Table 3

TABLE 3 : CONNECTIVITY SOLUTIONS

SOLUTION

SPECIES GROUP

REGION

MITIGATION TYPE

TIMING OF SOLUTION/ EVALUATION

IMPACT REDUCTION BENEFITS

COST RANGE

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

SOURCE(S)

SHIFT ALIGNMENT - Prevent or reduce impact through alteration to the proposed road alignment such that the connectivity function can be maintained

Examples:

●Multi-species

Minimization

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

● Shift road alignment at least 100 ft away from edge of Missisquoi River and restore area to functional riparian habitat

Austin, J.M., M. Ferguson, G. Gingras, and G. Bakos. 2003. Strategies for restoring ecological connectivity and establishing wildlife passage for the upgrade of Route 78 in Swanton, Vermont: an overview. IN: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, K.P. McDermott. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 253-259.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/50q5q4m7

INSTALL STRUCTURE - Provide overpass, underpass, or at-grade cross to facilitate wildlife passage over, under or across the roadway

Overpass: grade separation structure designed to allow wildlife to cross over an intersecting highway or railroad, usually covered with vegetation

Overpass

Carnivores/large herbivores/small - medium sized mammals/flying animals/reptiles & amphibians

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

>$1 million

●Minimum Size >40 m wide (NCHRP, 2008), Recommended 100 m wide (Clevenger and Huijser, 2011) ●Width required increases with length of overpass (width to length ratio should be >0.8) ●Designed to resemble natural habitat ●Soil depth of 5-8 feet to support plants ●Minimum Fence / Berm Hieght of 8 feet (sound and light attenuation)

Bissonette, J.A. and P.C. Cramer. NCHRP Report 615: Evaluation of the Use and Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2008. Clevenger, A.P. and M.P. Huijser. 2011. Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook; Design and Evaluation in North America. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_615.pdf http://www.cflhd.gov/programs/techDevelopment/wildlife/documents/01_Wildlife_Crossing_Structures_Handbook.pdf

Examples:

●Ungulates/multi-species

Alberta

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$1,688,993/overpass (2007); IN CONSTRUCTION - $3,290,000 - $3,760,000 for Lake Louise Area of Park including traffic control & detour; fencing $69/m (2007 $) (Huijser et al. 2008)

●52-m wide x 70 m long overpasses (Huijser et al. 2008) ●Openness ratio =5.41 (Clevenger and Waltho 2005) ●Planted with native grasses/shrubs/white spruce (Gloyne and Clevenger 2001) ●Lake Louise overpass - 60m wide across 2-lane road (Huijser et al. 2008)

Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2005. Performance Indices to Identify Attributes of Highway Crossing Structures Facilitating Movement of large Mammals. Biological Conservation 121(3): 453-464

http://biology.ucf.edu/~rnoss/papers/Clevenger%20and%20Waltho%202005.pdf

Gloyne, C.C. and A.P. Clevenger. 2001. Cougar (Puma concolor) use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology 7: 117-124.

http://www.wildlifebiology.com/Downloads/Article/326/En/7_2_gloyne.pdf

M.P. Huijser, P. McGowen, A.P. Clevenger, and R. Ament. 2008. Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study: best practices manual. Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

Underpass: passages that allow for wildlife to cross underneath the roadway

Bridge underpass: structure (>20') including supports, erected over a depression or obstruction and having a floor for carrying traffic or other moving loads

Carnivores/large herbivores/small - medium sized mammals/flying animals/reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Location in the landscape influences effectiveness ●Light in the underpass will increase openness and therefore, may be helpful for some species ●Underpass width of 20 foot minimum, > 40 foot recommended ●Underpass height 10 foot minimum, >15 foot recommended ●Eliminate motor and all-terrain vehicle use from area surrounding underpass, minimize human use and disturbance of the underpass ●Design roadway drainage and direct runoff away from the underpass structure

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_615.pdf http://www.cflhd.gov/programs/techDevelopment/wildlife/documents/01_Wildlife_Crossing_Structures_Handbook.pdf

Examples:

●Bighorn sheep

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Openness ratios: = 75, 28, 56 (highest was most successful)

Bristow, K. and M. Crabb. 2008. Evaluation of Distribution and Trans-highway movment of desert bighorn sheep: Arizona Highway 68. Final Report 588. Arizona Department of Transporation.

http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ588.pdf

●Mountain goat

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Openness ratio = 25-57 ●12-28 feet h x 90 ft w x 44 ft through ●8-ft fencing

Singer, F.J., W.L. Langlitz, and E.C. Samuelson. 1985. Design and construction of highway underpasses used by mountain goats. Transportation Research Record. 1016:6-10

abstract only

●Florida panther/alligators

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Openness ratio = 0.92-1.12 ●Underpass has 22.3 m median opening ●3 m high fence

Foster, M.L. and S.R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1): 95-100

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3783202

●Multi-species

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Openness ratio = 2.48-4.03 ●3 m high fencing ≥800 m from underpasses (continued through underpasses to other side) ●One underpass has a stream

McCollister, M.F. and F.T. Van Manen. 2010. Effectiveness of Wildlife Underpasses and Fencing to Reduce Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(8): 1722-1731.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2009-535/abstract

●Elk

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$1.5 - 2 million/underpass; video/cameras -$7000

●Openness ratios - 12.3 and 5.5 ●Minimize length or add atrium ●Avoid areas with human disturbance ●Some underpasses with streams

Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe, A. Manzo, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Evaluation of Measures to Minimize Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions and Maintain Permeability across highways: Arizona Route 260. Final Report 540. Arizona Department of Transportation.

http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ540.pdf

●Mountain lions, multi-species

Alberta

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$675,597-965,139 (2007) - 12m w x 30m l underpass; IN CONSTRUCTION - Lake Louise area - $2,350,000 (2007) incl traffic control & detour (16-25m w underpass); fencing $69/m (2007 $) (Huijser et al. 2008)

●Open span /creek=3m h x 11 m w (Phase 1 &2) ●12m w x 5 m high underpass (Phase 3A) (Huijser et al. 2008) ●Openness ratio =0.4-1.25 minimize human disturbance/use (Clevenger and Waltho 2000)

Gloyne, C.C. and A.P. Clevenger. 2001. Cougar (Puma concolor) use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology 7: 117-124.

http://www.wildlifebiology.com/Downloads/Article/326/En/7_2_gloyne.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14(1): 47-56.

http://www.transwildalliance.org/resources/200884165345.pdf

●Multi-species

Ontario

Minimizaton/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

bridge =$1.2 million;

●81 m open span bridge

Gartshore, R. G., M. Purchase, R.I. Rook,and L. Scott. Bayview Avenue Extension, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada Habitat Creation and Wildlife Crossings in a Contenious Environmental Setting: A Case Study (September 2005). Pages 55-76 IN Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, 2006.

http://www.icoet.net/ICOET_2005/proceedings/2005ICOETProceedingWeb.pdf

● Large herbivores, carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$435,340 (2007$); fencing $27-42/m (Huijser et al. 2008)

●Open span bridge ●12m w x 30 m l (height unknown) (Huiijser et al. 2008)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

Huijser, M.P., T.D.H. Allen, and W.Camel. 2010. US 93 Post-Construction Wildlife-Vehicle Collision and Wildlife Crossing Monitoring and Research on the Flathead Indian Reservation between Evaro and Polson, Montana. Annual Report. Montana Department of Transportation.

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/research_proj/wildlife_crossing/phaseii/annual_report_oct10.pdf

●Multi-species

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●500-ft wide bridge span over wetland/upland habitat complex

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/50q5q4m7

Culvert - covered with embankment around entire perimeter

Carnivores/small - medium sized mammals/flying animals/reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Location in the landscape influences effectiveness ●Light in the underpass will increase openness and may be helpful for some species ●Design underpass to minimize the intensity of noise and light coming from the road and traffic. ●Revegetation will be possible in areas of underpass closest to the entrance, as light conditions tend to be poor in the center of the structure.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_615.pdf http://www.cflhd.gov/programs/techDevelopment/wildlife/documents/01_Wildlife_Crossing_Structures_Handbook.pdf

Box culvert - culvert with a square or rectangular cross-sectional profile having 4 sides, including a bottom.

Examples:

CLASS 1: Small; ≤1.5 m (5 ft)

Some medium-sized mammals, aquatic animals, small mammals, reptiles & amphibians

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Spotted salamander/mole salamanders

Minimization

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Bury drift fence 6-10 cm (Jackson and Tyning 1989) ●Tunnels 200 m apart (FHWA Critter Crossings website); or 200 ft. apart (Jackson 2003). ●Min. 2 ft. x 2ft concrete culverts, open grate top and soil bottom (Jackson 2003) ●Culvert wingwalls and min. 18-inch high vertical walls extend 100 to 200 feet in length (Jackson 2003)

Jackson, S.D. and T.F. Tyning. 1989. Effectiveness of drift fences and tunnels for moving spotted salamanders under roads. Pp. 93-99 In T.E.S. Langton (ed.) Amphibians and Roads. proceedings of the toad tunnel conference. ACO Polymer Products, Shefford, England.

http://www.umassextension.org/NREC/images/stories/linked_content/pdf_files/amphibians_and_roads.pdf

Jackson, Scott. 2003. Proposed Design and Considerations for Use of Amphibian and Reptile Tunnels in New England. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

http://www.umass.edu/nrec/pdf_files/herp_tunnels.pdf

FHWA Critter Crossings Website

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifecrossings/salamand.htm

●Otter, beaver, muskrat, herps

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Concrete wetland box culverts min. 4' wide ●Open grate, trapezoidal cast concrete amphibian tunnels

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/50q5q4m7

●Santa Cruz long-toed salamander

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Five 32cm h x 47cm w and one 21 cm h x 23 cm w tunnels constructed of non-abrasive cement polymer with slots along top ●Entrances screened with wire mesh (5cm x 10 cm) to reduce predator access ●Permanent fencing 40 cm h, curved

Allaback, M.L. and D.M. Laabs. 2002-03. Effectiveness of road tunnels for the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander. Transactions of the Western section of the Wildlfie Society 38/39:5-8.

http://www.tws-west.org/transactions/Allaback%20Laabs.pdf

● Small & medium-sized mammals

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$70,932 (2007 $); fencing $27-42/m (Huijser et al. 2008)

●Concrete box culverts, 1.2m w x 1.8m h x 27.5m l (Huijser et al. 2008) ●Openness ratio =0.08

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/research_proj/wildlife_crossing/phaseii/annual_report_oct10.pdf

CLASS 2: Medium ; >1.5 m (5 ft) to 2.4 x 2.4 m (8 ft)

Large carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals, reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals, some flying animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Multi-species

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●2.4x2.4m submerged culverts ●1.8x1.8m dry culverts ●Openness ratio <0.6 ●Concrete barrier wall 1.1 m h, 15.2 cm overhanging lip; wall runs 2.8 km e and 2.5 km w

Dodd, C.K., W.J. Barichivich, and L.L. Smith. 2005. Effectiveness of a barrier wall and culverts in reducing wildlife mortality on a heavily traveled highway in Florida. Biological Conservation 118: 619-631.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4BG8TPH-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=8&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235798%232004%23998819994%23498300%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5798&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=15&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c2e64825118ceaaf42f6be78c3ed58de&searchtype=a

CLASS 3: Large - 2.4 m x 6.1 m (8x20 ft) or 3.1 x 3.1 m (10x10ft) to open span bridges

Large herbivores, large carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals, reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals, some flying animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Florida panther

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Openness ratio = 1.2 ●2.4 m h x 7.3 m w, 14.6 m l

Land, D. and M. Lotz. 1996. Wildlife crossing designs and use by florida panthers and other wildlife in southwest Florida. In G.L. Evink, P.A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conf. on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. June, 1996. Tallahassee, FL. FL DOT FL-ER 58-96.

http://www.icoet.net/downloads/96paper26.pdf

●Mountain lions; multi-species

Alberta

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$217,156-241,285 (2007 $) (4x7); $173,725 (2007 $) (2.5x3); IN CONSTRUCTION - Lake Louise area 3-4m w and h $940,000 incl traffic control & detour; fencing $69/m (2007 $) (Huijser et al. 2008)

●Metal culvert= 4m h x 7 m w, concrete box culvert= 2.5m h x 3m w; all crossings with dirt substrate (Phase 1&2) (Gloyne and Clevenger 2001) ●Metal culverts 3.5m h x 4.2m w x 96m l & 4m h x 7m w x 56 l, openness ratio =0.15-0.5 (Clevenger and Waltho 2000)

Gloyne, C.C. and A.P. Clevenger. 2001. Cougar (Puma concolor) use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology 7: 117-124.

http://www.wildlifebiology.com/Downloads/Article/326/En/7_2_gloyne.pdf

Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14(1): 47-56.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

●Black bear

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Openness ratio- 1.22 ●2.4m h x 7.3 m w x 14.3 m l ●3 m fence with barbed wire - 0.6 km to west, 1.1 km to east; bury fence

Roof, J. and J. Wooding. 1996. Evaluation of the S.R. 46 wildlife crossing in Lake County, Florida. 7 pp. In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.) Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality, proceedings of the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.

http://www.icoet.net/downloads/96paper27.pdf

Arch culvert - a culvert section forming an arc of a circle and having a natural substrate for its base (bottomless)

Examples:

CLASS 1: Small; ≤1.5 m (5 ft)

Some medium-sized mammals, aquatic animals, small mammals, reptiles & amphibians

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

CLASS 2: Medium; >1.5 m (5 ft) to 2.4 x 2.4 m (8 ft)

Large carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals, reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals, some flying animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

CLASS 3: Large - 2.4 m x 6.1 m (8x20 ft) or 3.1 x 3.1 m (10x10ft) to open span bridges

Large herbivores, large carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals, reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals, some flying animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

● Some large herbivores, carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$223,076 (2007 $); fencing $27-42/m (Huijser et al. 2008)

●Metal arch underpass (Huijser et al. 2008) ●7-8m w x 5m h x 18.3-21.9 l (Huijser et al. 2008) ●Openness ratio = 1.6-1.9 (Huijser et al. 2008)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/research_proj/wildlife_crossing/phaseii/annual_report_oct10.pdf

Round/elliptical culvert - a culvert unbroken (entire in cross-section

Examples:

CLASS 1: Small; ≤1.5 m (5 ft)

Some medium-sized mammals, aquatic animals, small mammals, reptiles & amphibians

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Herps/sm mammals

Ontario

Minimizaton/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

Migration study - $71,000; 5 amphibian tunnels=$360,000; monitoring - $14,500/year

●Round pipes: two concrete 1.2m diameter, two corrugated steel 1.2m diameter ●One 1m x 1.7m elliptical concrete ●Openness ratio = <0.6 (0.04-0.05)

http://www.icoet.net/ICOET_2005/proceedings/2005ICOETProceedingWeb.pdf

●Herps, small mammals

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Round 0.9m culverts ●Openness ratio <0.6 ●Concrete barrier wall 1.1 m h, 15.2 cm overhanging lip; wall runs 2.8 km e and 2.5 km w

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4BG8TPH-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=8&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-nfo(%23toc%235798%232004%23998819994%23498300%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5798&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=15&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c2e64825118ceaaf42f6be78c3ed58de&searchtype=a

●Small mammals

Alberta

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

● 0.3 m dia metal drainage culverts ●Vegetative cover important

McDonald, W. and St Clair, C. C. (2004), Elements that promote highway crossing structure use by small mammals in Banff National Park. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 82–93.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00877.x/full

●Red-sided garter snake

Manitoba

Minimization

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Drift fencing ●Pipes 6-12 inches; 20 cm polymer concrete channel covered by slotted iron gate

Carcnet website

http://www.carcnet.ca/english/tunnels/snake_mortality.php

CLASS 2: Medium; >1.5 m (5 ft) to 2.4 x 2.4 m (8 ft)

Large carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals, reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals, some flying animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

●Bats

Wales

Minimization

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

Bat tunnel installation = $180,000 (unsure if per tunnel or total)

●2.2 m and 1.8 m - diameter corrugated steel ellipitcal culverts installed on flight path/hedgerow lines ●Funnel leading to tunnels was planted to help continue hedgerow corridor effect

Wray, S., D. Wells., W. Cresswell, and H. Walker. Design, Installation, and Monitoring of Safe Crossing Points for Bats on a New Highway Scheme in Wales. Pages 369-379 IN Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, 2006.

http://www.icoet.net/ICOET_2005/proceedings/2005ICOETProceedingWeb.pdf

● Some large herbivores, carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals

Minimization/ Compensation

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

$70,932 (2007 $); fencing $27-42/m (Huijser et al. 2008)

●Elliptical culvert; 2m w x 1.5m h x 27.5m l (Huijser et al. 2008) ●Openness ratio =0.11 (Huijser et al. 2008)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/research_proj/wildlife_crossing/phaseii/annual_report_oct10.pdf

CLASS 3: Large - 2.4 m x 6.1 m (8x20 ft) or 3.1 x 3.1 m (10x10ft) to open span bridges

Large herbivores, large carnivores, small & medium-sized mammals, reptiles & amphibians, aquatic animals, some flying animals

ALL

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning/ Alternatives Analysis

Maintain connectivity between core habitats; maintain biodiversity; reduce WVCs

At-grade crossing: designated areas for wildlife to cross the roadway

At-grade crossing

Large herbivores, reptiles & amphibians

ALL

Minimization

Reduce WVCs

Examples:

●Mule deer

Minimization

n/a

Reduce WVCs

4-lane crosswalk - $28,000/2-lane crosswalk =$15,000; fencing

●2.3 m high fence ●1 m fence at funnel ●Cattle guard lines on road surface

Lehnert, M.E. and J.A. Bissonette. 1997. Effectiveness of highway crosswalk structures at reducting deer-vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(4):809-818.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3783727

●Mule deer

Minimization

n/a

Reduce WVCs

Utilized a deer-sensing warning system

●Warning signs 300 m e & w of migratory route crossing ●2.4 m high fence

Gordon, K.M., M.C. McKinstry, and S.H. Anderson. 2004. Motorist response to a deer-sensing warning system. Wildlfie Society Bulletin 32(2): 565-573.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784997

●Mule deer

West US

Minimization

n/a

Reduce WVCs

Temporary/seasonal warning signs; 6.5 -km strech of rd - $1,740 (lg signs=$400; small signs=$90; lights=$40)

●Signs at mile intervals in migration corridors

Sullivan, T.L., A.F. Williams, T.A. Messmer, L.A. Hellings, S.Y. Kyrychenko. 2004. Effectiveness of temporary warning signs in reducing deer-vehicle collisions during mule deer migrations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3): 907-915.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784815

●Amphibians

Minimization

n/a

Reduce WVCs

Temporary/seasonal warning signs

● Use standard roadway sign material ● Signs deployed seasonally to avoid "sign fatigue"

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

http://www.maine.gov/ifw/atv_snowmobile_watercraft/news_events/pressreleases/2009/07-10a-09.htm

●Ungulates

All

Minimization

n/a

Reduce WVCs

Animal detection system; cost- $9,000 - 350,000; Cost of installation: $3,000 - 60,000

●Overview of implemented systems throughout North America/Europe

Huijser, M.P. and P.T. McGowen. 2004. Overview of animal detection and animal warning systems in North America and Europe. IN: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the
Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 368-382.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2cc2s81w

RETROFIT STRUCTURE - modify an existing structure or roadway corridor to better facilitate wildlife passage over, under or across

Add ROW fencing to direct wildlife towards an existing structure

Examples:

●Moose

Quebec

Minimization

Reduce WVCs; maintain access between core habitats

Approx. $617,000; maintenance Approx: $12,780

●Bridge underpass w/1.5 m high electric fence ●Openness ratio of existing bridge underpass = 4.87 (23 l x 16 w x 7 h) ●Also included an at-grade crossing

LeBlond, M., C. Dussault, J.P. Ouellet, M. Poulin, R. Courtois, and J. Fortin. 2007. Electric Fencing as a Measure to Reduce Moose-Vehicle Collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management 71 (5): 1695-1703

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4496252

●Desert Tortoise

Minimization

Reduce WVCs; maintain access along corridor

●0.9-1.5 m diameter corrugated steel pipe ●1.4m diameter concrete, 3-3.6 x 1.8-3m concrete box culverts ●Openness ratio = <0.6 ●24 km long fence, 45 cm high, buried, mesh/hardware cloth

Boarman, W. I. and M. Sazaki. 1996. Highway Mortality in Desert Tortoises and Small Vertebrates: Success of Barrier Fences and Culverts. Pp. 169-173 In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.) Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality, Proceedings of the Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar. State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. FL - ER - 58 - 96

Discussed IN : http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/manage_issues/collision/amphibRep.pdf

●Turtle

Minimization

Project Planning Post-construction

Reduce WVCs; maintain access between core habitats

$15,250 for 2000 meters of fencing

●50 x 100mm 12 ga. PVC coated fencing or mesh ●Plastic UV resistent cable ties

Langen, Tom and John Falge. 2011 Design Considerations, Construction and Effectiveness of Fencing for Turtles. : Northern New York State Highway Traspostation Case Studies. New York State Wetlands Forum. April 2011.

●Herps

Minimization

n/a

Maintain access between core habitats

Low (until permanent design can be implemented)

●0.6 m temporary erosion control fence, buried 20 cm (0.4m above ground) ●Metal drainage culvert -3.5 m diameter x 46.6 m long ●Openness - 0.2

Aresco, M.J. 2005. Mitigation measures to reduce highway mortality of turtles and other herpetofauna at a North Florida lake. Journal of Wildlife Management 69 (2): 549-560.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3803725

●Lg herbivores

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning

Reduce WVCs

Estimated costs from Huijser et al 2008 - jumpouts = $6,425-13,241; wildlife guards - $30,840

●Bridge underpass w/ 8' fence w/ jumpouts (6-8'h) & cattle guards at fence ends (Craighead et al. 2010)

Craighead, L. A. Craighead, and L. Oechsli. 2010. Bozeman Pass Post-Fencing Wildlife Monitoring Project. Montana Department of Transportation.

ftp://161.7.16.40/research/OTHER/BOZEMAN_PASS/FINAL_REPORT-10-18-10.DOC.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm

Retrofit underpass structure with ledges or pathways to facilitate passage

Examples:

●Mountain lions

Minimization/ Compensation

Post-construction

Maintain access between core habitats

$1.4-1.6 million (revegetation/fence reconfig)

●Bridge underpass, pavement removal, re-vegetation ●$53 million (land acquisition) to restore patches on either side of crossing

Koelle, Alexandra. Cougar Corridors: Restoring the Missing Link in California's Chino Hills. The Road-RIPorter - Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. Spring 2003. Vol 8. www.wildlandscpr.org

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/files/uploads/RIPorter/rr_v8-1.pdf

●Bobcats/ocelots

Minimization

Project Planning

Maintain access between core habitats

●Box culverts modified with "catwalks" - 18- x 12- inch concrete elevated walkways through the length of culvert and along wing walls.

Hewitt, D.G., A. Cain, V. Tuovila, D. Shindle, and M.E. Tewes. 1998. Impacts of an expanded highway on ocelots and bobcats in southern Texas and their preferences for highway crossings. Page 126-134, In Evink, G.L., et al eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation.

http://www.icoet.net/downloads/98paper16.pdf

●Small mammals

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning

Maintain access between core habitats

●Round culverts - added 25" w shelves to culverts & vole tube ●Culverts 3 & 4' diameter (material unknown) ●Added vole tube (similar to gutter drainage pipe)

Foresman KR. 2004. Small mammal use of modified culverts on the Lolo South project of Western
Montana - an update. IN: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and
Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the
Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 342-343.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7cw8043j

●Small mammals

Minimization/ Compensation

Project Planning

Maintain access along corridor

$17 to $20 per linear foot

●Wooden ledges (2.54 x 15.24 cm cedar planks, 1.83 m l attached end to end), glued blocks of wood (5x10.16cm, 30.48 cm l) to culvert wall at 1.83 m intervals with Liquid Nails ●Ramps same size as planks, attached at ends ●All culverts openness ratio <0.6

Meaney, C., M. Bakeman, M. Reed-Eckert, and E. Wostl. 2007. Effectiveness of ledges in culverts for small mammal passage. Report No. CDOT-2007-9. Final Report. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO.

http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/pdfs/2007/smallmammal.pdf

Alter landscape: designing and managing habitats alongside roads with the aim of reducing collisions and/or facilitating safe passage across the roadway

Examples:

●Pygmy owl

Mexico/SW

Minimization

Project Planning

Reduce WVCs

●Plant/maintain lg trees close to roadway and in median ●Drop road surface below surrounding elevations

Flesch, A.D. and R.J. Steidl. 2007. Association Between Roadways and Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owls in Northern Sonora, Mexico. Final Report for Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning Group, Tuscon, AZ.

http://aaronflesch.com/Publications/Reports/Flesch%20and%20Steidl.%20%202007.%20%20Pygmy-owls%20and%20roadways%20Final%20ADOT%20Report.pdf

●Royal terns

Minimization

Project Planning

Reduce WVCs

10-day pole installation = $5,900 (materials + labor) (1994 $)

●Installed 122, 3m long silver-colored metal poles, 5.1 cm diameter, attached vertically, 3.7m apart on both sides of bridge

Bard, A.M, H.T. Smith, E.D. Egensteiner, R. Mulholland, T.V. Harber, G.W. Heath, W.J.B. Miller, and J.S. Weske. 2002. A simple structural method to reduce road-kills of royal terns at bridge sites. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):603-605.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784522