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
Trend animal-vehicle collisions 500000 AVCs All Crashes 8000000 400000 # AVCs 300000 6000000 200000 100000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 # ALL CRASHES 4000000 AVCs: P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.89 GES (General Estimates System Sub-sample for every US state) Huijser et al., in prep. 2000000
Effects on wildlife Habitat loss Wildlife mortality Decrease in habitat quality Habitat fragmentation
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
Mitigation is good. But not necessarily the ultimate solution Negative impacts of infrastructure Avoid Mitigate Compensate Source: Cuperus et al., 1999
Road effect zone Habitat Mitigate
Habitat connectivity Road effect zone Compensate Habitat Mitigate Avoid
Fences in combination with crossing structures I-75 Florida US 93 Montana TCH Banff NP Clevenger SR 260 Arizona, Tonto NF
Study area: US Hwy 93 56 mi Agriculture Residential areas Access roads Short fence sections Cultural values
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)
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
Road kill (animal-vehicle collision and carcass data) 5% 1% 2% 1% DEER BLACK BEAR GRIZZLY BEAR OTHER(WILD) OTHER (DOM.) 2002 2005 N=392 92% (Sources: MDT, MHP and MTFWP)
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 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1992 Deer 4 7 9 7 10 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 98 30 33 26 29 14 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 83 83 96 2004 2005 Year 2002/2003: Increased search and reporting effort MSc study Bear Killed 10 8 6 4 2 0 Black bear 9 8 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1
Location deer road kill and mitigation measures Deer Kills (2002-2005) West Fencing East Fencing Xing Structures Ninepipes 20 15 Ninepipes mitigation not yet determined D eer K ills 10 5 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 Mile Post
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
Power analyses (deer) Whole Area Percent Detectable Difference 40 30 20 10 0 One-Tailed 0 5 10 15 20 4-55 years monitoring needed at a minimum Years Post-Construction Survey
Deer and black bear crossings Before Estimate based on a sample 62 (38) Tracking beds Random locations Each 100 m long 5 double beds
After Fence Fence Fence Fence Fence Fence Tracking beds Fence Fence Not an estimate but a measurement
Traffic control Installation
Check and erase Black bear Deer Skunk Twice a week Jun-Oct
Tracks observed (2003-2005) 2005) 3500 3000 Tracks Recorded 2500 2000 1500 1000 Possible Probable Certain 500 0 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)
Classification of tracks 10m 1 100m tracking bed 2 2 4 5m 3 1 = Crossing 2, 3 = Parallel movements 4 = Presence
Classification tracks 700 Deer Behaviors (Count) 600 500 400 300 200 100 Deer 2003 2004 2005 Less directional 0 cross parallel presence crossing and other unspecified Bear Behaviors (Count) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Black bear 2003 2004 2005 More directional 0 cross parallel presence crossing and other unspecified
Hypothetical distribution of tracks on beds Avoidance 1 Frequency Avoidance 2 No Reaction 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Entrance Point on Track Bed (m) 100
Track bed avoidance Deer Track Frequency 100 80 60 40 20 R 2 = 0.6196 P < 0.001 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Proportional Distance From Track Bed End Deer: somewhat U-shaped Bear Track Frequency 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 R 2 = 0.1609 P < 0.05 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Black bear: barely U-shaped Proportional Distance from Track Bed End
Crossings (based on 38 tracking beds) 2500 Total Deer Crossings 2000 1500 1000 500 Deer 0 2003 2004 2005 Total Bear Crossings 300 250 200 150 100 50 Black bear 0 2003 2004 2005
Control for population size/density Mean Pellet Groups per Transect 10 EVARO RAVALLI CURVES Deer: 8 pellet group 6 surveys 4 2 0 2004 2005 Black bear: Hair snare stations: DNA (McCoy, 2005)
200 150 100 50 0 Power analyses Power analyses 0 5 10 15 20 25 Years of Post-Construction Study Percent Detectable Difference in Total Deer Crossings ˆ 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Deer: 60% change is possible Black bear: 318% change is very unlikely 0 5 10 15 20 25 Years of Post-Construction Study Percent Detectable Difference in Total Bear Crossings
Learning curve Phase 3A Overpass passage - Ungulates Phase 3A Overpass passage - Carnivores Frequency 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 deer elk 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Frequency 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 blbear grbear wolf coug 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Source: Clevenger et al.
Measures of Effectiveness
Measures of Effectiveness Agreement between governments (or agencies) Before data collection starts! Agreement on parameters and thresholds Same language, same conclusions
Download report: Questions? Hardy, A.R., J.Fuller, M. P. Huijser, A. Kociolek, M. Evans. 2007. 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-06-008/1744-1. 1. Western Transportation Institute, College of Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA. Available from the internet: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/env/wildlife_crossing.shtml tml Contact Marcel Huijser mhuijser@coe.montana.edu 406-543-2377