjacent to Highway 93 in the Sula Canyon is unique in the Bitterroot Valley in that bighorn sheep are often encountered on and adjacent to the highway. In addition to being an occasional traffic hazard, these bighorn sheep are highly prized by motorists and wildlife viewers, and as big game animals. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 209 Making Connections Many other large mammals are encountered in this section of highway, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, bobcat, American marten, mountain lion, and black bear. The Sula Canyon area is an important link between the East Fork and West Fork of the Bitterroot River. Collisions with various species of wildlife were noted in this section. 4. West Fork of the Bitterroot River (Milepost 21) Myriad wildlife and fish species can be found in this section of Highway 93, and the area is an important link between National Forest lands to the east and west. Fish passage for bull trout, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish is important. Large animals using this section of Highway 93 include elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, mountain lion, and black bear. The area is also used by a number of large and mid-sized carnivores. Sula Canyon (#3) is the only area along Highway 93 with free-roaming bighorn sheep. This area is also important to a wide variety of smaller mammals, reptiles and amphibians because the East Fork and West Fork of the Bitterroot River converge here. 5. Rye Creek (Milepost 25) Still in the upper reaches of the Bitterroot River drainage, the Rye Creek area provides an opportunity to link National Forest land on both sides of the highway for elk, mule deer, whitetailed deer, mountain lion, and black bear. Some of the highest concentrations of mule deer in the valley occur here. The Bitterroot River corridor exists in this area and fish passage is an important consideration. 6. Lost Horse – Rock Creek (Milepost 34) Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has designated this area as critical deer and elk winter range. Black bear and mountain lions also inhabit this area, as well as medium and small carnivores. The highway is near the Bitterroot River riparian zone, which is important to most species using the area. An amphibian of special interest in this area is the Pacific treefrog. Many conservation easements exist on private lands in this area, making connectivity across the valley feasible. 7. Sleeping Child (Milepost 40) Large animal species using this section frequently include mule deer, white-tailed deer, and black bear. A number of small mammals, birds, and amphibians also use the nearby Bitterroot River riparian areas. A linkage in this area would provide habitat connectivity across the Bitterroot Valley. 8. Mill Creek (Milepost 54) This section of Highway 93 is adjacent to many sites that are important in a conservation context. At Mill Creek, the highway is near the Bitterroot River and the large river riparian habitat it provides. Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks has a fishing access area here and the Teller Wildlife Refuge is nearby. The Schwab property is a privately owned area of significant conservation value. Suitable habitat for deer, black bear, small mammals, and amphibians exists in this linkage area. Fish passage is an important consideration. 9. North and South Fork of Bear Creek (Milepost 58) Fish passage is an important consideration where the north and south forks of Bear Creek flow under Highway 93. White-tailed deer and black bear inhabit the valley bottom, and small mammals and amphibians also use habitat along the creek. An experimental bat house is being constructed in the new highway bridge. 10. Sweathouse Creek (Milepost 59) Fish passage is an important consideration on Sweathouse Creek, and small mammals and amphibians also use riparian habitat on the drainage. Western toads breed in this area. White-tailed and mule deer use habitat adjacent to Sweathouse Creek and frequently cross Highway 93 in this area. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 210 Making Connections 11. Big Creek (Milepost 61) Big Creek has a number of wildlife and fish conservation concerns. Fish passage is an important consideration, as bull trout use and spawn in Big Creek. The riparian habitat hosts a diversity of animals. White-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and black bear occur in this area and cross Highway 93. The present bridge is built on pilings and provides excellent movement for large and small animals and fish going up or down Big Creek. Many of the private properties immediately adjacent on the east side of the Bitterroot River have existing conservation easements. 12. McCalla Creek (Milepost 63) With a welldeveloped riparian area, McCalla Creek provides habitat for small animals and deer. Montana Department of Transportation has plans for bridges that would facilitate wildlife movement on both the north and south crossings of McCalla Creek. 13. Kootenai Creek (Milepost 65) Similar to McCalla Creek, which flows into Kootenai Creek to With its long span and pilings, the bridge over Big the east of Highway 93, Kootenai Creek provides a well-developed riparian area. Kootenai Creek Creek (#11) provides excellent passage for wildlife. drains into the Bitterroot River just south of Highway 269, which is the primary access to Stevensville from Highway 93. Deer, black bear, small and medium mammals, amphibians, and reptiles utilize the riparian corridor. Kootenai Creek is a short distance from Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. Montana Department of Transportation has plans for a seventy-foot bridge across Kootenai Creek when Highway 93 is reconstructed. 14. Bass Creek (Milepost 67) Bass Creek is another major tributary of the Bitterroot River. Common species along Bass Creek include white-taileddeer, elk, and black bear. The area is also thought to be an important wildlife linkage for carnivores. Small mammals and amphibians inhabit the Bass Creek riparian area and adjacent habitat. Habitat linkage from the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge to the Bitterroot National Forest to the west could be developed, which would provide a great benefit to species utilizing the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, as well as most species inhabiting the Bitterroot River corridor. Vehicle collisions with deer are common in this area, raising safety concerns for motorists using Highway 93. Wildlife crossings, with fencing, would provide for fewer collisions with deer and other animals. Bitterroot Mountains across Highway 93 near Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge (#14). 15. McClain Creek (Milepost 79) McClain Creek may provide one of the only places in the lower Bitterroot Valley where large animals could cross between National Forest lands in the Bitterroot Mountains and National Forest lands in the Sapphire Range. White-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and black bear currently inhabit this area, and McClain Creek could also provide a linkage area for carnivores. In addition to the main Bitterroot River bottomlands, many high-quality marshes and wetlands occur in this vicinity. Consequently, many small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, including western painted turtles, use the area around McClain Creek. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 211 Making Connections 16. Lolo Creek (Milepost 82) Lolo Creek crosses Highway 93 near the town site of Lolo. Although this drainage goes through part of south Lolo, many species use the riparian area, which is remarkably intact, as a corridor. Lolo Creek is also an important local fishery and spawning stream, and fish passage is a concern. Small and medium sized mammals (like raccoon) and amphibians also inhabit the riparian habitat along Lolo Creek, even through the heavily developed portions. Lolo Bridge on Highway 93 was recently rebuilt. Unfortunately for wildlife, large riprap was used for bridge protection and the close confinement of Lolo Creek beneath the bridge prevents many wildlife Lolo Creek (#16) flowing underneath species from crossing under the highway. As a consequence, trails Highway 93 at Lolo Bridge. indicate deer and other species must cross Highway 93 by going over the pavement. The bridge could likely be modified to include a trail on both sides to facilitate wildlife movement under the highway. Some wing fencing may also be warranted. Fish passage is excellent through the bridge. 17. Miller Creek (Milepost 85) The Miller Creek area poses a dilemma in that elk and other animals can often be seen on the steep forested lands west of Highway 93 during winter and spring, yet the high traffic volume, steep cut banks, and cement median barriers in this section prevent wildlife movement across the highway. Consequently, few wildlife species currently attempt to cross this section of Highway 93. Miller Creek flows east into the Bitterroot River. Some of Miller Creek is already highly developed, and more development is proposed. However, an opportunity may exist to provide a wildlife crossing on Highway 93 and, with the retention of open space on the Bitterroot River and Miller Creek, Many barriers to the safe passage of wildlife across elk, deer, black bear, and other species would Highway 93 are visible in this section of highway near likely use this crossing. This opportunity should be Miller Creek (#17). Elk are commonly seen on the leftreviewed as part of the overall land-use pattern for hand side, but cannot cross the highway. the west side of Highway 93 and the Lower Miller Creek developments. 18. Bitterroot River (Milepost 89) Highway 93 crosses the Bitterroot River just south of Missoula in the area known as Bunkhouse Bridge. Much of the area is currently open space, although development is proceeding quickly. Extensive riparian habitat, containing cottonwood and other large trees, exists in the floodplain of the Bitterroot River. Small mammals, white-tailed deer, and mid-sized carnivores (coyotes, raccoon, striped skunks, otter, mink, and weasels) use this portion of the Bitterroot River. Wildlife crossing space under the bridge is recommended for these species. The slow, meandering river also provides habitat for birds of prey such as bald eagles and osprey, as well as waterfowl. The Bitterroot River is a world-renowned trout fishery and provides a high population of large trout. Fish passage and water quality are thus concerns. Since this portion of the Bitterroot River is rapidly becoming part of the urban Missoula area, it is used intensively for floating, fishing, swimming, wildlife watching, and other recreation. 19. Clark Fork River (Milepost 93) Motorists traveling across the bridge on the Clark Fork River often have prolonged vistas of the river and surrounding habitat. This portion of Highway 93, known as the Reserve Street Strip, often has high traffic volumes and traffic jams. Despite dikes and canalization, the Clark Fork River still has extensive riparian habitat, and many species of wildlife can still be found here. This portion of the river is one of the best locations to see bald eagles and osprey. Other birds of prey are ICOET 2003 Proceedings 212 Making Connections also common, as are many species of songbird. A number of old gravel pits provide habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Small mammals and mid-sized carnivores exist here. Occasionally, white-tailed deer and black bear wander up the Clark Fork River, and adequate space under the bridge should be provided for passage of these species. The Clark Fork River has very good trout fishing for rainbow, cutthroat, and brown trout, as well as occasional brook trout and bull trout. Whitefish, sculpins, suckers, and northern pike also inhabit the river. A considerable effort has been made by the city of Missoula to maintain the river corridor as open space. Fish passage and water quality are both concerns. 20. Butler Creek (Milepost 99) A small drainage that crosses Highway 93 in the vicinity of the Missoula Airport, Butler Creek is dry much of the time where it crosses Highway 93. The adjacent area is highly developed and becoming more so. Allowing passage for small mammals and amphibians is recommended; however, the cement pipe crossing Highway 93 is partially blocked by road fill due to pipe separation. If this pipe is removed or repaired, a small box culvert may provide better passage. A culvert on the old highway grade just north of Highway 93 should also be assessed. 21. Evaro Canyon (Milepost 105) Heading north from Interstate 90, Evaro Canyon is the first mountainous country outside of the Clark Fork Valley. The lower canyon was the site of a deer reflector test area, and collisions with deer, elk, mountain lion, and black bear are common from here to the developed area of the Jocko Valley on the other side of the pass. Wolves and grizzly bears are also known to use this area. Animals coming from the Mission Mountains and Rattlesnake Range (and probably animals dispersing from the Swan Valley and Bob Marshall area) find movement to the south nearly impossible due to the city of Missoula and Interstate 90. This location has been identified as an important crossing area for many species, and allowing for their passage is recommended. Conservation easements in key wildlife linkage areas in Evaro Canyon should be considered as well. Contiguous areas of mountain habitat occur westward toward the Ninemile Valley. Highway 93 entering Evaro Canyon (#21). Small mammals and amphibians also inhabit riparian habitat along the stream in Evaro Canyon. 22. Frog Creek (Milepost 108) Frog Creek is the first small drainage crossing Highway 93 north of Evaro Canyon. Fish passage is a concern, as is passage for small mammals and amphibians. This drainage has been identified in the Highway 93 reconstruction project being planned on the Flathead Indian Reservation. 23. North Evaro (South of Joe’s Smoke Ring) (Milepost 109) White-tailed deer, mule deer, and black bear commonly cross Highway 93 in this area. A wildlife crossing is proposed for this area as part of the Highway 93 reconstruction. 24. Evaro Railroad Crossing (Milepost 110) Montana Rail Link tracks cross Highway 93 in this segment. Animals trying to avoid Joe’s Smoke Ring and adjacent developments are often funneled into this crossing area. The railroad bridge is narrow in this location and most animals cross Highway 93 by going around the railroad bridge to the south and walking across the highway pavement. Traffic volume is very heavy in this section of Highway 93, making this a dangerous wildlife crossing for both wildlife and motorists. Species using this crossing are white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and black bear. The railroad bridge is planned for widening, which would allow better access for wildlife. When this occurs, the crossing will be used by the above species, as well as by small and mid-sized carnivores and small mammals. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 213 Making Connections 25. Evaro Wildland Corridor (Milepost 111) This area has been identified as an important crossing area and wildlife linkage area for many species. The linkage area connects the Rattlesnake Mountains to the east with the Ninemile Divide to the west. This linkage zone is a critical connection for animals dispersing or moving from the Mission Mountains, Rattlesnake Mountains, Swan Range (including areas north in the Bob Marshall Wilderness), Cabinet Mountains, Ninemile Divide, and the Bitterroot Range. Species known or suspected to use the Evaro Wildland Corridor include grizzly bear, wolf, lynx, black bear, wolverine, fisher, and other mid-sized and small carnivores (Servheen et.al. 2000). Ungulates using the linkage area include white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and moose. A variety of small mammals and amphibians likely use this area as well. A great effort is being made to establish a major wildlife crossing in the Evaro Wildlands Corridor. Some human residences are being moved and plans are underway to build a wildlife overcrossing and several smaller underpasses, such as at Finley Creek. The Salish and Kootenai Tribe has worked for many years with the Montana Department of Transportation Looking north along Highway 93 and the Federal Highway Administration to incorporate these towards the Rattlesnake Mountains and crossings into the Highway 93 reconstruction project. the Evaro Wildland Corridor (#25). Northern Highway 93 26. South of Jette (Milepost 164) Two or three small streams cross Highway 93 at this location. Providing stream crossings adequate in size to allow small mammal and amphibian passage is recommended. More field review is needed. 27. Jette Hill (Milepost 168) Going north from Polson, Jette Hill is at the top of the long grade. White-tailed deer, elk, black bear, and mid-sized carnivores use the surrounding forest and frequently attempt to cross Highway 93. Smaller animals also cross this portion of highway. Traffic volume is heavy in this section of highway, particularly in summer months. Provisions for wildlife passage are recommended. In addition to reducing collisions between wildlife and vehicles, a linkage at this site would connect tribal lands separated by the highway. 28. Elmo (Milepost 178) Two small creeks cross Highway 93 at Elmo and empty into Flathead Lake. Passage for small mammals and amphibians is recommended when the drainage structures are replaced or the road reconstructed. 29. Dayton Creek (Milepost 183) Dayton Creek is a fishery. Fish passage is an important consideration, as is passage for small mammals and amphibians. In addition, the highway bridge over Dayton Creek supports a nesting colony of cliff swallows. 30. Painted Rocks (Milepost 190) Highway 93 traverses an important deer wintering area at this location and deer commonly cross the highway here. This is a potential site for a deer crossing structure. A cliff swallow colony beneath the Dayton Creek (#29) bridge. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 214 Making Connections 31. Somers North (Milepost 204) The portion of Highway 93 is bordered by a number of marshes and wetlands that are attractive to painted turtles, wetland birds, small and medium mammals, and amphibians. Vehicle collisions with wildlife are common here, and road-killed turtles, songbirds, and mammals are often evident along the roadside. Consideration should be given to these resources when the highway is reconstructed. Currently, a culvert crossing exists at this site that allows for the passage of cattle underneath the highway. The culvert is not well designed for use by wildlife, but with some modification might be effective in linking the wetlands currently bisected by the highway. The marshes alongside Highway 93 at Somers are attractive but dangerous for many species, as evidenced by this road-killed common yellowthroat lying dead at the edge of the road. Deer killed on Highway 93. Several hundred deer and other large animals are killed each year on Highway 93 creating a hazard to motorists. 32. Ashley Creek (Milepost 209) Highway 93 crosses Ashley Creek via a relatively new bridge. However, this area poses several obstacles for the passage of fish and wildlife. First, fencing for a bike path, fencing for erosion control, and the erosion of the south bank generally preclude most wildlife movement under the bridge. Second, a culvert passing underneath a railroad bridge immediately upstream likely blocks fish passage during part of the year; local residents report high flows out of the culvert and significant ponding of water above the railroad bridge during the spring. Finally, the railroad bridge itself, which is a nearly vertical earthen dam several meters high, may completely block passage of smaller animals. Thus, passage for small mammals, amphibians, fish, and mid-sized carnivores is a concern, and mitigation measures are recommended. 33. Stillwater Crossing (Milepost 216) Another new bridge crosses the Stillwater River at this site, which has a relatively intact riparian corridor that provides habitat for many nesting birds. Small mammals and amphibians are also present, along with mid-sized and small carnivores. In general, this site is adequate for the passage of large and small mammals, but DOT fencing and erosion control fencing likely hinder crossing for some species. The addition of wing fencing might help funnel animals under the bridge. Fish passage is also a concern on the Stillwater River. Bike-path fencing, erosion fencing, and an upstream culvert all hinder the passage of fish and wildlife along Ashley Creek (#32). 34. Happy Valley (Milepost 221) Vehicle collisions with deer are common at Happy Valley. Motorist safety and reducing collisions with wildlife are concerns. However, Happy Valley is heavily developed on both sides of the highway and few opportunities appear to exist to reduce collisions between wildlife and vehicles. 35. Whitefish River (Milepost 227) This area is heavily developed, but is still of significant value for fish and wildlife. Habitat exists for small mammals and mid-sized carnivores like raccoon, striped skunks, weasels, otter, and mink, as well as for amphibians and turtles. However, the current configuration of the highway likely prevents almost all passage by either fish or wildlife. The highway crosses the river over a large earthen dam perforated with three culverts, which presumably prevent fish passage at all times except during extremely low flows. The large size, and nearly vertical nature, of the earthen dam ICOET 2003 Proceedings 215 Making Connections also prevent passage by wildlife. Animals seeking to cross the highway at this point are funneled into residential or commercial areas, at which point they must cross over the pavement to pass the highway. From the standpoint of fish and wildlife passage, this site is likely one of the worst along the length of Highway 93. 36. Spencer Lake Corridor (Milepost 230) Vehicle collisions with deer are common in this corridor, and thus a potential safety hazard exists for motorists. Large-animal crossings could reduce this hazard. Most collisions are with white-tailed deer, but mule deer, elk, moose, and black bear also cross in this area. Safe passage for small mammals, mid-sized carnivores like coyotes, amphibians, and turtles is also a concern here. This highway crossing over the Whitefish River (#35) is a nearly complete barrier to the passage of fish and wildlife. 37. Lower Stillwater Lake Corridor (Milepost 235) Collisions with deer are common here, apparently associated with forested patches near the road sought by deer when trying to cross Highway 93. Most collisions are with white-tailed deer, although black bear and moose habitat exists on both sides of the highway. Of note are Common Loons nesting on Stillwater Lake. 38. Stillwater State Forest (Milepost 244) Large carnivores like grizzly bear, gray wolf, mountain lion, and black bear exist in the Stillwater State Forest and adjacent National Forest lands. Mid-sized carnivores such as lynx, wolverine, American marten, bobcat, raccoon, striped skunk, and coyote also inhabit the area. Small mammal habitat is present in both forested uplands and wetland habitats. A variety of amphibians use this area, and Western painted turtles occur in surrounding wetlands. Public lands surround Highway 93 in this area and thus this segment has significant potential as a linkage for the species listed above. 39. Upper Stillwater River (Milepost 258) The Upper Stillwater River provides important habitat for cutthroat trout, bull trout, and other species. Fish passage under this bridge appears to be adequate. Wildlife considerations include large carnivores like grizzly bear, wolf, mountain lion, and black bear. A variety of mid-sized carnivores use this area, including aquatic-associated species such as otter, raccoon, and mink as well as more terrestrial species such as lynx, wolverine, American marten, coyote, and bobcat. The area is also an important crossing for white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and moose. The current bridge does not provide adequate space for the passage of medium or large animals, and during high flows even small animals would be precluded from crossing under the bridge. 40. Summit Creek (Milepost 259) Summit Creek has a number of interesting wildlife attributes. It is an important linkage area for many species, including wolf, grizzly bear, black bear, and mountain lion. Midsized carnivores known to cross at Summit Creek include lynx, wolverine, bobcat, American marten, and coyote. Vehicle collisions with deer (white-tailed and mule) are common in the Summit Creek area. Elk and moose are also present and would be expected to cross Highway 93. The U.S. Forest Service manages the land around Summit Creek. 41. Murphy – Dickey Creeks (Milepost 263) Driving can be hazardous in this area because deer are frequently encountered on the highway. In fact, deer are more frequently killed on Highway 93 in this area than in nearly any other segment of the highway. Most are white-tailed deer, but mule deer also frequently cross this portion of the highway. Other large ungulates include moose and elk. Both large and mid-sized carnivores use habitat on both sides of Highway 93. These include black bears, grizzly bears, mountain lions, wolves, bobcats, lynx, wolverine, coyotes, raccoons, striped skunks, otter, mink, and American marten. Many species of small mammals, amphibians and reptiles (including turtles) are present. This is a linkage area for all the above species. Other concerns include: common loons and bald eagles that use habitat adjacent to Highway 93, the presence of rare plants, and fish passage in Dickey Creek. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 216 Making Connections Fig. 4. Linkage areas along the third segment of Highway 93 from Jette Hill to Happy Valley. For details, see corresponding numbers in text. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 217 Making Connections Fig. 5. Linkage areas along the fourth segment of Highway 93 from Whitefish River to Tobacco Plains. For details, see corresponding numbers in text. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 218 Making Connections 42. Deep Creek (Milepost 268) Small mammal and amphibian passage are considerations. Vehicle collisions with deer are common, and this area can be hazardous for motorists. 43. Graves Creek (Milepost 270) Bull trout use Graves Creek, and the existing bridge provides good fish passage. White-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, moose, black bears, grizzly bears, wolves and several common mid-sized carnivores like coyote, bobcat, raccoon, and mink also use this area. However, passage under the bridge is likely difficult or impossible for most of these species as the bank is narrow and heavily rip-rapped. The fencing along the road likely imposes an additional barrier to the movement of animals. Except during periods of high stream flow, small mammals and amphibians using the riverine habitat along Graves Creek can probably cross under the west side of the bridge. 44. Mud Creek – Terrialt Creek (Milepost 273) Fish passage is a concern for bull trout and other trout, as well as mountain whitefish and sculpin. Grizzly bear trying to cross highway in NW Montana. Photo by Scott Tomson (USDA Forest Service) Large mammals that utilize habitat in the Mud Creek and Terrialt drainages include white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, moose, black bear, grizzly bear, coyote, bobcat, and mink. Providing habitat connectivity for small mammals and amphibians should be considered. Vehicle collisions with deer and other animals in this section of Highway 93 are a concern. Providing deer crossings could reduce this road hazard to motorists and provide safe crossings for many wildlife species. 45. Lick Creek (Milepost 274) Vehicle collisions with deer are common. Measures should be considered to reduce this hazard The narrow, heavily rip-rapped banks to animals and motorists. Small mammals and amphibian beneath this bridge over Graves Creek (#43) passage are also concerns. A unique wildlife value in this area is the presence of a large number of wild turkeys. The adjacent area are poorly suited for wildlife passage. is private land. 46. Sinclair Creek (Milepost 277) Concerns here include fish passage and passage for small mammals and amphibians. 47. Indian Creek (Milepost 281) Passage for fish, small mammals and amphibians is a concern. 48. Tobacco Plains (Milepost 283) Much of the northern portion of Highway 93 is surrounded by relatively dense forests, but this area is unusual in that the surrounding country is open. Elk move between the Whitefish Range to the east and the forested areas along Lake Koocanusa to the west, but additional study is necessary to determine if elk crossings are feasible. Discussion The purpose of the project was to develop a relatively fast and cost-effective process to assess wildlife and fish habitat linkages on highways. The authors believe this process accurately provides a mid-scale assessment as to where wildlife and fish crossings are beneficial. It also provides other information critical to state-of-the-art wildlife and fish management, such as where various kinds of mitigation projects could be desirable, wildlife habitat linkages on public and private lands and the feasibility of providing long-term management of wildlife linkage habitat based on private land ownership patterns. It also provided one of the first examples of wildlife linkages along an entire highway length within a large state. This information is already being used by Montana Department of Transportation for planning future highway projects and by Federal Highway Administration and several other agencies in a “programmatic” mitigation prototype. Montana Department of Transportation is ICOET 2003 Proceedings 219 Making Connections looking into the feasibility of doing a similar analysis for all western Montana highways. If this is successful, all highways in Montana may be assessed. The authors believe state and federal transportation planning in all areas of the United States and Canada would benefit from similar efforts. Understanding how highways affect wildlife and fish habitat fragmentation, wildlife mortality, highway safety and which species are affected in specific locations are essential information to coordinate highways with ecological factors. Beforehand knowledge of where these areas are is critical to keeping highway costs down. Planning for wildlife and fish crossings at early transportation planning phases is the most cost-effective way to integrate these factors and is the essence of most streamlining approaches. Involvement of appropriate wildlife, land management and transportation agencies at the inception of the highway planning process to determine wildlife and fish linkages is paramount for agency commitment. Caution needs to be used when applying this process to the project phase – that being the actual placement of wildlife and fish structures on highways. Additional review of the site is necessary to ensure that the GIS models accurately depict the present situation. Past experience indicates wildlife use of structures is optimized by putting the correct type of structures in exactly the right locations. Site-specific wildlife information that may be required includes track surveys, remote cameras, sightings, road-kill data or radio telemetry. For fish and aquatic species, it is important to check for upstream or downstream barriers that could negate appropriate passage on highways. Another issue is the use or misuse of the assessment information and conclusions. Every effort was made to do a professional assessment based on the best biological and physical data available, as well as knowledgeable biologists. Neither GIS data nor people are infallible. Also, this information is only one piece of many that transportation, wildlife and land management agencies must use in their decisions. Costs feasibility, social acceptance, landowner cooperation and other competing uses must also be considered and factored into the final decision. The product provided Highway 93 is a full range of feasible wildlife and fish habitat linkages for agency consideration. It would be quite remarkable if all of these wildlife and fish habitat linkages came to pass. Some habitat linkages are more important than others. The written descriptions provide direct information relevant to priorities, but no prioritization was attempted. There is a number of ways wildlife and fish habitat linkages can be assessed. Some rely on computerized models and rigid criteria. Some are based only on “professional judgment” or data collected on site for wildlife crossing patterns. This process maximizes the use of available GIS data and models and uses this information with an expert panel. One of the recommended uses of the Rapid Assessment Process for Determining Potential Fish and Wildlife Habitat Linkages is to overlay this information with proposed state and Federal highway projects (these are usually referred to as state STIP’s). It is quite certain that widespread use of wildlife and fish habitat linkage analysis would substantially improve the ecological coordination of most state and Federal highway programs. Future highway programs could provide both better highways and wildlife and fish habitat restoration. Highway programs could become major conservation partners with communities, counties, conservation groups, state and Federal wildlife and land management agencies. By cooperating and pooling resources these groups and agencies could bring far more resources to the conservation of important ecological areas. These partnerships are just beginning to develop. Let us hope that these alliances grow and mature in future decades. Biological Sketches: Bill Ruediger, ecology program leader for highways, USDA Forest Service (200 East Broadway, Missoula, MT. 59807. Ph. 406-329-3100, E-mail: [email protected].) has 33 years experience working the USDA Forest Service in a variety of wildlife and fish positions. Other experience includes working with large and mid-sized carnivores, salmon, spotted owls and other threatened and endangered species issues. John Lloyd, PhD. Wildlife Biologist, P.O. Box 726, Hayden, CO 81639. Ph. 970-870-1787. E-mail: [email protected]. PhD. University of Montana (2003). Consultant, USDA Forest Service, Highway 93 Wildlife and Fish Habitat Linkage Analysis. Research Fellow, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Research has included studies of avian habitat relationship in Montana, Arizona and Colorado. Has expertise in avian habitat relationships. Awarded the Sutton Award in Conservation Research (2002). Ken and Robin Wall Owners of Geodata Services. 104 South Ave. East, Missoula, MT 5901. Ph. 406-721-8865. E-mail: [email protected]. Providing geographic information services for over ten years for USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and others. www.geodata-mt.com ICOET 2003 Proceedings 220 Making Connections References Clevenger, A. P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14:47-56. Clevenger, Anthony P. and Nigel Waltho. 1999. Dry Drainage Culvert Use and Design Considerations For Small and Medium Sized Mammal Movement Across A Major Transportation Corridor. In: Evink, G.L., P. Garrett and David Zeigler, eds. 1999. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Dept. of Transportation, Tallahassee, Fl. Pgs 263-287 Clevenger, Anthony P. 1998. Permiability of the Trans-Canada Highway to Wildlife in Banff National Park: Importance of Crossing Structures and Factors Influencing Their Effectiveness. In: Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. 1998. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98. Florida Dept. of Transportation, Tallahassee, Fl. Pgs 109-119. Forman, R.T.T, Daniel Sperling, John A. Bissonette, Anthony P. Clevenger, Carol D. Cutshell, Virginia H. Dale, Lenore Fahrig, Robert France, Charles R. Goldman, Kevin Heanue, Julia A. Jones, Fredrick J. Swanson, Thomas Turrentine and Thomas C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press. 481 pp. Forman, R. T. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. Foster, M.L., and S.R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of Highway Underpasses by Florida Panthers and other Wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin. V. 23(1): pp. 92-94. Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roeloffs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. Pages 297-323 in W. R. Meehan, editors. Influence of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Gibeau, M.L. 1993. Use of urban habitat by coyotes in the vicinity of Banff, Alberta. MS Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 66 pp. Gibeau, M.L., and K. Heuer. 1996. Effects of Transportation Corridors On Large Carnivores In The Bow River Valley, Alberta. In: Evink, G.L.; Garrett, P.; Ziegler, D.; and J. Berry (Eds.) Trends In Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality. Proceedings of the Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Gilbert, T., and J. Wooding. 1996. An Overview of black bear roadkills in Florida 1976-1995. In: Evink, G.L.; Garrett, P.; Ziegler, D.; and J. Berry (Eds.) Trends In Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality. Proceedings of the TransportationRelated Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Groot Bruinderink, G. W. T. A. and E. Hazebroek. 1996. Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe. Conservation Biology 10:1059-1067. Harris, L. D. and J. Scheck. 1991. From implications to applications: the dispersal corridor principle applied to the conservation of biological diversity. Pages 189-220 D. A. Saunders and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty, Australia. Hartwig, D. 1991. Erfassung der Verkehrsunfalle mit Wild im Jahre 1989 in Nordrhein-westfalen im Bereich der polizeibehorden. Zeitschrift fur Jagdwisenschaft 37:55-62. Jackson, S. D. and C. R. Griffin. 1998. Toward a practical strategy for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife. Pages 17-22 G. L. Evink, P. A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Proceedings of the international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455-1460. Leigh, E. G. 1981. The average lifetime of a population in a varying environment. Journal of Theoretical Biology 90:213-239. Noss, R.F. 1991. Landscape Connectivity: Different Functions At Different Scales. Hudson Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press: Washington, D.C. Paquet, P. May 1995. Large Carnivore Conservation In The Rocky Mountains. World Wildlife Fund Canada. Toronto, Canada. 52 pp. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 221 Making Connections Reh, W. and A. Seitz. 1990. The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog Rana temporaria. Biological Conservation 54:239-249. Richter-Dyn, N. and N. S. Goel. 1972. On the extinction of a colonizing species. Theoretical Population Biology 3:406-433. Rondini, C. and C. P. Doncaster. 2002. Roads as barriers to movement for hedgehogs. Functional Ecology 16: 504-509. Ruediger, Bill; Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Gary Patton, Toni Rinaldi, Joel, Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger and Al Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp. Ruediger, B. 1998. Rare carnivores and highways - moving into the 21st century. Pages 10-16 G. L. Evink, P. A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C. Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Keeth Aubry; Steven W. Bushirk; Gary M. Koeler; Charles J. Krebs; Kevin S. McKelvey and John R. Squires. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. 2000. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, CO 480 p. Servheen, Christopher; John S. Waller and Per Sandstrom. Updated 9/4/2001. Identification and Management of Linkage Zones for Grizzly Bears Between Large Blocks of Public Land in the Northern Rocky Mountains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and University of Montana. 87 pp. Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131-134. Spellerberg, I. F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffice: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7:317-333. Thomas, A. 1998. The effects of highways on western cold water fisheries. Pages 249-252 G. L. Evink, P. A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C. Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frisell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. Wu, E. 1998. Economic analysis of deer-vehicle collisions in Ohio. Pages 43-52 G. L. Evink, P. A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 222 Making Connections Appendices Appendix A. Data layers used in the GIS model (source in parentheses). National Land Cover Data (U.S.G.S.) Shaded Relief (U.S.G.S.) Highway 93 location (U.S. Bureau of the Census) National Hydrography Dataset (U.S.G.S.) Land Ownership (Montana Natural Heritage Program) Elk Winter and Summer Range and Migration Areas (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation) Mule Deer, Bighorn Sheep, and White-tailed Deer Range (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks) Road-kill Data (Montana Department of Transportation, not publicly available) National Wetland Inventory (National Resource Information System) Rare and Special Resources (Montana Natural Heritage Program, not publicly available) Montana GAP Analysis (Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, University of Montana) Public Land Survey System (Natural Resource Information System) IRS Imagery (U.S.F.S.) ICOET 2003 Proceedings 223 Making Connections Appendix B. Species included in the analysis or mentioned in the text. Species included in analysis: Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Idaho Giant Salamander Dicamptodon aterrimus Coeur D’Alene Salamander Plethodon idahoensis Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog Ascaphus montanus Western Toad Bufo boreas Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris maculata Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens American Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Western Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Gray Wolf Canis lupus Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Fisher Martes pennanti American Badger Taxidea taxus Wolverine Gulo gulo Mountain Lion Felis concolor Lynx Lynx lynx American Elk Cervus elaphus Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Moose Alces alces Pronghorn Antilocapra Americana Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus Bighorn Sheep Ovis Canadensis Other species mentioned in the text: Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Northern Pike Esox lucius Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Brown Trout Salmo truta Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confuses Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas Pacific Treefrog Pseudacris regilla Northern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coerulea Western Skink Eumeces skiltonianus Rubber Boa Charina bottae Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer Terrestrial Gartersnake Thamnophis elegans Common Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis Common Loon Gavia immer Canada Goose Branta canadensis ICOET 2003 Proceedings Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Gadwall Anas strepera Green-winged Teal Anas crecca American Wigeon Anas Americana Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Wood Duck Aix sponsa Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Common Merganser Mergus merganser Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Osprey Pandion haliaetus Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis Coyote Canis latrans Black Bear Ursus americanus Raccoon Procyon lotor American Marten Martes americana Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Mink Mustela vison Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 224 Making Connections Appendix C. Linkage Area Selection Team Members: Southern Highway 93 Wildlife and Fish Technical Team Pat Basting – Montana Department of Transportation Dale Becker – Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe Joe Butsich – Bitterroot National Forest Dr. Kerry Foresman – University of Montana Duane Kaley – Montana Department of Transportation Sandy Kratville – Lolo National Forest Sue McDonald – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Bill Ruediger – U.S. Forest Service John Vore – Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Ken Wall – Geodata Services, Missoula, MT Northern Highway 93 Wildlife and Fish Technical Team Dale Becker - Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribe Jim Claar – US Forest Service, Northern Region Guenter Hieinz – Kootenai National Forest Bill Ruediger – U.S. Forest Service Gordon Stockstad – Montana Department of Transportation Ken Wall – Geodata Services, Missoula, MT Polly Winebrenner – Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation ICOET 2003 Proceedings 225 Making Connections RESOLVING LANDSCAPE LEVEL HIGHWAY IMPACTS ON THE FLORIDA BLACK BEAR AND OTHER LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES Letitia Neal (Phone: 386-943-5396, Email: [email protected]), Senior Environmental Scientist, Florida Department of Transportation, 719 S. Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida 32720, Fax: 386-736-5456 Terry Gilbert (Phone: 850-488-6661, Email: [email protected]), Biological Scientist IV, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office Of Environmental Services, 620 South Meridian St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600, Fax: 850-922-5679 Thomas Eason (Phone: 850-413-7379, Email: [email protected]), Biological Administrator, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Wildlife, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600, Fax: 850-921-1847 Lisa Grant (Phone: 386-329-4430, Email: [email protected]), Technical Program Manager, St. Johns River Water Management District, P.O. Box 1429, Palatka, FL 32178-1429, Fax: 386-329-4315 Tom Roberts (Phone: 407-260-0883, Email: [email protected]), Director of Environmental Assessment, EMS Scientists, Engineers, Planners, Inc. 393 CenterPointe Circle, Suite 1483, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Abstract: District Five of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is a nine-county area totaling about 5.6 million acres in east central Florida. District Five had the greatest population growth in Florida during the past 10 years, and FDOT has initiated a major long-term program for highway expansion and improvements to accommodate this growth. The Ocala and St. Johns River black bear populations are found in District Five, and account for greater than 50 percent of the statewide bear roadkill since 1976. Highway capacity improvements are planned for many highways that are currently sustaining high bear roadkill levels. This inherent conflict between highways and wildlife has resulted in considerable opposition and long-term delays to FDOT’s efforts to accomplish planned highway improvements. This paper presents results of the successful resolution of fish and wildlife resource issues associated with the proposed six-laning of Interstate 4 (I-4), a major east-west transportation corridor that bisects regionally important habitat systems in east central Florida. Based on the results of an Environmental Assessment completed for the Federal Highway Administration in 2000, FDOT has completed design plans for two large wildlife underpasses, and a wildlife overpass, which will be constructed along a six-mile corridor of public lands in the area of Tiger Bay State Forest in Volusia County. Major issues which were addressed included: bear roadkills and habitat connectivity; impacts to public land; direct and secondary habitat loss; recreational access; and restoring historical hydrological connections originally severed by I-4 in the early 1960’s. Key considerations involved in the planning, design, cost, and siting of the structures, and the animal-proof funnel fencing. Landscape-level mitigation for project habitat loss was also facilitated through a coordinated effort by the St. Johns River Water Management District and FDOT in the acquisition of over $8 million of public land identified in FWC’s Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System maps. This paper highlights the need for interagency coordination in acquiring public land to re-establish habitat connectivity to enhance long-term protection and management opportunities for the black bear and other listed species when dealing with highway impacts. Introduction District Five of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is a nine-county area in east central Florida. Over three million people live within the District, and it contains the state’s largest tourist attractions. The region totals 5.6 million acres and contains about 1.3 million acres of public lands, and 1.8 million acres of potential Florida black bear habitat. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) is listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) as a threatened species. Prior to European settlement, bears occurred throughout Florida, but the statewide population has now been reduced to six core areas (figure 1). The Ocala National Forest supports the state’s largest bear population, and a portion of the St. Johns River population is located to the east in Volusia and Flagler counties. These two populations are connected when the secondary ranges are considered, and both are found within District 5. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 226 Making Connections Fig. 1. Black bear distribution pap (Courtesy of FWC). Roadkill is a leading cause of known Black Bear mortality in Florida. Data collected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) from 1976 through 2002 show that approximately 53 percent of the total recorded statewide bear roadkill has occurred within the Ocala and St. Johns River core populations (FWC personal communication). Highway-related bear mortality has increased substantially during the past 27 years of monitoring, with a total of 1,115 roadkills recorded. The increase in roadkill over time is partly related to an increasing bear and human population, and bear movements due to dispersal and weather (FWC The “Bear” Facts Webpage). Other prominent factors include an increase in highway traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. Research conducted by the Bear Management Section of the FWC in the Ocala National Forest indicates that bears are capable of crossing two-lane roads without sustaining high levels of mortality (McCown and Eason 2001). Consequently, simply looking at where bears cross unsuccessfully (i.e., roadkill locations), without evaluating successful crossings, may lead to an inaccurate assessment of bear movement patterns and travel corridors. In addition, roadways with lower levels of roadkills are likely to be more problematic when they are widened. Other impacts associated with highways, such as habitat loss, avoidance of secondary residential development, lower habitat quality, reduced connectivity of bear populations, and the cumulative effect of habitat isolation and fragmentation, may result in irreversible adverse impacts to the black bear population. In 2003, Florida’s population exceeded 16 million people. Over the past 10 years, the 3.2 percent annual population growth rate within FDOT’s District 5 exceeded the statewide growth rate of 2.2 percent (FDOT website). In addition, while the state’s population has grown rapidly over the last 10 years, the state’s vehiclemiles-traveled rate has skyrocketed. VMT is an indicator of the level of travel on the road system. The total estimated VMT has increased 55 percent since 1992 (CUTR Website). The increase in Florida’s VMT surpasses the national average of 30 percent, and reflects factors other than population growth, such as a strong economy, relatively affordable auto travel costs, tourism, urban sprawl and low levels of public transit (CUTR Web site). To address this increase in population growth and traffic demand, the local governments and Metropolitan Planning Organizations have identified in their long-range transportation plans capacity improvements for a number of roads that are currently sustaining high levels of bear road kills in the Ocala and St. Johns River bear population region (figure 2). The inherent conflict between highways and wildlife has resulted in considerable opposition and long-term delays to FDOT’s efforts to accomplish planned highway improvements. This paper presents results of the successful resolution of fish and wildlife resource issues associated with the proposed six-laning of Interstate 4 (I-4). ICOET 2003 Proceedings 227 Making Connections Project Area Description In 2000, FDOT completed an environmental assessment (EA) for the Federal Highway Administration for widening I-4 from four to six lanes from SR 44 to Interstate 95, in Volusia County. The regional habitat systems crossed by Interstate 4 in Volusia County are impressive, and include Deep Creek, Talbot Terrace, Tiger Bay, Rima Ridge, Pamlico Terrace and the Tomoka River. The area is rural and undeveloped, consisting of extensive cypress strands, mixed hardwood swamps, and xeric and mesic pine forests, which run northwest to southeast across I-4 following relic topographic ridges and valleys created by Pleistocene sea level changes. Major issues associated with fish and wildlife resources and addressed on the project include impacts to federal and state listed wildlife species, loss of upland and wetland habitats, bear roadkills, habitat connectivity, restoration of historical surface hydrological features, and impacts to public lands. Fig. 2. Proposed highway improvements. The FWC GIS wildlife and habitat database showed that state listed species potentially occurring within the project area habitats include the American alligator [Species of Special Concern (SSC)], eastern indigo snake [Threatened (T)], Florida pine snake (SSC), Sherman’s fox squirrel (SSC), Florida mouse (SSC), Florida black bear (T), little blue heron (SSC), tri-colored heron (SSC), white ibis (SSC), wood stork (E), bald eagle (T), southeastern American kestrel (T), peregrine falcon [Endangered (E)], limpkin (SSC), Florida sandhill crane (T), red-cockaded woodpecker (T), and Florida scrub jay (T). Numerous rare and recreationally important species also occur in the area. Information from the FWC database also showed that a total of 15 black bears were killed by vehicle collisions on I-4 between SR 44 and I-95 from 1988 through 2000, of which 80 percent, or 12 roadkills were documented since 1997. Ten of these kills were recorded within or immediately adjacent to a six-mile section of public lands along I-4, which includes Tiger Bay State Forest. Project Coordination Public concern over the impacts of highways on black bears has increased as highway mortality has increased. In the summer of 1996, as a part of the public involvement process for the I-4 EA, FDOT formed an Environmental Advisory Group consisting of representatives of the FWC, Florida Division of Forestry, St. Johns River Water Management District, 1000 Friends of Florida, and Volusia County. Since I-4 represents a major landscape barrier, the group’s focus was concentrated on improving habitat connectivity, hydrology and recreational access. The Environmental Advisory Group identified three zones for new wildlife crossing structures along a six-mile section of public lands within the 14 miles of highway in the project area. The bridges over the Tomoka River in the northern end of the project area were also identified for re-design to incorporate habitat connectivity enhancements. Land north and south of the road is in public ownership, and sufficient upland ridges occur adjacent to large wetland strands, providing an appropriate landscape setting to site the three structures. In addition, habitat values for a wide variety of listed and rare species scored in the 6 to 10 range over a vast ICOET 2003 Proceedings 228 Making Connections area of this landscape in the Tiger Bay and Deep Creek area, according to information in the FWC’s Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (Endries et al. 2003 in press). As a result of the recommendations made by the Environmental Advisory Group, a matrix was developed during the project’s design phase to pinpoint the locations of the wildlife crossings. The matrix criteria are shown in APPENDIX A. The final sites were selected based on the matrix score, and coordination with the FWC and project engineers. Wildlife Underpass and Overpass Designs Several design options were explored to accommodate wildlife crossings within the corridor. These included overpasses, underpasses, box culverts and piling structures. Wildlife overpasses are not very common, with thirty worldwide and six in North America. Typically, overpass structures are installed in areas where an overpass is at, or close to, the natural grade, and the roadway is located in a valley or cut in the landscape. Wildlife overpasses like this have been constructed in New Jersey along Route 78, and in Banff National Park, British Columbia, Canada. These structures have varied in width from 50 to 100 feet, and are planted with native vegetation to provide cover for wildlife as they cross (Clevenger and McGuire). A second type of overpass, in which the overpass is elevated above natural grade, has also been constructed in Canada and Europe. These overpasses have been constructed 150 feet in width and have natural soil floors and vegetation for cover. The elevated crossing is constructed with a 3:1 slope. These structures have documented usage by a variety of mammals, but have shown poor results with cougars (Clevenger and Waltho). Wildlife underpasses are typically the structure of choice when the surrounding terrain is relatively flat. Wildlife underpasses have been constructed in South Florida along Interstate 75 and SR-29, and in Central Florida along SR-46. The design of the structures ranges from a large box culvert crossing to piling supported structures up to 70-80 feet in length. The typical box culvert crossing for a two-lane roadway is eight feet high and twenty-four feet wide. Both the box culvert and piling supported structures have shown good results with documented usage by small and large mammals, including black bears and Florida panthers. A 34-month research study just completed in Banff National Park, British Columbia, Canada concerning the usage of several wildlife crossings shows certain species are more likely to use one type of crossing versus another. The study shows that ungulates, such as deer, elk, and moose, prefer the openness of overpasses. Predator species, such as black bear and cougars preferred more constricted crossing structures, and favored underpasses to overpasses at a 4:1 ratio when given the option (Clevenger and Waltho). Furthermore the study also determined that usage of wildlife crossings was negatively affected by human use, noise, and surrounding development. Crossings located close to the Village of Banff, or crossings that were a shared facility, showed lower animal use than the crossings located away from human activity, regardless of design. In coordination with FWC, FDOT selected two underpasses and an overpass for final design. The combination meets the need of all the target wildlife species found within the project corridor. Each underpass will consist of two 108-foot x 59-foot bridge structures at each location, with a head clearance of eight feet for wildlife. The horizontal opening for passage is approximately 100 feet. The 100-foot opening and an open median were chosen in order to minimize the tunnel effect and increase animal acceptance and use. The overpass is 223 feet x 150 feet with 3:1 slopes to existing ground level. Natural soil floors, and vegetative cover will be provided for all the structures. In addition to wildlife crossings, 10-ft-tall chain link fencing of the entire six miles of public lands is proposed to deter climbing animals, reduce roadkills, and funnel wildlife to the crossings. The Tomoka River Bridges were also increased in length and height to enhance habitat connectivity and allow for improved wildlife movement. The estimated construction costs for the overpass and each of the underpasses are $2.7 million each for a total cost of $8.1 million. These costs include the cost of the structure, maintenance of traffic, and embankment. Fencing and landscape costs are additional. Land Acquisition Landscape-level mitigation for project wetland losses, (60 acres), was facilitated through a coordinated effort by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and FDOT. In Florida, there are five regional water management districts that are responsible for protecting water resources. These state agencies have significant responsibilities and programs in land acquisition, environmental restoration, water supply planning, research and monitoring. The districts also regulate water use, stormwater runoff from land development, and wetland alteration. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 229 Making Connections In 1996 the Florida legislature revised the responsibilities of the agencies and made the water management districts responsible for design and implementation of wetland mitigation for most FDOT projects. However, FDOT remains responsible for avoidance and minimization of direct and secondary impacts as a part of the roadway design and planning process. The Florida Statute which set forth the FDOT mitigation program (section 373.4137, F.S.) directs the water management districts to “focus mitigation activities on projects which address areas of significant resource needs” to the extent that such projects comply with State and Federal mitigation requirements. Although FDOT funds are transferred through the district, the program is not in-lieu fee mitigation, as the water management districts provide project-specific mitigation, including the use of private mitigation banks, funding of locally implemented projects, or other options when appropriate. Within the SJRWMD, land preservation and enhancement to restore natural communities is currently the dominant mitigation tool, both for FDOT projects, and other permit applicants. The reason this is the most prevalent mitigation option is that significant natural areas are still available for acquisition, and those which are not protected are likely to be developed in the immediate future due to population growth. The District realizes that regulatory programs can provide a reasonable level of protection, on a project-by-project basis for many of the water quality and water quantity functions of wetlands by standard engineering solutions, or standard mitigation tools such as on-site wetland creation. However, long-term maintenance of viable fish and wildlife populations will require more than the mandatory regulatory setback or buffer around non-impacted wetlands, or wetland creation within a developed landscape. For the I-4 widening projects, the SJRWMD mitigation plan included purchase of credits from one of the private mitigation banks in the drainage basins, construction of an urban stormwater retrofit project, and land acquisition and management within the I-4 growth corridor to benefit the wildlife most affected by the roadway projects. Although the parcel had not been identified when the plan was developed, the land acquisition goals included protection of strategic habitat, expansion of public lands adjacent to the planned I-4 wildlife crossings, and establishment of a protected wildlife linkage between existing conservation lands. The mitigation plan was approved in May 2002. In July 2002 the District closed on the final acquisition area, which is a 19,377acre parcel. The transaction includes 11,730 acres as a conservation easement and 7,647 acres as a fee simple acquisition. The acquisition was negotiated by the SJRWMD with two timber companies and is a shared acquisition/joint ownership partnership between the SJRWMD, Volusia County, and the State of Florida. FDOT funds from the I-4 improvements will be used for approximately 30 percent of the project, including long-term management of the publicly owned parcels, and oversight of the terms of the conservation easement. This acquisition completes a wildlife linkage between Tiger Bay State Forest, the District’s Heart Island Conservation Area, Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge and the Ocala National Forest (see figure 3). The majority of the parcel has been identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as strategic habitat for the Florida Black Bear, and includes priority habitat for several other listed species (Endries, et. al. 2003 in press). The parcel comprises commercial pinelands, hardwood swamp, isolated cypress domes, herbaceous wetlands, and xeric communities. The upland areas encumbered by conservation easement are allowed to continue in sivicultural land use with hunting; however, wetland timber harvest and future development is prohibited. The public parcels are planned generally to be managed to restore the historic ecosystems by implementation of a fire management program, thinning of the planted pine to a more appropriate density, allowing natural succession of the wetland systems, managing for at least a 40 percent aerial extent of mature (>80 yr.age class) pine flatwoods, and controlling non-native vegetation. Specific management plans for public use are being developed, but will be limited to uses which respect the intent of the acquisition as mitigation for the adverse effects of roadway impacts. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 230 Making Connections Fig. 3. SJRWMD Land Acquisition Map (Courtesy of SJRWMD) This acquisition would likely not have occurred without the additional economic resources provided by mitigation funding from FDOT. Since the closing on this parcel, additional land acquisitions have been made that will help to maintain and enhance the long-term integrity of this conservation corridor system. South of I-4, FDOT has recently purchased a significant parcel, which may be strategic for a wildlife crossing of SR-44. The SJRWMD has a contract for purchase of an additional adjacent parcel. In addition, local public interest in preservation of conservation and recreation land is strong as evidenced by a voter-approved $80-million bond issue for land acquisition in this region. One of the targeted acquisition areas is a 36,000-acre area defined as the Volusia County Conservation Corridor (VCCC) located just southeast of the project area. Conclusion FDOT is continuing to work with the FWC and the SJRWMD to establish landscape connectivity, and to minimize additional habitat fragmentation within the Ocala and St. Johns black bear population area. FDOT has committed to fund a $75,000 hair snare study by the FWC’s Bear Management Section for DNA analysis to determine an estimate of bear abundance in the region, and possibly to make additional management recommendations for the bear. An additional underpass on SR-46, south of the Ocala National Forest, is currently funded for design/build. Landscape level mitigation and planning will be essential to maintain Florida’s wildlife populations and ecosystems, given the state’s expanding population and high level of travel on the road system. This is only achievable by public and private partnerships with combined economic resources, some flexibility and trust between the regulatory, resource, and transportation agencies, along with opportunity and good luck. Biographical Sketch: Letitia Neal has worked as an environmental scientist for the Florida Department of Transportation for the past 10 years. Her expertise includes the development of transportation projects in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. She is particularly interested in reducing the effects of roads on wildlife populations. Letitia received her B.S. in biology from Tulane University and her M.S. in soil science from the University of Florida. Terry Gilbert has worked as a wildlife biologist with the Office of Environmental Services of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for the past 28 years in fresh and saltwater environments addressing such issues as avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures for highway impacts on wildlife populations and habitat systems, acquisition of conservation land, habitat restoration on lands strip-mined for phosphate, limestone, sand, and heavy minerals, and largescale projects including channel dredging, and commercial and residential developments. He received a B.S. in wildlife ecology and forestry from the University of Florida, and an M.S. from Auburn University in wildlife management and fisheries biology. Thomas Eason is a wildlife biologist who has spent most of his career studying the American black bear. Thomas has completed his B.S. and M.S. in wildlife science and his Ph.D. in ecology. He began research on black bears during the summer of 1992 and has continuously studied various aspects of bear ecology since that time. Thomas continues his nine years of research and management of bears as the leader of the Bear Management Section for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Lisa Grant has worked as an environmental scientist for the St. Johns River Water Management District for the past 17 years. She is currently the technical program manager for the FDOT Mitigation Program. She has a B.S. in biology from the University of West Florida. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 231 Making Connections Tom Roberts has worked as a biologist with EMS Scientists, Engineers, Planners, Inc., for 13 years and currently serves as director of environmental assessment. He specializes in the assessment and mitigation of environmental issues associated with roadway corridors (existing and new) through natural lands, and locating, assessing and permitting mitigation banks and regional mitigation sites in Florida and other southeastern states. He has a B.A. in biology from Stetson University. References 2001 Official Population Estimates, by FDOT District. (n.d.) Retrieved November 6, 2002, from Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Policy Planning Web Site: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/ policy/trends/pdfs/popsum.pdf The “Bear” Facts. (n.d.) Retrieved July 22, 2003, from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) Website: http://wildflorida.org/bear/bearfacts.htm Clevenger, A.P. and McGuire, T.M. (2001) Research and monitoring the effectiveness of Trans-Canada highway mitigation measures in Banff National Park, Alberta. Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Halifax Nova Scotia, Sept. 2001. Clevenger, A.P. & Waltho, N. (in press) Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology. Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Distribution Map. (n.d.) Retrieved July 22, 2003, from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) Website: http://wildflorida.org/bear/distribmap.htm Endries, M., T. Gilbert, and R. Kautz. 2003. Mapping Wildlife Needs in Florida: The Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett and K.P. McDermott, Editors. Raleigh, NC: The Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University. Lake Placid, NY. Florida Transportation Indicators. (n.d.) Retrieved June 27, 2003, from Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) Website: http://www.indicators.cutr.usf.edu/indicators.htm Gilbert, T. and J.B. Wooding. 1996. An overview of black bear roadkill in Florida 1976-1995. Proceedings of the 1996 Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Fl. Dept. of Transp. Env. Mgmt. Office. Tallahassee, FL. McCown, W. J. and T.H. Eason. 2001. Black Bear Movements and Habitat Use Relative to Roads in Ocala National Forest: Preliminary Findings. Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. G. Evink, P. Garrett and K.P. McDermott, Editors. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Schaefer, J.M. and D.J. Smith. 2000. Ecological Characterization of Identified High Priority Highway— Ecological Interface Zones Including the Inventory and Evaluation of Existing Florida Department of Transportation Highway Facilities Within These Zones. Tasks performed under University of Florida— FDOT contract no. B-B120, task #1 (Amendment No. 3). Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 232 Making Connections APPENDIX A - Proposed Wildlife Crossing Matrix Scoring Sheet Project: Project Location: Wildlife Crossing Number: Scoring Date: CRITERION Documented Bear Kill Sites No recorded bear kills within 1,000 feet = 0 Five or less recorded bear kills within 1,000 feet = 1 More than five recorded bear kills within 1,000 feet = 2 Suitable Habitat Suitable habitat not present on either side of crossing = 0 Suitable habitat present on one side of crossing = 1 Suitable habitat present on either side of crossing = 2 Development Density Medium or high density residential, commercial or industrial = 0 Low density residential or agricultural land = 1 Minimal to no development = 2 Human Use of Structure Moderate / regular use of structure anticipated = 0 Low / infrequent use of structure anticipated = 1 No use of structure anticipated = 2 Predicted Wildlife Movement Routes1 Not lying within a predicted wildlife movement route = 0 Lying within a predicted wildlife movement route = 1 Wildlife Hot Spots – Target Focal Species2 - Bear Habitat Score < 4 = 0 Habitat Score 4 - 6 = 1 Habitat Score > 6 = 2 Wildlife Hot Spots – Identified Regional Hot Spots3 Potential for focal species < 3 = 0 Potential for focal species 3-4 = 1 Potential for focal species > 4 = 2 Field Observations No observations of wildlife trails = 0 Non-target wildlife species observed on wildlife trails = 1 Target wildlife species observed on wildlife trails = 2 Linkage to Public Lands Public lands not present on either side = 0 Public lands present on one side = 1 Public lands present on both sides = 2 Design Constraints Design constraints lead to a fatal flaw = NO BUILD Design constraints exist = 1 No obvious constraints exist = 2 Physical Barriers to Wildlife Movement Bear kills documented along parallel facility/ large physical barrier present in proposed wildlife pathway = 0 Bear kills may occur along parallel facility/ physical barrier present in proposed wildlife pathway = 1 Parallel facility/ physical barrier not present in proposed pathway = 2 Fencing Less than 1⁄2 mile of fencing in all quadrants At least 1⁄2 mile of fencing in 1 or more quadrants At least 1⁄2 mile of fencing in all quadrants SCORE TOTAL SCORE From Ecological Characterization of Identified High Priority Highway—Ecological Interface Zones Including the Inventory and Evaluation of Existing Florida Department of Transportation Highway Facilities Within These Zones 2 From Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System Figure 49 3 From Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System Figure 166c 1 ICOET 2003 Proceedings 233 Making Connections WILDLIFE LINKAGE AREAS: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR CANADA LYNX James J. Claar (Phone: 406-329-3664, Email: [email protected]), Carnivore Program Leader, Northern Region, and Timothy Bertram (Phone: 406-329-3611, Email: [email protected]), Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Planner, Northern Region, P.O. Box 7669, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT 59807 Robert Naney (Phone: 509-997-9744, Email: [email protected]), Forest Biologist, Okanogan NF, USDA Forest Service, 24 West Chewuch Road, Winthrop, WA 98862 Nancy Warren (Phone: 303-275-5064, Email: [email protected]), Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program Leader, Rocky Mountain Region, P.O. Box 25127, USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, CO 80225 William Ruediger (Phone: 406-329-3100, Email: [email protected]), Ecology Program Leader for Highways, USDA Forest Service Washington Office, 200 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807 Abstract: Conservation planning for forest carnivores now appropriately includes management considerations for habitat connectivity at a landscape scale level. We provided direction for connectivity and linkage area mapping in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, 2nd edition, August, 2000. We have drafted “lynx linkage areas” by conducting interagency meetings in the western states within the historic Canada lynx range and incorporating pertinent research. Participants in these meetings included representatives from state wildlife agencies and state departments of transportation, and federal agencies including Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, tribal governments, private conservation groups and others. One of the benefits of this approach was to receive professional input and raise the level of awareness of the importance of wildlife connectivity and linkage areas across a diverse group of managers. We viewed this approach as an ongoing process that involved incorporation of information gathered at the meetings and subsequent production of draft maps that have been sent back to participants for review. The maps represent a first effort to identify linkage areas, which can be further refined and evaluated in subsequent planning and research efforts. We will present the working maps of Canada lynx linkage areas for the Northern and Southern Rocky Mountains. Introduction Canada lynx were listed on March 24, 2000 (65 Federal Register 16052), as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 1973 in 14 of the lower 48 states. Since this was the conclusion of an extended review of the status of lynx by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), there had already been an interagency team formed to produce certain reference materials and review the effects of the listing on federal actions. One of the basic products necessary to initiate program reviews was an assessment of the current research literature available on lynx biology and ecology. This publication (often referred to as the Lynx Science report) is entitled, “Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States” (Ruggiero, et al. 2000). In addition, there was a need for a conservation strategy and management assessment of the current state of the art and how this would relate to evaluating federal management actions. This document was prepared by a group of federal interagency biologists (referred to as the Lynx Biology Team) and is entitled, “The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy” (LCAS), (Ruediger et.al. August, 2000). To guide and coordinate federal actions regarding lynx habitat mapping and management, a Conservation Agreement was signed on February 7, 2000, by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the FWS. A similar agreement exists between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and FWS. The National Park Service is also preparing a conservation agreement with FWS. One element of the USFS-FWS agreement is the assignment to prepare a map of lynx habitat that shows lynx linkage areas between and amongst the major blocks of lynx habitat in the western United States. The Lynx Biology Team was charged with coordinating this effort by the Interagency Lynx and Wolverine Steering Committee (LWSC), the state and federal interagency oversight team that coordinates management direction and implementation for the agencies. For a description of membership and roles of the LWSC and the Lynx Biology Team see the USFS National Carnivore website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/carnivore/. LCAS Guidance The LCAS and USFS-FWS conservation agreement provides guidance to prepare the maps of lynx habitat and the lynx linkage areas. Canada lynx habitat is defined as boreal forest conditions that include vegetation of the subalpine fir zone commonly expressed as spruce-fir forests that include environmental factors such as deep, powdery snow. It is in these conditions that lynx have the advantage over other predators in seeking their primary prey, snowshoe hare. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 234 Making Connections Lynx Linkage Areas are defined as “Habitat that provides landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat. Linkage areas occur both within and between geographic areas where blocks of lynx habitat are separated by intervening areas of non-lynx habitat such as basins, valleys, agricultural lands, or where lynx habitat naturally narrows between blocks. Connectivity provided by linkage areas can be degraded or severed by human infrastructure such as high-use highways, subdivisions or other developments.” (see LCAS and the letter dated April 19, 2002 signed by Kathleen McAllister, LWSC Chair, that provides clarifying language). Methods It was determined by the Interagency Lynx and Wolverine Steering Committee that the Lynx Biology Team would coordinate the mapping of the lynx linkage areas in the western United States. This process was initiated in 2000 by meeting with representatives from federal, state, tribal entities as well as representatives of conservation groups, organizations and private individuals. This process has lead to the maps that are presented in this paper. Specific techniques for delineating lynx linkage areas include direct mapping by area biologists based upon their knowledge of local conditions, GIS modeling (Singleton et al. 2002), and empirical data on lynx movements where available. Interagency meetings were held in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, and Utah to identify lynx linkage areas on July 11, 2001, November 28, 2001, January 9-10, 2002, and April 17, 2002, respectively, and two meetings were held in Wyoming on April 16 and April 18, 2002. Additional agency review and comment was conducted during the months of July and October 2002. Objectives of the meetings were to establish mapping criteria, delineate the general location of linkage areas, and identify any impediments or barriers to movement. Participants at the meetings typically included representatives from the respective state wildlife agency, state transportation department, and state forestry department, the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Two types of linkage areas were identified: 1) those intended to connect large, disjunct blocks of mapped lynx habitat, and 2) areas that are intended to provide connectivity within mostly contiguous habitat and are at risk or in need of increased permeability. Criteria and indicators used to identify lynx linkage areas were: 1) Relatively direct routes unimpeded by human developments such as towns, subdivisions, industrial areas, etc., between blocks of lynx habitat. 2) Expanses of undeveloped low elevation habitats such as grassland or shrub/steppe habitats which occur between forested blocks of mapped lynx habitat. 3) Riparian habitat across valley bottoms. 4) High percentage of public lands within the area, though in several cases public land was not present. 5) Information concerning animal crossing locations or routes based on direct observation or documented movements of radio-collared lynx. Criteria and conditions used to identify impediments or barriers to movement were: 1) Four lane highways 2) High traffic volume highways (two or four lanes) 3) Highways with parallel railroad routes 4) Presence of numerous physical impediments (Jersey and Texas rail type barriers) 5) Existing plans to upgrade or improve a highway (e.g., widening, barrier installation) 6) Any other expected or planned developments along or nearby existing road 7) Human developments such as towns, subdivisions, industrial developments, etc. The intent of the mapping efforts was to provide a general location of lynx linkage areas on a map that would lead to further refinement via resource planning actions and additional research that could eventually identify specific sites where a means of connectivity could be provided as part of lynx conservation efforts. The data provided in this report do not delineate specific linkage area boundaries identifiable on the ground, nor do they provide the exact location of crossing sites or structures. Additional field review and in some cases research are necessary to provide these data. Some exceptions to this exist, since some connectivity analyses have been completed for proposed highway upgrade projects within the reporting area. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 235 Making Connections Results We have summarized the results of these efforts by providing maps with the lynx linkage areas (figures 1 and 2) at the landscape level for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Southern Rocky Mountains Geographic Areas. We consider these working maps that will focus further analyses and refinements pertinent to lynx and habitat connectivity in the areas indicated by the arrows on the maps when projects are anticipated or proposed nearby. Each lynx linkage area (figures 1 and 2) indicated by an arrow on the map has not yet been evaluated for its individual value. As stated, these data indicate those areas where specific evaluation should occur to determine the value of these areas to lynx when a project is proposed. There is field research underway (John Squires, pers. comm.) at study sites in the Yaak River drainage and Seeley Lake Valley in Montana that documents lynx movements and potential linkage areas by individually radio-collared animals. This type of research is a scientific method to specifically delineate and document actual animal use of the linkage areas. A specific example that has been identified in this manner exists on the Seeley-Swan divide on the Lolo National Forest in western Montana. Field research also is being conducted in southern Colorado by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Lynx movement data were used to identify known linkage areas, but extrapolation was done very cautiously since this is a reintroduced population. If the population continues to expand and additional data on movement patterns elsewhere in the state becomes available, that information can be incorporated into the map of linkage areas. The maps (figures 1 and 2) identify focus areas for potential connectivity areas for lynx. To the best of our ability within the given time constraints and available data, we have mapped these linkage areas realizing that there may be additional linkage areas available or necessary based upon future field research. Fig. 1. Northern Rocky Mountains lynx linkage areas. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 236 Making Connections Fig. 2. Southern Rockies lynx habitat. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 237 Making Connections The maps presented should be considered the first effort to define lynx linkage areas in a working map form available for management planners. As more information becomes available on lynx and connectivity, it will be made available on the USFS National Carnivore website. Discussion Based on direction from the LWSC, it was determined that this assignment for producing mapped linkage areas would focus specifically on lynx. It is understood that any provision for habitat connectivity certainly benefits other wildlife species. At the same time, our purpose was to specifically strive to maintain or improve connectivity where needed to conserve lynx in the western United States. We are also fully aware that there is little empirical science on which to base delineation of lynx linkage areas within such a large acreage of mapped lynx habitat, some of which is naturally quite fragmented. For this reason, our approach was carefully described and documented. This is a first time effort and it will be improved as more data specific to this important element of lynx conservation become available. The very limited, but specific lynx movement data that exist were incorporated into our mapped lynx linkage areas. It is important to note that at least in some cases these data indicate that lynx movements are related to landscape characteristics and not necessarily random events. In addition, there are several important programs underway to address habitat fragmentation by government agencies as well as the private sector (Craighead, et al. 2001; Gore, et al. 2001; Servheen, et al. 2001; and others). To our knowledge, none of these efforts focus primarily on lynx as we did, but include considerations for forest carnivores as well as many other species of wildlife and aquatic organisms. Conclusion These maps and this report should be viewed as a significant beginning toward addressing lynx habitat linkage areas at the landscape level. These data do not depict site-specific connectivity requirements necessary for lynx habitat linkage. Ongoing efforts including research will help to refine these linkage areas, so that appropriate mitigation steps can be taken to maintain connectivity for lynx. As previously emphasized, the mapped linkage areas now bring focus to broad areas that can be evaluated for protection or mitigation that may include structural crossings as well as appropriate management on adjacent lands to maintain habitat quality for lynx and many other species of wildlife. Biographical Sketches: James J. Claar is the carnivore program leader for the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, in Missoula, Montana. Jim is particularly interested in the conservation biology of forest carnivores such as grizzly bears, wolves, Canada lynx, wolverine and fisher at the geographic/landscape scale levels. Habitat management coordination and wildlife linkage zone delineation are a part of his current assignment. Jim serves as the national coordinator for Canada lynx and wolverine conservation programs in the Forest Service. Timothy Bertram is the wildlife biologist on the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment team stationed in Missoula, MT, for the USDA Forest Service. Robert Naney is the forest biologist on the Okanogan National Forest in Winthrop, WA, for the USDA Forest Service. He is also a member of the National Lynx Biology Team. Nancy Warren is a wildlife biologist for the USDA Forest Service stationed in Denver, CO. She is the threatened, endangered and sensitive species program leader for the Rocky Mountain Region and a member of the National Lynx Biology Team. William Ruediger is the ecology program leader for the USDA Forest Service stationed in Missoula, MT. For more background information see his paper in this proceedings. References Craighead, April C. and F. Lance, and Roberts, E.A. Bozeman Pass Wildlife Linkage and Highway Safety Study in 2001 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. September 24-28, 2001. Keystone, CO. pp. 161-422. Gore, James F. J.J. Claar, W. Ruediger. Why Did the Bear Cross the Road? It Didn’t! in 2001 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. September 24-28, 2001. Keystone, CO. pp.595-602. Ruediger, William, James Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Gary Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger and Al Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 238 Making Connections Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk (and others). 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 p. Servheen, Christopher, J.S. Waller and P. Sandstrom. Updated 9/4/2001. Identification and Management of Linkage Zones for Grizzly Bears Between Large Blocks of Public Land in the Northern Rocky Mountains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and University of Montana. 87pp. Singleton, Peter H., W.L. Gaines, and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Geographic Information System Weighted-Distance and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-RP-549. 89pp. Squires, John. Pers. Com. Research Scientist at the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula,MT. ICOET 2003 Proceedings 239 Making Connections