Shifting the paradigm on wildlife mitigation and transportation…
After graduating from college, a friend and I spent 3 months traveling around the United States backpacking in national parks and forests. Early in the trip, while still on the east coast (I believe in New Jersey visiting friends, not public lands), we laughed out loud when we saw a highway sign that read “deer overpass” or something like that. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it was clear that it referred to some type of wildlife bridge or underpass. We thought the concept was ridiculous… how would a deer know where the bridge was? Little did I know that just five years later I’d be working on these issues, or that I’d eventually marry someone who works to mitigate impacts of transportation infrastructure on wildlife by promoting these “deer overpasses,” also known as wildlife bridges or ecoducts.
Now, nearly 20 years later, I’d guess that most people have the same reaction my friend and I did when we saw that sign. Some probably laugh out loud and think it’s ridiculous. Some probably think it’s a waste of money, unless perhaps they’ve hit a deer, elk or moose while driving. And while safety (avoiding animal/vehicle crashes) seems to be the main reason that the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and state Departments of Transportation (DoTs) have begun considering wildlife mitigation, such measures also benefit wildlife by reconnecting fragmented habitat.
Wildlife mitigation has come a long way in the last two decades, but it’s still an anomaly, with mitigation structures like overpasses and underpasses the exception rather than the rule, at least in this country. We have neither the political will nor the necessary planning to incorporate wildlife mitigation into new transportation spending. Advocates worked hard, for example, to promote a “one percent for wildlife” measure that would have dedicated 1% of transportation funding to wildlife mitigation. The measure didn’t pass.
The Dutch have decided to make their transportation infrastructure as permeable to wildlife as possible, and they’re succeeding. Some structures serve dual purposes, allowing both people and wildlife to cross busy roads, but most are for wildlife alone. And the measures don’t just focus on ungulates (red deer and roe deer are plentiful) — they address everything from small mammals to amphibians and reptiles. Formal ceremonies mark the opening of new bridges. A few years ago the Queen christened the longest wildlife bridge in the world. Such events help educate the public and build support for creative ways to reduce our impacts on nature.
What’s more, Dutch mitigation for wildlife is a priority independent of road construction or reconstruction. If a road presents a problem for wildlife, its effects are mitigated. And while no measure can stop roadkill entirely, the impacts of transportation infrastructure can be reduced significantly. The Dutch plan also includes restoration activities. We had the good fortune, on one of our hikes, to find a heap of broken chunks of pavement that hadn’t yet been hauled away. It was a removed road, complete with an interpretive sign explaining why the road was being removed and what wildlife would benefit.
Sure, The Netherlands is a country of just 17 million people, with a land base the size of Pennsylvania???, making it easier to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy. But while it would be more costly and complicated to implement such a strategy in this country, it could be done. Wouldn’t it be grand if we could make the same type of paradigm shift that has happened there? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if state DoTs and the FHWA incorporated mitigation as a basic component of road management, not an extra to consider only when funding is available? Wouldn’t it be amazing if we mitigated for all types of species and not just those that cost us money when we crash into them?
Here in western Montana, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes fought hard with the FHWA and Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to get wildlife structures considered when US 93 north was being analyzed for reconstruction. The tribes pressed the agencies to rethink the project, and they succeeded (see RIPorter vX#X). The 50+ mile section of rebuilt road will have more than 40 wildlife crossings (underpasses, extended bridges and one overpass) when complete. Many structures are already in place, with mountain lions, black bears, deer, elk, raccoons, otters and even house cats taking advantage.
At Wildlands CPR we focus the bulk of our attention on watershed and habitat restoration, not wildlife mitigation. But the two are integrally linked. When we first opened our doors 15 years ago, we made a slideshow about road impacts called “Why Didn’t the Toad Cross the Road?” The slides included a few on toads and roadkill. In some places, for example, the mortality of toads crossing roads during breeding season is close to 100%. This has led communities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to set up special toad patrols to help these creatures get across roads from one pond to the next. Toads still can’t cross roads in some places, but we have the know-how to get them across without getting squished. Now all we need is the political and societal will. Other countries have figured out how to do it. Some states are becoming leaders in this country, but too much still depends on having the right people in the right place at the right time.
Imagine a future where wildlife and aquatic mitigation and restoration are the norm, rather than the exception; where transportation planners actively consider native ecosystems, wildlife, and even pedestrians and bicycles at the primary stages of a project, not as an afterthought. That would be a seismic shift in thinking. Wouldn’t it be fun to feel that earth move under our feet?B
Now, nearly 20 years later, I’d guess that most people have the same reaction my friend and I did when we saw that sign. Some probably laugh out loud and think it’s ridiculous. Some probably think it’s a waste of money, unless perhaps they’ve hit a deer, elk or moose while driving. And while safety (avoiding animal/vehicle crashes) seems to be the main reason that the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and state Departments of Transportation (DoTs) have begun considering wildlife mitigation, such measures also benefit wildlife by reconnecting fragmented habitat.
Wildlife mitigation has come a long way in the last two decades, but it’s still an anomaly, with mitigation structures like overpasses and underpasses the exception rather than the rule, at least in this country. We have neither the political will nor the necessary planning to incorporate wildlife mitigation into new transportation spending. Advocates worked hard, for example, to promote a “one percent for wildlife” measure that would have dedicated 1% of transportation funding to wildlife mitigation. The measure didn’t pass.
Keeping Up With the Joneses
Other countries have embraced wildlife mitigation in a much more holistic way. The Netherlands, for example, is in the final stages of implementing a nationwide plan to reduce the impact of transportation infrastructure on wildlife. In April my husband and I spent a few weeks cycling around the countryside photographing newly installed mitigation measures — we could barely pedal a kilometer without encountering some type of structure. The transportation and environment departments in Holland have been implementing mitigation plans for years, and wildlife overpasses are now abundant.The Dutch have decided to make their transportation infrastructure as permeable to wildlife as possible, and they’re succeeding. Some structures serve dual purposes, allowing both people and wildlife to cross busy roads, but most are for wildlife alone. And the measures don’t just focus on ungulates (red deer and roe deer are plentiful) — they address everything from small mammals to amphibians and reptiles. Formal ceremonies mark the opening of new bridges. A few years ago the Queen christened the longest wildlife bridge in the world. Such events help educate the public and build support for creative ways to reduce our impacts on nature.
What’s more, Dutch mitigation for wildlife is a priority independent of road construction or reconstruction. If a road presents a problem for wildlife, its effects are mitigated. And while no measure can stop roadkill entirely, the impacts of transportation infrastructure can be reduced significantly. The Dutch plan also includes restoration activities. We had the good fortune, on one of our hikes, to find a heap of broken chunks of pavement that hadn’t yet been hauled away. It was a removed road, complete with an interpretive sign explaining why the road was being removed and what wildlife would benefit.
Sure, The Netherlands is a country of just 17 million people, with a land base the size of Pennsylvania???, making it easier to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy. But while it would be more costly and complicated to implement such a strategy in this country, it could be done. Wouldn’t it be grand if we could make the same type of paradigm shift that has happened there? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if state DoTs and the FHWA incorporated mitigation as a basic component of road management, not an extra to consider only when funding is available? Wouldn’t it be amazing if we mitigated for all types of species and not just those that cost us money when we crash into them?
What We Know
The scientific body of knowledge about mitigation has grown tremendously. Multi-year monitoring from Banff National Park in Canada, for example, has shown how wildlife use of bridges and tunnels increases over time. Had researchers stopped collecting data after just a few years folks would assume that the structures were not useful for animals like grizzly bears, but bears have learned to use these crossings over time. But again, wildlife mitigation of this sort is not common practice here, and both activists and wildlife biologists have to pressure transportation officials to consider it.Here in western Montana, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes fought hard with the FHWA and Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to get wildlife structures considered when US 93 north was being analyzed for reconstruction. The tribes pressed the agencies to rethink the project, and they succeeded (see RIPorter vX#X). The 50+ mile section of rebuilt road will have more than 40 wildlife crossings (underpasses, extended bridges and one overpass) when complete. Many structures are already in place, with mountain lions, black bears, deer, elk, raccoons, otters and even house cats taking advantage.
At Wildlands CPR we focus the bulk of our attention on watershed and habitat restoration, not wildlife mitigation. But the two are integrally linked. When we first opened our doors 15 years ago, we made a slideshow about road impacts called “Why Didn’t the Toad Cross the Road?” The slides included a few on toads and roadkill. In some places, for example, the mortality of toads crossing roads during breeding season is close to 100%. This has led communities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to set up special toad patrols to help these creatures get across roads from one pond to the next. Toads still can’t cross roads in some places, but we have the know-how to get them across without getting squished. Now all we need is the political and societal will. Other countries have figured out how to do it. Some states are becoming leaders in this country, but too much still depends on having the right people in the right place at the right time.
Imagine a future where wildlife and aquatic mitigation and restoration are the norm, rather than the exception; where transportation planners actively consider native ecosystems, wildlife, and even pedestrians and bicycles at the primary stages of a project, not as an afterthought. That would be a seismic shift in thinking. Wouldn’t it be fun to feel that earth move under our feet?B