Evaluation of Wildlife Mitigation Measures,

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Wildlife Mitigation Measures, US93 Evaro-Polson: Preconstruction Monitoring and Research Results Marcel Huijser, Amanda Hardy, Julie Fuller, Angela Kociolek, Meredith Evans, Pat McGowen September 19th, 2007 For ACE Conference, Missoula, MT

2 Trend animal-vehicle collisions AVCs All Crashes # AVCs # ALL CRASHES AVCs: P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.89 GES (General Estimates System Sub-sample for every US state) Huijser et al., in prep

3 Effects on wildlife Habitat loss Wildlife mortality Decrease in habitat quality Habitat fragmentation

4 When to take action? Human safety Sensitive or endangered species Population survival probability Negative effect on population level Mass mortality Alabama red-bellied turtle road kill

5 Mitigation is good. But not necessarily the ultimate solution Negative impacts of infrastructure Avoid Mitigate Compensate Source: Cuperus et al., 1999

6 Road effect zone Habitat Mitigate

7 Habitat connectivity Road effect zone Compensate Habitat Mitigate Avoid

8 Fences in combination with crossing structures I-75 Florida US 93 Montana TCH Banff NP Clevenger SR 260 Arizona, Tonto NF

9 Study area: US Hwy mi Agriculture Residential areas Access roads Short fence sections Cultural values

10 Goals and Scope Effectiveness mitigation: Animal-vehicle collisions Animal crossings of US 93 Before After comparison Focus: deer, black bear 3 areas with concentration mitigation measures (Evaro, Ravalli Curves, Ravalli Hill)

11 Outline This presentation: Animal-vehicle collision (AVC) data Animal crossing (Xing) data Study design and sample size Measures of effectiveness Additional activities: Black bear (Karin McCoy, University of Montana, MSc) Deer (Whisper Camel, Montana State University, MSc) Western painted turtle (Kathy Griffin, University of Montana, PhD) Traffic data Photo-monitoring railroad underpass

12 Road kill (animal-vehicle collision and carcass data) 5% 1% 2% 1% DEER BLACK BEAR GRIZZLY BEAR OTHER(WILD) OTHER (DOM.) N=392 92% (Sources: MDT, MHP and MTFWP)

13 Deer and Black Bear road kill 2002/2003: WTI and MDT stress importance of reporting AVC/AC 1998: mandatory MDT carcass reporting Reported Deer-Vehicle Collisions Deer Year 2002/2003: Increased search and reporting effort MSc study Bear Killed Black bear

14 Location deer road kill and mitigation measures Deer Kills ( ) West Fencing East Fencing Xing Structures Ninepipes Ninepipes mitigation not yet determined D eer K ills Mile Post

15 Expected reduction deer-vehicle collisions Literature: 87% reduction (79-99%)( US93: 30% (16.6 mi out of 56 mi) fenced Expected overall reduction: 26% Complications: Not homogenous distribution? Many gaps

16 Power analyses (deer) Whole Area Percent Detectable Difference One-Tailed years monitoring needed at a minimum Years Post-Construction Survey

17 Deer and black bear crossings Before Estimate based on a sample 62 (38) Tracking beds Random locations Each 100 m long 5 double beds

18 After Fence Fence Fence Fence Fence Fence Tracking beds Fence Fence Not an estimate but a measurement

19 Traffic control Installation

20 Check and erase Black bear Deer Skunk Twice a week Jun-Oct

21 Tracks observed ( ) 2005) Tracks Recorded Possible Probable Certain 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)

22 Classification of tracks 10m 1 100m tracking bed m 3 1 = Crossing 2, 3 = Parallel movements 4 = Presence

23 Classification tracks 700 Deer Behaviors (Count) Deer Less directional 0 cross parallel presence crossing and other unspecified Bear Behaviors (Count) Black bear More directional 0 cross parallel presence crossing and other unspecified

24 Hypothetical distribution of tracks on beds Avoidance 1 Frequency Avoidance 2 No Reaction Entrance Point on Track Bed (m) 100

25 Track bed avoidance Deer Track Frequency R 2 = P < Proportional Distance From Track Bed End Deer: somewhat U-shaped Bear Track Frequency R 2 = P < Black bear: barely U-shaped Proportional Distance from Track Bed End

26 Crossings (based on 38 tracking beds) 2500 Total Deer Crossings Deer Total Bear Crossings Black bear

27 Control for population size/density Mean Pellet Groups per Transect 10 EVARO RAVALLI CURVES Deer: 8 pellet group 6 surveys Black bear: Hair snare stations: DNA (McCoy, 2005)

28 Power analyses Power analyses Years of Post-Construction Study Percent Detectable Difference in Total Deer Crossings ˆ Deer: 60% change is possible Black bear: 318% change is very unlikely Years of Post-Construction Study Percent Detectable Difference in Total Bear Crossings

29 Learning curve Phase 3A Overpass passage - Ungulates Phase 3A Overpass passage - Carnivores Frequency deer elk Frequency blbear grbear wolf coug Source: Clevenger et al.

30 Measures of Effectiveness

31 Measures of Effectiveness Agreement between governments (or agencies) Before data collection starts! Agreement on parameters and thresholds Same language, same conclusions

32 Download report: Questions? Hardy, A.R., J.Fuller, M. P. Huijser, A. Kociolek, M. Evans Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing Structures and Fencing on US Highway 93 Evaro to Polson. Phase I: Preconstruction Data Collection and Finalization of Evaluation Plan. Final Report. FHWA/MT WA/MT / Western Transportation Institute, College of Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA. Available from the internet: tml Contact Marcel Huijser