Classroom Presentations The following are summaries of the classroom presentations featured at the workshop. PDF versions of the PowerPoint slides for each speaker are provided where available. In addition, you can watch the video! (RealOne Player required.) If you have any difficulty downloading the PDF or video files, please contact CTE.

• Wildlife Linkage Areas: An Overview
  Bill Ruediger, USDA Forest Service
• Linkage Area Analysis in Washington State
  Peter Singleton, USDA Forest Service
• History, Structure Types, and Planning of the Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife Crossings
  Bruce Leeson, Ph.D., Parks Canada
• Wildlife Mitigation at What Cost? Design, Construction, Costs, and Engineering Aspects of the Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife Structures
  Terry McGuire, P.Eng., Parks Canada
• Effectiveness of the Trans-Canada Wildlife Crossing Structures
  Tony Clevenger, Ph.D., University of Calgary
• Wildlife and Transportation Issues in Europe: Results of the FHWA European Scan Tour
  Mary Gray, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
• Panel Discussion: Incorporating Wildlife Mitigation Techniques Into Your Transportation Planning and Programming
  Panelists: Paul Wagner, Washington State DOT (moderator); Thomas Pettigrew, USDA Forest Service; Paul Garrett, Ph.D., FHWA Headquarters; Jan Brown, P.E., FHWA-Montana Division; Joe Burns, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife Linkage Areas: An Overview
Bill Ruediger, Ecology Program Leader for Highways, USDA Forest Service
[Watch video, 36 min] [View slides, 1,437KB pdf]

The single-most important question a state or region can ask regarding wildlife habitat connectivity is “What are we trying to connect, and why?” Ruediger explained the importance of wildlife linkage areas (i.e., critical areas required to support wildlife habitats or populations) to the concept of sustainable landscapes. Currently, roadway areas have fragmented approximately 71 million acres of habitat in the United States, contributing to increased concerns about motorist safety (e.g., animal-vehicle collisions) as well as to species extirpation and extinction. Ruediger outlined a hierarchical process for linkage area analysis that provides fundamental information for planning and implementing the most effective wildlife crossing structures. The process contains broad-scale, mid-scale, and fine-scale approaches. In broad-scale analysis, one must recognize that animal migratory patterns do not respect political boundaries, and linkage area analysis must often be done on a statewide or regional level. In mid-scale analysis, linkage areas are examined with regard to specific highway or roadway segments. Fine-scale analysis involves the actual design and placement of crossing structures. Factors to consider at this stage include single- versus multiple-species use, as well as multiple use of structures (for example, some drainage structures also have the potential for improving habitat connectivity). Ruediger emphasized that wildlife linkage area analysis must be pursued from an inter-agency perspective. Assuming it takes an average of three years to build a functional, cohesive inter-agency team, said Ruediger, it is never too early for highway agencies, land management agencies, wildlife agencies, and other governmental entities to take the first steps necessary toward developing a collaborative approach to linkage area analysis.

Linkage Area Analysis in Washington State
Peter Singleton, Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service
[Watch video, 29 min] [View slides, 1,593KB pdf]

Singleton described the Washington State DOT project to develop a GIS-based, broad-scale modeling tool to evaluate multi-species, large-carnivore habitat connectivity in Washington State and adjacent areas (Idaho and British Columbia). The model is designed to help identify major highway segments that intersect potential large carnivore habitat and habitat linkage areas, estimate landscape permeability ratings for specific areas, and project least-cost corridor results for “fracture zones.” The model compiles regional data for land cover, roads and highways, population density and land ownership, topography, and hydrology. Because the model provides for a regional-scale assessment, it is not an appropriate tool for project-level investigations. Singleton prefers to use the term “landscape permeability,” instead of connectivity, to describe the quality of a heterogeneous land area to provide for passage of animals. However, he cautioned that landscape permeability does not necessarily dictate “suitability” of habitat. Singleton stated that the model is most valuable for conservation planning, identification of management priorities, and contributing to future field surveying efforts.

History, Structure Types, and Planning of Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife Crossings
Bruce Leeson, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Assessment Scientist, Parks Canada
[Watch video, 58 min]

Dr. Leeson provided a brief history of Banff National Park in Alberta, Canada, and the decision-making that led to the implementation of one of the most extensive networks of highway wildlife crossing structures in North America. The structures were constructed along the Trans-Canada Highway during the late 1980s and mid 1990s when the section of highway running through the national park was twinned to alleviate traffic congestion. Approximately one crossing structure was placed every 1.5 kilometers along the highway. Structures ranged from retrofitted drainage culverts to 50-meter-wide overpasses, and combined with fencing, have resulted in an astounding 95-percent reduction in animal-vehicle collisions, particularly for elk and large carnivores. Over the past 70 months, a total of 24 structures have been regularly monitored for wildlife activity, and more than 41,000 wildlife crossings have been documented to date. The highway runs parallel to the Canadian Pacific Railway, which unfortunately still presents a significant problem for the safe movement of wildlife within the park. Leeson added one interesting sidebar to his presentation. Kananaskis County, Alberta, recently hosted the G8 Summit. The legacy of the G8 Summit for Alberta was a gift of $5 million, of which $2 million will fund a chair of wildlife research at the university and $3 million will support the construction of a series of underpasses through the Bow River Valley near Canmore over the next year to further extend wildlife preservation in the area.

Wildlife Mitigation at What Cost? Design, Construction, Costs, and Engineering Aspects of the Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife Structures
Terry McGuire, P.Eng., Highway Service Center Director, Parks Canada
[Watch video, 53 min] [View slides, 1,025KB pdf]

McGuire, an engineer and highway service center director for Parks Canada, reviewed the various engineering aspects and costs associated with the wildlife mitigation measures implemented during the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park from 1981-1998. (Detailed information on the twinning project and its history is located at http://www.hsctch-twinning.ca.)

The implementation of such a large-scale project in an environmentally sensitive area as Banff National Park created a wide variety of environmental challenges. To minimize the environmental effects as well as to ensure motorist safety, numerous wildlife mitigation measures were implemented in the design. The importance of addressing theses challenges is reinforced by a Parks Canada mandate to maintain the long-term ecological integrity of the national park, which supports more than 20,000 vehicles per day during the summer, and an average of 15,000 vehicles/day year round. However, human safety remains the primary “selling factor” for the various environmental measures implemented, said McGuire. Ungulates (elk, deer, sheep, and moose) and large carnivores were the most frequent types of animals involved in collisions with motor vehicles in the park, but with the implementation of the various wildlife mitigation measures over the past decade, animal-vehicle collisions have been reduced by more than 95 percent.

Fencing was the most comprehensive mitigation structure used within the park along the Trans-Canada Highway to reduce wildlife mortality. The fence type was typically a 2.5-m-high, variable expanded metal mesh on pressure-treated wood posts. In 1991, this cost ~$28,500/km (Canadian) on each side; steel posts, used primarily in rocky terrain, cost significantly more at ~$90,000/km (Canadian) per side. In some cases, ground aprons were required to prevent some animals, such as coyotes, from digging under the fence, which increased fencing costs by 60 percent in those instances where its use was required. Use of fencing also necessitates consideration of passageways for humans or for wildlife connectivity. Costs for various gates ranged from $300 to more than $200,000 (Canadian) depending on the structure type (e.g., swing gate vs. Texas gate) and topography.

Mitigation measures implemented to establish wildlife connectivity include two 50-m-wide overpasses (~$1.5 million each) and 22 underpasses, ranging from small culverts to bridge spans (~$150/m to ~1,500/sq m) (Canadian). These structures have been monitored regularly for wildlife usage since 1996. A total of 41,764 crossings have been documented to date, and the structures are considered functionally effective during all seasons for the purpose of establishing and/or maintaining connectivity.

All mitigation measures combined represented nearly 15 percent (or $7.6 million) (Canadian) of the total project costs during Phases I and II (1982-87) and 29 percent (or $9.2 million) (Canadian) of the total project costs for Phase IIIA (1996-98). Unfortunately, no additional funds were allocated for long-term maintenance, and Parks Canada has struggled to maintain the integrity of these structures, using its existing limited budget. McGuire stressed that as Phase IIIB of the twinning project continues in the next few years, Parks Canada, as a result of previous experience, will be in a better position to more clearly define future wildlife mitigation objectives as well as criteria for establishing measurable results for the long term. With good planning, costs tend to decrease as the number of mitigation structures implemented early on increases. Species-specific mitigation costs remain difficult to estimate for species not backed by federal mandates.

Effectiveness of the Trans-Canada Wildlife Crossing Structures
Tony Clevenger, Ph.D., Research Ecologist, University of Calgary
[Watch video, 1 hour] [View slides, 2,633KB pdf]

Dr. Tony Clevenger has authored more than a dozen articles in peer-reviewed publications concerning his monitoring work on the wildlife mitigation structures implemented along the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park. While he emphasized that much additional research is needed to verify performance measures and best designs for certain structures, his work in Canada constitutes one of the longest monitoring periods (70 months) for wildlife structures incorporated as part of a federal-aid highway project.

During this period, Clevenger has used infrared cameras and tracking beds to document wildlife use of crossing structures (2 overpasses and 22 underpasses). More than 15,000 crossing structure visits have been documented during Phase IIIA of the highway twinning project (>41,000 crossing visits overall). While these data indicate that the mitigation structures have been “successful,” the effectiveness of such structures for the short and long term are affected by many and complex variables, such as:

• The ability to control traffic noise near structures
• Changes in species populations, movements, behaviors, etc.
• Dynamic aspects of ecosystems that are constantly changing
• Increased use of structures by humans (by foot, bike, horseback, etc.)
• Changes in surrounding land use and development patterns and priorities

DAY TWO

Field Trip

DAY THREE

Wildlife and Transportation Issues in Europe: Results of the FHWA European Scan Tour
Mary Gray, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Highway Administration
[Watch video, 30 min]

FHWA’s Mary Gray was a participant of the October 2001 scan tour of wildlife habitat connectivity across European highways. The results of the tour are now available in print through FHWA’s International Technology Exchange Program (Publication No. FHWA-PL-02-011) and on the web at http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/. Additional results will be incorporated into USDA Forest Service’s wildlife crossing structures toolkit (still in development) and CTE’s Wildlife, Fisheries, and Transportation Web Gateway research database. Gray reviewed the five European countries visited: Slovenia, Switzerland, Germany, France, and The Netherlands. While each country has a different approach to wildlife issues, they have formed an international network to share information. The Infra Eco Network of Europe (IENE) is coordinating information related to an international project titled, “Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructure,” which is leading Europeans to a more comprehensive strategy for addressing connectivity of Europe’s remaining green infrastructure. Following the tour, the FHWA scan team formed recommendations for the United States in four areas: policy, communications, guidance manuals, and research, all of which are detailed in the report.

Panel Discussion: Incorporating Wildlife Mitigation Techniques Into Your Transportation Planning and Programming

Panelists:

Paul Wagner, Senior Biologist, Washington State Department of Transportation
[Watch video, 13 min]

Wagner remarked that state transportation departments by necessity have become the agencies that are driving the wildlife and habitat connectivity issues “on the ground,” as they look at how to achieve permeability in transportation projects from planning, to construction, to maintenance. WSDOT is looking at these issues primarily on two levels: planning and project execution. One example is WSDOT’s fish passage program, which over the last 12 years has been incorporated into the department’s broader transportation plan. In Washington State, thousands of culverts are being retrofitted along thousands of miles of stream habitat to accommodate salmon passage. The DOT has been correcting problems as they are encountered on new road projects, and it has also established a stand-alone retrofit program that goes back to correct problems on existing structures. Approximately $2-4 million per biennium has been allocated for the retrofit program. It has proven successful, and WSDOT is pursuing the next step of looking at biological diversity on a broader scale. Currently, a statewide biodiversity plan is being pursued in Washington State with some funding support from the federal government. As it is developed, this plan will need to coordinate with the long-term transportation plan as well as adjacent land management plans. This is an ambitious undertaking, and WSDOT is approaching this challenge based on lessons learned from its fish passage program: (1) Establish an effective means for problem identification and prioritization, (2) Develop funding mechanisms and technical solutions to work the problem, and (3) Develop partnerships and funding for any research needed to fill knowledge gaps encountered along the way.

Thomas Pettigrew, Director of Engineering, Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service
[Watch video, 13 min]

Pettigrew believes that there exists a window of opportunity of perhaps only two decades to secure the most vital wildlife habitat linkage areas in the United States before they are compromised by development to the point that preservation is impossible. Pettigrew is currently leading a task force on grizzly bear recovery in the Northern Rockies, and described his work in this regard. The task force, comprising inter-agency, inter-disciplinary team members, addresses three areas critical to the recovery process: (1) public lands management, (2) non-public lands use, and (3) transportation corridors. The task force is charged with identifying management concerns between transportation and habitat linkage issues; the design, placement and monitoring of wildlife crossing structures within linkage areas; how monitoring results will be incorporated into environmental documents; and the roles and responsibilities of agencies and others involved in the designation and long-term maintenance of linkage areas. Pettigrew pointed out that this task force, while significant, is merely one initiative. He suggested that for widespread accomplishments to occur throughout the United States there needs to be “missionary work” – a full-time habitat linkage area team, for example, that could travel the country sharing and demonstrating the most successful tools and best practices related to linkage area analysis, wildlife crossing structures, and long-term maintenance and land management. Pettigrew believes that a four-person team, consisting of one representative each from transportation, local government, fish and wildlife, and public lands management, could accomplish much in a two- to four-year period with an operating budget of ~$3-5 million.

Paul Garrett, Ph.D., Ecologist, Federal Highway Administration Headquarters
[Watch video, 18 min]

Garrett asserted that many transportation and environmental professionals have been trapped in a mode of defensive decision making, which impedes progress and ultimately proves counterproductive given limited resources and research. As a result, flexibility is vitally important in the federal-aid highway program for mitigation and adaptive management, and he mentioned four TEA-21 authorities that facilitate flexibility:

• Wetland Banking Regulation (23 CFR 777)
• 4R Provisions: resurfacing, rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction
• Transportation Enhancements Program for connectivity and wildlife mortality reduction
• Reasonable expenditures of public funds – as long as they relate to a stated social goal, are legal, and serve a social/environmental purpose

Jan Brown, P.E., Division Administrator, FHWA-Montana Division
[Watch video, 21 min] [View slides, 1,609KB pdf]

Brown reviewed some of the current challenges related to wildlife mitigation in transportation, all of which emphasize the need for the development of a policies and procedures handbook. In Montana, for instance, the lynx is being investigated in three independent studies that are expensive and fairly uncoordinated, said Brown; this is the case for many species throughout the state (and nation). In another example, the widening of U.S. 93 in Montana encompasses numerous and complex environmental challenges. Opportunities to improve environmental sustainability and wildlife permeability are being effectively addressed on the existing alignment, but for this and similar projects, the needs exceed available funding. Furthermore, on a broader level, wildlife and fish populate large land areas and don’t recognize political boundaries, said Brown. Therefore, how can we accomplish meaningful wildlife stewardship? Brown asserted that teamwork and context-sensitive design are essential. Native Americans involved in the U.S. 93 project have referred to CSD as the “spirit of place,” where the road is perceived as a visitor to the landscape. If this attitude is adopted, then what can transportation offer as such a "visitor?" If the proper framework is in place, then transportation can offer upfront conservation investments in mitigation; predictability for transportation projects and conservation measures; just-in-time mitigation for wildlife; and assistance and support to the resource agencies. What do we need to accomplish this? We need justification, said Brown, for expenditures on wildlife with transportation dollars. We need good scientific data; ecosystem-level vs. species-level analyses; coordination and agreement among agencies; and long-term reliability of those agreements. How do we get there? Clarify and respect the differences of our unique missions, but continue to identify and collaborate on shared goals. Brown pointed to the “red book” – a framework for coordinating NEPA and the 404 process through programmatic agreements, public involvement, etc. -- as an example. She stressed that a similar multi-agency, shared-vision framework (i.e., handbook) for wildlife/fisheries and transportation must be developed, and is, in fact, in the formative stages. The first meeting to discuss a "Wildlife and Fisheries Policies and Procedures Handbook" is scheduled for October 1-2, 2002, in Washington, DC. Stay tuned!

Joe Burns, Transportation Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[Watch video, 16 min]

Burns recently accepted a new position in FWS, supported financially by FHWA, to help streamline federal environmental reviews. Burns said that one of his tasks is to help develop a framework by which transportation programs can progress in an environmentally sustainable way, such that impacts are clearly identified and then avoided or minimized using sound technical information. To accomplish this, one must take three approaches: (1) working with people, (2) working through processes, and (3) using products. Furthermore, a process of “successive approximation,” or “adaptive management,” is required: in other words, taking calculated risks, but not going so far out on a limb that you can’t fix any problems that the risk-taking process may generate. Burns stressed that existing authorities need to encourage and enable the agencies to try new ideas and apply them fairly aggressively. This must be followed by an effective technology transfer component so that others can be made quickly aware of promising new research information and best practices.

back to top
back to table of contents