Wildlife Crossings: A Solution for Moose Vehicle Collisions in Alaska

Wildlife Crossings: A Solution for Moose Vehicle Collisions in Alaska M elchisedek Jean & Katy Wright April 8, 2017 Prepared for: Dr. Protasel PADM A628: Public Financial M anagement

Statement of Need The proposed topic for the group project is to examine the financial and logistical feasibility of building additional wildlife crossings throughout the high moose collision areas of Alaska. If feasible this could both decrease fatal human moose interactions and to also increase moose population.

Background: the Alaskan Context Sources: Alaska Crash Data 2011 from Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

Benefit and Cost of Moose in Alaska

Value of Moose in 2005

Value of Moose in the Next 20 years

Current Practices Targeted Moose H unt Program in Area 14A in the M at-su Regions (AM415) Research are been conducted to ensure the effectiveness of that program. Ship Creek Bridge Project Positive results : 65-95 percent reduction in Vehicular collision Impact multiplier : Fences, Additional Light and Signs Issues with one way doors; deterrence of other animals Latest Emergency Order January 2017 Increase in time permissible to hunt Moose since inception in 2011 Increase in Density of M oose due to Snowfall

Best Practices University of Montana and Montana State University report - Cost benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in the United States and Canada; a decision support tool. US Federal Highway Administration planning and research guides include not just planning near the highway but examining that habitat and movement patterns of animals away from the highway Alaska has had success with the Sheep Creep underpass and the increased use of fencing and gates along the Glenn Highway connecting Anchorage to the Mat-Su Long term planning that includes a lengthy research phase often involving not only transportation planners but also ecologists and biologists working together Use of multiple methods (such as at sheep creek) including overpasses, underpasses, fencing, gates, signs and animal detection technologies

Financial Considerations for Wildlife Crossings Description Deer Elk Moose Mitigation Measure $ Cost (2007)/yr Deer/km/yr Vehicle repair costs per collision $2,622 $4,550 $5,600 Rate 1 3% 3% Human injuries per collision Human fatalities per collision $2,702 $5,403 $10,807 $1,002 $6,683 $13,366 Fence $6,304 1.1 Fence, underpass & $18,123 3.2 jump-outs Towing, accident $125 $375 $500 Fence, under & overpass, $24,230 4.3 attendance, and jump-outs investigation Hunting value animal per collision Carcass removal and disposal per collision $116 $397 $387 $50 $75 $100 ADS 2 $37,014 6.4 gap, ADS & jump-outs $28,150 4.9 Elevated roadway $3,109,422 470 Road tunnel $4,981,333 752.8 Total $6,617 $17,483 $30,760 1 For explanation of discount rate, see Huijser et al. 2009. 2 ADS: Animal detection system Source: Huijser et al. 2009

Financial Considerations for Wildlife Crossings Region Average Number of Moose-Vehicle Collisions Total Cost of all Accidents using Huijser et al. (2009) Kenai Peninsula 250 $4,348,500 Municipality of Anchorage 120 $2,087,280 Mat-Su Valley 280 $4,870,320 Fairbanks Area 126 $2,191,644 Alaska Total 776 $13,497,744 1. $30,760 13,366 = $17,394 per moose-vehicle collision (to account for the reality that most moose crashes are non-fatal)

Discussion When used wildlife crossings and other mitigation techniques result in a dramatic reduction in vehicle moose collisions They not only prevent collisions but also act to preserve wildlife populations and link fragmented habitats as well as ensure genetic diversity (Rosen 2016) M oose are economically important in Alaska and preserving herd numbers and habitat are vital to their continued survival

Conclusion Limitations include the vast amount of roadway in Alaska, the research needed for the planning process, and the varied locations of high moose-vehicle collisions Future research could focus on looking at how wildlife crossings could be implemented directly in the Anchorage Bowl which does have some high moose crossing areas in the city due to habitat fragmentation Animal crossings are a successful way to reduce moose-vehicle collisions and have additional benefits as well for human users beyond reducing car crashes such as connected areas of public land The success of Sheep Creek under pass demonstrates the real positive impacts these investments could have if implemented more widely.

Examples and Questions Source: The Guardian. (2015) Bee highways and squirrel suspension bridges: urban wildlife crossings - in pictures.

References Soil, A., District, W. C., & Soil, A. (2006). The Value of Alaska Moose. Alaska Department of Transportation And Public Facilities. (n.d). 2011 Alaska Traffic Crashes Retrieved April 5, 2017, from dot.alaska.gov http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/ transdata/crash.shtml Doughton, S. ( 2015). Special I -90 overpass to give animals safe passage. Retrieved from The Seattle Times website: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/animals-getting-overpass-on-i-90/ Huijser, M. P., J. W. Duffield, A. P. Clevenger, R. J. Ament, and P. T. McGowen. (2009.) Cost benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in the United States and Canada; a decision support tool.ecology and Society. 14( 2) : 15. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art15/ The Guardian. (2015) Bee highways and squirrel suspension bridges: urban wildlife crossings - in pictures. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2015/jul/16/urban-wildlife-crossings-highways-bridges-inpictures Rosen. Y. (2016) Genetic differences emerging among moose divided by the Glenn H ighway. Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved from https://www.adn.com/wildlife/article/genetic-differences-emerging-amongmoose-either-side-busy-glenn-highway/2015/02/15/