Evaluation of Evaluation of Wildlife Mitigation Measures, Wildlife Mitigation Measures, US93 US93 EvaroEvaro--Polson:Polson:

Preconstruction Monitoring and Preconstruction Monitoring and Research ResultsResearch ResultsMarcel Huijser, Amanda Hardy, Marcel Huijser, Amanda Hardy, Julie Fuller, Angela Kociolek, Julie Fuller, Angela Kociolek, Meredith Evans, Pat McGowenMeredith Evans, Pat McGowen

September 19th, 2007September 19th, 2007For ACE Conference, Missoula, MTFor ACE Conference, Missoula, MT

Trend animalTrend animal--vehicle collisionsvehicle collisions

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

# A

VCs

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

# ALL C

RA

SHES

AVCs All Crashes

AVCs: P < 0.001, R2 = 0.89GES (General Estimates SystemSub-sample for every US state)Huijser et al., in prep.

Effects on wildlife

Habitat loss Habitat loss Wildlife mortalityWildlife mortality Decrease in habitat qualityDecrease in habitat quality Habitat fragmentationHabitat fragmentation

When to take action?When to take action?

Human safety Human safety Sensitive or endangered speciesSensitive or endangered species Population survival probabilityPopulation survival probability Negative effect on population levelNegative effect on population levelMass mortalityMass mortality

Alabama redAlabama red--bellied turtle road killbellied turtle road kill

Mitigation is goodMitigation is good……..But not necessarily the ultimate solutionBut not necessarily the ultimate solution

Negative impacts of infrastructureNegative impacts of infrastructure AvoidAvoid MitigateMitigate CompensateCompensateSource: Source: CuperusCuperus et al., 1999et al., 1999

Road effect

zone

Habitat

Mitigate

Habitat

Habitat

connectivityCompensate

Mitigate

Avoid

Road e

ffect

zone

II--75 Florida75 Florida

TCH Banff NPTCH Banff NP SR 260 Arizona, Tonto NFSR 260 Arizona, Tonto NFClevengerClevenger

Fences in combination with Fences in combination with crossing structurescrossing structures

US 93 Montana US 93 Montana

Study area: US Hwy 93Study area: US Hwy 9356 mi56 mi

Agriculture

Residential areas

Access roads

Short fence sections

Cultural values

Goals and ScopeGoals and Scope•• EffectivenessEffectiveness mitigation:mitigation:

– Animal-vehicle collisions– Animal crossings of US 93

•• Before Before –– AfterAftercomparison comparison

•• Focus:Focus:– deer, black bear– 3 areas with concentration

mitigation measures(Evaro, Ravalli Curves, Ravalli Hill)

OutlineOutlineThis presentation:This presentation:•• AnimalAnimal--vehicle collision (AVC) datavehicle collision (AVC) data•• Animal crossing (Xing) dataAnimal crossing (Xing) data•• Study design and sample sizeStudy design and sample size•• Measures of effectivenessMeasures of effectiveness

Additional activities:Additional activities:•• Black bear (Karin McCoy, University of Montana, Black bear (Karin McCoy, University of Montana, MScMSc))•• Deer (Whisper Camel, Montana State University, Deer (Whisper Camel, Montana State University, MScMSc))•• Western painted turtle (Kathy Griffin, University of Montana, PhWestern painted turtle (Kathy Griffin, University of Montana, PhD)D)•• Traffic dataTraffic data•• PhotoPhoto--monitoring railroad underpassmonitoring railroad underpass

Road kill (animal-vehicle collision and carcass data)

92%

1%5%

1%2%

DEER

BLACK BEAR

GRIZZLY BEAR

OTHER(WILD)

OTHER (DOM.)

(Sources: MDT, MHP and MTFWP)2002—2005N=392

Deer and Black Bear road killDeer and Black Bear road kill

4 7 9 7 10 1426 30 33 29

98

83 8396

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Rep

orte

d D

eer-V

ehic

le C

ollis

ions

0 0 01

01

5

23

1

89

21

0

2

4

6

8

10

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Bea

r Kill

ed

Deer

Black bear

2002/2003: 2002/2003: WTI and WTI and MDT stress MDT stress importance importance of reporting of reporting AVC/AC AVC/AC

1998: 1998: mandatory MDT mandatory MDT carcass carcass reportingreporting

2002/2003: 2002/2003: Increased Increased search and search and reporting reporting effort effort MScMScstudystudy

Location deer road kill and Location deer road kill and mitigation measuresmitigation measures

Ninepipesmitigation not

yet determined

0

5

10

15

20

6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56

Mile Post

Dee

r Kill

s

Deer Kills (2002-2005) West Fencing East Fencing Xing Structures Ninepipes

Expected reduction deerExpected reduction deer--vehicle vehicle collisionscollisions

•• Literature: 87% reduction (Literature: 87% reduction (79-99%)• US93: 30% (16.6 mi out of 56 mi) fenced• Expected overall reduction: 26%

Complications:Complications:• Not homogenous

distribution? ↑• Many gaps ↓

Power analyses (deer)Power analyses (deer)

Whole Area

0

10

20

30

40

0 5 10 15 20

Years Post-Construction Survey

Perc

ent D

etec

tabl

e D

iffer

ence

One-Tailed 44--5 years 5 years monitoring monitoring needed at a needed at a minimumminimum

BeforeBefore62 (38) Tracking beds62 (38) Tracking beds

Random locationsRandom locationsEach 100 m longEach 100 m long5 double beds5 double beds

Estimate based on a sampleEstimate based on a sample

Deer and black bear Deer and black bear crossingscrossings

AfterAfter

Tracking bedsTracking beds

FenceFence

FenceFence

FenceFence

FenceFence

Not an estimate but a measurementNot an estimate but a measurement

Traffic control

Installation

Deer

Black bear

Skunk

Check and erase

Twice a week

Jun-Oct

Tracks observed (2003Tracks observed (2003--2005)2005)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

B. BEAR(n=205)

CANINE(n=767)

DEER(n=3136)

SM.MAMMAL(n=22)

MED.MAMMAL(n=869)

LG.MAMMAL(n=68)

OTHER(DOM)

(n=113)

OTHER(WILD)(n=10)

UNKNOWN(n=7)

Trac

ks R

ecor

ded Possible

Probable

Certain

Classification of tracksClassification of tracks

5m

100m tracking bed110m

2

2

3

1 = Crossing2, 3 = “Parallel” movements4 = Presence

4

Classification tracksClassification tracks

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

cross parallel presence crossingand other

unspecified

Dee

r Beh

avio

rs (C

ount

) 2003

2004

2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

cross parallel presence crossingand other

unspecified

Bea

r Beh

avio

rs (C

ount

)

2003

2004

2005

Deer

Black bear

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

cross parallel presence crossingand other

unspecified

Bea

r Beh

avio

rs (C

ount

)

2003

2004

2005

Black bear

Less directional

More directional

Hypothetical distribution of Hypothetical distribution of tracks on bedstracks on beds

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Entrance Point on Track Bed (m)

Freq

uenc

y

Avoidance 1

Avoidance 2

No Reaction

Track bed avoidanceTrack bed avoidance

R2 = 0.6196

20

40

60

80

100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Proportional Distance From Track Bed End

Dee

r Tra

ck F

requ

ency

R2 = 0.1609

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Proportional Distance from Track Bed End

Bea

r Tra

ck F

requ

ency

Deer: somewhat U-shaped

Black bear: barely U-shaped

P < 0.001

P < 0.05

Crossings (based on 38 tracking Crossings (based on 38 tracking beds)beds)

Deer

Black bear

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2003 2004 2005

Tota

l Dee

r Cro

ssin

gs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003 2004 2005

Tota

l Bea

r Cro

ssin

gs

Control for population Control for population size/densitysize/density

0

2

4

6

8

10

2004 2005

Mea

n Pe

llet G

roup

s pe

r Tra

nsec

t

EVARO RAVALLI CURVESDeer:

pellet group

surveys

Black bear:

Hair snare

stations: DNA

(McCoy, 2005)

Power analysesPower analyses

0

50

100

150

200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Years of Post-Construction Study

Perc

ent D

etec

tabl

e D

iffer

ence

in

Tot

al D

eer C

ross

ings

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25

Years of Post-Construction Study

Perc

ent D

etec

tabl

e D

iffer

ence

in

Tot

al B

ear C

ross

ings

Deer: 60% change is possible

Black bear: 318% change is very unlikely

Learning curveLearning curve

Phase 3A Overpass passage - Ungulates

0

200

400600

800

1000

1200

deer elk

Freq

uenc

y

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02

Phase 3A Overpass passage - Carnivores

05

101520253035

blbear grbear wolf coug

Freq

uenc

y97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02

Source: Clevenger et al.Source: Clevenger et al.

Measures of EffectivenessMeasures of Effectiveness

Measures of EffectivenessMeasures of Effectiveness

Agreement between governments (or agencies)

Before data collection starts!

Agreement on parameters and thresholds

Same language, same conclusions

Questions?Questions?

•• Download report:Download report:Hardy, A.R., J.Fuller, M. P. Huijser, A. Kociolek, M. Evans. 200Hardy, A.R., J.Fuller, M. P. Huijser, A. Kociolek, M. Evans. 2007. 7. Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing Structures and Fencing on US Highway 93 Structures and Fencing on US Highway 93 EvaroEvaro to Polson. to Polson. Phase I: Preconstruction Data Phase I: Preconstruction Data Collection and Finalization of Evaluation Plan. Final Report. FHCollection and Finalization of Evaluation Plan. Final Report. FHWA/MTWA/MT--0606--008/1744008/1744--1. 1. Western Western Transportation Institute, College of Engineering, Montana State Transportation Institute, College of Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA. University, Bozeman, MT, USA.

Available from the internet: Available from the internet: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/env/wildlife_crossing.shhttp://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/env/wildlife_crossing.shtmltml

•• Contact Marcel HuijserContact Marcel Huijser– mhuijser@coe.montana.edu– 406-543-2377