Having trouble reading this E-Bulletin? Click here to see it in your browser.
Safe Passages E-Bulletin



In your opinion!

What did you think of the articles?

Have we missed anything? Do you have any projects you'd like to share?

Let us know through our Safe Passages discussion blog.

Innovative Research

Best Practices for Detecting Wildlife Movement: I-70 Research Project & Case Study in Colorado



I-70 Study Area

Overview: Compared the effectiveness of several field techniques to monitor wildlife.

Importance of Project: Establish a cost-effective monitoring program that considers the varying ways to detect multiple species and provides a basis for monitoring strategies for future highway projects.

Project Description: Five kilometers of roadway adjacent to I-70 in central Colorado were evaluated using combinations of four sampling techniques: track transect surveys, scat transect surveys, hair snares, and remote sensing cameras.



Diagram of Monitoring Location Techniques

Read thesis

Summary of Findings:
- No method is free from bias and care should be taken to develop the most robust study design.

- Though camera monitoring tends to detect the greatest degree of species richness, it frequently fails to detect several species.

- The effectiveness of camera monitoring can largely be increased by supplementing them with other monitoring techniques.

- Use of cameras in conjunction with scat surveys is the best survey method combination for detecting medium and large mammals (at least those found in the U.S. Rockies).

- Scat surveys should be budgeted to include DNA testing to ensure accuracy of species identification.

-The least expensive, next best supplement to cameras (second to the camera/scat survey combination) is winter snow tracking. Hair surveys are not recommended, unless select species are being targeted because it is difficult to construct a hair snag mechanism that works for a wide range of mammal species.

- If budget and time are limited, snow tracking in the winter months, and if at all feasible, scat surveys throughout the year are recommended.

Note: Research was conducted to assist the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP) I-70 Wildlife Bridge effort and Colorado DOT.

Comments: American Wildlands contacted SREP's Program Director, Julia Kintsch. According to Julia, the research was helpful to identify improved detection methods for low density species (such as lynx, mountain lion, and bobcat), as well as smaller mammals (such as snowshoe hare and pine marten), aside from cameras only.

According to Julia, "The research was useful in that it evaluated our existing camera methodology. The results confirmed our suspicions that we were missing species using a camera only detection method."

In terms of the research's relevance beyond the study area, Julia adds,"The results of this study reinforces the need for pre-construction and post-construction methodologies to be tailored to specific project's focus species....I think this research, and others like it, are necessary for helping to lay the foundation for best management practices. "

Researcher's Background: Paige Bonaker has worked as the coordinator for the So. Rockies Ecosystem Project's (SREP) Citizen Science Wildlife Monitoring Program and as a member of Colorado State Parks Stewardship team. Paige earned a B.A. in Psychology from Stanford University and recently completed a M.S. in Environmental Studies at the University of Montana. She currently works for the Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) in Denver, Colorado as a staff biologist and GIS specialist.

For more information on this research, contact Paige Bonaker.

Policy and News

Just Launched: I-SPY- Citizen Science Wildlife Movement Project on Bozeman Pass, Montana

American Wildlands’ Safe Passages program just launched I-Spy on the Pass this October.


Click image to go to I-Spy web page

I-Spy is an effort to empower citizens and provide them with an opportunity to work with local non-profit organizations and government agencies towards a solution to an issue that affects the entire community. [i]

Through this new web-based project the local community will assist American Wildlands in determining where animals frequently attempt to cross Interstate 90 between Bozeman and Livingston, Montana, a heavily traveled section of highway in an important wildlife corridor.


High quality movement area on Bozeman Pass, looking west

This citizen-based data collection effort is designed as a complement to a multi-year animal vehical collision study being conducted in partnership between the MT Department of Transportation, Western Transportation Institute and the Craighead Environmental Research Institute. The collision study is evaluating concentrations of wildlife vehicle collisions along the pass and effectiveness of an existing wildlife crossing structure, located near the Bear Canyon Exit, on the western side of the pass near Bozeman.


Map of animal vehicle collisions on Bozeman Pass

The Montana Department of Transportation will be able to use this data (see September 2008 report), as well as the I-Spy information to determine how well measures currently in place are working, and if additional steps should be taken to help animals get safely across the busy interstate.

The project was based on a variety of other citizen-science projects. To see other like-efforts, visit our I-Spy web page. (Links to the projects are on left side of page.)

For more details, or to participate in this project, contact Jessica Hann, American Wildlands Safe Passages Associate at 406-586-8175 ext. 110.


[i] I-Spy's, interactive "Google Maps" and geographical database was designed by the Western Transportation Institute. They are available to assist with projects like I-Spy across the west. Contact Rob Ament, (406) 994-6423, Road Ecology Program Coordinator for more information.



Funding

New Guide:The $61 MILLON QUESTION How Can Transportation Enhancements Benefit Wildlife?

Defenders of Wildlife has found that in the last 10 years, the $61 million available annually through SAFETEA-LU's Transportation Enhancement funds has been underutilized by practitioners working to protect wildlife habitat connectivity.

To help increase the use of these funds, Defenders recently published a guide, The $61 MILLON QUESTION How Can Transportation Enhancements Benefit Wildlife? This document is designed to help practitioners access these funds in order to increase and improve wildlife habitat connectivity through highway construction projects.

Read the guide

For additional information, contact Patricia White at Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 682-9400 ext. 236.

Fall 2008 Vol. 2, No. 3


Tools of the Trade


Best Management Practices for Wildlife Crossing Structures in the No. Rockies: 10 BMPs and a Case Study in Wyoming


Through the E-Bulletin, American Wildlands is working to build a conversation between agency, non-profit and business practitioners on how projects throughout the west are meeting the best management practices for crossing structures.

In the first portion of this article, we present Ten Elements of Best Management Practices for Wildlife Crossing Structures. To each of the best management practices (BMPs), we attached a point value. In the second half of the article we summarize a Wyoming wildlife crossing structures project as a case study and evaluate the project according to the best management practices and the point scoring system.

We want your feedback: After reading this article, let us know what you think of the best management practices, and projects you think are good examples in Montana, Idaho or Wyoming, by contributing to our Safe Passages discussion blog.

The best management practices listed are from the publication (pgs. 12-15) Safe Passages: A User's Guide to Developing Effective Highway Crossing for Carnivores and Other Wildlife. [ii]



Click image to open a copy of the publication

Published in February 2007, The Safe Passages document was the result of a joint effort between Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, Wildlife Consulting Resources, and the Center for Transportation and the Environment. The authors, Monique DiGiorgio and Bill Ruediger, consulted 10 state departments of transportation throughout the west, as well as 13 non-governmental organizations, four federal agencies, four state wildlife agencies, and four academic institutions. For the exact list of organizations consulted, read the Cooperators section on the publication's inside front page.

The Ten Elements of Best Management Practices for Wildlife Crossing Structures: Each of the 10 BMPs listed is worth a set number of points according to its importance. Scoring is out of 100.

1. Wildlife monitoring & evaluation- before and after the crossing structure is built is a MUST. (15pts)

2. Species appropriate crossing structure design- consideration of the best design for the species in question is NECESSARY. (15pts)

3. Location- the structure NEEDS TO BE in an appropriate location based on natural wildlife movement patterns (thus the need for pre structure monitoring). (15pts)

4. Fencing- fencing to guide wildlife to the crossing structure is a MUST. Ideally it is built to the top of the crossing structure, not the bottom. (15pts)

5. Long-term planning of surrounding landscape- NEED to know that the wildlife habitat surrounding the crossing structure will be conserved into the future. (10pts)

6. System of crossings- construction of more than one crossing structure, especially if the structures are smaller (such as culverts) is BENEFICIAL and helps ensure best possible movement results. (10pts)

7. Site(s) chosen are within important wildlife linkage areas- since there are limited funds to support wildlife crossing structures, it is IMPORTANT to choose sites wisely. (5pts)

8. Naturalness- the crossing structure needs to appear and feel as natural AS POSSIBLE to the animals. This includes the crossing structure material matching the surrounding landscape. (5pts)

9. Escape ramps- Structures built SHOULD be accompanied by escape ramps. (5pts)

10. Cooperation and diversity of funding- Engineers, biologists and conservation groups SHOULD work cooperatively through the pre-monitoring, crossing structure design, implementation, and post-construction monitoring phases. (5pts)


[ii] Two best management practices elements are included beyond the 8 listed in the Safe Passages publication. These were added at the suggestion of the publication's authors.

Summary: Nugget Canyon, Highway 30 Case Study
This fall, the final installation of six 12'x20'concrete box culverts along a 13 mile stretch of Highway 30, in southwestern Wyoming (near the Idaho border) between Cokeville and Kemmerer will be completed.




Highway 30 in southwestern Wyoming


The construction of the culverts was the result of 20 years of planning and design to assist with reducing wildlife vehicle collisions and improve wildlife movement in Nugget Canyon along Highway 30. Back in the mid-1980s the WY Department of Transportation (WYDOT) experimented with signage as a means to reduce the wildlife vehicle collision rates; with little success. Since that time, according to Wyoming Game and Fish (WYG&F) between 200-300 mule deer have died annually due to collisions with motorists on this section of highway. [iii] The final solution agreed upon by the two agencies was a set of box culverts, with a total construction cost of $3.8 million (the cost was shared by WYDOT, Wyoming Game and Fish, special appropriations by the state, and a local wildlife club).




One of the six box culverts along Highway 30


The focus species on this stretch of road is mule deer. It is estimated 5,000-10,000 mule deer, as part of the 30,000 Wyoming Range herd, migrate through this area each year. In harsh winters, up to 1,000 elk may cross through this area. Pronghorn and moose are also species of concern, but were not the target species in this project (as they were not being killed at the rates seen in mule deer).

In 1989, an 8 foot deer fence was bult from milepost 28 - 35.5 (approximately half of the Nugget Canyon section of US Highway 30). One crossing area was left unfenced at milepost 30. Wing fences, escape ramps, and lights were used to help make the crossing location more successful. Although the fencing resulted in an overall reduction of vehicle collisions with mule deer, an increase in animal kill concentrations were identified at milepost 30 (the unfenced crossing area), at the east end of the fence system. Also, because there was only one crossing area in the 7.5 miles, deer mortalities from the railroad increased. Since this was not the wildlife protection outcome both agencies were hoping to achieve, to improve the fence effectiveness, in 2001, the first of the six culverts was constructed. It was deemed an "experimental box" with which both agencies could determine the best size and design for accomodating mule deer under the highway. In the end, due to a desire to accommodate the suite of species, the box culverts were built larger than mule deer specifications required.

WYDOT and WYG&F also integrated pre-construction monitoring to identify the best locations for the additional 5 culverts. The major mule deer migration in this section of Wyoming occurs in the winter months. The tracking was conducted by WYDOT over three winters in order to determine best locations for the crossing structures and to determine pre-construction rates of mule deer movement across the highway. A camera was installed in the first experiment box and monitored over two winter seasons.





Jump out escape ramp and fencing


This fall, cameras have been installed on all the culverts, at both ends, to track wildlife movement levels, as well as identify the behavior of the wildlife as they move through the crossing structures. The cameras will be monitored throughout the year for three years. The 13 mile stretch runs from milepost 28 to 41 and is entirely fenced. Jump-out escape ramps are also included. There is an additional USGS elk study in the area. Although not directly related to this project, there are hopes that the elk study will identify whether their movement has been interrupted by the fencing and whether they are using the crossing structures to move across the highway. The cameras will also determine the extent to which elk, moose and antelope will use the structures. [iv]

According to the two primary agencies involved, this project originated due to the high levels of concern, voiced by a local wildlife club (the Outthrust Wildlife Club) regarding the high levels of deer deaths on the highway. A local senator, Boyd Eddins championed the cause in the state Senate. Along with the state, the club and the two sister agencies (WYDOT and Game and Fish) these entities collaborated to assist with the costs of the project.


Thank you to our interviewees Neil Hymas (307) 279-3466, Ron Lockwood (307) 875-3223, & Mark Zones of Wyoming Game and Fish, (307) 875-3223 Dave Neilson (307) 877-3239 & John Eddins (307) 352-3031 of Wyoming Department of Transportation for the information provided in this summary.

Please contact them if you have questions or would like more details on this project.


[iii] Estimates according to Neil Hymas, currently the Cokeville Game Warden. Neil has been a WY Game and Fish employee for 25 years and involved on this project since the late 1980s.

[iv] According to Mark Zones, research indicates that antelope use of the Nugget Canyon crossing structures may be limited. Research in other parts of the state indicate that antelope tend to shy away from box culverts, instead preferring much larger open areas (such as bridge spans for movement).

So, in terms of the Best Management Practices scoring system presented in this bulletin, how did Wyoming's Highway 30 project do?

Out of a hundred possible points, they received 91 (An A-!).

Why? The Scoring:
1. Conducted pre-construction and plan for post-construction monitoring. Conducted three years of snow tracking with a post-construction plan of 3 years with cameras, as well as a GPS movement study. (14/15)

2. Spent three years testing different wooden box culvert designs. (14/15)

3. Tracked mule deer migration movements, used wildlife vehicle collision data, and natural terrain features to determine locations. (15/15)

4. Included fencing. Fencing runs to the bottom "wings" of the culverts rather than to the top. According to Neil Hymas, this was due to highway right of way fence requirements. They did install additional fencing along the wings to limit animals' ability to get into the highway corridor by jumping out along the crossing structure wings. Also included "lay down" fence to allow cattle to move through area when needed. (12/15)

5. Area is 60-70% public, BLM ownership. Remainder is private. However, location is remote and away from any city centers, therefore unlikely to be developed. ( 8/10)

6. System of crossings. Yes- six of them. This was based on their understanding that mule deer would travel along fences for only a limited distance.(10/10)

7. Important linkage area? Yes. Firmly established mule deer migration connectivity area. (5/5)

8. Naturalness. Using existing soil from surrounding area. Sides are vertical, instead of a better sloped design. Animals travel as far from the edges as possible, directly down the center (3/5)

9. Escape ramps? Yes! (5/5)

10. Highly cooperative, including work between WYDOT and WY Game and Fish, as well as USGS, academic institutions, and local citizen's wildife group. (5/5)


Conclusion:
The real success will be measured in how well the crossing structures and fencing reduce wildlife vehicle collisions and how much of the mule deer population continues to move across their homerange and through these crossing structures. The structures have just been completed this fall. WY Game and Fish has an expected goal of reducing wildlife vehicle collisions in the area by 80%. Cameras have been installed. Mule deer movement and use of the crossing structures will be monitored for the next three years. In addition, Wyoming Game and Fish funded a mule deer movement study using GPS to further evaluate mule deer movement and their use of the crossing structures. While elk were not specifically targeted for this project, WYG&F will be monitoring their use of the crossing structures via the cameras, as well as referencing data from the USGS study.

Is there anything they could have done better?

American Wildlands asked both Ron Lockwood and Neil Hymas this question. While they were both very proud of the project and the work completed, like many people working on these issues, they were quick to come up with a few "lessons learned".

- Increased focus on crossing structure design to include other non-deer species, such as elk.

- Broaden pre-monitoring to include evaluation of elk movement and possibly other non-deer animal species. [v]


[v] The 12 cameras used in post-monitoring of the crossing structures will capture the variety of species using the culverts, not only deer.


Visit our Safe Passages Website