Wildlife and Roads: Decision Guide Step 2.1.8

Progress Bar

2.1.1: Identify Species to Benefit from Potential Mitigation

2.1.2: Identify Ecological Processes (Water Flow, Animal Movement, Other)

2.1.3: Identify Landscape and Topographic Features That May Affect Movement and Mitigation

2.1.4: Identify Engineering and Maintenance Concerns

2.1.5: Weigh Cost Concerns with Potential Benefits

2.1.6: Identify Appropriate General Wildlife Crossing Type

2.1.7: Other Mitigation Options

2.1.8: References

2.1.8 References

Ashley, P. I., A. Kosloski, and S. A. Petrie. 2007. Incidence of intentional vehicle-reptile collisions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12:137-143. url: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/10871200701322423

Bellis, M. 2007. Evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife passage structures on the Bennington Bypass. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Edited by C. L. Irwin, P.Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, North Carolina, in Press.

Bissonette, J.A., M. E. Lehnert, and J. W. Haefner. 2000a. Dead on the road: mitigative models to address deer highway mortality. Abstract P. 52. in Proceedings of the symposium: Wildlife and Highways: Seeking solutions to an ecological and socio-economic dilemma. 7th Ann. Meeting of the Wildlife Society, Nashville TN.

Bissonette, J. A., M. E. Lehnert, and M. Harrison. 2000b. Lanes of destruction: effectiveness of highway right-of-way escape structures for mule deer. Abstract P. 124. in Proceedings of the symposium: Wildlife and Highways: Seeking solutions to an ecological and socio-economic dilemma. 7th Ann. Meeting of the Wildlife Society, Nashville TN.

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

Clevenger, A. P., and N. Waltho. 2005. Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movements of large mammals. Biological Conservation. 121:453-464.

Clevenger, A. P., B. Cruszcz, K. Gunson, and J. Wierzchowski. 2001. Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:646-653.

Clevenger, A. P., B. Chruszcz, and K. Gunson. 2001. Drainage culverts as habitat linkages and factors affecting passage by mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:1340-1349.

Dodd, C.K., W.J. Barichivich, and L.L. Smith. 2004. Effectiveness of a barrier wall and culverts in reducing wildlife mortality on a heavily traveled highway in Florida. Biological Conservation: 118:619-631.

Foresman, K. 2003. Small mammal use of modified culverts on the Lolo south project of western Montana- an update. In 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, 2003

Gordon, K. and S. Anderson. 2003. Evaluation of an underpass installed in U.S. Highway 30 at Nugget Canyon, Wyoming, for migrating mule deer. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for the Wyoming Department of Transportation. FHWA-WY-3/01. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Huijser, M. P., P. T. McGowen, W. Camel, A. Hardy, P. Wright, A. P. Clevenger, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Departments of Transportation of CA, IN, IA, KS, MD, MT, NV, NH, NY, ND, PA, WI, WY, and Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Animal vehicle crash mitigation using advanced technology Phase I: Review, design, and implementation. Final Report to Federal Highways. SPR-3(076). url: http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=6690.

Jackson, S. D. 1996. Underpass systems for amphibians. In G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, D.Seigler, and J. Berry (eds). Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality, Proceedings of the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.

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

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

Lehnert, M. E., L. A. Romin, and J. A. Bissonette. 1996. Mule deer-highway mortality in northeastern Utah: causes, patterns, and a new mitigative technique. (9 pages) in G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, eds., Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality. Proc. Transport. Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar, June 1996, Fla. Dept. Transport. Publ. No. FL-ER-58-96 Tallahassee Fla. (unpaginated).

Lehnert, M. E., J. A. Bissonette, and J. W. Haefner 1998. Deer (Cervidae) highway mortality: using models to tailor mitigative efforts. Proceedings of the International Union of Game Biologists 23rd Congress: Game Management and Land Use in Open Landscapes. Gibier Faune Savage, Game Wildl. Vol 15 (Hors serie Tome 3) 15:835-841.

McGuire, T. M., and J. G. Morrall. 2000. Strategic highway improvements to minimize environmental impacts within the Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering x: 523-532.

Plumb, R.E., K.M. Gordon, and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Pronghorn use of a wildlife underpass. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 1244-1245.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2002. Transportation Construction Cost Comparisons: WSDOT Nationwide Survey.

White, T. 2007. Getting Up to Speed: A Conservationists Guide to Wildlife and Highways. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.


2.1.1: Identify Species to Benefit from Potential Mitigation

2.1.2: Identify Ecological Processes (Water Flow, Animal Movement, Other)

2.1.3: Identify Landscape and Topographic Features That May Affect Movement and Mitigation

2.1.4: Identify Engineering and Maintenance Concerns

2.1.5: Weigh Cost Concerns with Potential Benefits

2.1.6: Identify Appropriate General Wildlife Crossing Type

2.1.7: Other Mitigation Options

2.1.8: References