Habitat Connectivity: Planning and Assessment Assessing

Transcription

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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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,
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,
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.)
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
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.
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
++
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
++
++
+++
++
+
+++
+
++
+++
+++
+
++
+
++
+++
+
+
+
+++
++
++
++
++
+
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
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
++
++
+
++
+
+++
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+++
+
++
++
++
+
+
+
+
++
+
++
++
++
++
++
+
+
++
+++
++
+++
+++
+
+
+
+
+++
++
+++
+
++
+
+
+
++
+
++
+++
++
++
++
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+
++
+++
++
+++
+
++
++
+
+
++
+
++
+
++
+++
+
++
+
++
+++
+
++
+
+
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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>
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>
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.)
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
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
236
Making Connections
Fig. 2. Southern Rockies lynx habitat.
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.
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.
239
Making Connections

Habitat Connectivity: Planning and Assessment Assessing

Transcription

Similar documents

To this: Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary Wetland Restoration Best

Pre-Natural Resources

GATORLAND FLORIDA

^ Sand Creek Wildlife Management Area

So, you want to be a wildlife biologist?

RSPB/ Kingsbrook presentation

Go au naturale PowerPoint

Preview - stanfordhouse.com.hk

COMMUNITY - Ol Pejeta Conservancy

Sarvey Wildlife Care Center