Environmental Review Toolkit
Accelerating Project Delivery

Eco-Logical Webinar
Eco-Logical and Wildlife Crossings: Concepts in Innovative Planning

Tuesday, May 24, 2011
1:00 - 2:30 PM Eastern

Presenters

  • Mary Gray, FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review
  • Peter Kozinski, Colorado Department of Transportation
  • Sarah Barnum, Normandeau Associates, Inc.
  • Angela Kociolek, Western Transportation Institute

Moderated by Haley Peckett, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center/USDOT

PDF Version [3.4 MB]


Table of Contents

Overview of Eco-Logical and Wildlife Crossings: Concepts in Innovative Planning

Ways in which FHWA is Protecting and Enhance Wildlife Habitat

I-70 Mountain Corridor & FHWA Eco-Logical Grant

Using Hotspot Analysis to Plan Wildlife Crossing Opportunities

ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition


Overview of Eco-Logical and Wildlife Crossings: Concepts in Innovative Planning

Slide 1: Eco-Logical and Wildlife Crossings: Concepts in Innovative Planning

Tuesday, May 24, 2011
1:00 - 2:30 PM Eastern

Presenters

  • Mary Gray, FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review
  • Peter Kozinski, Colorado Department of Transportation
  • Sarah Barnum, Normandeau Asssociates, Inc.
  • Angela Kociolek, Western Transportation Institute

Moderated by Haley Peckett, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center/USDOT

Image: Color photograph of a yellow "Elk Crossing" caution sign alongside a rural road

Slide 2: Eco-Logical and Wildlife Crossings: Concepts in Innovative Planning

Contacts:

Mary Gray
FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review
Mary.Gray@dot.gov
(360) 753-9487

Peter Kozinski
Colorado Department of Transportation
Peter.Kozinski@dot.state.co.us
(970) 328-6385

Sarah Barnum
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
sbarnum@normandeau.com
(603) 637-1157

Angela Kociolek
Western Transportation Institute
angela.kociolek@coe.montana.edu
(406) 994-6308

Eco-Logical Website:
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_entry.asp

Image: Color photograph of a newly-constructed bridge that crosses a narrow, vegetated creek

Slide 3: Upcoming Webinars

June Eco-Logical Webinar
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Time: 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM Eastern
Topic: Best practices in advance mitigation and conservation banking
Watch your email for web conference link and call-in line or email haley.peckett@dot.gov to be added to the Eco-Logical Webinar Email List

June NHI Innovations Web Conference
Transportation Innovations: Linking Transportation and Natural Resource Planning through Environmental GIS Tools
June 16 from 2:30 PM - 4 PM Eastern
Visit the NHI Web Conference Calendar to register:
http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/webconference/eventcalendar.aspx

Image: Color photograph of a calm tidal river

Back to Top


Ways in which FHWA is Protecting and Enhance Wildlife Habitat

Slide 1: Ways in which FHWA is Protecting and Enhance Wildlife Habitat

Mary Gray

FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review

Image: Drawing of two types of vegetated wildlife crossings over a separated four-lane highway
Image: Color photograph of wire fences through a clearing in the forest
Image: Depiction of one of the entries from the ARC International Wildlife Crossing Design Competition showing a car crossing beneath a vegetated land bridge over a highway
Image: Color photograph of an endangered red wolf pup

Slide 2: What We Do

  • Studies and Research
  • Webinars and Trainings
  • Guidance
  • Conferences

Image: Line drawing of two figures shaking hands
Image: An example of a Mind Map drawing

Slide 3: Research and Studies

  • STEP Research Program
  • ARC Competition
  • Wildlife Congressional Study
    • Best Practices Manual
    • On-line Training Course
  • Eco-Logical

Image: Photograph of a portion of a dictionary page with a clear cube magnifying the "research" entry

Slide 4: The Roadkill Observation Collection System (ROCS)

Image: A screenshot of an ROCS Roadkill Report map for the eastern half of Long Island, New York
Image: Photograph of the ROCS Record Observation input screen on a Pocket PC

Slide 5: Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse (DVCIC)

Data Research Information exchange

Image: Two photographs combined: a large eight-point buck and a semi-trailer truck on a two-lane highway

Slide 6: Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook

  • Planning
  • Placement
  • Design
  • Guidelines

Image: Color photograph of a newly-constructed bridge that crosses a narrow, vegetated creek

Slide 7: ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition

Image: An entry in the Design Competition: An artist's rendering of a modern wildlife crossing over a busy multi-lane highway and a high speed rail line

Slide 8: Wildlife Vehicle Reduction Study

  • WVC Impacts
    • Focused on large animals
    • Trends
    • Locations and costs
  • WVC Mitigations
    • No single solution
    • Design guidelines

Image: Cover of the Wildlife Vehicle Reduction Study Report to Congress document

Slide 9: Best Practices Manual

  • Regional and statewide tools
  • Guidance on incorporating into roadway design
  • Best management practices for reducing WVCs w/large animals
  • Best management practices for reducing WVCs w/T&E species
  • Monitoring and evaluating

Image: Cover of the Best Practices Manual of the Wildlife Vehicle Reduction Study Report to Congress document

Slide 10: Trainings, Webinars and Guidance

On-Line Training Webinars ICOET

Keeping It Simple: Easy Ways to Help Wildlife Along Roads

Image: Color photograph of a yellow "Elk Crossing" caution sign alongside a rural road
Image: Color photograph of well-worn path alongside a small river underneath a bridge
Image: Color photograph of a dozen people on a dirt road underneath a vegetated wildlife bridge
Image: Artistic rendering of a man pulling a roadway across a patch of vegetation near a river

Slide 11: FHWA Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Online Training

Screenshot of FHWA's Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Online Training web site

Slide 12: The 2011 International Conference on Ecology & Transportation

This slide contains a photomontage of the images listed.

Image: Logo of the International Conference on Ecology & Transportation (ICOET)
Image: Photograph of three people along a stream
Image: Photograph of two people having a conversation in front of a grassy field and beyond that, green pine woods
Image: Photograph of a group of people gathered at the bank of a whitewater stream
Image: Photograph of a different view of the group of people gathered at the bank of a whitewater stream
Image: Photograph of a postcard for the ICOET, showing an aerial view of a cruise ship in the water in front of the Seattle skyline

Slide 13: Eco-Logical

  • Pilots
  • Research
  • Interagency Exchange

Image: Cover of the Eco-Logical document
Image: Cover of the Eco-Logical Successes document

Slide 14: More Information

  • Report: Guidelines for Designing and Evaluating North American Wildlife Crossing Systems

Back to Top


I-70 Mountain Corridor & FHWA Eco-Logical Grant

All the slides in this presentation contain a small image of the I-70 Mountain Corridor CSS logo in the lower right corner.

Slide 1: I-70 Mountain Corridor & FHWA Eco-Logical Grant

Presented By
Peter Kozinski
Colorado Department of Transportation

Image: Colorado Department of Transportation logo

Slide 2:

Image: Two maps: The upper one is a map of Colorado and surrounding States showing the major Interstate highways, with a section of I-70 west of Colorado highlighted. The second is a magnified, more detailed map of that section of I-70.

Slide 3: I-70 Mountain Corridor Context Statement

  • The I-70 Mountain Corridor is a magnificent scenic place. Human elements are woven through breathtaking natural features. The integration of these diverse elements has occurred over the course of time. This corridor is a recreational destination for the world, a route for interstate and local commerce and a unique place to live.
  • It is our commitment to seek balance and provide for 21st century uses.
  • We will continue to foster and nurture new ideas to address the challenges we face.
  • We respect the importance of individual communities, the natural environment, and the need for safe and efficient travel.
  • Well thought-out choices create a sustainable legacy.

Slide 4: Figure 1.

Consensus Recommendation – Preferred Alternative: Minimum Program of Improvements
Advanced Guideway System with Specific Highway Improvements – 55 and 65 mph Options

Image: A map and graph showing locations of improvements along the I-70 corridor, including auxiliary lanes, tunnels, and advanced guideway systems
Image: A graph showing the location of towns, elevations, steep grades, and environmentally-sensitive corridors by mile post along the I-70 corridor

Slide 5: How does the Eco-Logical Grant Integrate into the I-70 Mtn. Corridor?

  • Alternatives to minimize footprint impacts in Tier 2 processes
  • Four agreements/commitments
    • Context Sensitive Solutions process
    • Section 106 Programmatic Agreement
    • SWEEP and ALIVE Memoranda of Agreement
  • Other mitigation strategies presented in Chapter 3 of the PEIS

Image: A computer-generated picture of a train riding on a monorail
Image: A computer-generated cross-sectioned picture of a highway with one set of lanes at ground level and the other set of lanes elevated

Slide 6: The CSS Website

www.i70mtncorridorcss.com

Image: A screenshot of the I-70 Mountain Corridor CSS website

Slide 7: ALIVE Implementation Matrix

  • Inputs, considerations, and outcomes for five life cycle phases of corridor improvements
  • Five life cycle phases:
    1. Corridor Planning
    2. Project Development
    3. Project Design
    4. Project Construction
    5. Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring
  • Two primary considerations for each phase:
    1. Connectivity/Permeability and Wildlife Habitat
    2. Information Needs and Data Updates

Image: A copy of the ALIVE Implementation Matrix table and summary

Slide 8: I-70 Eco-Logical Project

  • Goals:
    1. Compile baseline information on the presence of and use of existing crossing structures by wildlife along I-70;
    2. Develop recommendations for mitigating the impacts of roads and traffic on wildlife;
    3. Facilitate environmental review processes and stakeholder engagement in terrestrial and aquatic connectivity along the corridor.

Image: A montage of four images:
Photograph of a whitewater river as viewed from the edge of a bridge
A copy of the I-70 Mountain Corridor Context Statement
A copy of the Programmatic Agreement between FHWA, Federal Agencies, and Colorado and regional Agencies
Photograph of a deer at the snowy edge of a bend of a windy road in the mountains

Slide 9: I-70 Eco-Logical Project

  • Methods:
    1. Roadway Inventory
    2. Camera Monitoring
    3. Incorporation of connectivity concerns in stakeholder processes & CDOT planning
    4. Identification of connectivity zones and recommendations development

Image: Photograph of a mountain lion emerging from a snow-covered cave

Slide 10: I-70 Eco-Logical Project

  • Results:
    • LIZs-2011
    • Aquatic connectivity locations

Image: Photograph of a young four-point buck on a grassy hillside
Image: Photograph of a ram in a forest clearing

Slide 11: Animal-Vehicle Collisions and Linkage Interference Zones – 2011, West

Image: Map depicting the number of animal-vehicle collisions recorded between 1993 and 2006 for segments of the I-70 corridor between mile markers 130 and 194. The map also shows land ownership by Federal agency, State, and private land.

Slide 12: I-70 Eco-Logical Project

Project Outcomes and Implementation

  • Recommendations and BMPs for improving terrestrial and aquatic connectivity
  • All data layers, databases, and recommendations available for project planning via CSS website
  • Framework for ongoing stakeholder engagement
  • Project completion: Sept. 2011

Back to Top


Using Hotspot Analysis to Plan Wildlife Crossing Opportunities

Many of the slides in this presentation include a small Normandeau Associates logo

Slide 1: Using Hotspot Analysis to Plan Wildlife Crossing Opportunities

Sarah A. Barnum, Ph.D.
Senior Wildlife Ecologist

Slide 2: This Project is Funded by

  • The Deer Vehicle Crash Information and Research Center (DVCIR) Pooled Fund
    • Contributors are: Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, and the FHWA.
  • The FHWA is the manager of the study.

Slide 3: Overview

  • This project looked at methods to identify AVC hotspots
  • The findings are applicable to all types of point data — AVC, carcasses, tracks, radio collar locations, live animal sighting
  • This was a desktop study
  • AVC data was acquired from the Iowa DOT and the New York State DOT

Slide 4: Iowa Study Areas

Image: Map of the Iowa study areas, color-coded to show elevation levels and development intensity levels

Slide 5: New York Study Areas

Image: Map of the New York study areas, color-coded to show elevation levels and development intensity levels

Slide 6: The Basic Questions...

  • What is a Hotspot?
    • A location where crossing/AVC are significantly clustered OR
    • A location where more crossings/AVC occur than expected by chance
  • How do you know if a cluster is significant?
  • How do you know how many AVC to expect at a given location?

Slide 7: Methods to Identify Hotspots

  • Methods to Identify Significant Clusters
    • Visual Analysis
    • Spatial Statistics
      • Getis-Ord Gi*
      • Hierarchical Nearest Neighbor Analysis (HNN)
  • Methods to Identify More AVC than Expected by Chance
    • Density-based Measures
    • Models

Slide 8: Identifying Significant Clusters

First, determine if your data is clustered!

  • Average Nearest Neighbor
    • “Regular” average nearest neighbor doesn't work
    • Linear nearest neighbor routines can be created
  • Moran's I
    • Moran's I is a spatial statistic, other spatial approaches are also available

Slide 9: Visual Analysis

Image: Three displays of a stretch of roadway:
Figure 3a: Individual Deer Vehicle Collision (DVC) Points along roadway
Figure 3b: Roadway divided into mile-long segments and labeled with DVC/Mile counts
Figure 3c: Roadway segments color-coded by DVC/mile counts

Slide 10: Spatial Statistics — HNN

Image: Seven displays of a stretch of roadway:
Figure 6a: Visual Analysis, color-coded by DVC/mile counts
Figure 6b: Minimum 5 DVC/cluster, half-mile search radius, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 6c: Minimum 5 DVC/cluster, one mile search radius, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 6d: Minimum 10 DVC/cluster, half-mile search radius, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 6e: Minimum 10 DVC/cluster, one mile search radius, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 6f: Minimum 11 DVC/cluster, half-mile search radius, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 6g: Minimum 11 DVC/cluster, one mile search radius, with Hot Spots color-coded red

Slide 11: Spatial Statistics — Getis-Ord Gi*

Image: Three displays of a stretch of roadway, color-coded by DVC/mile counts:
4-mile search radius, color-coded by DVC/mile counts
8-mile search radius, color-coded by DVC/mile counts
12-mile search radius, color-coded by DVC/mile counts

Slide 12: Identifying Locations with more AVC than Expected by Chance

Slide 13: Density-based Measures

Image: Five displays of a stretch of roadway, with Hot Spots color-coded red:
Figure 4a: Mean
Figure 4b: Upper 95% Confidence Interval
Figure 4c: One Standard Deviation from the Mean
Figure 4d: Two Standard Deviations from the Mean
Figure 4e: Three Standard Deviations from the Mean

Slide 14: Models

Variation in the location of hotspots identified using a 95% CI, based on the binomial distribution, and a moving windows analysis with different sized windows.

Image: Three displays of a stretch of roadway, with Hot Spots color-coded red:
Figure 5a: One-Mile Window
Figure 5b: Two-Mile Window
Figure 5c: Three-Mile Window

Slide 15: Best Method?

  • All approaches have strengths and weaknesses
    • Density-based measures may be weakest – require normally distributed data (rare).
    • Spatial statistics may be strongest – provide objective significance values (but results are heavily dependent on user inputs and assumptions).
  • There is no single “best” method, instead look for hotspots repeatedly identified by multiple methods

Slide 16: Examples

Slide 17: Iowa Route 65

Image: Six displays of a stretch of roadway:
Figure 9a: Visual Analysis, color-coded by DVC/mile counts
Figure 9b: Density-based – 95% Cl, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 9c: Binomial Model – 95% Cl, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 9d: Binomial Model, Three-Mile Window, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 9e: Getis-Ord, with color-coded GIZ Score
Figure 9f: HNN Analysis, with HNN Hotspots color-coded red

Slide 18: New York I-90

Image: Six displays of a stretch of roadway:
Figure 10a: Visual Analysis, color-coded by DVC/mile counts
Figure 10b: Density-based – 95% Cl, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 10c: Binomial Model – 95% Cl, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 10d: Binomial Model, Three-Mile Window
Figure 10e: Getis-Ord, with color-coded GIZ Score
Figure 10f: HNN Analysis, with HNN Hotspots color-coded red

Slide 19: Iowa I-35

Image: Six displays of a stretch of roadway:
Figure 8a: Visual Analysis, color-coded by DVC/mile counts
Figure 8b: Density-based – 95% Cl, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 8c: Binomial Model – 95% Cl, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 8d: Binomial Model, Three-Mile Window, with Hot Spots color-coded red
Figure 8e: Getis-Ord, with color-coded GIZ Score
Figure 8f: HNN Analysis, with HNN Hotspots color-coded red

Slide 20: Final Thoughts

  • Use multiple methods
  • Vary parameters within methods
  • Create visual maps of the results to aid in interpretation
  • Combine results with landscape variables to identify best crossing locations

Back to Top


ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition

The slides in this presentation include the ARC logo.

Slide 1: Announcing the winners of the ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition

Angela Kociolek
ARC Technology Transfer Initiative Leader
Western Transportation Institute-MSU

Slide 2: Outline

  1. Origins and inspirations
  2. Partnerships
  3. Finalists, designs & jury
  4. Continuing mission of ARC Partnership

Slide 3: ARC name & visual identity

developed by
Studio: Blackwell;
Chris Harrison, Carnegie Mellon University; &
Dr. Tony Clevenger, WTI-MSU

Slide 4: Origins & inspirations

Image: Photograph of Dr. Tony Clevenger at the edge of a forest of tall pine trees with three mountaintops in the background
Photograph of Dr. Tony Clevenger crouching under a cement bridge, taking readings from an electronic device

Slide 5: The ARC challenge

  1. Lower cost
  2. Reduce ecological footprint
  3. Adapt to changing climate

Slide 6: ARC Competition Partnership

Founding Sponsors
Organizations that developed, sustain, or serve on the competition's Steering Committee
Image: Woodcock Foundation logo
Image: Western Transportation Institute of Montana State University logo
Image: Edmonton Community Foundation logo
Image: U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) logo
Image: U.S. Forest Service (USFS) logo
Image: Federal Lands Highway (FLH) logo

Organizing Sponsors
Organizations providing the site, information, or major funding
Image: Colorado DOT (CDOT) logo
Image: Coordinated Federal Lands Highway Technology Implementation Program (CTIP) logo
Image: National Park Service (NPS) logo
Image: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) logo
Image: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) logo
Image: Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) logo
Image: Western Environmental Law Center logo

continued...

Slide 7: ARC Competition Partnership

Supporting Sponsors
Organizations providing additional funds or in-kind support
Image: Habitat and Highways Campaign logo
Image: Yellowstone to Yukon logo
Image: I-70 Coalition logo
Image: University of Toronto John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design logo
Image: ZAS logo
Image: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) logo
Image: Animal Assistance Foundation (AAF) logo
Image: Canadian Pacific (CF) logo
Image: American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) logo
Image: Ryerson University logo
Image: Consulate General of Canada in Denver logo

Endorsing Sponsors
Organizations providing a public endorsement of the competition's goals
Image: Parks Canada logo
Image: Center for Large Landscape Conservation logo

Slide 8: Partnership among disciplines

  • Engineering
  • Ecology
  • Architecture
  • Landscape Architecture
  • Wildlife Biology
  • Transportation
  • Landscape Design
  • Graphic Design

Slide 9: Phases & stats

Phase 1 - Call for Expressions of Interest
  • 100 firms
  • 9 countries
  • 36 teams
qualifications and
design approaches
Phase 2 - Invited
  • 5 finalist teams
model, panels
& booklet

Slide 10: Finalist teams

Balmori Associates (New York)
with StudioMDA, Knippers Helbig Inc., David Skelly, CITA, Bluegreen, John A. Martin & Associates, & David Langdon

HNTB with Michael Van Valkenburgh & Assoc. (New York)
with Applied Ecological Services, Inc.

Janet Rosenberg & Associates (Toronto)
with Blackwell Bowick Partnership, Dougan & Associates, & Ecokare International

The Olin Studio (Philadelphia)
with Explorations Architecture, Buro Happold, & Applied Ecological Services

Zwarts & Jansma Architects (Amsterdam)
with OKRA Landscape Architects, IV-infra, & Planecologie

Slide 11: Vision for the competition

Specifically, ARC seeks innovation in feasible, buildable, context-sensitive and compelling design solutions for safe, efficient, cost-effective, and ecologically responsive highway crossings for wildlife. In the broadest context, ARC will challenge competitors to reweave landscapes for wildlife using new methods, new materials, and new thinking. In doing so, the ARC competition aims to raise international awareness of a need to better reconcile human and wildlife mobility through a more creative, flexible and innovative system of road and habitat networks in our landscapes.

Slide 12: Filler Slide

Slide 13: Jury

Prof. Charles Waldheim (Jury Chair), John E. Irving Professor and Chair of Landscape Architecture, Harvard University, Graduate School of Design

Jane Wernick, Structural Engineer and Director of Jane Wernick Associates, London

William L. Withuhn, Curator Emeritus, History of Technology and Transportation, Smithsonian Institution

Prof. Jane Wolff, Associate Professor and Chair of Landscape Architecture, John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design, University of Toronto

Dr. Anthony Clevenger, Senior Research Scientist (Road Ecology), Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University

Slide 14: Jury assessment:

“the winning proposal by HNTB Engineering with Michael Van Valkenburgh & Associates was not only eminently possible; it has the capacity to transform what we think of as possible.”

Slide 15: Filler Slide

Slide 16: Crux of the HNTB + MVVA design

Modular Deployability

Model showing construction phase of the hypar vault bridging structure, for maximum visibility of the modular construction system. The hypar modules are optimized for being efficient to transport, erect, combine, and recombine. No on-site concrete work is required, and bridges can be added to or removed as animal migration pressures shift over time.

Image: Computer-generated image of the modular deployability of the HNTB + MVVA design, showing a cross-section of a wildlife crossing bridge under construction

Slide 17: Winning ARC entry by HNTB + MVVA

Image: Computer-generated color image of a fully-constructed version of the HTNB + MVVA winning wildlife crossing design, showing wildlife safely crossing while vehicles travel below

Slide 18: ARC Partnership

To join the ARC Partnership, contact angela.kociolek@coe.montana.edu.

www.arc-competition.com

Back to Top


For questions or feedback on this subject, please contact Bethaney Bacher-Gresock at 202-366-4196.

HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000