onsible for the facts

arily reflect the official

sons interviewed.

 the level of precision

urers. Trademarks or

 essential to the

ghway Administration

e Initiatives, Inc. Any

d herein are those of

t, the authors’ parent
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-02-011

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways

5. Report Date

August 2002

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) Fred G. Bank, C. Leroy Irwin, Gary L. Evink, Mary E. Gray, 

Susan Hagood, John R. Kinar, Alex Levy, Dale Paulson, Bill Ruediger, 

Raymond M. Sauvajot, David J. Scott, Patricia White

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No.(TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-0005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Office of Policy

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Donald W. Symmes, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

Habitat and wildlife resources around the world have diminished to the point that transportation agencies are 

being asked to address impacts to these resources when implementing improvements to transportation systems. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO), and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) sponsored an 

international technology scan to learn what actions are being taken in Europe to address habitat and wildlife 

issues. A delegation of federal, State, and conservation group representatives visited Slovenia, Switzerland, 

Germany, France, and the Netherlands to observe and document efforts in Europe.

As a result of the trip, the team formed conclusions and recommendations for U.S. applications in the areas of 

policy, communications, guidance manuals, and research. In particular, the group recommends (1) including 

wildlife/transportation issues in the FHWA and AASHTO strategic plans; (2) creating a central source of 

contact for international exchange of information; (3) developing a number of guidance manuals pertaining to 

assessment methodologies, interagency coordination, terminology, and structures design; and (4) using pooled 

funds to study connectivity needs for all types of wildlife; and (5) funding a national connectivity study.

17. Key Words

Connectivity, ecoducts, green bridges, habitat, 

fragmentation.

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

from the 

Office of International Programs

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325

US Dept. of Transportation

Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

48

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

i

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways

Prepared by the Scanning Team:

Fred G. Bank

FHWA

C. Leroy Irwin

Florida DOT

Gary L. Evink

Report Facilitator

Mary E. Gray

FHWA

Susan Hagood

Humane Society of the

United States

John R. Kinar

Wisconsin DOT

Alex Levy

FHWA

Dale Paulson

Program Development

Engineer

and

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

&

Avalon Integrated Services, Inc.

for the

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

and

The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials

and

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(Panel 20-36)

of the Transportation Research Board

August 2002

Bill Ruediger

U.S. Forest Service

Raymond M. Sauvajot

U.S. National Park Service

David J. Scott

Vermont Agency of

Transportation

Patricia White

Defenders of Wildlife
ii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The FHWA’s international programs focus on meeting the growing demands of its

partners at the Federal, State, and local levels for access to information on state-ofthe-art technology and the best practices used worldwide. While the FHWA is

considered a world leader in highway transportation, the domestic highway

community is very interested in the advanced technologies being developed by other

countries, as well as innovative organizational and financing techniques used by the

FHWA’s international counterparts.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The International Technology Scanning Program accesses and evaluates foreign

technologies and innovations that could significantly benefit U.S. highway

transportation systems. Access to foreign innovations is strengthened by U.S.

participation in the technical committees of international highway organizations and

through bilateral technical exchange agreements with selected nations. The program

has undertaken cooperatives with the American Association of State Highway

Transportation Officials and its Select Committee on International Activities, and the

Transportation Research Board’s National Highway Research Cooperative Program

(Panel 20-36), the private sector, and academia.

Priority topic areas are jointly determined by the FHWA and its partners. Teams of

specialists in the specific areas of expertise being investigated are formed and sent to

countries where significant advances and innovations have been made in technology,

management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and financing.

Teams usually include Federal and State highway officials, private sector and

industry association representatives, as well as members of the academic community.

The FHWA has organized more than 50 of these reviews and disseminated results

nationwide. Topics have encompassed pavements, bridge construction and

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management, winter

road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, and policy.

Findings are recommended for follow-up with further research and pilot or

demonstration projects to verify adaptability to the United States. Information about

the scan findings and results of pilot programs are then disseminated nationally to

State and local highway transportation officials and the private sector for

implementation.

This program has resulted in significant improvements and savings in road program

technologies and practices throughout the United States, particularly in the areas of

structures, pavements, safety, and winter road maintenance. Joint research and

technology-sharing projects have also been launched with international counterparts,

further conserving resources and advancing the state of the art.

For a complete list of International Technology Scanning topics, and to order free

copies of the reports, please see list on the facing page.

Website: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Email: international@fhwa.dot.gov
iii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE REPORTS

International TechnologyScanning Program: Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways

Infrastructure

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality Enhancement-CATQEST

Pavements

European Asphalt Technology

European Concrete Technology

South African Pavement Technology

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments

Bridges

European Bridge Structures

Asian Bridge Structures

Bridge Maintenance Coatings

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in Europe

Planning and Environment

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy and Technology

National Travel Surveys

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads

Safety

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany and the Netherlands

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe & Australia

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

Road Safety Audits—Final Report

Road Safety Audits—Case Studies

Innovative Traffic Control Technology & Practice in Europe

Commercial Vehicle Safety Technology & Practice in Europe

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European Work Zones

Operations

Freight Transportation: The European Market

Advanced Transportation Technology

European Traffic Monitoring

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems

European Winter Service Technology

Snowbreak Forest Book – Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure Manual (Translated from

Japanese)

European Road Lighting Technologies

Policy & Information

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad—Handbook

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad—Final Report

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information

All publications are available on the internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov
iv

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

Objectives and Panel Composition ............................................................................. 2

Amplifying Questions ................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN CONTEXT ............................................................................... 3

Regulatory Context ...................................................................................................... 3

Biogeographical Context ............................................................................................. 4

Social Context .............................................................................................................. 4

Traffic Safety Context ................................................................................................... 5

Economic Context ........................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 3: HABITAT LOSS, FRAGMENTATION, AND WILDLIFE MORTALITY ................. 6

Habitat Loss ................................................................................................................. 6

Fragmentation ............................................................................................................. 6

Wildlife Mortality .......................................................................................................... 6

Secondary and Cumulative Effects .............................................................................. 7

Avoidance and Minimization ....................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 4: ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES ........................................................................ 8

Planning Techniques .................................................................................................... 8

Study Techniques ......................................................................................................... 9

Analytical Models ........................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION ........................................................ 12

Nonstructural Approaches .......................................................................................... 12

Structural Approaches ................................................................................................ 14

Maintenance Aspects ................................................................................................ 24

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 26

Policy .......................................................................................................................... 26

Communication Strategy ........................................................................................... 27

Guidance Manuals .................................................................................................... 28

Research Strategy ...................................................................................................... 29

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................. 30

Implemention Recommendations ............................................................................. 30

Evaluating or Demonstrating the Potential Scan Results ........................................... 31

Disseminating the Scan Results ................................................................................. 31
v

REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 33

APPENDIX A: EUROPEAN CONTACTS ......................................................................... 34

APPENDIX B: TEAM CONTACTS .................................................................................. 39

APPENDIX C: AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 41

APPENDIX D: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES ................................................................... 45
vi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADT Average daily traffic

CTE Center for Transportation and the Environment

DOT Department of transportation

EC European Council

EEC European Economic Community

EIA Environmental impact assessment

ESA Ecological Society of America

EU European Union

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GIS Geographic information system

IENE Infra Eco Network Europe

NGO Nongovernmental organization

SAC Special areas of conservation

SEA Strategic environmental assessment

SPA Special protection areas

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHI National Highway Institute

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TRB Transportation Research Board
vii

Executive Summary

With growth and development in many areas of the world, habitat and wildlife

resources have diminished to the point that transportation agencies are being asked

to address impacts to these resources when implementing planned improvements to

the world’s transportation systems. The issues involved in addressing these impacts

are international in nature. Therefore, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

sponsored an international technology scan to learn what actions are being taken in

Europe to address habitat and wildlife issues. An interdisciplinary delegation of

federal, State, and conservation-group representatives visited five countries to

observe and document efforts in Europe. The group visited Slovenia, Switzerland,

Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

Overall, the five European countries had much to offer as related to the objectives of

the visits. Although each country uses different approaches to address wildlife issues,

they have formed an international network to share information. The Infra Eco

Network Europe (IENE) is designed to bring together state-of-the-art information

through an international project known as “Habitat Fragmentation Due to

Transportation Infrastructure.” The project is leading Europeans to a more

comprehensive treatment of habitat-related issues, and the results ultimately will

benefit all of Europe and the rest of the world. This report summarizes the scan team

findings, by country, and concludes with detailed recommendations for possible U.S.

implementation.

SLOVENIA

Slovenia is a young country, as is reflected in the number and type of actions that the

country has been able to undertake with regard to habitat fragmentation and

transportation issues. Although the Slovenians have the necessary environmental

documentation processes and environmental laws to address wildlife issues in

transportation processes, some inconsistencies remain. One apparent inconsistency

observed in Slovenia was that the Eurasian brown bear is both a protected and a

legally hunted species. This unique situation has led to interesting perspectives when

addressing potential impacts to the species from transportation infrastructure. The

delegation observed efforts by parties outside the transportation ministry to bring

about project designs to accommodate wildlife. A survey that indicated the public’s

desire to accommodate habitat and wildlife considerations also was used to influence

transportation agency actions.

Slovenia is attempting to increase wildlife habitat (forests) and wildlife populations,

including bears and wolves. Slovenia has the opportunity to significantly

accommodate wildlife, with international connectivity implications. Connectivity to

the forests of Croatia and Italy exists, and there is the potential for further

improvements. As was the case in several of the European countries visited, hunting

is an important factor in wildlife management, and hunter information is extensively

used when examining connectivity needs.

Specifically in Slovenia, university and forestry personnel studied habitat

connectivity needs and wildlife behavior (the Eurasian brown bear in particular), and

then used public opinion to influence the transportation ministry to provide
viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

connectivity across highways. They also provided the transportation agency with

identified connectivity needs and further recommendations for the nation’s highways.

A public demonstration was held to express the need for action for wildlife on a

highway project. The result was a viaduct that was constructed for multiple

purposes—wildlife, hydrology, and human access. Subsequent studies of the structure

have indicated that a variety of wildlife cross under the structure. Fencing, including

electrical fence, is used on Slovenian highways to keep wildlife off of the highways,

thereby increasing motorists’ safety. The scan team believes that the situation in

Slovenia is similar to that in the United States. In the United States, the impact of

transportation on wildlife is an emerging issue, and it often takes diverse interests

joining together to influence actions on the part of the State transportation agencies,

through active public-involvement programs.

SWITZERLAND

In contrast to Slovenia, Switzerland has a long history of science and actions related

to wildlife in its transportation and environmental programs. It is evident that the

Swiss actions are scientifically based. Geographic information system (GIS)-based

identification of wildlife habitat and corridors has been completed, and, again, hunter

information is used to supplement science. Bottlenecks and voids in connectivity have

been identified. The remaining corridors have been categorized as impacted, impaired,

or interrupted, with only one-third categorized as intact. The main corridors are

forested, as riparian corridors are highly impacted throughout much of Europe. The

scan team observed attempts at riparian restoration. Landscape planning plays an

important role in Switzerland, and both habitat restoration and purchase for

connectivity are being undertaken.

Expert groups use scientific research to develop standards for assessment, design,

and mitigation. Scientific information from other European countries is extensively

used in this process, including investigations of other countries’ green bridges.

Diverse habitats on green bridges were scientifically identified as important to

providing connectivity for the broadest spectrum of species, from invertebrates to

ungulates. Considerations in vegetation selected even included avian and treedwelling species. For example, research documented the relationship of a highway to

badgers and the connectivity absent or present for badgers with the placement of

crossing structures.

The Swiss have a wide variety of structural and nonstructural measures for wildlife.

Overpasses (green bridges or ecoducts) of varying widths are a preferred structure for

maintaining connectivity for many species. There is a prevalence of multiple-use

overpasses with forestry roads and vegetation on the structures. These structures are

monitored using standard approaches such as tracks and photography, as well as

evolving technologies such as infrared video. Video cameras make it possible to

observe the behavior of the animals while using the structures. This research

indicates that overpasses with a width of 50 m or greater are used by the widest

variety of species, and that the animals exhibit natural behavioral characteristics

when using the structures.
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GERMANY

German actions regarding wildlife are legally and scientifically driven. Germany has

strong legal requirements, which primarily address motorist safety. Projects are

identified at the federal cabinet and parliament levels and then are provided to the

transportation ministry for implementation. The Federal Environment Ministry

(BMU) is consulted and enforces environmental actions in accordance with the

Nature Conservation Act, a Red List (threatened and endangered species), and the

Endangered Conservation Act. These actions are supported by the legal act of

conservation, including regulations for using land in a sustainable manner. Germany

has an early warning system of environmental risk assessment to help avoid

environmentally sensitive projects. Landscape planning plays an important role in

the identification of protected areas, protection of flora and fauna, and the general

protection and mitigation of impacts to the natural environment. Negative changes to

land use require compensation measures. The legal foundation is built upon the

mitigation of impacts, which is one important regulation contained in the legal act of

conservation. Considerable and sustainable impacts on nature balance and natural

scenery caused by projects (i.e., motorways) have legal consequences. Two

perspectives, home protection and nature preservation, influence the process. Project

managers are obliged to take measures in the case of considerable and sustainable

impacts. Three kinds of compensation are possible: in-kind, off-site, and compensation

fees (in-lieu-fee), in that order of preference.

Germany requires that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted at the federal level for

projects. Job creation and economic stimulation are factors considered in the

transportation program. Mathematical decisionmaking models of questionable value

were presented with the conclusion that an argumentative model (verbal description

of impairments) usually prevailed. Economic and social need can overpower

environmental need in the final analysis. However, the European Commission

directives and Nature 2000 program can overrule local decisions. In fact, legal

proceedings at the Commission level are possible.

As with some of the other European countries visited, landscape ecology principles

are being applied to highway planning. The team observed areas where adjacent land

use and distribution has been changed as a result of highway planning such that the

entire area benefited.

The legal requirements in Germany necessitate fencing (needed because many

highway stretches have no speed limit), signing, underpasses, overpasses (green

bridges), and land conservation as mitigation for transportation facilities. Germany

has the largest number of overpasses (32) of the countries visited. The overpasses

vary in width from 8.5 to 870 m. Eight more are under construction and 20 more are

planned. Forest and agricultural roads exist on about half of Germany’s overpasses. In

other cases, rocks are used to keep vehicles out of underpasses and off overpasses.

German engineers report that hourglass overpasses are similar in price to straight

shaped overpasses. The team observed extensive projects to keep amphibians off

roads by constructing additional barriers along fences. More than 100 such projects

for amphibians have been completed nationwide. The Germans also report that 130

bridges over rivers are designed to accommodate wildlife.
x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Monitoring of effectiveness is limited and deals mainly with vertebrates, although

some insect research is being conducted. Research presenting some evidence of road

density and noise relationships to wildlife species has been obtained in Germany.

FRANCE

France was the first European country to develop overpasses (green bridges) for

wildlife and has an extensive network of such structures. It also was the first country

where the team visited highways developed by private companies. In France, the

transportation plan is derived from a land-use plan whose goal is to have all residents

live within 5 km or 45 minutes from a limited-access highway or high-speed rail.

Roads are funded out of general tax funds rather than a gas tax. Using the Law of

Protection on Nature as guidance, both the environmental and the transportation

ministry must approve highway projects. There are no separate permits for various

aspects of a project—one approval does it all. There is an extensive publicinvolvement process to arrive at an alternative suitable to all parties. Legal challenge

is prevalent, and projects can take as long as 10 years to develop. Environmental

factors receive equal consideration with social and economic factors.

The transportation ministry objective is to increase motorist safety. Approximately 30

deaths a year result from animal-related accidents.

France has taken numerous measures to reduce wildlife collisions, and fencing is

required on all federal highways. Experts indicated that reflectors and deer whistles

were researched and found to be ineffective. They also reported that permanent

signing does little to reduce wildlife mortality. Culverts, underpasses, overpasses, and

viaducts have been used in France as structural alternatives. France was the first

European country to try hourglass-shaped overpasses, with the narrowest point from

8 to 15 m. France also has a large number of overpasses (green bridges) that were

built specifically for wildlife; the widest is 800 m. Structures are generally monitored

for a 1-year period and then revisited 3 to 5 years later. The monitoring information is

then used in future projects and guidance documents. France also has tried a number

of designs for amphibian crossings, including a trench and drop-inlet application with

one-way pipes. In another case, a plastic fence attached to the regular fence is used to

guide amphibians to culverts.

THE NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands is playing a leadership role in the European Community on wildlife

and transportation issues. However, the Netherlands has limited habitat for wildlife,

and the measures being taken are for a few remaining species. The most extensive

measures for badgers seem to have resulted from nongovernment organization (NGO)

inputs to the environmental and transportation ministries. Subsequently, the

transportation ministry has made it a priority. An extensive system of culverts

(approximately 600) is provided for these species, and retrofits are being done using

maintenance funds. The retrofits are based on a systemwide plan. The Netherlands

has 10 pipe-culvert systems designed specifically for amphibians that are

strategically located to provide for seasonal movements. Existing bridges and culverts

for waterways also have been modified to provide dry passage on wood or earthen

shelves along the insides of the structures, primarily for small-mammal movement.
xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Four overpasses, from 17 to 50 m wide, have been constructed. Overpasses have been

constructed with both the hourglass shape and straight sides, with both fences and

earthen berms for noise and light protection. Tree stumps are placed on or under

structures to provide cover for habitat and passage of small species. Researchers have

used sand beds, inkpads, and infrared cameras for detecting animal use of structures.

The Netherlands also has a national connectivity plan that is looked at in relation to

the transportation system and projects. For existing highways, maintenance forces

and funds are very much involved in implementing retrofit projects to implement the

connectivity plan. A philosophy of providing and improving connectivity across the

highway system prevails.

In the Netherlands, plans to restore habitat connectivity across roads are more and

more based on population viability analyses (population level) in addition to

information about locations with increased wildlife mortality from collisions

(individual level). Because loss of population viability is in many cases exclusively the

result of the presence of roads (barriers), both policymakers and managers give high

priority to restoring habitat connectivity across roads.

Some species are still seriously impacted by collisions with vehicles. Almost 25

percent of the Dutch badger population are killed on roads each year.

Recently, a study was started in the Netherlands to assess the effectiveness of

mitigation measures on the wildlife population level. This year suitable research

locations will be identified; next year a monitoring schedule will be worked out, partly

based on model simulations; and in the third year monitoring will start.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The team formed recommendations in four topical areas: policy, communications,

guidance manuals, and research. As relates to policy, the team believes that the

FHWA and AASHTO strategic plans should contain wildlife/transportation issues.

The new transportation bill should include funding for wildlife initiatives, including

retrofit projects. In early transportation planning, there should be stronger policy for

environmental factors, such as alternatives to avoid impacts on wildlife and habitat. A

policy of ecosystem-level mitigation should be implemented. A policy is needed for

consistency of highway alignments and designs with adjacent public landmanagement policy. To complement this policy, stronger public land management for

wildlife is needed along highways where measures have been taken for wildlife to

ensure future populations. A policy requiring postconstruction monitoring and

maintenance of measures for wildlife is also needed.

For communications, there is a need for a central source of contact for international

exchange of information. The central source of information at the Center for

Transportation and the Environment (CTE) needs support for further development.

The scan team believes that the publications of various wildlife societies and groups

should be used to disperse wildlife information. Similarly, the universities and State

wildlife agencies that conduct much of the wildlife research should be used to

disseminate information. Interagency cross training is desirable. The streamlining,

context-sensitive design, and stewardship programs in the State transportation

agencies should be used to share information.
xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The scan team has identified a number of guidance manuals that should be

developed. An assessment-method manual should be written. Guidance on

coordination with resource agencies and nongovernment agencies is needed. A

manual containing definitions of commonly used terms in the transportation/wildlife

science should be developed. A wildlife-structures design manual would aid design.

The guidance manuals should be developed in coordination with the FHWA and

AASHTO for publication as AASHTO manuals.

Pooled funds should be used for interagency efforts to study connectivity needs for all

types of wildlife in the United States, and a national connectivity study should be

funded. Research funding should support the effort to develop standard definitions of

commonly used language for the recommended guidance manual. The Transportation

Research Board (TRB) and AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment should

take leadership roles in all of these recommendations.
1

chapter 1:

Introduction

An understanding of the influences of transportation systems on wildlife ecology and

remedial actions to offset negative influences is an emerging science in the United

States. However, the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation

series and the current International Conference on Ecology and Transportation have

demonstrated that some European countries are ahead of the United States in this

area of science and application of research results. Furthermore, a network of

European countries (IENE) has played a leadership role in coordinating a European

effort to address wildlife-related transportation issues and provide for connectivity of

Europe’s remaining green infrastructure.

The IENE objectives are: (1) “to promote a safe and sustainable pan-European

transport infrastructure through recommending measures and planning procedures

to conserve biodiversity and reduce vehicular accidents and fauna casualties; (2) to

design methodologies for defining priorities when solving conflicting intersections

between nature and transportation infrastructure and implement them in the

environmental impact assessment and strategic impact assessment studies; (3) to

harmonize mitigation and compensation measures at European level; (4) to stimulate

national strategies on environment and transportation; (5) to promote international

and multidisciplinary research and monitoring; and (6) to improve public awareness,

education and training on habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure.”

IENE took the initiative to carry out these objectives under the European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) program known as

COST 341, “Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructure.” Each

member country has developed individual “State of the Art Reports,” and the group of

16 European signatory countries is currently working on a number of initiatives,

including a European Review on Habitat Fragmentation Due to Infrastructure; a

European Handbook on Fragmentation Due to Linear Transportation Infrastructure

(handbook of best practices); and an on-line database (related information database).

IENE members will disseminate the COST 341 products when they are completed

toward the end of 2003.

A number of states in the U.S. have taken a leadership role in addressing wildlife

ecology and transportation through policy, procedure, planning, project development,

design, construction, and maintenance initiatives related to wildlife. Limited

application of science in this transportation discipline has, however, often led to

subjective decisionmaking in relation to addressing issues. The States also vary

greatly in their treatment of wildlife issues because uniform standards are lacking for

assessment and treatment of wildlife-related impacts. Funding of wildlife-related

activities has only recently received attention in the transportation funding bills. To

advance understanding of wildlife and transportation issues, the FHWA and

AASHTO sponsored an international technology scan. A team of U.S. wildlife/

transportation experts visited five European countries that have, to varying degrees,

addressed wildlife in their transportation programs.
2

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES AND PANEL COMPOSITION

The objective of the international technology scan was to identify European activities

in the areas of (1) national initiatives, (2) technological tools, (3) wildlife assessment

methods, (4) mitigation measures, and (5) effectiveness of programs, methods, and

mitigation measures. The ultimate objective is to transfer appropriate best practices

to the transportation community in the United States. It is expected that this transfer

of information will lead to the reduction of barriers to addressing wildlife-related

issues. The team chose to visit Slovenia, Switzerland, France, Germany, and the

Netherlands because of their activities regarding wildlife issues. The U.S. delegation

met with representatives from the transportation and environmental ministries,

research organizations, consultants, and NGOs. Appendix A lists the representatives

with whom the team met. The trip took place from October 5-21, 2001.

The delegation was assembled under the FHWA International Technology Scanning

Program. A multidisciplinary team was assembled, including representatives from the

FHWA; U.S. Forest Service; U.S. National Park Service; the departments of

transportation (DOTs) of Florida, Wisconsin, and Vermont; Defenders of Wildlife; the

Humane Society of the United States, and a private consultant. Members were chosen

to represent a broad range of interest and expertise involved in the area of wildlife

and transportation. A list of the team members is contained in appendix B.

AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

Before embarking on the trip, the team developed a set of questions to send to experts

in each country so they would understand the interests and topics that the team

hoped to address. The questions were framed in the topical areas of policy, the

problem-identification process, the decisionmaking process, design and engineering

solutions, resources commitment, cost-effectiveness, highway safety, and ecosystem/

habitat perspectives. The list of questions is in appendix C. Appendix D provides

biographical sketches of team members.
3

chapter 2:

European Context

On the basis of the presentations and reports provided to the scanning team, it

appears that the IENE effort that resulted in the COST 341 project has permitted

European transportation agencies to gain a better understanding of ecological

processes. A landscape perspective is clear among the countries visited. Studies that

will be mentioned in this report include those on a variety of scales—international,

regional, landscape, and individual sites and target species. An understanding of the

dimensions of scale and hierarchical structure is evident in the work being done in

Europe. The long history of changes on the landscape has often resulted in complex

patterns of human activity on the natural systems. The fragmentation that is evident

on the landscape is being addressed through international cooperation and

information sharing, as well as through efforts by individual countries. The

transportation systems are being studied as they relate to natural populations and

the dynamics of individual species. One example is the consideration of the basic

requirements that necessitate animal movement—foraging, diurnal or commuting

movements, dispersal movements, and migratory movements. Provisions for habitat

connectivity are included in transportation planning to provide for ecological

networks of habitats that address the needs of all species to ensure sustainable

population dynamics. The importance of compatible land use adjacent to the highways

where provisions for wildlife have been implemented is evident in the countries

visited. Even as the Europeans gain a deeper understanding of these relationships,

they also recognize that additional research is needed to define the relationships of

the natural systems to the transportation systems.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

Each of the countries visited has its own laws for environmental issues associated

with transportation development. On a larger scale, however, there are European

directives designed to help address the international needs for environmental quality,

biodiversity, and habitat connectivity. The 15-member European Economic

Community (EEC) has issued a Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) for special protection

areas (SPAs) and a Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) for special areas of conservation

(SACs) for the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Accession

to the European Community requires that member countries adopt national laws and

procedures to comply with the directives. Article 8 of the Habitats Directive envisages

cofinancing of a Natura 2000 network by the European Community. The

establishment of the Habitats Directive component of Natura 2000 involves three

steps: preparation of national lists of sites, selection of sites at the European Union

(EU) level, and designation of the sites.

In addition, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (54 member

countries) has two initiatives that focus on biodiversity: the Convention of Biological

Diversity and the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. The

Convention calls for incorporating the consideration of biodiversity into plans,

programs, and policies. The Diversity Strategy envisions a sustainable Pan-European

Ecological Network representative of the rich diversity of ecosystems, habitats, and

species in Europe.
4

CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Furthermore, the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention of 1989 held a meeting

exclusively devoted to habitat conservation. The committee developed

recommendations for a network of areas of special conservation interest, known as

the “Emerald Network.” The resulting designations of Natura 2000 or Emerald

Network could constitute the desired Pan-European Ecological Network. Plans and

projects affecting these designated areas will require special attention to ecological

impacts, because violation of the intent of the EEC actions could result in legal

consequences.

BIOGEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT

The current distribution of species and habitats in Europe has been the result of a

long history of influence by humans. The land cover of pan-Europe is estimated to be

34 percent arable land, 17 percent coniferous forests, and 9 percent deciduous forests;

the remaining 40 percent is largely human development. Yet, Europe has a rich

diversity of habitats and species remaining. Analyses of species and habitats in

Europe under European nature conservation policies have resulted in the

identification of 11 biogeographical regions: steppic, pannonic, Anatolian, pontic,

boreal, continental, Atlantic, alpine, macaronesian, Mediterranean, and arctic.

Without detailing the biogeographical regions, it should be noted that diverse habitats

remain, and the EU hopes to preserve them through the Pan-European Ecological

Network.

SOCIAL CONTEXT

The team observed a different regard for the land and natural systems in Europe

from what we experience in the United States. First, European society accepts and

even supports greater government control of land use and land ownership than is

evident in the United States. The governments, especially in Switzerland and

Germany, have responded to the support by incorporating social considerations into

the landscape. The team visited a number of areas where landscape planning includes

corridors for human movement along with those for animal movement. The corridors

often connect large conservation areas established for ecological and aesthetic design

purposes. In rural areas, paths for pedestrian and bicycle movement through wellplanned landscapes occupy space in corridors that also are designed for animals. Park

benches and picnic tables are not uncommon in these corridors, and, during the visits

to the sites, the team observed people using the facilities. Numerous species of

wildlife have been observed in these areas, and it is evident that other wildlife could

use the corridors during the nighttime hours. The efforts of the government, combined

with the population’s regard for the land, also have resulted in the absence of junk

(old cars, dilapidated buildings, litter, etc.) that is common in the United States. The

result is a beautiful landscape that accommodates not only human recreation and

aesthetic needs but also is functional for the wildlife in the areas. Certainly, the

remaining wildlife is limited, because there are few “wilderness” areas and an absence

of large carnivores.

A second social observation was the effort by governments to include the public and

NGOs in its process. There seems to be a genuine concern for local needs, including

environmental quality, so the transportation planning process in several of the
5

CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN CONTEXT

countries visited took many years with numerous efforts to consider social needs. The

team met with NGOs that are active in the transportation planning process in all of

the countries. Such social interactions with transportation agencies clearly influence

transportation planning in these countries.

TRAFFIC SAFETY CONTEXT

In each of the countries visited, the motorist-safety aspect of collisions with wildlife

was an issue. The recordkeeping in the countries does not permit quantitative

definition of the problem, but motorist injuries and fatalities with substantial

financial costs were noted. Fencing of motorways to reduce collisions with wildlife is a

common practice. One case mentioned to the team involved a motorist who is suing

the government after a collision with a wild boar, despite the fact that boars were not

a problem prior to fences being erected.

ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Similar to the case for safety, recordkeeping largely precludes quantitative costbenefit analysis in most European countries. Rather, the costs and benefits are

expressed in qualitative terms, such as the public willingness to pay for different

types of landscapes. In Germany, a three-phase approach has been used that considers

avoidance costs (avoiding effects on nature or landscape), compensation costs (using

recent experiences to estimate reasonable costs for compensation measures), and

repair costs (estimated in a manner similar to compensation costs).

Payment for wildlife features on transportation projects is the responsibility of the

agency or group building the project. In some cases, private firms recover the costs

through tolls on the roads. In such cases, the private firm is responsible for

mitigation/compensation similar to that required for the public transportation agency.

Public projects are financed either with gas-tax funds or a combination of these funds

with general revenue funds. In France, projects developed by transportation agencies

are financed with funds from the general revenue.
6

chapter 3:

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and

Wildlife Mortality

With the possible exception of Slovenia, which is experiencing an increase in forest

habitat, past losses of habitat have diminished the resources of the other countries to

the extent that the issues of further habitat loss, fragmentation of habitat, and

wildlife mortality are evident. The Slovenians have had an opportunity to prevent the

problems seen in the other countries, through careful planning and implementation of

mitigation and compensation measures, to make their highways compatible with their

abundant ecological resources.

HABITAT LOSS

The problems associated with further habitat loss in most European countries are

obvious. The landscape has been changed such that natural areas are limited and,

therefore, are important to any ecological network envisioned by the EU. Decreasing

areas of habitat support decreasing populations of flora and fauna. The result is a

patchwork of small pieces of disconnected habitat with little connectivity. In most

European countries, large carnivores are either rare or extirpated. Of the countries

visited, Slovenia appears to have the best chance for sustainable populations of large

carnivores and other wildlife, given the current policy to address these issues.

FRAGMENTATION

One of the consequences of habitat loss is diminished connectivity of habitats, which

results in fragmentation that limits the natural movement of wildlife to support their

life-cycle requirements. Consequently, the animals in a given area experience physical

isolation and eventual extirpation. Fragmentation of habitat by highways occurs

when animals avoid the area of the road, are unable to cross the road, or are killed on

the road. Known as the “barrier effect,” this phenomenon has impacts on the fauna

from individual to species-population levels. Although experts in all of the European

countries visited were trying to address fragmentation, only the Dutch have a

defragmentation program in place. Measures to address this issue are discussed in

chapter 5 of this report.

Some corridors of habitat may remain large enough in size to support connectivity.

When these corridors are constricted and crossed by transportation infrastructure,

however, bottlenecks may occur. European countries are actively identifying such

areas through the use of GIS. National plans for the Pan-European Ecological

Network will help identify important bottlenecks at transportation facilities that

require remedial actions.

WILDLIFE MORTALITY

As is similar to the situation in many areas of the United States, diminished natural

resources have resulted in rare or endangered species and habitats throughout

Europe. In areas where this situation already exists and the transportation facility

adds a mortality factor, problems result. The number of animals killed on a facility

may be low, yet still have a devastating effect on the population because of low
7

CHAPTER 3: HABITAT LOSS, FRAGMENTATION, AND WILDLIFE MORTALITY

numbers in the animal populations. This is especially true for organisms with low

reproductive capabilities.

The few studies of wildlife mortality that have been conducted in Europe indicate

that, in some areas, mortality numbers can be high for certain species. This can

especially be true during migratory periods or in areas with high populations of a

species, and was the case in all of the countries where amphibian structures were

placed in areas of seasonal movement. The European countries also had high

numbers of ungulates (mainly roe deer and red deer) killed in areas of high

population.

The Europeans recognize a relationship among traffic volume, speed, and wildlife

mortality. Results indicate that traffic volumes of 10,000 average daily traffic (ADT)

represent a complete barrier to animal movement for some species, and that many

species suffer 50 percent mortality when crossing highways with volumes as low as

2,000 ADT. Therefore, measures to reduce mortality are indicated for highways with

elevated traffic levels. As mentioned, fencing is a common safety practice, but fences

exacerbate fragmentation where measures are not taken to provide connectivity.

Therefore, the theme in Europe is to provide both.

SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In Europe, secondary and cumulative effects of transportation facilities as related to

land-use changes are being addressed by landscape planning at the local and federal

levels. Government control of land use in Europe is greater than in the United States.

The team observed examples of planning that resulted in changes to the landscape

and even property ownership that had very positive ecological significance.

Coordinated efforts that result from the transportation action are reported in chapter

4 of this report. Local planning to address growth and development issues of

transportation projects occurs in the United States, but, because of strong individual

property rights, the results are often less than what is actually necessary to address

secondary and cumulative impacts of transportation projects. The Europeans are

clearly doing a good job of addressing these issues because of stronger government

controls of land use.

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION

For sites identified in the EU’s Habitat and Species Directives, avoidance is a

requirement, because these are highly protected areas. According to the Directives, if

development is approved in these sites, compensation is required.

For sites not identified in the Directives, no formal legislation requiring avoidance

and minimization was evident in the countries visited. Once the decision is made to

implement a project, internal policy or procedure dictates efforts to avoid impacts by

changing alignment or constricting the typical section. Mitigation resulted where

avoidance and minimization were not possible.
8

chapter 4:

Analytical Techniques

Land-use planning in Europe is the responsibility of each individual country, and, as

in the United States, it is a local initiative with federal oversight. In the 1990s,

however, the EU undertook two initiatives to provide guidance. The first was the

Committee on Spatial Development, to work on land-use planning. The second was

the European Spatial Development Perspective, which finalized a report on spatial

development and trends as well as policy goals.

PLANNING TECHNIQUES

For planning purposes and to fulfill the vision of a Pan-European Ecological Network,

most European countries are developing national ecological network plans. As these

plans are completed, they will be used to implement actions—the Netherlands is

currently at the latter stage.

At the local level, highway planning includes landscape perspectives. In Switzerland,

France, and Germany, highway planning results in landscape-level actions that

include habitat acquisition, habitat restoration/creation, connectivity plans (human

and wildlife), and even redistribution of land ownership.

The techniques used are similar to those in the United States in that GIS are

developed that include inventories of the components of the landscape. Extensive

public involvement, including participation of NGOs, is evident in the planning and

project development processes.

The role of public involvement in the planning process is especially evident on a

highway project in Slovenia where a public-opinion survey and public demonstration

resulted in the placement of a viaduct on the Ljubljana-Postonjana Highway for

wildlife/human connectivity and hydrologic needs. The team also observed that the

input of NGOs was important for protection of the badger and other wildlife in the

Netherlands.

In Germany and Switzerland, the team observed the results of collaborative local

planning with multi-interest participation. Landscape-level actions are the result of

transportation projects, and these projects are detailed as case studies in chapter 5.

In addition to the Habitats and Bird Directives, the EU issued a directive (97/11/EC)

that calls for a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and, for major

infrastructure projects, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to foresee

potential environmental problems from plans and projects. The content requirements

for these documents are similar to those of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) in the United States.

Specific guidance for transportation planning is being developed under the COST 341,

European Handbook project. As of the team’s visit, the Handbook was being drafted.

Relative to routing options and alignment, the Handbook guidance addresses the

permanency of transportation infrastructure and the need for great caution when

considering the sometimes limited knowledge about the ecological factors involved in

the potential project area. A discovery process that starts with defining the study area
9

CHAPTER 4: ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

through inventory of causes of fragmentation, natural features, fauna, and flora is

recommended. The transfer of the information to cartography is the next step. This

information is used for collaborative, multidisciplinary evaluation of the potential

impacts of the alternative routes, thereby leading to a prioritization of routing

options. Another recommendation is the use of the same corridors for multiple

infrastructures to reduce fragmentation possibilities from numerous transportation

corridors. Again, this approach is similar to techniques being used in the United

States.

The primary difference between the U.S. and European approach is the large

perspective that the European planning efforts encompass. As mentioned earlier,

there is a clear understanding of the scale of ecological factors. From individual

projects to the Pan-European Ecological Network, there is an understanding of the

importance of transportation infrastructure to the potential success of these

initiatives.

STUDY TECHNIQUES

The study techniques used in Europe to determine potential wildlife impacts and

monitor the success of subsequent mitigation methods also do not differ significantly

from what is happening in the United States, although, in some countries, they are

being used more extensively.

Wildlife mortality on the highways is used as an indicator of problem areas, although

no standardized requirements for monitoring wildlife mortality were observed. The

case was similar to that in the United States in that necessity leads to the action of

monitoring mortality rather than a standardized program of continuous monitoring.

Limited studies indicated that species-specific mortality could be problematic in some

locations, and the site-specific information was then fed into the evaluation process.

Game hunters’ knowledge of local circumstances and wildlife populations is used

more extensively in Europe than in the United States. With the exception of the

Netherlands, transportation and environmental agencies, as well as the academic

community, are using information from hunters in the decisionmaking process for

planning and project-level discovery. In fact, in Slovenia, the hunters and landowners

are an important component of the wildlife management process and even feed

wildlife to provide populations for hunting. This fact permits the hunting of the

Eurasian brown bear, which is a protected species in Slovenia.

As mentioned earlier, GIS is being used, often on a landscape scale, to identify

important habitats, associated wildlife, and their relationship to the planned or

existing transportation infrastructure. A good example of this approach was

conducted in Slovenia. Dr. Andreij Kobler and Dr. Miha Adamic (1999) used a GISbased model to identify core bear habitat areas in relation to the LjubljanaPostonjana Highway. They used bear-sighting information from hunters and radiotracking data to identify important habitat in the proximity of the highway. Their

research resulted in the identification of important areas along the highway for

connectivity, resulting in the recommendation for ecoducts at these locations (figure 1,

next page).
10

CHAPTER 4: ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

As part of the

development of the

European Handbook,

there have been

discussions of

minimum standards

for evaluation and

monitoring of measures

taken for wildlife,

whether structural or

nonstructural. Lack of

standardized methods

and study designs in

the United States and

Europe limits

comparability of data

and information

obtained as to the

effectiveness of a

measure. As in the

United States, the Europeans also discuss what constitutes an “effective” measure. Is

reduced mortality on the highway success? Is the measure connectivity at the

population level? For what species? Land-management goals in the area play a role in

what is considered effective. European countries are looking at the large landscapes

in planning for effectiveness and providing crossing

structures that accommodate most species in the

landscape, from insects to large carnivores.

France requires monitoring upon completion of a

structure. The monitoring period is for 1 year, with a

revisit after 5 years to determine any necessary changes.

Germany also requires monitoring for new structures.

All countries visited have monitored the effectiveness of

some structures with some good results, but this activity

is not standardized in design or duration. Some of the

study results are discussed in chapter 5.

No new methods for monitoring wildlife passages are

being used in Europe. Sand and ink beds are being used

by most of the countries to monitor wildlife movement

through structures of various sizes. Sand beds have

proved to be a cost-effective method for documenting

wildlife movement. Ink beds are largely used for

tracking smaller animals. To a lesser extent, electronic

counters (transponders) are used to record animal

movement through crossings, sometimes in conjunction

with sand or ink beds.

The use of infrared still cameras to record animal

movement through structures was observed in all of the

Figure 1. Proposed locations of ecoducts on the Vrhnika–

Senozece Highway section.

Figure 2. Infrared still camera setup

with protective case on Slovenian

bridge.
11

CHAPTER 4: ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

countries. Figure 2 shows the

camera setup on a Slovenian

bridge. The use of infrared video

cameras is more extensive than in

the United States, and figure 3

shows a Swiss researcher with an

infrared video camera setup. The

video cameras are used to observe

the behavior of animals using

overpasses.

Similar to the United States,

European scientists also are using

radio telemetry equipment to

document animal movement in

habitat and connectivity studies.

The results of studies using these

techniques also are discussed in

chapter 5.

ANALYTICAL MODELS

The COST 341 report, Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructure,

contains a discussion of models to predict fragmentation by new infrastructure. The

report identifies three categories of models: dispersion, meta-population, and expert

system models.

Dispersion models are usually individual species–based models that look at animal

movement and dispersal over either local or regional-scale habitat mosaics. The

quality of the model depends on the knowledge about the animals and habitats

modeled. The models can be used to look at relative abundance of animals, over time,

modeled to identify barriers and evaluate landscape connectivity. GRIDWALK,

POLYWALK, and SmallStep are some commercially available models of this type.

Meta-population models are numerical, species-specific survival models that look at

population dynamics (birth, death, dispersal, and migration) in relation to regional

habitat features (quality, size, and connectedness). Sometimes they are not spatially

explicit, as regards habitats. The results are survival estimates that are used to

evaluate landscape suitability for populations of species. Examples of this type of

model are METAPHOR, RAMAS, and MET-X.

Expert systems are models that use thematic maps to examine ecosystems and

network populations to compare different landscape scenarios to support

decisionmaking in considering project alternatives. Examples of this type of model are

GREINS, LEDESS, and LARCH.

The team was given a presentation of how the Netherlands is using LARCH in its

decisionmaking process. The Netherlands seems to be the country that is most

actively developing and using models in relation to transportation infrastructure.

Figure 3. Swiss scientist with infrared video camera.
12

chapter 5:

Mitigation and Compensation

In the countries visited, mitigation and compensation for potential impacts to

ecological systems are anticipated as part of the planning and project-development

processes. Mitigation is perceived as the reduction of impacts by using structures or

strategies when planning and developing infrastructure. Compensation, on the other

hand, has implications in the international European Council (EC) Directives on

Habitat and Species. Conceptually, compensation that replaces the same ecological

values is mandatory under these directives. Since all countries visited have

implemented the EC Directives for an EIA procedure that requires assessment of

environmental impact analysis during the alternative routing phase (prior to

decisionmaking), compensation requirements apply. Member country laws governing

spatial development planning also include consideration of the EC Directive

imperatives.

NONSTRUCTURAL APPROACHES

Nonstructural approaches to changing motorist or animal behavior would be the

preferred and, often, most cost-effective means of reducing wildlife mortality and,

perhaps, improving connectivity across transportation corridors. A number of these

techniques were reported in the draft Europe State of the Art Report.

Olfactory Repellents

Some initial work has been done in Europe to look at olfactory foam repellents that

contain mixed scents (human, predator, other unpleasant odors) to raise animal

awareness or keep them away from roads. The foam is sprayed on trees or other

structures along the road. Limited research indicates some promise in this area,

although further research is needed. There is also an extensive maintenance

requirement associated with this approach that could be expensive—keeping fresh

scent out there.

Ultrasound

Ultrasound is another approach that has been tried in Europe. There was no evidence

of mortality reduction for those instruments that were researched.

Road Lighting

Road lighting was looked at in relation to wildlife mortality, with the conclusion that

it is not effective for reducing wildlife mortality. In fact, highway lighting may have

negative impacts on nesting birds in the Netherlands (Molenaar et al., 2000). A

reduction in habitat quality for nesting, which could extend several hundred meters

from the road, was evidenced.

Population Control

Population control through habitat management and hunting is another approach

being tried in Europe. While this approach may be locally successful for reducing

wildlife mortality, it does not address the larger issues of ecological quality and

connectivity.
13

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

Figure 4. Dutch overpass modified with vegetation and

stumps.

Habitat Modification

Adaptation of habitat is another practice that has been tried in Europe. This

technique is used principally along the highway to keep animals away from the road

or to increase driver and animal visibility. Vegetation is cut in a 3- to 10-m strip along

the road to reduce collisions of vehicles with large mammals. Plant species are

carefully selected to make the roadsides less desirable for feeding. The team also

observed the planting of desirable species and cover to direct animals to wildlifecrossing structures. This type of habitat adaptation was reported to be very successful

for a wide variety of animals, including arboreal (tree-dwelling) species. The

intentional planting of a continuous canopy is being carried out on large overpasses

for these species.

Stumps and other structures (rocks, piles of debris, etc.) are used for cover for smaller

organisms, when placed with

wildlife structures. Rows of stumps

are a common feature on Dutch

overpasses and underpasses (figure

4).

On a larger scale, total landscape

planning that includes structures

for human and wildlife connectivity

is being carried out in Europe. The

team visited several sites where

this technique is being used. In

Switzerland, habitat corridors have

been planted along Highway A1 to

provide cover for animals using

culverts under the highway. The

Swiss also are planting habitat

adjacent to overpasses to provide

cover for wildlife approaching large

overpasses on Highway N4.

The Germans are implementing large-scale landscape planning that uses the

transportation project as the catalyst to develop structures for connectivity for

wildlife and humans. The team visited an overpass that was large enough to

accommodate both wildlife movement and serve as a local farm road (figure 5). In

another rural area, near Lake Konstanz, the team visited a site where the habitat

along the lake has been preserved and a system of wildlife and human features for

connectivity has been constructed. Although totally planned, the aesthetic and

ecological qualities of the area are outstanding (figure 6).
14

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

STRUCTURAL APPROACHES

Fence Applications

Fences are used extensively in

Europe to keep wildlife off of the

major highways. The team observed

a variety of fence types. A fine mesh

wire (2 x 2 to 4 x 4 cm) is often seen

on the bottom one-third to one-half

of the fence to prevent both small

and large animals from accessing

the highway right-of-way. A fence

height from 2.6 to 2.8 m is used for

ungulates such as red deer, roe deer,

and moose. This height needs to be

maintained through terrain

features and above winter snow

levels. The fence is installed on the

outside of the poles so that larger

animals do not push it away from

the poles. Smaller mesh fence

should be buried from 20 to 40 cm

underground to prevent small

animals from digging under the

fence. Figure 7 shows a number of

fence types included on European

projects.

Exits from the inside of the fence

include one-way gates or, preferably,

earthen ramps that allow the

wildlife to get over the fence (figure

8, page 16) if trapped in the rightof-way.

Reflectors

Reflectors that beam light from headlights into adjacent habitats have been well

researched in Europe. Molenaar and Henkens (1998) conducted a literature review of

research on this type of structural alternative and concluded that there was no

evidence that the reflectors worked or didn’t work. The COST 341 report also

concludes that these devices are ineffective.

Signing

Countries visited reported that standard wildlife signing has proved ineffective in

Europe, because drivers become accustomed to them. The European countries are now

using combination approaches. Combining wildlife signs with speed limit signs seems

to increase their effectiveness. Including flashing lights also is believed to increase

the effectiveness. The Swiss are using a series of solar-powered heat sensors to

Figure 6. Wildlife and human corridor to wildlife conservation

area, along Lake Konstanz, Germany.

Figure 5. German overpass with forest road and vegetation.
15

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

determine animal presence, which then triggers a fiberoptic wildlife warning sign to

reduce speed to 40 km/h (figure 9, page 16). This installation has significantly reduced

wildlife mortality on a two-lane regional road (Kistler, 1998).

Noise Barriers

The COST 341 effort reports that, although noise barriers are typically constructed to

reduce noise to human dwellings, noise barriers for wildlife have been used in Europe

principally for colonies of nesting birds. Because the noise barriers are solid

Figure 7. Various European fence applications.
16

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

structures of wood or concrete, they

often form complete barriers. They

introduce further fragmentation

into the landscape and, therefore,

have to be used carefully. When

used in association with wildlifecrossing structures, they can guide

wildlife to the structures. Little

research has been conducted on the

problems or remedial aspects of

these structures.

Amphibian and Other SmallSpecies Culverts

Amphibian culvert systems were

observed in all countries, except

Slovenia. Culverts are placed in

known areas of amphibian

movement to alleviate mortality on roadways. A number

of approaches are used. It should be noted that these

systems serve the movement of other small animals, as

well as amphibians.

Several types of barriers were observed for amphibians.

Trenches are used to direct them to culvert structures

under the roads. In Switzerland, a one-way system using

a pipe for each direction was observed. A concrete trench

is used to direct the amphibians to a drop inlet into the

pipe leading to the other side. On the wetland side, pipes

leading back to the other side are present (figure 10).

Grossenbacher (1985) and Ryser (1988) reported that

this system was more effective than just single pipes in

which the amphibians could move in either direction.

A metal rail type system was observed in Germany to

direct reptiles and amphibians to wildlife culverts under

Highway B30. In France, a fine mesh plastic material

similar to silt screen is used at the bottom of fences to

direct smaller animals, including amphibians, to culverts

and overpasses. France also was using concrete walls to

keep amphibians out of harm’s way, but has since

stopped using this expensive application.

The Dutch use fine-meshed fence at the bottom of typical

highway fences to direct reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals to culvert pipes

under their highways. Generally, concrete or metal pipes and rectangular tunnels

were observed, with diameters approximately 0.4 to 2.0 m, although larger culvert

structures were seen that could accommodate amphibians as well as other wildlife.

Figure 11 (page 18) shows several of these applications in Europe.

Figure 8. One-way door for small mammals on fence near

Dutch overpass.

Figure 9. Fiberoptic speed limit sign,

triggered when wildlife approaches the

road.
17

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

The Europeans also are modifying curbs and drains to prevent entrapment of reptiles

and amphibians. In areas where amphibians are present in large numbers, ramps or

breaks in the curb are provided, periodically, to allow exit from the roadway. Mesh

screens are used over drainage inlets to keep the amphibians from becoming trapped

in pipes.

Underpasses for other small species are similar in design to those used for

amphibians. An accepted approach to providing habitat for smaller animals is the

placement of rocks, stumps, and other debris in and around structures. In fact, this is

becoming a common practice on larger structures, which are discussed next. Another

approach used in Europe is providing plant cover around pipes or box culverts for

smaller animals.

Underpasses for Medium-Sized and Large Mammals

As might be expected, larger animals require larger structures. In fact, some species

of larger mammals will only use very large underpasses or require overpasses or

viaducts before they will move across highway corridors. This situation was observed

for ungulates in research on structures in Slovenia. The dimensions for pipe and box

Figure 10. Concrete

trench, drop inlet, and

one-way pipe for

amphibian crossing.
18

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

culvert underpasses vary greatly, depending on the wildlife being accommodated. For

smaller mammals, widths of 5 to 12 m are common. Widths of 25 m or more are used

for larger mammals; structures of these dimensions are typically box culverts or

bridges over land.

Heights of structures vary, according to specific animal considerations. Generally,

heights of 3 to 5 m have been successful. As mentioned earlier, structures such as

stumps and piles of debris are often provided under larger crossing structures as

cover for smaller animals.

The team visited a number of underpass structures for medium to large mammals. In

France, the team visited an underpass on Highway 71 that was 3 m high and 6 m

wide (figure 12). A private consultant is monitoring 9 passages with similar

dimensions on this 15-year-old highway. Use of the crossing varies from year to year,

and may be influenced by private land management adjacent to the crossing, as well

as fluctuating wildlife populations in the area. The team also visited a wet culvert (3

m high x 6 m wide) that had been modified with a dry ledge to accommodate wildlife

movement on Highway 71.

Figure 11. Fine mesh fence (the

Netherlands), plastic barrier

(France), plastic fabric fence

(France), and rail (Germany):

Applications for amphibians.
19

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

Figure 12. French box culvert overpass (3 m high and 6 m

wide).

Figure 13. French pipe culvert for small mammals and

amphibians.

On A-87, which is 40 km north of

Orleans, France, the team visited a

new four-lane, divided highway not

open to traffic. The contractor,

Cofiroute, has used approximately

3.5-m pipe culverts for amphibians

and smaller animals (figure 13).

In Germany, Highway B-30, another

new route, has arch-pipe culverts for

use by amphibians and small

mammals (figure 14, next page).

Fencing is designed to keep both

small and large animals off of the

highway and includes a rail system

to guide amphibians to the

crossings.

In Switzerland, pipe culverts for

small animals are aligned with

adjoining hedgerow habitat

plantings on Highway A1. Pond

habitat is included in the restored

habitat area for amphibians and

other wetland species. The

hedgerow serves as a corridor of

habitat that leads animals to the

culverts.

Overpasses

The overpass is considered quite

successful for the largest spectrum

of animals. The presence of habitat

and structure on overpasses allows

for use by everything from insects

to large carnivores. European

overpasses vary in width from

approximately 8 m to several hundred meters and are often referred to as “landscape”

or “green bridges.”

The French often use an hourglass-shaped overpass design that is constricted in the

area of the road in order to reduce structure cost. These overpasses usually have a

width of 8 to 15 m at the narrowest point. On the tour of the A-87 project, the team

observed four overpasses with the hourglass design (figure 15, next page). The

narrowest point on these structures was 12 m, and 50 cm of soil was placed on the

structures for vegetative growth. At one end of an overpass, there is a constructed

pond for use by amphibians. Large boulders were placed at each end of the overpasses

to prevent vehicular use. They also had high, wooden fences to serve as visual and

noise barriers (figure 16, page 21). On this project, it was determined that having four
20

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

Figure 15. French overpass with board fence (15 m wide at

center; 30 m wide at ends).

smaller overpasses would be more

effective than fewer large

overpasses. The French believe that

habitat leading to and near the

overpasses is important when using

the smaller width crossings. The

intent is not total connectivity but,

rather, to facilitate enough crossing

of animals to maintain genetic

diversity of the separated animal

populations.

France was the first European

country to use overpasses. In 1991,

France had 125 overpasses in place

and continues to use this as a

principal structure for connectivity

and motorist safety. Some

overpasses are quite large, such as

an 800-m-wide overpass at the

Forest Hardelot. Some overpasses

serve dual purposes, where farm or

other roads share the tops of the

overpass.

Germany has 32 overpasses, with 8

additional ones under construction

and 20 more planned. Widths range

from 8.5 to 870 m. As guidance for

soil depth for plants on overpasses,

the Germans use approximately 1/3

m for grass, 2/3 m for shrubs, and

1.5 to 2 m for trees. As in France,

there are a number of dual-purpose

crossings.

Overpasses are incorporated into

landscape design in Germany, and

several that the team visited connected habitat while also accommodating human

access and recreational needs. This was particularly evident along the B-30 Highway,

where connectivity is provided to the Lake Konstanz conservation area via a number

of overpasses on this facility (figure 17).

The Swiss have more than 20 overpasses with widths from 3.4 m to 200 m, and are

continuing to build new overpasses. They also have additional, longer overpasses that

are provided when tunneling leaves expansive corridors of habitat. Tunneling is done

by cut and fill or by just boring through areas, depending on site-specific

characteristics. The team visited existing and newly constructed overpasses in

Switzerland. The team saw existing structures along A-1, northeast of Bern, in the

Figure 14. Arch culvert on German Highway B-30, with rail for

amphibians and fence for larger wildlife.
21

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

Figure 17. View of Lake Konstanz conservation area after

landscape-level planning.

Central Plateau, which were built in

1995. Figure 18 (page 22) shows the

Grauholz overpass (23 m wide). The

overpasses cross six lanes of traffic

and have hedges, ponds, and clumps

of bushes (figure 19, page 22). They

connect forested areas to serve as

connections mainly for roe deer and

amphibians, along with other

wildlife.

The team also visited a newly

constructed Swiss overpass, on

Highway N4, to accommodate a rail

corridor in the Henggart/Rutibuck

commune (figure 20, page 23). This

was a large overpass, with a 50-m

width over the road. The use of

berms along the edge prevents

traffic noise and lights from

disturbing wildlife. A corridor of

vegetation has been planted to

provide habitat, through farmlands,

to the crossing. Vegetation, debris

piles, rock piles, and stumps are

used on the overpass for small

animal cover.

There are four overpasses in the

Netherlands. The designs used are

both hourglass and straight in

configuration. The widths vary from

17 to 50 m, and each crosses a fourlane highway. One of the overpasses

is extended to cross a farm road that

runs alongside the four-lane

highway.

There has been a good deal of research on the effectiveness of overpasses in Europe.

Most researchers use tracks in sand, tracks in snow, counters, and infrared cameras to

study crossing effectiveness. A more detailed account of the specific research is

contained in the Swiss State of the Art Report, COST 341, Habitat Fragmentation Due

to Transportation Infrastructure (European Commission Directorate General

Transport, 2000). Briefly, Pfister et al. (1997) conducted research on five wildlife

overpasses on the Stockach-Uberlingen section of German Highway B31 that the

team visited. They also looked at 12 other overpasses in Germany, the Netherlands,

France, and Switzerland. They did follow-up research on other overpasses (Pfister et

al., 1999) using the same infrared video camera technology. The research looked at

large mammals, small mammals, and flightless insects such as ground beetles,

Figure 16. Board fence on French overpass to block noise and

light (rocks are placed at ends to prevent vehicular use).
22

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

Figure 19. Pond and vegetation located on Swiss overpass to

serve as cover and habitat for wildlife.

grasshoppers, and ground spiders,

along with diurnal butterflies. With

suitable habitat on and around the

overpasses, it was determined that

the overpasses are very effective for

a wide variety of animals. The

conclusions included the observation

that structures at least 60 m wide

were more effective than overpasses

narrower than 50 m, especially for

larger mammals. It was noted that

animal behavior on the overpasses

is more normal on wider structures.

In a separate research project,

Righetti et al. (1998) used infrared

video technology to look at wildlife

behavior on the Swiss overpass on

A1 in Grauholz (the same one the

team saw). They concluded that the

alarmed behavior of roe deer, which

is one of the target species,

indicated that the crossing was too

narrow (23 m). In a two-lane

application, however, an overpass

near Brienzwiler that is 17 m wide

is used extensively and regularly by

a wide variety of species—badger,

fox, marten, chamois, roe deer, and

red deer.

Other research on Swiss overpasses

(Kaden et al., 1993) that examined

two structures in Thurgau (127 m

and 186 m, respectively) showed

that they were valuable for

mammals, ground spiders, ground

beetles, grasshoppers, and diurnal butterflies.

The Swiss researchers concluded that location of the overpass, along with the

frequency of target species in surrounding habitat, were important factors. Overall,

the recommendation is that the size, location, width, detailed design, and habitat for

overpasses take into consideration the target species in the area being studied. For

large mammals, the larger structures are desirable but may not be necessary for

other smaller animals, so no standard width is specified. Along with viaducts,

overpasses seem better suited for the widest variety of species.

Figure 18. Swiss overpass built in 1995 with a 23-m width at

center.
23

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

Figure 21. Slovenian viaduct built for wildlife, hydrology, and

human connectivity.

Viaducts

As mentioned previously in the

planning section, a viaduct was

constructed in Slovenia to provide

connectivity for a variety of wildlife,

including the brown bear. There are

three viaducts (593, 160, and 265 m

long, respectively) on the Ljubljana–

Trieste Highway. The highway cuts

off a large area of habitat in western

Slovenia from habitat in southern

Slovenia. The team visited one of

the viaducts (figure 21) in the

Razdrto–Dolenja section of the

highway that was successfully being

used by the target species—brown

bear, wolf, a number of ungulates,

and some smaller mammals (Jerina,

2001).

The team also visited a viaduct at

the Payerne exit on A1, in

Switzerland (figure 22, next page).

The Swiss use stumps under the

viaduct as small animal cover. This

practice was first successfully tried

by the Dutch. Unfortunately, the

effectiveness of this viaduct and the

associated wildlife underpass may

be compromised because of poor

land-use planning in the adjacent

area where habitat may be

converted to commercial use.

Viaducts are extensively used in

Europe, especially in areas with

undulating terrain and over water

bodies. As in the United States, bridge extensions can result in maintaining

connectivity along riparian corridors. These structures can be of great length and,

therefore, provide the opportunity for habitat/wildlife connectivity as well as human

connectivity. They are commonly built for purposes other than wildlife connectivity

but can also serve this purpose, if proper habitat connectivity is provided.

Existing, Modified, and Multipurpose Structures

Slovenian researchers monitored 11 underpasses, 5 bridges, and 2 viaducts in

studying the Ljubljana–Trieste Highway. The total research (Jerina, 2001) involved

7,300 days of monitoring over a 5-year period, making it one of the more extensive

long-term research efforts reported in Europe. Many of the structures were built for

Figure 20. New Swiss overpass to accommodate rail corridor

(50 m wide).
24

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

Figure 23. Dutch box culvert modified with ledge for wildlife.

human connectivity but were being

used by wildlife. Most species, with

the exception of ungulates, used the

bridges. The frequency of use of

bridges was negatively impacted by

increased traffic on the bridges. The

existing structures on the highway

were used by at least 14 different

species of wildlife.

Each country visited had

multipurpose structures that

accommodated wildlife and

transportation needs. The Dutch

have modified existing bridges by

closing one lane and covering it with

fill for vegetation, then including

stumps and other structure for

wildlife use. They also have taken

existing drainage structures and

built ledges or decks for use by

small wildlife species (figure 23).

Both of these approaches have

proved successful for some wildlife

movement.

MAINTENANCE ASPECTS

The role of maintenance forces in

the success of European techniques

for accommodating wildlife is

considerable. In the Netherlands,

maintenance funds and forces are

extensively involved in carrying out

the program for badger crossings and existing structure modifications for wildlife.

In each country, fence maintenance is demanding, because fences are one of the

principal measures for keeping wildlife off of the road. The additional bridges,

underpasses, overpasses, and culverts require maintenance, if they are to remain

effective. Some structures, such as amphibian trenches, fences, and culverts, also

require special maintenance attention.

In all of the European countries visited, the highway right-of-way was fenced to keep

wildlife out, such that vegetation along the roads was not considered wildlife habitat.

In one area of Switzerland, fences were placed near the road so that the right-of-way

outside the fence could be left as habitat.

The habitat on overpasses is maintained for native wildlife species, and active seeding

and planting of these species was evident. The plants were placed for food and cover.

On larger overpasses, infrared video and browse evidence indicated that animals were

Figure 22. Swiss viaduct with stumps for small animal cover.
25

CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

actually feeding on the overpasses (Pfister et al., 1997, 1999; Righetti et al., 1998).

This finding was in contrast to the alarmed behavior and rapid movement of animals

on the narrower overpasses.

A key factor in the success of all wildlife-connectivity structures is maintenance of

adjacent habitat to facilitate wildlife movement to the structures. The team learned of

agreements with landowners and associations to provide for the maintenance of

adjacent habitats. In Switzerland, the government provides financial compensation

for landowners if they leave at least 10 percent of their land in native habitat. Along

with land-use planning, these factors have contributed to providing connecting

habitat.

The condition of the roads and structures for wildlife indicates that maintenance

forces are being adequately funded to take care of these features. This need for

maintenance is an important consideration in budgeting for wildlife considerations in

transportation programs. Maintenance is a mix of public and private activity in the

European countries.
26

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Wildlife Habitat Connectivity and Highways Scan Team developed the following

conclusions and recommendations for application in the United States:

POLICY

Strong policy and regulatory guidance are leading efforts in Europe. Several

European countries provide funding for retrofit of structures for wildlife. One

approach taken in Europe is to include these funds in the maintenance budget to be

implemented as maintenance activities.

A stronger policy for “avoidance” of impacts to wildlife and habitats exists in Europe

than in the United States. The scan team sees a need for greater attention to

avoidance, when demonstrating the current “avoidance and minimization”

requirements of the FHWA’s NEPA process. This effort could be accomplished by a

stronger consideration of avoidance alternatives in transportation planning and

implementation.

Because of significant habitat losses in the past, some of the European countries

compensate for habitat loss, irrespective of habitat type. The scan team concluded

that at least two principles of European policy could be implemented in the United

States: 1) an ecological, rather than species-specific, perspective for compensation,

and 2) the principle of compatible land-use management, in areas of highway

structures built for wildlife passage. European countries also make a strong effort to

involve private lands in plans for the use of adjacent land. The role of private lands

adjacent to highways is an area that needs further policy development in the United

States.

The scan team identified the following specific policy improvements that would be

helpful in the United States:

• Include wildlife/transportation issues in the FHWA and AASHTO strategic plans.

• Enhance the gains made in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21) through dedicated funds for wildlife issues.

• Include funding for retrofit of structures for wildlife in TEA-21 reauthorization.

• Establish a policy for actions based on well-supported research to build a scientific

basis for action within TEA-21 reauthorization.

• Implement a stronger analysis of alternatives in transportation planning and

implementation that avoid wildlife and habitat impacts.

• Implement a habitat-mitigation policy for all viable wildlife habitat losses.

• Accomplish compensation for habitat loss at the ecosystem level rather than

“postage stamp” mitigation in order to accomplish compatible wildlife habitat

adjacent to the highway. One approach would be “habitat banking” similar to the

current wetland banking programs. Such an approach is currently eligible for

federal funds, under TEA-21 and the FHWA regulation, Mitigation of Impacts to

Wetlands and Natural Habitat, 23 CFR 777.
27

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Establish a stronger policy for consistency of highway alignment and design, with

public lands and public-land management compatible with highway features for

wildlife.

• Develop a manual that further describes land-acquisition options for wildlife

conservation in the transportation process.

• Require and provide funding for postconstruction monitoring of wildlife in order to

build a strong scientific base for future decisionmaking.

The agencies identified for implementation of policy elements were the FHWA, State

transportation agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and the Bureau of Land Management.

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

One of the strong points of the European effort is the communications network that

has been developed to coordinate information, enhance wildlife connectivity, and

garner support for providing measures for wildlife in the transportation system. The

Europeans have used many symposia and journals to spread information related to

wildlife and transportation.

The scan team identified the following specific communication strategies that would

be helpful in the United States:

• Identify a central point of contact in the United States for coordination and

communication of information with the European community.

• Recruit organizations such as the Society for Conservation Biology, Wildlife

Society, Ecological Society of America (ESA), The Nature Conservancy, Ducks

Unlimited, Izaak Walton League, and use publications, such as the FHWA

newsletter Greener Roadsides to disseminate information related to wildlife and

transportation.

• Include in the communications effort the academic community and State wildlife

agencies that are conducting a great deal of the research.

• Initiate an international and national coordination effort in the United States to

involve critical stakeholders in the process, with an interagency workshop on

communication strategies.

• Develop a central source of information about transportation and wildlife. The

further development of the capabilities of the CTE should be used for this strategy.

• Coordinate interagency cross training, so that all stakeholders understand the

issues and solutions involved in wildlife and highway conflicts.

• Use programs such as streamlining, environmental stewardship, and contextsensitive design to communicate the need to and approaches for ensuring that

wildlife is given adequate consideration in transportation decisionmaking.
28

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Join with Europe in developing a COST 341-type agreement that includes the

States, Canada, and Mexico to promote international exchange of scientific

information.

GUIDANCE MANUALS

Many of the countries visited have been developing guidance documents that will

greatly facilitate additional measures for wildlife within the transportation systems.

Strong interagency and other external coordination was evident in several countries,

and similar efforts should be initiated in the United States. The Europeans seem to

have common definitions for terminology that is typically used to address wildlife

issues, which is not the case in the United States. Specific guidance on structure

types, sizes, and designs have been developed in several European countries, and

several countries have specific requirements for postconstruction monitoring using

successful methods, such as infrared cameras, for monitoring structure use by

animals.

The scan team believes that the following guidance packages would be helpful in the

United States:

• Develop an assessment-method manual to provide guidance to environmental

personnel and engineers in evaluating:

– needs and objectives of measures for wildlife,

– tools to evaluate micro-habitat to landscape-level perspectives,

– tools to identify site-specific locations,

– species group–specific information on evaluation techniques, and

– alternative methods for conservation and mitigation.

This recommendation may be implemented through the work of a new committee,

the Committee on Ecological Effects of Road Density, which has just been formed.

• Include in the manual guidance on the coordination of highway and habitat issues

with resource agencies and NGOs.

• Undertake an interagency effort to develop definitions for commonly used terms

in the transportation/wildlife science. “Landscape links,” “connectivity,”

“permeability,” “landscape ecology,” and “ecosystem management” are some

examples of terms that mean different things to different audiences.

• Develop manuals for structure selection, sizing, and design guidelines for

transportation departments in the United States. The inclusion of cost

information would add to the value of such manuals.

• Develop a guidance document with specific recommendations on the temporal and

spatial requirements and techniques for monitoring structures.

• Coordinate the development of the guidance documents, which will be published

as AASHTO guidance manuals, with the TRB. The manuals should be developed

and coordinated by the FHWA, the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife

Service, the National Park Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
29

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RESEARCH STRATEGY

Several of the countries that the team visited had strong research programs to

support decisions on wildlife measures. While this effort has begun in the United

States, several areas should be emphasized. One distinctive element of the European

measures to provide wildlife connectivity is the consideration of all types of animals

in the design of structures.

The scan team recommends the following research efforts in the United States:

• Promote interagency coordination of research and the use of pooled-fund

strategies to maximize the effectiveness of research funds. The TRB and AASHTO

Standing Committee on the Environment need to take a leadership role in

research efforts.

• Support research on terminology definitions to support the recommendation for a

terminology guide.

• Support a national habitat connectivity study to identify the areas where

highways traverse important habitats. This study will benefit the planning

purposes of both transportation and the land-management agencies, and can be

accomplished by building on the work already under way in some States.

• Study connectivity for all types of wildlife in the United States, including arboreal

connectivity.
30

Implementation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS

• Use the existing Wildlife Ecology in Transportation Bibliographic database as the

repository for all the reports gathered during the scan tour. This database is

already established and being used by professionals seeking wildlife connectivity

information. In addition, the CTE is committed to doing the ongoing maintenance,

which is the critical aspect of ensuring the long-term viability of a database.

— $10,000 will be needed to add the scan reports and documents to the

database

• Provide the financial support necessary to add crossing-structure information

obtained on the tour to an ongoing effort by the U.S. Forest Service to establish a

Web-based database of known wildlife crossing structures. The Forest Service has

invested $140,000 in the development of the database. This will be an excellent

dissemination tool for the scan tour findings.

— $25,000 will be needed to add crossing information to the database

• The Humane Society will produce a video to educate the transportation

community. The video will include:

– The benefits of and needs for wildlife-crossing structures.

– Illustration of different designs.

– Demonstration of animals using crossing structures.

– Details of the holistic Europeans approach to habitat connectivity, by seeking

opportunities in every project to improve the permeability of the roadway and

facilitate wildlife crossing.

The Humane Society will contribute the equipment and labor necessary to

produce the video.

— $10,000 in match will be needed to reproduce and distribute the video

nationally

• Produce a brochure to guide readers in accessing information. The brochure will

provide locations of the two databases where the scan information has been

located, as well as information on how to obtain a copy of the video. The brochure

will be updated, when the course is available and the manual is completed. The

Vermont Agency of Transportation will undertake the initial design and layout.

— The cost to produce and print the brochure for national distribution

is $10,000

• Develop a National Highway Institute (NHI) course that includes FHWAdeveloped materials. This effort should include the development of a manual that

addresses placement, design, and construction of wildlife passages,

postconstruction monitoring, and land-acquisition and conservation easement

options for wildlife in the transportation process.

— Funding for this course will be sought from NHI
31

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

• Develop an assessment-method manual to provide guidance to environmental

personnel and engineers in the evaluation of:

– The need for and objectives of wildlife impact mitigation measures.

– Micro-habitat to landscape-level evaluation tools.

– Site-identification tools.

– Species-specific information on evaluation techniques.

– Alternative methods for conservation and mitigation strategies.

— National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) funds

will be sought to develop the manual

EVALUATING OR DEMONSTRATING THE POTENTIAL SCAN RESULTS

Three projects are currently under development (Vermont DOT: Dry Bridge; Montana

DOT: Green Bridge; and California DOT in partnership with the National Park

Service: Green Bridge). These bridges are all results of the scan tour. Monitoring will

be done at all locations to determine the impact of the roadway on wildlife

movements.

For an evaluation of the safety benefits of wildlife passages, volunteer pilot States

should be sought that have roadways experiencing a large number of animal/vehicle

collisions. Wildlife passages should be constructed on segments of the roadway, as

hazard elimination projects, to evaluate the effectiveness of these structures in

reducing collisions.

DISSEMINATING THE SCAN RESULTS

Preliminary list

• CTE website.

• Forest Service website, with database, construction plans, photographs (Sandy

Jackson).

• National Context-Sensitive Design Conference, California, 2002.

• TRB, March 2002 (Fred Bank, Leroy Irwin).

• Interagency PowerPoint Presentations (Mary Gray, John Kinar, Ray Sauvajot).

• Regional Deer-Vehicle Clearinghouse Presentation (John Kinar).

• “Park Science” article (Ray Sauvajot).

• Two National Park Service conferences (Ray Sauvajot).

• Wayne Kobler tour.

• Regional Streamlining Meeting, November 8, 2001 (Mary Gray).

• NHI course on green-bridge construction (Sandy Jackson).
32

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

• Greener Roads, June 2002 issue.

• AASHTO brochure (David Scott).

• AASHTO journal (David Scott)

• AASHTO Spring Meeting 2002, Presentation to Standing Committee on Highways

(David Scott).

• Video (Humane Society).

• International Study Group on Multiple Use of Land 2002 Conference (Mary Gray).

• Northwest Region Wildlife Society Meeting (Mary Gray).

• 2002 Annual Meeting of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society (Mary Gray,

David Scott).

• ESA journal article (Ray Sauvajot).

• Various professional wildlife meetings (Mary Gray, Susan Hagood, Ray Sauvajot,

David Scott, Trisha White).

• Join the TRB safety subcommittee on deer-vehicle collisions, chaired by Pat

McGowan of the Western Transportation Institute in Montana (Alex Levy).

• Presentation to North Carolina DOT (Alex Levy).

• Scanning tour presentation to group from FHWA Division office and Texas DOT

(Alex Levy).

• Presentation as part of a short course on Section 7 Endangered Species Act

Consultation to an interagency group in Corpus Christi, TX (Alex Levy).

• Presentation to Georgia DOT and at another ESA training course in Oklahoma

(Alex Levy).

• Scan presentation to a group of landscape architects at the University of Georgia,

School of Environmental Design (Alex Levy).

• Annual Western Federal conference (Mary Gray).

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office - Lacey, Washington (Mary Gray).

• Washington State DOT (Mary Gray).

• Field training course in Banff, Alberta (Mary Gray).

• Scan presentation to Washington Metropolitan Area Council of Governments

(Susan Hagood).
33

References

European Commission, Directorate General Transport. 2000. COST 341, Habitat

Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructure, Swiss State of the Art

Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities. 515 pp.

Grossenbacker, K. 1985. Amphibien und Verkehr, Teil 1. KARCH, Bernastr. 15, 3005

Bern, Switzerland. 22 pp.

Jerina, K. 2001. Influences of the Highway on the Big Mammalia. In Mitigation of

Transportation Corridor Effects on Large Carnivore Populations in Slovenia.

Workshop for the Wildlife Mortality Study Tour of the Federal Highway

Administration. Ljubljana, Slovenia, October 7, 2001.

Kistler, R. 1998. Wissenschaftliche Begleitung der Wildwarnanlagen Calstrom WWA12-S: Juli 1995 – November 1997, Schlussbericht. Infodienst Wildbiologie &

Oekologie. Strickhofstrassee 39, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland.

Kaden, D., C. Meienberger, and P. Beerli. 1993. Erfolgskontrolle der okologischen

Massnahment an der Neubaustrecke der N7. Bericht im Auftrag des Tiefbauamtes

des Kantons Thurgau. Buro fur Okologie und EDV, Frauenfeld, Switzerland. 48

pp.

Kobler, A., and M. Adamic. 1999. “Brown Bears in Slovenia: Identifying Locations for

Construction of Wildlife Bridges across Highways.” In G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, and

D. Zeigler, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology

and Transportation. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transportation,

Tallahassee, Florida.

Molenaar, J.G. de, and R.J.H.G. Henkens. 1998. Effectiviteit van wildspiegels: een

literatuurevaluatie. Instituut voor Bos-en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, The

Netherlands. 106 pp.

Molenaar, J.G. de, D.A. Jonkers, and M.E. Sanders. 2000. “Road Illumination and

Nature III. Local Influence of Road Lights on a Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa l.

limosa) Population.” Alterra and Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water

Management, The Netherlands. DWW Report No. P-DWW-2000-058. 88 pp.

Pfister, H.P., V. Keller, H. Reck, and B. Georgii. 1997. Bio-okologische Wirksamkeit von

Grunbrucken uber Verkehrswege. Forschung, Strassenbau und

Strassenverkerhrstechnik, 756. Bundesministerium fur Verkehr (Ed.), Bonn,

Switzerland. 590 pp.

Pfister, H.P., D. Heynen, B. Georgii, V. Keller, and F. von Lerber. 1999. Haufigkeit und

Verhalten ausgewahlter Wildsauger auf unterschiedlich breiten Wildtierbrucken

(Grunbrucken). Schweizerische Vogelwarte, Sempach, Switzerland. 49 pp.

Ryser, J. 1988. Amphibien und Verkehr, Teil 2: Amphibienrettungsmassnahmen an

Strassen in der Schweiz – gegnwartiger Stand, Erfahrungen und Bedeutung fur

den Artenschutz. KARCH, Bernastr. 15, 3005 Bern, Switzerland. 10 pp.

UNA (Righetti et al.). 1998. A8 – Umfahrung Breinzwiler/Bericht zur Erfolgskontrolle

der Wildtieruberfuhrung (Objekt B86 und des Bachdurchlasses (Objekt B84). Im

Auftrag des Tiefbauamtes des Kantons Bern. UNA, Atelier fur Naturschutz und

Umweltfragen, Muhlenplatz 3, 3011 Bern, Switzerland.
34

appendix a

European Contacts

SLOVENIA

Miha Adamic, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology

University of Ljubljana

Department of Forestry and Renewable

Forest Resources

Venca pot 83

1111 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Tel: (+386 61) 123-11-61

Fax: (+386 61) 271-169

Email: miha.adamic@uni-lj-si

Klemen Jerina

University of Ljubljana

Department of Forestry and Renewable

Forest Resources

Venca pot 83

1111 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Tel: +386 (0) 4231161

Fax: +386 (0) 1 2571169

Email: klemenjerina@hotmail.com

Andrej Kobler, M.Sc.

Researcher

Slovenia Forestry Institute

Department of Forest Inventory and

Spatial Information

Vecna pot 2

Sl-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Tel: +386 (0) 1 2007835

Fax: +386 (0) 1 2573589

Email: Andrej.kobler@gozdis.si

Alenka Korenjak, M.Sc.

Agrictultural Land and Forest Fund

Dunajska 58

Sl-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Tel: +386 (0) 4341103

Niko Torelli, Director

Slovenia Forestry Institute

Vecna pot 2

1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Tel: 01 200 78 01

Fax: 01 257 35 89

Email: niko.torelli@gozdis.si

SWITZERLAND

Niklaus Gysel

Baudirekton Kanton Zurich

Forstpflanzgarten Finsterloo

8185 Winkel, Switzerland

Tel: 01 863 71 63/61

Fax: 01 863 71 64

Email: niklaus.gysel@bd.zh.ch

Daniela Heynen

Projekteiterin “Grundlagen fur die

Praxis”

Swiss Ornithological Institute

CH-6204 Sempach, Switzerland

Tel: 041 462 97 00

Fax: 041 462 97 10

Email: Daneila.heynen@vogelwarte.ch

Otto Holzgang, Ph.D.

Stv. Leiter “Grundlagen fur die Praxis”

Swiss Ornithological Institute

CH-6204 Sempach, Switzerland

Tel: 041 462 97 00

Fax: 041 462 97 10

Email: otto.holzgang@vogelwarte.ch

Verena Keller, Ph.D.

Stv. Leiterin “Uberwachung Avifauna”

Swiss Ornithological Institute

CH-6204 Sempach, Switzerland

Tel: 041 462 97 00

Fax: 041 462 97 10

Email: verena.keller@vogelwarte.ch

Alain R. Maibach, Ph.D.

Biologiste

AMAibach

Bureau d’etudes en environnement

Rte de Moudon 11

CH-1610 Oron-la-Ville, Switzerland

Tel: 0041 21/907 15 15

Fax: 0041 21/907 15 16

Email: a.maibach@bluewin.ch
35

APPENDIX A

Walter Decker

Oberbaurat

Strassenbauamt Ueberlingen

Bahnhofstrasse 5

88 662 Ueberlingen, Germany

Tel: 07551/835-136

Fax: 07551/835-111

Email: decker@GT04.SBAUE.SBV.bwl.de

Matthias J. Herbert

Abteilungsleiter Landschaftsplanung und

gestaltung

Bundesamt fur Naturschutz

Aussenstelle Leipzig

Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 143

D-04277 Leipzig, Germany

Tel: 49 (0) 341 3 09 77 11

Fax: 49 (0) 341 3 09 77 40

Email: HerbertM@bfn.de

Heinz-Deiter Muss

Regierungsdirektor

Bunderministerium fuer Umwelt,

Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit

Referat N I 4

Postfach 12 06 29

53048 Bonn, Germany

Tel: 02 28 3 05 26 41

Fax: 02 28 3 05 26 96

Email: Muss.Heinz@BMU.de

Heinrich Reck

Fachabteilung fur Landschaftsokologie

Christian-Albechts – Universitat Zu Kiel

Okologie-Zentrum

Schauenburgerstr. 112

D-24118 Kiel, Germany

Tel: 0431/880-4538

Fax: 0431/880-4083

Email: h.reck@pz-oekosys.uni-kiel.de

Antonio Righetti

Partner in Umweltfragen

Gurtenbrauerei, Postfach 240

3084 Wabern, Switzerland

Tel: 031 960 43 26

Fax: 031 960 43 27

Email: a.righetti@bluewin.ch

Marguerite Trocme

BUWAL

Abt. Landschaft

3003 Bern, Switzerland

Tel: 031 322 80 03

Email:

marguerite.trocme@buwal.admin.ch

Peter S. Weiller

Ferstingenieur ETH/SIA

Buro fur Wald, Landschaft und Natur

Gemeindehaus

8465 Rudolfingen, Switzerland

Tel: 052 319 15 00

Fax: 052 319 30 90

Email: weiller@bluewin.ch

GERMANY

Marita Bottcher

Fachgelbiet Eingriffsregelung

Bundesamt fuer Naturschutz

Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 143

D-04277 Leipzig, Germany

Tel: 03 41 3 09 77 21

Fax: 03 41 3 09 77 40

Email: boettcherm@bfn.de

Karin Chluba

Referatsleiterin

Landschaftspflege, Umweltschutz

Stuttgarter Strasse 161

70 806 Kornwestheim, Germany

Tel: 07154 139 312

Fax: 07154 139499

Email: Karin.chluba@lfl.bwl.de
36

APPENDIX A

Wolgang Schettler

Fachbereich Landschftsplanung

Eberhard + Partner

Glarnischstrasse 8

78464 Konstanz, Germany

Tel: 07531/812915

Fax: 07531/812911

Email: Eberhard-Partner-Konstanz@tonline.de

Albrecht Schlierer

Umwelt-und Naturschutz im

Strassenwesen

Ministerium fur Umwelt und Verkehr

Baden-Wuerttemberg

Huaptstatter Strasse 67

70178 Stutgart, Germany

Tel: 07 11 126 16 32

Fax: 07 11 126 10 99

Email: Albrecht.schlierer@uvm.bwl.de

Udo Tegethof, Ph.D.

Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen

Oberregierungstrat

Bruederstrasse 53

51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Postfach 10 01 50

51401 Bergisch Gladbach, Germany

Tel: 0 22 04/43-562

Fax: 0 22 04/43-673

FRANCE

Albert Bourrel

Delegue aux relations exterieures

Service d’Etudes Techniques des Routes

et Autoroutes

46, avenue Aristide Briand-BP

100-92223 Bagneux Cedex, France

Tel: 01 46 11 33 84

Fax: 01 46 11 36 50

Jean Carsignol

Ingenieur Ecologue Directeur d’Etudes

Division Environnement

1, boulevard Solidarite – Technopole

METZ 2000

B.P. 85230 – 57076 Metz Cedex 03,

France

Tel: 03 87 20 46 14

Fax: 03 87 20 46 49

Email: Jean.Carsignol@equipement.gouv.fr

Guy Desire

Groupe Environnement

Centre d’Etudes Techniques de

l’Equipement de l’Ouest

M.A.N. – Rue Rene Viviani – BP46223

44262 Mantes Cedex 2, France

Tel: 02 40 12 83 53

Fax: 02 40 12 84 44

Email: guy.desire@equipement.gouv.fr

Michel Galet

Charge d’Etudes

Cofiroute

Direction des Projets et de la

Construction

“La Vente aux Moines”

45770 Saran, France

Tel: 02 38 79 11 54

Fax: 02 38 79 11 68

Jocelyne Le Boudec

International Activities

Service d’Etudes Techniques des Routes

et Autoroutes

46, avenue Aristide Briand-BP-100

92225 Bagneus Cedex, France

Email: leboudec@setra.fr
37

APPENDIX A

THE NETHERLANDS

G.J. (Hans) Bekker

Programme-manager Defragmentation

Infrastructure, Environmental Affairs

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management

Van der Burghweg 1

P.O. Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 15 251 83 80

Fax: + 31 15 251 85 55

Email: g.j.bekker@dww.rws.minvenw.nl

Rob Bugter

ALTERRA

P.O. Box 47

6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Tel: (011-31) 317-477-954

Email: R.J.F. Bugter@ALTERRA.WAGUR.NL

Tatiana Damarad

European Centre for Nature

Conservation

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management

Van der Burghweg 1

P.O. Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

Tel: (011-31) 13-466-3240

Fax: (011-31) 13-466-3250

Email: DAMARAD@ECNC.NL

Marcel Huijser

Research Institute for Animal Husbandry

Postbus 2176

NL-8203 AD Lelystad, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 –(0) 320-293455

Fax: +31 –(0) 320-241584

Email: M.P.Huijser@pv.agro.nl

Beno Koolstra

ALTERRA

P.O. Box 47

6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 317 47 79 66

Fax: +31 317 42 49 88

Email: B.J.H.Koolstra@ALTERRA.WAGUR.NL

Hans Molenaar

ALTERRA

P.O. Box 47

6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Tel: (011-31) 317-477-731

Email: J.G.Demolenaar@ALTERRA.WAGUR-NL

Robbert Snep

ALTERRA

P.O. Box 47

6700 AA, Wageningen

Tel: +31 317 47 79 46

Fax: +31 317 42 49 88

Email: R.Snep@alterra.wag-us.nl

Govert Sweere

Programme Manager Europe

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management

Van der Burghweg 1

P.O. Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 15 251 83 80

Fax: +31 15 251 85 55

Email: g.t.h.sweere@dww.rws.minvenw.nl

Edgar van der Grift

ALTERRA

P.O. Box 47

6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Tel: (011-31) 317 47 79 48

Fax: (011-31) 317 42 49 88

Email: E.A.Vandergrift@ALTERRA.WAGUR.NL
38

APPENDIX A

Michiel van Eupen

ALTERRA

P.O. Box 47

6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 317 47 43 89

Fax: +31 317 419000

Geesje Veenbaas

Senior Landscape-Ecologist

Infrastructure and Environmental Affairs

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management

Van der Burghweg 1

P.O. Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 (15) 251 84 82

Fax: +31 (15) 251 85 55

Email: g.veenbaas@dww.rws.minvenw.nl
39

appendix b

Team Members

Fred G. Bank (FHWA Co-leader)

Ecologist-Team Leader

Federal Highway Administration

HEPN-30, Room 3240

400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Tel: (202) 366-5004

Fax: (202) 366-3409

Email: fred.bank@fhwa.dot.gov

C. Leroy Irwin (AASHTO Co-leader)

Manager, Environmental Management

Office

Florida Department of Transportation

605 Suwannee St., MS # 37

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Tel: (850) 922-7201

Fax: (850) 922-7217

Email: Leroy.Irwin@dot.state.fl.us

Gary L. Evink, Ecologist (Report

Facilitator)

3700 Sally Lane, Suite 200

Tallahassee, FL 32312

Tel: (850) 668-9215

Fax: (850) 668-9215

Email: garyevink@aol.com

Mary E. Gray

Federal Highway Administration

Idaho Division

3050 Lake Harbor Lane, Suite 126

Boise, ID 83616

Tel: (208) 334-9180 x 123

Fax: (208) 334-1691

Email: mary.gray@fhwa.dot.gov

Susan Hagood

Wildlife Issues Specialist

The Humane Society of the United States

2100 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

Tel: (301) 258-3149

Fax: (301) 258-3080

Email: shagood@hsus.org

John R. Kinar, P.E.

Chief of Winter Operations and Roadside

Management

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

4802 Sheboygan Ave., Box 7986

Madison, WI 53707-7986

Tel: (608) 266-1202

Fax: (608) 267-7856

Email: john.kinar@dot.state.wi.us

Alex Levy, Biologist

FHWA Southern Resource Center

61 Forsyth St., S.W.

Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel: (404) 562-3920

Fax: (404) 562-3700

Email: alex.levy@fhwa.dot.gov

Dale Paulson

Program Development Engineer

2880 Skyway Dr.

Helena, MT 59602

Tel: (406) 449-5302 x 239

Fax: (406) 449-5314

Email: dale.Paulson@fhwa.dot.gov

Bill Ruediger

Ecology Program Leader for Highways

USDA Forest Service

200 East Broadway

PO Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

Tel: (406) 329-3100

Fax: (406) 329-3171

Email: bruediger@fs.fed.us

Raymond M. Sauvajot, Ph.D.

Chief of Planning, Science and Resource

Management

U.S. National Park Service

Santa Monica Mountains National

Recreation Area

401 W. Hillcrest Drive

Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Tel: (805) 370-2339

Fax: (805) 370-1850

Email: ray_sauvajot@nps.gov
40

APPENDIX B

David J. Scott, P.E.

Director of Project Development

State of Vermont Agency of

Transportation

National Life Building – Drawer 33

Montpelier, VT 05633-5001

Tel: (802) 828-2663

Fax: (802) 828-2437

Email: david.scott@state.vt.us

Patricia White

Transportation Associate

Defenders of Wildlife

1101 Fourteenth Street, N.W.

Suite 1400

Washington, D.C. 20005-5606

Tel: (202) 772-0236

Fax: (202) 682-1331

Email: twhite@defenders.org
41

appendix c

Amplifying Questions

The following is a list of questions on the six areas that the U.S. panel would like to

discuss with you. These questions are intended to clarify and expand on the Panel

Topics of Interest described in the Panel Overview paper. In the questions, the use of

the word wildlife applies to both terrestrial and aquatic animals, including

vertebrates and invertebrates. Mitigation is the concept of compensation for impacts

to wildlife or habitat.

The panel is very interested in being able to visit sites where some of the concepts

discussed have been applied. If possible, the panel would like to be able to devote 50

percent or more of its time with you for site visits. Examples of successful and not so

successful applications in the documentation process, environmental studies,

research, and structural and nonstructural successes and failures are of interest to

the panel to allow for a broader understanding of these topics.

1. The Process of Identification of Wildlife Mortality Problems (or Why are Wildlife

Protection Measures Necessary?)

a. Do your country, state, and/or local governments have environmental laws that

provide for the need to mitigate for wildlife connectivity and mortality on

transportation projects?

b. Are your federal, state, and/or local resource agencies a normal part of

coordination when trying to address federal, state, or local regulations on a

project?

c. Is it your agency’s policy to build wildlife structures for connectivity and

reduce mortality for public lands? For private lands?

d. Is it your agency’s policy to construct structural features for wildlife as a

separate project, independent of a highway project? For what reasons?

e. Have areas of habitat been designated “critical habitat” or a similar

designation for wildlife in your country? Is mitigation legally required?

f. Are rare and endangered species legally protected in your country? Is

mitigation legally required for these species?

g. How are you organized to incorporate environmental issues into project

development?

h. Is there a systematic method for gathering and recording the information for

environmental documentation? What information is required for

environmental approvals of wildlife issues?

i. Do other state and federal agencies provide useful information that is helpful

in the analytical process or is it viewed as strictly a transportation

responsibility? Do you provide them financial support to conduct studies?

j. Are secondary and cumulative impacts to wildlife a part of your analysis at the

habitat and wildlife levels of analysis?
42

APPENDIX C

k. Is GIS being used to gather data that identify wildlife habitats, movement

patterns/corridors, and incident locations in addressing wildlife mortality and

collision claims?

l. Is there some level of human infrastructure and human use that is compatible

with crossing structures?

m. Does traffic noise impact wildlife? Have compensation measures resulted from

noise impacts?

n. Do you find that dead animals along the road attract carnivores that are then

killed on the highway?

2. The Decision Process Used in Implementing Corrective Actions

a. How is the need for wildlife features scientifically identified? How is this

information incorporated into design concepts?

b. Is coordination with the planning and resources agencies and the general

public a required part of the decisionmaking process?

c. Where coordination has not resulted in satisfactory resolution of an issue, have

administrative or legal actions resulted? Is there an arbitration process?

d. Through coordination has your agency entered into any programmatic

agreements or approaches to resolving wildlife issues?

e. How much does public input play a role in project decisions during project

planning/development? Any public issues with mitigation actions?

f. To what degree does motorist safety play a role in the decision to take

measures to keep animals off the highways?

g. Does the legal status (rare, threatened, or endangered species) influence the

decision to provide compensation for impacts? Are measures taken for species

not legally protected?

h. Has your department used habitat preservation or restoration as mitigation

for impacts to habitats or wildlife? Who maintains and manages the habitat?

i. Which structural or nonstructural measures used for wildlife are successful

and which are not?

j. Are measures routinely researched to determine the effectiveness of

measures? Completed research? Results? Published reports? Ongoing

research?

k. How important is the location of the feature? Is land use considered?

l. How are fence ends treated? Is there higher mortality at fence ends?

m. Do mirrors that reflect vehicle lights or deer whistles work to discourage

wildlife from encroaching on highways work?

n. Does the behavior of wildlife in relation to crossings change over time? Does

second- and third-generation acceptance of crossings improve?

o. Does human use of crossings reduce the crossing’s effectiveness?
43

APPENDIX C

p. Do maintenance costs to dispose of dead animals on the highways influence

the decision to take measures to keep wildlife off the highways?

3. Design and Engineering Solutions Employed to Reduce Mortality (Impacts or for

the Protection of Wildlife)

a. Have wildlife crossing, lighting, warning and informational signs, speed limits,

and other nonstructural measures been made easily consistent with accepted

highway design standards and principles in your country?

b. Have tool kits or best management practices been developed for engineers to

use when designing structures? Are there multinational efforts to standardize

practices and provide guidance?

c. What particular challenges or successes have your maintenance forces

experienced in the maintenance of structural features for wildlife?

d. Do your maintenance forces maintain rights of way to accommodate wildlife?

Or maintain to discourage the use of rights of way by wildlife to reduce

mortality?

4. Resource Commitment and Cost-Effectiveness of Wildlife Management

Programs

a. Are transportation agencies generally agreeable to financially support crossing

features and habitat management work? Are there financial constraints?

b. Have ecological factors been anticipated early enough in project planning to

result in adequate funding being included in the project budget to cover

needed features?

c. Have costs resulted from legal actions by motorists incurring damages in

wildlife collisions?

d. Is a cost-effectiveness analysis done? What value is used for wildlife?

e. Are maintenance costs considered during project development such that

adequate funding is provided to maintenance after project construction?

f. Do your maintenance forces maintain habitats restored or set aside (purchased

or deeded) as mitigation or conservation measures for project impacts? What

lessons, good and bad, have resulted?

g. Does your agency contribute financial support to other agencies to maintain

areas used for transportation project mitigation?

5. Safety as a Factor in the Design and Implementation of Crossing Measures

a. What safety considerations are incorporated in the design of crossing

measures?

b. Are records of collision reduction kept when measures are taken to reduce

collisions?

c. Have there been safety incursions involving property or casualty claims that

were the result of, or were exacerbated by, the presence of wildlife crossing or

exclusion features?
44

APPENDIX C

6. Ecosystem and Habitat Perspectives (Life Cycles, Migration, Home-Range

Requirements)

a. Does a large overarching policy or ecosystem plan exist that provides guidance

for wildlife protection measures? Is it multinational? What agreements are in

place to facilitate collaboration?

b. To what degree are ecosystem management and landscape ecology taken into

consideration when considering wildlife issues of a program or project?

c. Is your agency doing new alignment projects? What ecological considerations

are issues on these projects—habitat fragmentation, loss of habitat, etc.?

d. Are there any land-management and land-use controls to support ecosystem

management and wildlife protection?

e. Are wildlife features located to connect wildlife corridors and reduce genetic

fragmentation? Or to provide for life-cycle requirements?
45

appendix d:

Biographic Sketches

Fred Bank (FHWA Co-Chair) is an Ecologist and Team Leader with the FHWA’s

Office of Natural Environment in Washington, D.C. Mr. Bank supervises a team of

environmental scientists who develop agency policy, provide training, and manage

research on a variety of environmental topics. The subject areas covered by his team

include wildlife resources, wetlands, water quality, vegetation management, and

hazardous materials, among others. Prior to his current position, Mr. Bank held

several other environmental positions within FHWA’s Office of Environmental Policy

and Office of Research in Washington, D.C. His previous experience includes

managing wildlife-related research and providing expert testimony on highway

impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. Mr. Bank is a graduate of the University of

California at Davis, holding both a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Range

Management. He serves on several technical panels of the Transportation Research

Board’s (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

C. Leroy Irwin (AASHTO Co-Chair) is the Manager of the Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) Environmental Management Office in Tallahassee, Florida.

Mr. Irwin currently directs the environmental management program for FDOT that

includes environmental research and National Environmental Policy Act

implementation, including ancillary laws such as the Federal Endangered Species Act.

He has overseen the development of an extensive program of environmental research

on wildlife mortality and mitigation over the past 30 years. He has also been directly

involved in FDOT’s wildlife mitigation programs, including wildlife crossings and

other innovation mitigation concepts. He is currently overseeing an extensive

program to streamline the environmental processes in Florida with the use of GIS to

assess secondary impacts. Mr. Irwin is a graduate of the University of Florida, with a

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture. He has received the AASHTO Alfred E. Johnson

Achievement Award and the FHWA Environmental Excellence in Leadership Award.

Dr. William I. Boarman is a Research Wildlife Biologist with the United States

Geological Survey in San Diego, California, and an adjunct Professor of Biology at the

University of California, Riverside. Dr. Boarman conducts research on the ecology,

conservation, and management of desert tortoises in the Mojave Desert of California.

He also studies the ecology, behavior, and management of common ravens and their

impact on tortoise populations. Dr. Boarman conducted an 8-year study investigating

the effectiveness of a highway barrier fence and culverts beneath the highway in

protecting desert tortoise and other vertebrate populations. He works closely with

resource managers to ensure that the research is relevant to their needs and to help

them implement recommendations leading from his and other scientists’ work. Dr.

Boarman received his Ph.D. from Rutgers University where he studied the evolution

of avian song structure. He is a member of the Society for Conservation Biology,

American Ornithologists’ Union, and Herpetologists’ League.

Gary Evink is an ecological consultant who recently retired after 31 years of public

service to the State of Florida, including 25 years as the Ecologist for FDOT. His

current areas of interest in the ecological area include wildlife ecology, stormwater

quality, and wetland ecology. Mr. Evink is currently writing a synthesis study on
46

APPENDIX D

wildlife ecology and transportation for the TRB that will bring together research on

the state of the practice in the United States. He has chaired two TRB Research

Panels dealing with stormwater runoff and, currently, is the conference chairman for

the series of International Conferences on Ecology and Transportation, which is about

to hold its fourth conference in September. He has received the Al C. Church Award

for excellence in the field of highway engineering and rendering distinguished service

to FDOT and the FHWA Environmental Excellence Award for Environmental

Leadership. Mr. Evink has a Master’s degree in Ecology from the University of

Florida.

Mary Gray is the Environmental/Right-of-way Program Manager for the State of

Idaho. She is responsible for several program areas within Idaho: environment, rightof-way, scenic byways, enhancement projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and

recreational trails. She is responsible for ensuring that these programs are properly

implemented according to program guidelines as well as all applicable laws and

regulations. As part of her review and oversight during project development, she is

actively involved in the development of mitigation for projects, which often includes

analyzing whether some form of wildlife crossing is feasible. In addition, she is

involved with the U.S. Forest Service in developing a wildlife crossing web page. She

has a Master’s in Civil Engineering from Stanford University as well as degrees in

Environmental Studies and Geography from the University of California.

Susan Hagood is the Wildlife Issues Specialist for the Humane Society of the United

States (HSUS). Her responsibilities include the “Give Wildlife a Brake!” campaign,

migratory bird and selected State wildlife management issues, the federal predator

control program, and the “Safe Cats” campaign—an effort to convince cat owners to

keep their cats indoors for the safety of wildlife and their pets. Prior to joining the

HSUS in 1991 she was with Defenders of Wildlife for 8 years. Ms. Hagood holds a B.A.

from Stephens College in Columbia, Missouri, and has done graduate work in wildlife

management at Louisiana State University. She is currently enrolled in a doctoral

program at the University of Maryland in Marine, Estuarine, and Environmental

Sciences.

John Kinar is the Chief of Winter Operations and Roadside Management in the

Bureau of Highway Operations for the Wisconsin DOT. In the area of roadside

management, Mr. Kinar is responsible for developing policies and procedures for the

maintenance and operation of all roadside features, including vegetation

management. He also is responsible for the development of a regional clearinghouse

of information for the reduction of deer-vehicle crashes. Mr. Kinar has been with the

Bureau of Highway Operations for 14 years and has been working on the deer/vehicle

crash reduction effort for the past 2 years. He received his Bachelor of Science in Civil

and Environmental Engineering from California State University at Long Beach in

1978. He is a licensed professional engineer in Wisconsin, is a member of the TRB

Subcommittee on Reduction of Animal-Vehicle Crashes, and is a Friend on a number

of other TRB committees with a focus on highway operations.

Alex Levy is an Ecologist for the FHWA’s Southern Resource Center in Atlanta,

Georgia. Mr. Levy currently provides expert assistance, training, and facilitation of
47

APPENDIX D

interagency coordination for a focus area including 13 southern U.S. States and the

Caribbean territories. Mr. Levy is coordinating with FHWA bridge and hydraulics

engineers to develop state-of-the-art training for State transportation engineers and

environmental professionals to enhance habitat at stream crossings for improved fish

passage and overall water quality. Prior to his present position, Mr. Levy served as a

consultant to both public and private business performing environmental impact

studies. Mr. Levy also serves on a standing committee that evaluates the potential for

downlisting of several federally protected species found in association with highway

studies. Mr. Levy holds a Bachelor’s degree in Landscape Architecture from the

University of Georgia and is a member of the Society of Wetland Scientists.

Dale Paulson is the Program Development Engineer for the FHWA’s Montana

Division Office. Mr. Paulson currently leads the program development team, which

administers the federal-aid planning, environment, design, right-of-way, and research

programs. His current emphasis is on context sensitive design (CSD), and he is

directly involved with a project, using CSD concepts, that includes numerous wildlife

crossings. Prior to his present position, he served as the Environmental Program

Manager. Mr. Paulson is a graduate of Montana State University and holds a B.S.

degree in Civil Engineering. He is a licensed professional engineer in North Dakota

and serves on the Highway Division Environmental Quality Technical Committee of

the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Bill Ruediger is the Ecology Program Leader for Highways and Roads for the U.S.

Forest Service. Mr. Ruediger currently coordinates wildlife, fisheries, and hydrology

issues with highways and roads affecting national forests throughout the United

States. He is involved in a number of projects, including the development and

implementation of wildlife and fish linkage areas; development of road and highway

management practices that maintain and protect ecological processes at stream

crossings; developing better communications between engineers and biologists

relative to highway and road effects and mitigation for wildlife, fish, and watersheds;

and cross training of biologists, hydrologists, engineers, and agency line officers in

ecological problem solving for highways and roads. He has a Master’s degree in Forest

Management from the University of Idaho, a Bachelor’s degree in Wildlife

Management from Utah State University, and a degree in Animal Science from the

University of New York. Mr. Ruediger’s recent expertise is in addressing highway

effects on large, wide-ranging carnivores, including grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines,

fishers, and lynx. Mr. Ruediger has authored or co-authored a number of professional

papers on the effects of highways on rare carnivores and on wildlife habitat linkages.

Dr. Ray Sauvajot is Chief of Planning, Science and Resource Management at the

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and is a Science Advisor for the

U.S. National Park Service. Dr. Sauvajot also holds adjunct faculty positions at the

University of California, Los Angeles, and California State University, Northridge. Dr.

Sauvajot’s responsibilities include designing and supervising ecological projects to

protect natural resources, managing science and research activities, overseeing

cultural resources management programs, and supervising long-range and sitespecific planning efforts in the Santa Monica Mountains, near Los Angeles, California.

As a National Park Service Science Advisor, Dr. Sauvajot also provides consultation
48

APPENDIX D

assistance to other units of the National Park System. Dr. Sauvajot’s research has

focused on the effects of urban encroachment and habitat fragmentation on wildlife in

southern California. He has conducted specific research on the effects of roads on

wildlife and the utility of movement corridors for wildlife in fragmented landscapes.

Dr. Sauvajot obtained a B.A. degree in Biology from the University of California, San

Diego, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Ecology from the University of California, Davis.

Dr. Sauvajot is a member of the Ecological Society of America and the Society for

Conservation Biology.

David J. Scott is the Director of Project Development for the Vermont Agency of

Transportation. Mr. Scott oversees the design and construction of all highway projects

in the State of Vermont. Vermont currently has projects both under design and under

construction that include features to facilitate wildlife passage. Prior to his

assignment as Director of Project Development, Mr. Scott worked in the Planning

Division for VTrans, where his duties included developing GIS applications for

mapping vehicle-animal collisions. Mr. Scott is a graduate of the University of

Massachusetts, with a Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering. He is a licensed professional

engineer in Vermont and is involved with AASHTO and the Institute of

Transportation Engineers.

Trisha White is the Transportation Associate for Defenders of Wildlife at its national

headquarters in Washington, D.C. Ms. White directs the new Habitat & Highways

campaign, which seeks to reduce the impact of surface transportation infrastructure

on wildlife and encourages State and local authorities to incorporate wildlife

conservation into transportation and community planning. Prior to her present

position, Ms. White spent 3 years with World Resources Institute’s Biological

Resources program and 1 year as environment policy consultant to USAID’s Global

Environment Center. In 2000, she received her Master’s degree in Environment and

Resource Policy from George Washington University, and she has a Bachelor’s degree

in Political Science from Central Michigan University. Currently, Ms. White is on the

planning committee for the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation

(ICOET), and is spearheading efforts to more actively engage conservation

professionals and activists in the upcoming transportation reauthorization debate.

Kathy Milani is a video production specialist with the Humane Society of the United

States. She has produced many notable videos promoting a better understanding of

the impacts of modern, human developments upon the habits and habitats of wildlife.